Re: What is special about humans?

[Jerry Zhu <***>]

John,  good to "see" you here. Thanks for reminding me
not being clear on my post and caused confusion. 

My thinking in this regard is based on Maturana and
Varela's autopoiesis theory.  The world brought forth
is in the domain of cognition defined by (M&V 1980) as
the set of all interactions in which autopoietic
systems can enter without loss of identity. M/V talked
about internal structural coupling of an entity and
external coupling with the context within which that
entity emerges. Cognition is defined as the ability of
an entity to change structural coupling in response to
perturbations from context. Plants were cognitive as
they changed form to bend towards the sun when they
sensed signals from the sun about its location. 

Learning as an expression of structure coupling, which
alway maintains compatibility between the operation of
the organism and its environment.  Autopoietic systems
are sturctural determined systems whose cognitive act
is not passive receiving signals from context rather
they bring forth a world that expresses external
structural coupling.  The world brought forth
specifies what patterns of the environment are
perturbations and what changes trigger them in
organism.  

Here I tried to characterized the outcome of cognitive
act.. the expression of external, not internal,
structural coupling and their difference in different
life forms. Plants' cognitive domain is one
dimensional since they extend from their roots. Amoeba
maintains a structure capable of admitting certain
perturbations and a structure capable of generating
movement spatially limited. Multicellular organisms
evolved nervous systems that expand qualitatively
their external structural coupling.  Pharaoh adopted
the plan advised by Joeseph to take fifth of havest of
seven good years for the following seven years of
femine.  as you can see the difference between the
world brougth forth by animals and humans.  An
interesting research is to study what is the world
brought forth by different patterns of social
organizations and the design of the "neverous systems"
of different patterns of organizations/context. 

You, as well as Judith, apparently talked about
interal structural coupling which was not what I
intended to say. I have a whole lot say in that regard
but not in this message.

I hope this will make thing a bit clear.

Jerry

--- John M <***> wrote:

> Hi, Jerry,
> Long time since we had a discussion on the M-list...
> To your beautifully organized hierarchy of
> dimensionality,
> Why do you deny plants, bacteria, organisms (I
> guess: biological you mean)
> the BIOLOGICAL CLOCK  that imparts IME into
> functions? Do plants not age? Or
> do you refer only to the consciousness(!) of the
> bacteria, meaning "they
> don't THINK in time? What DO they think in?
> I couldn't help remembering the Abbott-book (~1870?)
> Mr Square, the 2D
> scientist in their 2D world (looking down to the 1D
> stupids) and going to
> the nuthouse because he spoke about a 3rd dimension?
> Are bacteria 2D, because we are used to see them in
> the old fashioned
> microscopes as images in the plane? Ask your organs
> when they get sick
> whether the bacteria stay put in one plane?
> 
> You wrote:"the world we brough forth is the one we
> can experience."
> Can 'pure' mathematicians 'experience a 387D world,
> or an infiniteD one, for
> that matter? They 'think about such' so they
> 'brought it forth'.
> They - as I believe - understand it (=comprehend it)
> - (I don't), so are
> they not human, or what? BTW: what do you call "to
> experience it?"
> are you restricting this to the 64+ senses we use
> (and counting) only?
> How about Chalmers's 'personal experience', the Hard
> Problem? That is in a
> 'dimension of ideation', and bio-physicists have
> problems with it.
> 
> I can't wait for your reply, you usually have good
> and totally unexpected
> ones.
> *
> To Steve J, (post copied hereunder): the first line
> ('Nothing'...) is OK,
> but then you imply more than the indicated
> quantitative differences to
> animals. We evolved different organs to different
> levels. On the 'complex'
> list Val referred to his dog, 'who' anticipated the
> angle of the ball he
> threw obliquely on a wall and ran in the changed
> direction to catch it.
> Superior communication? Have you ever tried to
> communicate with a dog by
> sniffing the tree-trunk he left his message on, or
> did you leave a message
> similarly?
> 
> With best friendly Newyear's regards
> John Mikes
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Zhu" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 1:47 PM
> Subject: Re: What is special about humans?
> 
> 
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > Have been in the background (really enjoyed) for a
> > long while and finally through some pennies to
> give a
> > shot.
> >
> > I would like to approach your question from
> > autopoiesis (M&V) point of view. As M&V define the
> > function of nervous system as to bright forth a
> world,
> > we can compare different kinds of species by the
> world
> > they bring forth.  Along this line, I classify
> four
> > kinds of species in terms of four different kinds
> of
> > world brought forth.
> >
> > Plants: one dimensional
> > Bacteria: two dimensional
> > Organisms: three dimesional
> > Humans: four dimensional with the fourth one is
> time.
> >
> > The size of the world brought forth by the species
> > determines the capability of that species to
> > comprehend and construct its environment.  the
> world
> > we brough forth is the one we can experience.  We
> form
> > hypothesis to describe worlds we can not
> experience.
> > These worlds are outside of the four dimesional
> > particular to human and could be never
> comprehensible.
> >
> >
> > --- Steve Johnson <***>
> wrote:
> >
> > > In thinking about "Natural Law" I came to wonder
> > > about what key factors set humans aside from
> other
> > > animals to make the universe comprehensible to
> them.
> > > Two possibilities come to mind:
> > >
> > > 1) Nothing. The difference is merely
> quantitative.
> > > That is, human circle of understanding is larger
> > > than that of a dog, which in turn is larger than
> > > that of a worm and so on in an unbroken
> continuum.
> > > For example, we have General Relativity as a
> model
> > > of Natural phenomenon we call gravity, while the
> dog
> > > has a model that if it catches a spherical
> object
> > > and brings it to this creature, the creature
> will
> > > give it a sugar cube that it enjoys. In other
> words,
> > > humans are a better anticipatory system but only
> in
> > > degree, not in kind.
> > >
> > > 2)  Human mind represents a new kind of
> emergence
> > > different in the universe's hierarchy of
> structure.
> > > If so, what are the factors that made this
> emergence
> > > possible. The only one I could think of is
> language.
> > >
> > > Any opinions on this?
> > >
> > > - Steve
> > >
> > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > > protection around
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile
> phone.
> > http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com