Energy self-organized into atoms. Atoms self-organized into molecules. Organic molecules self-organized into cells. Cells self-organized into organisms. Organisms self-organized into ecosystems. Neurons self-organized into minds. Humans self-organized into democratic governments, economies, societies, and cultures. Order and complexity comes about in nature from the bottom-up, through self-organization, changing over time through evolutionary processes.
What do you not see? Top-down organization. There is no orderer needed to get any of these things. More, the evidence strongly suggests that an orderer only interferes with the spontaneous orders. Thus, disrupted, they break down and can even die.
Those who believe in creationism believe in top-down organization of the universe.
Those who believe in intelligent design believe in top-down organization of life.
Those who believe in a soul that exists prior to the existence of the body believe in top-down organization of the mind/soul.
Those who believe in socialism (no matter what kind) believe in top-down organization of the government, economy, society, and culture.
In other words, there is no actual difference between a creationist and a socialist when it comes to understanding the fundamental nature of things. You cannot pick and choose which things you want to be spontaneous orders.
25 comments:
"...there is no actual difference between a creationist and a socialist when it comes to understanding the fundamental nature of things"
I don't necessarily disagree, but I wonder if the equation (vs. a comparison) doesn't require further explanation, given the otherwise drastic differences between the two schools of thought.
Just ordered Diaphysics, BTW. Looking forward to reading it.
That's my point, there isn't in fact any actual difference between the two schools of thought. Whether your organizer is outside space and time, or a human being here on earth (or a human being speaking for that aforementioned deity), the world views are in fact identical. In this country, the only differences are in what aspects of the world you choose to attribute to design and which to spontaneous order. Or, one can be consistent.
"In other words, there is no actual difference between a creationist and a socialist when it comes to understanding the fundamental nature of things."
You misunderstand emergence. Brains emerge and then exhibit control over the parts. Similarly, governments emerge and can exhibit control over the parts. Not full control, mind you, but control all the same.
I suggest you read "The control revolution: technological and economic origins of the information society" for some insight into this topic.
I do not misunderstand emergence. The system is organized from the bottom-up, then influenced (not controlled, in the same sense as giving commands) from the top-down. But the bottom-up self-organization comes first. It is primary. In other words, there is not an orderer who comes first to order the chaos. The elements organize themselves through their interactions, creating emergent properties, which then in turn influence the elements. Hayek, for example, points out that people are not initially rational in an economic sense, but as free market economies emerge and evolve, they encourage people to act more rationally. People still do not have to act that way, but they do better in the system if they do. This is incredibly different from a top-down-first organization, and the two should not be confused.
Brains--or minds--emerge and control many aspects of the matter comprising the body.
Governments emerge and control many aspects of the economy.
There is no difference. Perhaps your confusion has to do with teleology. Systems of control can emerge and one can rightly argue that socialism is a system of control. Hence there is nothing inconsistent in supporting socialism while not believing in creationism.
No, again, I am not confused. Bottom-up self-organizing systems are all non-teleological. All systems with top-down origins are teleological. The only consistency is that socialists think social systems should all be run and structured top-down, and think that only "natural" systems are organized bottom-up, while many conservatives in this country believe social systems should be self-organizing, but that nature was ordered from the top-down. Both groups falsely divide the world. Yes, governments do try to control the economy in a top-down fashion. Should they? Absolutely not. The fact that they try does not mean that they should, that when they do it's in fact indicative of a healthy system, or that the introduction of arbitrary measures improves the system. In fact, top-down control (vs. influence) is disruptive to and destructive of spontaneous orders.
Again, the mind emerges from the action of the neurons in the brain, giving rise to the mind, which influences -- but does not control in an arbitrary fashion -- the mind. There is a great deal of research that in fact shows that the more we put into the unconscious -- the less that we have to keep in mind -- the better our thinking, actions, etc. The goal in practice is to make as much unconscious as possible, so you don't have to think about it. The more in the brain, the stronger the mind -- and a strong mind does not have to consciously control everything. Most of the body's functions are done unconsciously.
Socialism is a system of control alright. But it does so through arbitrary action and violation of the rule of law, undermining everything necessary for there to be a spontaneous order in the first place.
There is a difference between control and influence. Socialists don't know that there is a difference. Emergent systems organize themselves from the bottom-up, and the parts are then influenced, not controlled, from the top-down. A complex feedback loop occurs. If the top-down process creates new rules, then the spontaneous order system continues to exist as such. But if that process creates commands, the spontaneous order is destroyed.
The brain controls many aspects of the body. Hence the emergent part controls aspects of the whole. The whole cannot survive without the emergent part.
The distinction you create between control and influence is unnecessary. Influence implies a measure of control, control of certain features.
Complex systems often evolve higher order controlling mechanisms. There is nothing in the theory arguing against this. If you think otherwise, point to the theoretical proof that an emergent system cannot evolve a controlling mechanism. And remember: not control of everything. Control of the parts.
The issue here is not socialism as a form of government controlling everything. The real question is regulation. If you are arguing against some strawman version of socialism that doesn't exist--well fine. They don't exist and few propose that they do.
