I've been studying economics, and I've realized that no one actually knows how it all works. All economists can do is theorize about its behavior.
Is the world economy a living organism? Here are the 7 criteria for life, according to high-school biology:
--------------------------------------
1.)Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
markets even out over time, according to laissez-faire economists
2.)Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
the economy is made of many different markets, which are the "basic units" of the economy
3.)Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
transforms resources (land, labor, capital, entrepreneurship, natural resources) into money
4.)Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
it gets bigger as existing markets expand and new markets are developed
5.)Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
it adapts to its environment by expanding/contracting markets
6.)Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
it is affected by all sorts of things, from people's hopes and dreams to natural disasters, and stimulus plans...
7.)Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
Markets give birth to new markets, like the computer hardware market giving birth to new software markets.
Is there evidence that a metaphor is a living organism if it is elaborated into a sufficiently complex structure of interdynamic sub-analogies?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 23 2009, 03:07 AM)
Is there evidence that a metaphor is a living organism if it is elaborated into a sufficiently complex structure of interdynamic sub-analogies?
But its not a metaphor, it's a real system. So does it actually meet the criteria for life, and if so would it be considered a living organism?
But its not a metaphor, it's a real system. So does it actually meet the criteria for life, and if so would it be considered a living organism?
QUOTE (arpc_01+Oct 23 2009, 04:18 AM)
But its not a metaphor, it's a real system. So does it actually meet the criteria for life, and if so would it be considered a living organism?
What is a "system" except a pattern recognized cognitively? Maybe the very idea of an "organism" is itself a metaphor. Maybe your brain is the only organ in your body that is capable of imagining that it is part of a larger organism that includes your kidneys. Maybe your kidneys are just doing their own thing, unconcerned about whether they are connected to your veins or to a machine that keeps them fresh on the way to a transplant. Would you consider such a machine a "living organism?" Or would you consider the entire surgical network of people getting kidneys out of one body and into another part of a "circulatory system" of organs?
Nothing in the universe is totally isolated from anything else, so you could say that the entire universe is an organism. Certainly Earth is not autopoeisic, so if you subscribe to the Gaia theory then you could say that the Earth is just one organ in the solar system as living organism, but why stop there? You could also look at the galaxy as a living organism, of which the solar system is one cell or organ. How is any of this more or less metaphorical than looking at an economy as a living organism?
What is most instrumentally relevant about living organism metaphors for societies or economies is their instrumental effect. If you frame a certain set of individuals or activities as an integrated whole, it becomes possible to define all constituent elements in subordination to the "overall health" of the organism. So if the "health" of an economic organism involves some people acting as pure consumers and others being enslaved to agricultural production, for example, this would be justified in terms of "what's good for the whole is good for the parts." Individuals who resist or deviate from subordination to the collective good of the economy would be seen as a "health risk" for the organism as a whole and therefore dangerous to all other individuals whose well-being depends on the health of the organism.
Is this sounding disturbing to you yet? I hope so, because there is very little as disturbing as the usurping of individual freedom in service to collectivist imagery. If economic transactions do result in an organism-like effect, then it would be an emergent symbiotic dynamism among parts with independent wills and consciousness. It would be like a mold where all the cells are capable of free thought and choice in their actions.
Would such a mold be considered a (single) living organism? What about four different but mixed mold colonies living on the same piece of cheese? Yes, you have life but the question is what to define as a single "organism" and why?
What is a "system" except a pattern recognized cognitively? Maybe the very idea of an "organism" is itself a metaphor. Maybe your brain is the only organ in your body that is capable of imagining that it is part of a larger organism that includes your kidneys. Maybe your kidneys are just doing their own thing, unconcerned about whether they are connected to your veins or to a machine that keeps them fresh on the way to a transplant. Would you consider such a machine a "living organism?" Or would you consider the entire surgical network of people getting kidneys out of one body and into another part of a "circulatory system" of organs?
Nothing in the universe is totally isolated from anything else, so you could say that the entire universe is an organism. Certainly Earth is not autopoeisic, so if you subscribe to the Gaia theory then you could say that the Earth is just one organ in the solar system as living organism, but why stop there? You could also look at the galaxy as a living organism, of which the solar system is one cell or organ. How is any of this more or less metaphorical than looking at an economy as a living organism?
What is most instrumentally relevant about living organism metaphors for societies or economies is their instrumental effect. If you frame a certain set of individuals or activities as an integrated whole, it becomes possible to define all constituent elements in subordination to the "overall health" of the organism. So if the "health" of an economic organism involves some people acting as pure consumers and others being enslaved to agricultural production, for example, this would be justified in terms of "what's good for the whole is good for the parts." Individuals who resist or deviate from subordination to the collective good of the economy would be seen as a "health risk" for the organism as a whole and therefore dangerous to all other individuals whose well-being depends on the health of the organism.
Is this sounding disturbing to you yet? I hope so, because there is very little as disturbing as the usurping of individual freedom in service to collectivist imagery. If economic transactions do result in an organism-like effect, then it would be an emergent symbiotic dynamism among parts with independent wills and consciousness. It would be like a mold where all the cells are capable of free thought and choice in their actions.
Would such a mold be considered a (single) living organism? What about four different but mixed mold colonies living on the same piece of cheese? Yes, you have life but the question is what to define as a single "organism" and why?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 23 2009, 12:37 PM)
What is a "system" except a pattern recognized cognitively? Maybe the very idea of an "organism" is itself a metaphor. Maybe your brain is the only organ in your body that is capable of imagining that it is part of a larger organism that includes your kidneys. Maybe your kidneys are just doing their own thing, unconcerned about whether they are connected to your veins or to a machine that keeps them fresh on the way to a transplant. Would you consider such a machine a "living organism?" Or would you consider the entire surgical network of people getting kidneys out of one body and into another part of a "circulatory system" of organs?
Do you have anything to say at all that relies on concrete facts? Or is it that you are completely incapable of critical thinking?
Please demonstrate that you have the ability to think critically.
Do you have anything to say at all that relies on concrete facts? Or is it that you are completely incapable of critical thinking?
Please demonstrate that you have the ability to think critically.
QUOTE (arpc_01+Oct 23 2009, 04:18 AM)
But its not a metaphor, it's a real system. So does it actually meet the criteria for life, and if so would it be considered a living organism?
The answer is dependant on the precise definition of "life".
Good luck getting a concensus on that.
At one time it was thought that there was a substance that was what made living things alive. Look up vitalism.
But the artificial creation of urea showed that there is not a line between living matter and non-living matter.
If you use the old definition of life then the economy is not a living organism.
The answer is dependant on the precise definition of "life".
Good luck getting a concensus on that.
At one time it was thought that there was a substance that was what made living things alive. Look up vitalism.
But the artificial creation of urea showed that there is not a line between living matter and non-living matter.
If you use the old definition of life then the economy is not a living organism.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 23 2009, 01:31 PM)
The answer is dependant on the precise definition of "life".
Good luck getting a concensus on that.
At one time it was thought that there was a substance that was what made living things alive. Look up vitalism.
But the artificial creation of urea showed that there is not a line between living matter and non-living matter.
If you use the old definition of life then the economy is not a living organism.
I would define life as:
An arrangement of atoms and/or molecules that can make copies of itself.
A further condition to rule out crystals and the like:
Must have the capacity for evolution.
Good luck getting a concensus on that.
At one time it was thought that there was a substance that was what made living things alive. Look up vitalism.
But the artificial creation of urea showed that there is not a line between living matter and non-living matter.
If you use the old definition of life then the economy is not a living organism.
I would define life as:
An arrangement of atoms and/or molecules that can make copies of itself.
A further condition to rule out crystals and the like:
Must have the capacity for evolution.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 23 2009, 04:37 PM)
Would such a mold be considered a (single) living organism? What about four different but mixed mold colonies living on the same piece of cheese? Yes, you have life but the question is what to define as a single "organism" and why?
You make some very interesting points, but what I was originally asking is would the economy be considered a living organism by the current scientific definition of life, which is: something that meets the 7 criteria stated in my op. (according to highschool biology textbooks)
What makes you so sure we are all capable of free thought and choice? Can you prove this?
--------
What makes you so sure we are all capable of free thought and choice? Can you prove this?
--------
I would define life as:
An arrangement of atoms and/or molecules that can make copies of itself.
A further condition to rule out crystals and the like:
Must have the capacity for evolution.
What about intelligence? Should that come into play?
What if you had a thinking computer (like the consciousness made of nanomachine neurons) that had no physical means of replicating itself...
You make some very interesting points, but what I was originally asking is would the economy be considered a living organism by the current scientific definition of life, which is: something that meets the 7 criteria stated in my op. (according to highschool biology textbooks)
QUOTE
Is this sounding disturbing to you yet? I hope so, because there is very little as disturbing as the usurping of individual freedom in service to collectivist imagery. If economic transactions do result in an organism-like effect, then it would be an emergent symbiotic dynamism among parts with independent wills and consciousness. It would be like a mold where all the cells are capable of free thought and choice in their actions.
What makes you so sure we are all capable of free thought and choice? Can you prove this?
--------
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is this sounding disturbing to you yet? I hope so, because there is very little as disturbing as the usurping of individual freedom in service to collectivist imagery. If economic transactions do result in an organism-like effect, then it would be an emergent symbiotic dynamism among parts with independent wills and consciousness. It would be like a mold where all the cells are capable of free thought and choice in their actions. |
What makes you so sure we are all capable of free thought and choice? Can you prove this?
--------
I would define life as:
An arrangement of atoms and/or molecules that can make copies of itself.
A further condition to rule out crystals and the like:
Must have the capacity for evolution.
What about intelligence? Should that come into play?
What if you had a thinking computer (like the consciousness made of nanomachine neurons) that had no physical means of replicating itself...
QUOTE (arpc_01+Oct 23 2009, 02:09 PM)
What about intelligence? Should that come into play?
What if you had a thinking computer (like the consciousness made of nanomachine neurons) that had no physical means of replicating itself...
If something is intelligent, but doesn't fit the definition of being alive, then it is obviously an artificial intelligence. Once an AI can create another AI, then it is alive.
What if you had a thinking computer (like the consciousness made of nanomachine neurons) that had no physical means of replicating itself...
If something is intelligent, but doesn't fit the definition of being alive, then it is obviously an artificial intelligence. Once an AI can create another AI, then it is alive.
QUOTE (arpc_01+Oct 23 2009, 06:09 PM)
What about intelligence? Should that come into play?
Is mold intelligent?
(Are economists intelligent?
)
Is mold intelligent?
(Are economists intelligent?
)
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 23 2009, 07:03 PM)
If something is intelligent, but doesn't fit the definition of being alive, then it is obviously an artificial intelligence. Once an AI can create another AI, then it is alive.
What if you are a human but sterile so you can't reproduce? Would that be the same?
Generally, no. Most of them work like calculators, memorizing economic terms and equations, without any conceptual understanding whatsoever...
What if you are a human but sterile so you can't reproduce? Would that be the same?
QUOTE
(Are economists intelligent? tongue.gif )
Generally, no. Most of them work like calculators, memorizing economic terms and equations, without any conceptual understanding whatsoever...
QUOTE (arpc_01+Oct 23 2009, 03:18 PM)
What if you are a human but sterile so you can't reproduce? Would that be the same?
That person is a product of reproduction, but even smaller than that, their cells still divide just the same as everyone else.
If an artificial intelligence was able to grow new brain "cells" then it would qualify as being alive.
That person is a product of reproduction, but even smaller than that, their cells still divide just the same as everyone else.
If an artificial intelligence was able to grow new brain "cells" then it would qualify as being alive.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 23 2009, 07:22 PM)
That person is a product of reproduction, but even smaller than that, their cells still divide just the same as everyone else.
If an artificial intelligence was able to grow new brain "cells" then it would qualify as being alive.
Does it have to actually physically make a new cell? What if the nanomachine-neuron consciousness designs a robot that is built by humans but the robot has been pre-programmed by the consciousness to build more nanomachine-neurons....
So if you are playing a video game on a cloud computing network and the artificial intelligence in the game requests more processing power (say to calculate a complex chess strategy to beat you) and is granted another processor by the cloud is it alive?
There is really no point to this discussion, is there...
If an artificial intelligence was able to grow new brain "cells" then it would qualify as being alive.
Does it have to actually physically make a new cell? What if the nanomachine-neuron consciousness designs a robot that is built by humans but the robot has been pre-programmed by the consciousness to build more nanomachine-neurons....
So if you are playing a video game on a cloud computing network and the artificial intelligence in the game requests more processing power (say to calculate a complex chess strategy to beat you) and is granted another processor by the cloud is it alive?
There is really no point to this discussion, is there...
QUOTE (arpc_01+Oct 23 2009, 03:35 PM)
Does it have to actually physically make a new cell? What if the nanomachine-neuron consciousness designs a robot that is built by humans but the robot has been pre-programmed by the consciousness to build more nanomachine-neurons....
Maybe, but that would mean that the AI is dependent upon humans for reproduction. In that way, it would be similar to a virus.
A river can make itself wider, but it is not alive.
A river can make itself wider, but it is not alive.
There is really no point to this discussion, is there...
Idk, I think it's fun
Wow... could a virus be an AI? Maybe it is a product of the consciousness of the organisms it infects.
Wow... could a virus be an AI? Maybe it is a product of the consciousness of the organisms it infects.
A river can make itself wider, but it is not alive.
True. Or is it
Maybe, but that would mean that the AI is dependent upon humans for reproduction. In that way, it would be similar to a virus.
QUOTE
So if you are playing a video game on a cloud computing network and the artificial intelligence in the game requests more processing power (say to calculate a complex chess strategy to beat you) and is granted another processor by the cloud is it alive?
A river can make itself wider, but it is not alive.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So if you are playing a video game on a cloud computing network and the artificial intelligence in the game requests more processing power (say to calculate a complex chess strategy to beat you) and is granted another processor by the cloud is it alive? |
A river can make itself wider, but it is not alive.
There is really no point to this discussion, is there...
Idk, I think it's fun
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 23 2009, 07:53 PM)
QUOTE
Maybe, but that would mean that the AI is dependent upon humans for reproduction. In that way, it would be similar to a virus.
Wow... could a virus be an AI? Maybe it is a product of the consciousness of the organisms it infects.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Maybe, but that would mean that the AI is dependent upon humans for reproduction. In that way, it would be similar to a virus. |
Wow... could a virus be an AI? Maybe it is a product of the consciousness of the organisms it infects.
A river can make itself wider, but it is not alive.
True. Or is it
QUOTE (arpc_01+Oct 23 2009, 05:35 PM)
Wow... could a virus be an AI? Maybe it is a product of the consciousness of the organisms it infects.
I wouldn't say that a virus is intelligent, but the real question is whether it is alive or not.
I wouldn't say that a virus is intelligent, but the real question is whether it is alive or not.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 23 2009, 09:45 PM)
I wouldn't say that a virus is intelligent, but the real question is whether it is alive or not.
Then could we say that the economy is a virus?
Then could we say that the economy is a virus?
QUOTE (arpc_01+Oct 23 2009, 06:09 PM)
What makes you so sure we are all capable of free thought and choice? Can you prove this?
I'm sure I could assess it individual by individual if I needed to. And I assume that all human individuals have the capacity, if not the desire.
Wouldn't intelligence be a function of the fact that people are functioning economically?
I'm sure I could assess it individual by individual if I needed to. And I assume that all human individuals have the capacity, if not the desire.
QUOTE
What about intelligence? Should that come into play?
Wouldn't intelligence be a function of the fact that people are functioning economically?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 23 2009, 04:39 PM)
Do you have anything to say at all that relies on concrete facts? Or is it that you are completely incapable of critical thinking?
Please demonstrate that you have the ability to think critically.
I think that recapitulating facts is the opposite of critical thinking, but I'm not sure if this is a fact or a critical thought:)
Identity-formation is an aesthetic process of representation, as far as I know. And so I was trying to demonstrate by example that what parts are defined as being parts of a larger whole is a question of framing and definitions, not fact. How can the singularity of an organism be a fact unless it is autopoeitic? I recognize individual humans as individuals because they don't have the capacity to perceive through other individuals' senses, or perceive their inner thoughts and feelings. This is the reason I recognize individuality - not because an individual organism is a closed system, materially.
Please demonstrate that you have the ability to think critically.
I think that recapitulating facts is the opposite of critical thinking, but I'm not sure if this is a fact or a critical thought:)
Identity-formation is an aesthetic process of representation, as far as I know. And so I was trying to demonstrate by example that what parts are defined as being parts of a larger whole is a question of framing and definitions, not fact. How can the singularity of an organism be a fact unless it is autopoeitic? I recognize individual humans as individuals because they don't have the capacity to perceive through other individuals' senses, or perceive their inner thoughts and feelings. This is the reason I recognize individuality - not because an individual organism is a closed system, materially.
QUOTE (arpc_01+Oct 23 2009, 10:24 PM)
Then could we say that the economy is a virus?
"The economy" does not actually exist as a singularity, except for descriptive purposes. To the extent that substitution exists between workers, suppliers, goods, and services, it is possible to avoid utilizing some things by substituting others. This reduces the number of people employed, the amount of goods and services consumed, amount of revenue, etc. It's actually that efficiency is increasing, but people say "the economy is in recession" because some people are suffering as a result.
In reality there exist only specific economic processes. The exchange and circulation of the products makes it seem like they are part of a single larger process, but actually each economic undertaking happens as a separate event. Individuals make choices and negotiations with other individuals, machines, and/or components at each point in a supply chain.
"The economy" does not actually exist as a singularity, except for descriptive purposes. To the extent that substitution exists between workers, suppliers, goods, and services, it is possible to avoid utilizing some things by substituting others. This reduces the number of people employed, the amount of goods and services consumed, amount of revenue, etc. It's actually that efficiency is increasing, but people say "the economy is in recession" because some people are suffering as a result.
In reality there exist only specific economic processes. The exchange and circulation of the products makes it seem like they are part of a single larger process, but actually each economic undertaking happens as a separate event. Individuals make choices and negotiations with other individuals, machines, and/or components at each point in a supply chain.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 23 2009, 10:59 PM)
each economic undertaking happens as a separate event. Individuals make choices and negotiations with other individuals, machines, and/or components at each point in a supply chain.
Couldn't you say the same about the cells, nerves, neurons, organs etc. in my body?
Couldn't you say the same about the cells, nerves, neurons, organs etc. in my body?
QUOTE (arpc_01+Oct 23 2009, 11:24 PM)
Couldn't you say the same about the cells, nerves, neurons, organs etc. in my body?
Yes. But the question is why you would want to reduce human individuals to the status of liver cells?
Also - note that there is no inherent basis for defining a human body as a singularity. It is just a cognitive habit to do so. Some people have the cognitive habit of thinking of themselves as a soul living in a body as physical medium/container. Some people may think of themselves as their frontal lobe and view the rest of the body as peripheral bio-robotics. Some people may think of themselves as their genitalia and resent their brain for interfering with their ability to experience pure genital consciousness.
Freudianism divides the self into 3 parts: ego, id, and superego. I believe the body is subsumed as the id, while the superego is the internalization of parental or other social constraints. Ego, or "I," is the fictive entity that emerges from the id as a means of protecting the id from the superego. This is why threat of punishment often stimulates "ego-swelling." It's a reflex that protects the body from parental punishment.
Yes. But the question is why you would want to reduce human individuals to the status of liver cells?
Also - note that there is no inherent basis for defining a human body as a singularity. It is just a cognitive habit to do so. Some people have the cognitive habit of thinking of themselves as a soul living in a body as physical medium/container. Some people may think of themselves as their frontal lobe and view the rest of the body as peripheral bio-robotics. Some people may think of themselves as their genitalia and resent their brain for interfering with their ability to experience pure genital consciousness.
Freudianism divides the self into 3 parts: ego, id, and superego. I believe the body is subsumed as the id, while the superego is the internalization of parental or other social constraints. Ego, or "I," is the fictive entity that emerges from the id as a means of protecting the id from the superego. This is why threat of punishment often stimulates "ego-swelling." It's a reflex that protects the body from parental punishment.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 24 2009, 01:00 AM)
Yes. But the question is why you would want to reduce human individuals to the status of liver cells?
For the sake of objectivity.
But - what would be so bad about that anyways? About being simply a machine? I think the possibility - that somehow a machine has come into existence that is so complex as to think of itself as more than just a machine - is pretty amazing in itself.
For the sake of objectivity.
But - what would be so bad about that anyways? About being simply a machine? I think the possibility - that somehow a machine has come into existence that is so complex as to think of itself as more than just a machine - is pretty amazing in itself.
QUOTE (arpc_01+Oct 24 2009, 01:10 AM)
For the sake of objectivity.
metaphor-based status attribution using analogies would fall more on the subjective end of the objective-subjective continuum, wouldn't it?
What would be so bad? For one thing, if someone decided that certain "cells" were detrimental to other parts of the body, or to the body as a whole, they could be subject to treatment or elimination in the interest of healing the body as a whole. This was the logic behind the nazi holocaust. For another thing, whose opinion would count when it comes to determining what the purpose of the "social body" is? And what happens to individual free will? Total subordination to social mandate? Or would the purpose of the social body be to ensure and protect the free will of individuals? That might be a good idea, actually.
What would be so bad? For one thing, if someone decided that certain "cells" were detrimental to other parts of the body, or to the body as a whole, they could be subject to treatment or elimination in the interest of healing the body as a whole. This was the logic behind the nazi holocaust. For another thing, whose opinion would count when it comes to determining what the purpose of the "social body" is? And what happens to individual free will? Total subordination to social mandate? Or would the purpose of the social body be to ensure and protect the free will of individuals? That might be a good idea, actually.
I think the possibility - that somehow a machine has come into existence that is so complex as to think of itself as more than just a machine - is pretty amazing in itself.
I think organic tissue is actually a type of bio-machine, a very well designed/evolved one. I also agree that it is interesting that consciousness emerges as function of living tissue. As for consciousness that defines itself as "more than a machine," I don't know if that is so much wonderful as it is obfuscation for the purpose of superiority.
Why can't humans just look at their bodies as a certain type of machine and be satisfied with the experience it provides them, instead of making a point to define themselves in terms of hierarchical status vis-a-vis other types of machines?
I very much agree. If implemented this way, it could actually help prevent nazi-esque bullshit - if were all just machines, you can't say that your better than someone else.
But if you think of humans as more than machines, as special, then you are acknowledging that there is a continuum of special/not special and you can then claim someone else is further down it from you to justify nazi type stuff.
I very much agree. If implemented this way, it could actually help prevent nazi-esque bullshit - if were all just machines, you can't say that your better than someone else.
But if you think of humans as more than machines, as special, then you are acknowledging that there is a continuum of special/not special and you can then claim someone else is further down it from you to justify nazi type stuff.
As for consciousness that defines itself as "more than a machine," I don't know if that is so much wonderful as it is obfuscation for the purpose of superiority.
I agree. What I meant was a machine that is conscious.
Why can't humans just look at their bodies as a certain type of machine and be satisfied with the experience it provides them, instead of making a point to define themselves in terms of hierarchical status vis-a-vis other types of machines?
Maybe it's because we are more than machines, an are innately aware of the fact?
I very much agree. If implemented this way, it could actually help prevent nazi-esque bullshit - if were all just machines, you can't say that your better than someone else.
But if you think of humans as more than machines, as special, then you are acknowledging that there is a continuum of special/not special and you can then claim someone else is further down it from you to justify nazi type stuff.
I agree. What I meant was a machine that is conscious.
Maybe it's because we are more than machines, an are innately aware of the fact?
Ok, we agree more than I thought. But beware of that "society the organism" metaphor stuff, because it has been used to subordinate individuals to system-logic, which ultimately translates into a form of slavery.
I don't know what you mean by "more than machines." Are you referring to the soul as something more than a part of the machine itself? If so, I would agree - but this is more from a spiritual/religious perspective than scientific. I would definitely say there are spiritual benefits to regarding/experiencing yourself as an energy-being (soul) inhabiting a body, instead of regarding your body as itself yourself, but I'd hate to turn this into another religious thread.
metaphor-based status attribution using analogies would fall more on the subjective end of the objective-subjective continuum, wouldn't it?
QUOTE
But - what would be so bad about that anyways? About being simply a machine?
What would be so bad? For one thing, if someone decided that certain "cells" were detrimental to other parts of the body, or to the body as a whole, they could be subject to treatment or elimination in the interest of healing the body as a whole. This was the logic behind the nazi holocaust. For another thing, whose opinion would count when it comes to determining what the purpose of the "social body" is? And what happens to individual free will? Total subordination to social mandate? Or would the purpose of the social body be to ensure and protect the free will of individuals? That might be a good idea, actually.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But - what would be so bad about that anyways? About being simply a machine? |
What would be so bad? For one thing, if someone decided that certain "cells" were detrimental to other parts of the body, or to the body as a whole, they could be subject to treatment or elimination in the interest of healing the body as a whole. This was the logic behind the nazi holocaust. For another thing, whose opinion would count when it comes to determining what the purpose of the "social body" is? And what happens to individual free will? Total subordination to social mandate? Or would the purpose of the social body be to ensure and protect the free will of individuals? That might be a good idea, actually.
I think the possibility - that somehow a machine has come into existence that is so complex as to think of itself as more than just a machine - is pretty amazing in itself.
I think organic tissue is actually a type of bio-machine, a very well designed/evolved one. I also agree that it is interesting that consciousness emerges as function of living tissue. As for consciousness that defines itself as "more than a machine," I don't know if that is so much wonderful as it is obfuscation for the purpose of superiority.
Why can't humans just look at their bodies as a certain type of machine and be satisfied with the experience it provides them, instead of making a point to define themselves in terms of hierarchical status vis-a-vis other types of machines?
QUOTE
Or would the purpose of the social body be to ensure and protect the free will of individuals? That might be a good idea, actually.
I very much agree. If implemented this way, it could actually help prevent nazi-esque bullshit - if were all just machines, you can't say that your better than someone else.
But if you think of humans as more than machines, as special, then you are acknowledging that there is a continuum of special/not special and you can then claim someone else is further down it from you to justify nazi type stuff.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Or would the purpose of the social body be to ensure and protect the free will of individuals? That might be a good idea, actually. |
I very much agree. If implemented this way, it could actually help prevent nazi-esque bullshit - if were all just machines, you can't say that your better than someone else.
But if you think of humans as more than machines, as special, then you are acknowledging that there is a continuum of special/not special and you can then claim someone else is further down it from you to justify nazi type stuff.
As for consciousness that defines itself as "more than a machine," I don't know if that is so much wonderful as it is obfuscation for the purpose of superiority.
I agree. What I meant was a machine that is conscious.
QUOTE
Why can't humans just look at their bodies as a certain type of machine and be satisfied with the experience it provides them, instead of making a point to define themselves in terms of hierarchical status vis-a-vis other types of machines?
Maybe it's because we are more than machines, an are innately aware of the fact?
QUOTE (arpc_01+Oct 24 2009, 01:40 AM)
I very much agree. If implemented this way, it could actually help prevent nazi-esque bullshit - if were all just machines, you can't say that your better than someone else.
But if you think of humans as more than machines, as special, then you are acknowledging that there is a continuum of special/not special and you can then claim someone else is further down it from you to justify nazi type stuff.
I agree. What I meant was a machine that is conscious.
Maybe it's because we are more than machines, an are innately aware of the fact?
Ok, we agree more than I thought. But beware of that "society the organism" metaphor stuff, because it has been used to subordinate individuals to system-logic, which ultimately translates into a form of slavery.
I don't know what you mean by "more than machines." Are you referring to the soul as something more than a part of the machine itself? If so, I would agree - but this is more from a spiritual/religious perspective than scientific. I would definitely say there are spiritual benefits to regarding/experiencing yourself as an energy-being (soul) inhabiting a body, instead of regarding your body as itself yourself, but I'd hate to turn this into another religious thread.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 24 2009, 01:00 AM)
Yes. But the question is why you would want to reduce human individuals to the status of liver cells?
What does "why would you..." have anything to do with anything?
What is, is. What we want to be true does not enter into it.
What does "why would you..." have anything to do with anything?
What is, is. What we want to be true does not enter into it.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 24 2009, 02:58 AM)
Ok, we agree more than I thought. But beware of that "society the organism" metaphor stuff, because it has been used to subordinate individuals to system-logic, which ultimately translates into a form of slavery.
Well said. That's kinda of like what patriotism is isn't it?
Well said. That's kinda of like what patriotism is isn't it?
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 24 2009, 12:23 PM)
What does "why would you..." have anything to do with anything?
What is, is. What we want to be true does not enter into it.
"what is" has to do with the objective existence of things outside of human consciousness and perception.
How humans perceive and give meaning to "what is" is very much related to language and cognitive structuring.
You can choose whether to apply an organism metaphor to economic activity or another metaphor or explanatory language. The interpretive framework or metaphor you choose has ramifications for the conclusions you arrive at and what kinds of decisions are applicable.
There are many different frameworks and metaphors for describing and explaining economic activity. The organism metaphor has been used to subordinate individuals to collective logics. Therefore, if you do not like the idea of subordination individuals to collectivism in this way, you would not want to choose to pursue a theory/ideology that propagates the propensity to regard individuals and their economic activity as such, would you?
What is, is. What we want to be true does not enter into it.
"what is" has to do with the objective existence of things outside of human consciousness and perception.
How humans perceive and give meaning to "what is" is very much related to language and cognitive structuring.
You can choose whether to apply an organism metaphor to economic activity or another metaphor or explanatory language. The interpretive framework or metaphor you choose has ramifications for the conclusions you arrive at and what kinds of decisions are applicable.
There are many different frameworks and metaphors for describing and explaining economic activity. The organism metaphor has been used to subordinate individuals to collective logics. Therefore, if you do not like the idea of subordination individuals to collectivism in this way, you would not want to choose to pursue a theory/ideology that propagates the propensity to regard individuals and their economic activity as such, would you?
Ooops I'm sorry.
I left out the word I was most interested in, "want"
What I was thinking but didn't type was
What does "why would you want..." have anything to do with anything?
What is, is. What we want to be true does not enter into it.
Sorry about that but what does our wants have to do with reality?
I left out the word I was most interested in, "want"
What I was thinking but didn't type was
What does "why would you want..." have anything to do with anything?
What is, is. What we want to be true does not enter into it.
Sorry about that but what does our wants have to do with reality?
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 26 2009, 12:52 AM)
Sorry about that but what does our wants have to do with reality?
A whole lot, considering our ability to alter reality as we see fit, through the obvious physical means and who know how else.
A whole lot, considering our ability to alter reality as we see fit, through the obvious physical means and who know how else.
QUOTE (arpc_01+Oct 26 2009, 12:56 AM)
A whole lot, considering our ability to alter reality as we see fit, through the obvious physical means and who know how else.
How exactly do you mean that?
Like we can choose to buy a blue car instead of a red car?
We can vote who our leaders are?
Or do you mean it some other way?
Do our wants affect what was reality before we were born?
How exactly do you mean that?
Like we can choose to buy a blue car instead of a red car?
We can vote who our leaders are?
Or do you mean it some other way?
Do our wants affect what was reality before we were born?
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 26 2009, 01:17 AM)
Do our wants affect what was reality before we were born?
Why not? Linear time is just a human construct. You could argue the whole of reality is too.
Why not? Linear time is just a human construct. You could argue the whole of reality is too.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 26 2009, 01:17 AM)
How exactly do you mean that?
Like we can choose to buy a blue car instead of a red car?
We can vote who our leaders are?
Or do you mean it some other way?
Do our wants affect what was reality before we were born?
Like you can choose to see yourself and other individuals as parts of a larger machine, and see subordination to the collective good of the machine as the ultimate purpose of any individual.
Or you can choose to see individual freedom as the ultimate purpose of life, and look at any act of social benevolence as the product of individuals relating to other individuals, without having to subordinate themselves to an image of a collective entity.
Metaphors and cognitive structuring have a lot of influence in how you view and approach things based on how you interpret what you see. Lakhoff and Johnson are the people who have written about this most recently, to my knowledge. Their famous book is called "metaphors we live by" but they have others too. There used to also be a significant amount of stuff on the web on such "cognitive structuring." Some is better than others, I think. It's worth a look.
I think there are also some epistemologists who study how the analogical models and language used in science influence the way research is done. Probably the same exists for technological applications. W Urrichio studied the evolution of TV in history, for example, and goes back to a point where there was tension over whether TV would be approached more like cinema or like radio/telegraph/telephony. I think his point was that the way the medium is approached has an effect on the content produced for it.
I think he was really proven right by the shift to more live and decentralized TV production with the advent of internet. It used to be that most TV was scripted and produced according to the hollywood model. In recent years there's been lots more reality-TV, interactive live TV, etc. which is more what you would expect when TV is viewed as radio/telephony than cinema.
I was hoping to clarify with this example, but maybe it only made it worse.
Like we can choose to buy a blue car instead of a red car?
We can vote who our leaders are?
Or do you mean it some other way?
Do our wants affect what was reality before we were born?
Like you can choose to see yourself and other individuals as parts of a larger machine, and see subordination to the collective good of the machine as the ultimate purpose of any individual.
Or you can choose to see individual freedom as the ultimate purpose of life, and look at any act of social benevolence as the product of individuals relating to other individuals, without having to subordinate themselves to an image of a collective entity.
Metaphors and cognitive structuring have a lot of influence in how you view and approach things based on how you interpret what you see. Lakhoff and Johnson are the people who have written about this most recently, to my knowledge. Their famous book is called "metaphors we live by" but they have others too. There used to also be a significant amount of stuff on the web on such "cognitive structuring." Some is better than others, I think. It's worth a look.
I think there are also some epistemologists who study how the analogical models and language used in science influence the way research is done. Probably the same exists for technological applications. W Urrichio studied the evolution of TV in history, for example, and goes back to a point where there was tension over whether TV would be approached more like cinema or like radio/telegraph/telephony. I think his point was that the way the medium is approached has an effect on the content produced for it.
I think he was really proven right by the shift to more live and decentralized TV production with the advent of internet. It used to be that most TV was scripted and produced according to the hollywood model. In recent years there's been lots more reality-TV, interactive live TV, etc. which is more what you would expect when TV is viewed as radio/telephony than cinema.
I was hoping to clarify with this example, but maybe it only made it worse.
QUOTE (arpc_01+Oct 26 2009, 01:21 AM)
Why not? Linear time is just a human construct. You could argue the whole of reality is too.
When you leave evidence behind and go down that road then anything is possible including the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And you are just having a "could be" discussion.
When you leave evidence behind and go down that road then anything is possible including the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And you are just having a "could be" discussion.
He's likely seen red, a ball, purple, and a woven basket with a lid, so it should be rather easy for him to put them all together in his imagination. 
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 26 2009, 11:39 AM)
(arpc_01 @ Oct 26 2009, 01:21 AM)
Why not? Linear time is just a human construct. You could argue the whole of reality is too.
When you leave evidence behind and go down that road then anything is possible including the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And you are just having a "could be" discussion.
If you want to get out of nihilistic discussions that things are just constructs and somehow therefore less consequential, a good reply is to get to work constructing them.
The issue of serious constructionism is never whether something is or is not constructed, it is how it is constructed and what difference its construction makes.
You have to be careful with constructionism, though, because many people need a sui generis reality to react to. The idea that all of reality could be pro-active throws off their reactive security. In a way this is a good thing, but it often causes people to become much more violently reactive than they were when they had the comfort that the reality they were reacting to existed independently of its construction as knowledge (sui generis).
In fact, I'm going to be proactive about pre-empting any attacks about this issue by stating that I am a firm proponent of the belief that physical realities exist outside my consciousness. Really, this goes without saying, but when you start talking constructionism this actually becomes a source of raging debate.
Here's a challenge for ant-constructionists: What difference does it make whether something is attributed the status of existing as a construct or not? Isn't it possible to deal with either way?
Why not? Linear time is just a human construct. You could argue the whole of reality is too.
When you leave evidence behind and go down that road then anything is possible including the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
And you are just having a "could be" discussion.
If you want to get out of nihilistic discussions that things are just constructs and somehow therefore less consequential, a good reply is to get to work constructing them.
The issue of serious constructionism is never whether something is or is not constructed, it is how it is constructed and what difference its construction makes.
You have to be careful with constructionism, though, because many people need a sui generis reality to react to. The idea that all of reality could be pro-active throws off their reactive security. In a way this is a good thing, but it often causes people to become much more violently reactive than they were when they had the comfort that the reality they were reacting to existed independently of its construction as knowledge (sui generis).
In fact, I'm going to be proactive about pre-empting any attacks about this issue by stating that I am a firm proponent of the belief that physical realities exist outside my consciousness. Really, this goes without saying, but when you start talking constructionism this actually becomes a source of raging debate.
Here's a challenge for ant-constructionists: What difference does it make whether something is attributed the status of existing as a construct or not? Isn't it possible to deal with either way?
It can be a little of both. I also believe that reality exists outside of my consciousness, but I know from personal experience that my consciousness does have an effect on reality. This is pretty obvious in some ways, i.e. your physical interactions with reality.
QUOTE (arpc_01+Oct 27 2009, 07:46 AM)
It can be a little of both. I also believe that reality exists outside of my consciousness, but I know from personal experience that my consciousness does have an effect on reality. This is pretty obvious in some ways, i.e. your physical interactions with reality.
How do you know?
How do you know you are not merely affecting your perception of reality?
If you measure an object with a rubber ruler then you get all kinds of measurements but that does not mean the object changed sizes.
How do you know?
How do you know you are not merely affecting your perception of reality?
If you measure an object with a rubber ruler then you get all kinds of measurements but that does not mean the object changed sizes.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 27 2009, 10:50 AM)
How do you know you are not merely affecting your perception of reality?
Good point.
Good point.
If atomic structure is created by the electrostatic effects of elementary particles (correct me if I'm saying this wrong, please. It comes from something RPenner said a while ago about elementary particles being electrostatic and not magnetic, and after googling electrostatics to find out they are related to static electricity, I have a very vague concept of how atoms and fresh-out-of-the-dryer sweaters are related). Nevertheless, if it is somehow possible to create all the effects of interacting with physical matter by manipulating electrostatics, then everything you experience could, theoretically, be some kind of simulation caused by an electrostatic projector. This is a matrix-like idea.
Anyway, the point is that all that can truly be known empirically is the sensory-effects perceived or experienced. I don't see how it could be possible to prove that whatever it is causing those sensory-effects is one thing or another. However, it is possible to do a lot analytically with what can be empirically observed and deduced about it, so how does the existential nature of the reality itself have any bearing on that?
Anyway, the point is that all that can truly be known empirically is the sensory-effects perceived or experienced. I don't see how it could be possible to prove that whatever it is causing those sensory-effects is one thing or another. However, it is possible to do a lot analytically with what can be empirically observed and deduced about it, so how does the existential nature of the reality itself have any bearing on that?
economy isn't a life form cannot act without humans if we are gone there is no economy
QUOTE (lzurha+Nov 2 2009, 05:14 PM)
economy isn't a life form cannot act without humans if we are gone there is no economy
From wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy
Can this be applied to non-people? ie An economy is the ways in which organisms use their environment to meet their material needs.
?
From wiki
QUOTE
An economy is the ways in which people use their environment to meet their material needs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy
Can this be applied to non-people? ie An economy is the ways in which organisms use their environment to meet their material needs.
?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.