You clearly don't know what socialism is. I am talking about the historical definition of socialism, the one that has been tried over and over and has failed miserably. If you are equating some form of regulation with socialism, you are dead wrong. Accurate labeling laws, for example, would be capitalist in nature, not socialist. Obama's nationalization of various industries, however, is socialist.
And no, influence and control are not the same thing. One involves coercion, the other does not. Control involves coercion, and is thus destructive of social bonds. "Unless you do something good for me, I'll do something bad to do" is not conducive to healthy bond-formation, and that is what socialism of every stripe is based on. If I want to influence you, I can try to persuade you through various forms of rhetoric, and at the worst, I can shun you if I don't like what you are doing. There may be bad consequences for not giving in to influence, but they are not from coercion.
The brian and the mind are not the same thing. Yes, the brain controls much. BUt the brain is not the mind. The mind is emergent from the action of certain species' brains, but not all things that have brains have minds. The brain acts as a central control device in a cybernetic sense of the word control, but not in a coercive sense of the word, which is how the socialists use the term. Rules that result in cybernetic control and commands that result in coerced actions are not the same thing.
Socialism is not something that is or can be emergent from a spontaneous order. It is always something imposed from the outside.
Got it. So you're only arguing about the idea of total government control, communism, not against democratic socialism that exists in many European countries such as Sweden.
"Obama's nationalization of various industries, however, is socialist. "
Seems to me you're just bending and warping emergence to meet your political ideology.
Your brain doesn't control your actions? Your mind doesn't control your actions.
Very strange.
No, that is what you are doing. Anyone who truly understands anything about the nature of complex systems opposes socialism. My favoring the free market economic system has in fact grown with my understanding of complex, emergent systems. Socialism does not and cannot emerge naturally out of a self-organizing system. Socialism is a top-down system that is imposed on a society, and does not emerge from it. Hayek demonstrated this to be the case in several of his works. There is a readon why the founder of systems theory, Bertalanffy, Hayek, Michael Polanyi, and those associated with the Santa Fe Institute, including Stuart Kaufman, are all supporters of free market economic systems.. It is because that system is the only one that is truly self-organizing system. Socialism is not.
Wow, you can't read. Go back and read again what I actually said about brains, because clearly you didn't understand it.
People always bring up Sweden. Sweden will have to be addressed in much greater detail.
You mean you can't coerce your fingers to type what your mind/brain wants?
Emergence has lead to no useful theoretical results that can be applied to real science. It's primarily a metaphor that is used by people to say what they want. They usually add in words like fractal, chaos, complexity, a little entropy, and the likes--then say whatever is on their mind.
It's not much of a science. But helps people sell a few books now and then.
Actually, how can we even trust what you write since your mind/brain can't coerce your fingers to type what it wants?
The cell understood as a cell is an emergent entity with emergent properties, which can be described in its own language, on its own terms. It is emergent from the interactions of the biochemical cycles and systems which make up a living cell. But to describe a cell or the actions of a cell, you don't have to resort to biochemical language. The cell has emergent properties that cannot be predicted form the chemical properties underlying it.
Apply these facts to the relationship between the brain and the mind. The mind is not necessary for a brain to function or to create movement. The mind is emergent once a brain reaches a certain level of complexity. On can look at this as the "minding function" of the brain. The mind is emergent from, but it is not equivalent to, the brain. Those who take martial arts learn to move in such a way that their minds are not engaged. Their brains, perhaps. However, one of the goals is to build muscle memory, so that one doesn't in fact have to send the information all the way to the brain. In fact, much physical movement is in fact directly no further than the spinal cord or brain stem.
I do find it interesting that once I demonstrated that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about with emergence, especially regarding socialism and society, that you suddenly change your tune on the value of emergence.
"Emergence has lead to no useful theoretical results that can be applied to real science. It's primarily a metaphor that is used by people to say what they want. They usually add in words like fractal, chaos, complexity, a little entropy, and the likes--then say whatever is on their mind."
If we're using instrumental value as the sole criterion for assessing the value of scientific work, then I'm afraid we'll have to discount virtually all "pure" mathematical research. For that matter, what constitutes "real" science? Biology isn't "real," it's just a metaphor for talking about certain chemical reactions. Chemistry isn't "real," either, it's just a useful term for talking about some very specific aspects of physics.
BTW, aren't fractals and entropy terms with specific, scientific meanings? And didn't Prigogine win a Nobel prize for talking about self-organizing (i.e. emergent) chemical behaviour?
Government is an emergent institution that came out of the need for greater protection of a larger and larger population. Many types of governments have emerged from this seed and each has had strategies on how to protect their population. All government types have observed that this thing called the economy has caused great harm to the people protected by government. So, if the economy harms the people, the government (an emergent institution that protects its population) would logically only try to respond in a way that protects against the economy. Both government and the economy are acting as they act. The tragedy is that the government misunderstands the economy. Thus, the both end up hurting each other.
Prigogine won a nobel prize. So did Al Gore. And Paul Krugman. I'm not sure what the point is. I can't say "won a nobel prize" and automatically win an argument.
Prigogine developer ideas about the properties of system far from equilibrium. These are interesting ideas. I'd like to know though, going back to my point: what are the predictable results that have resulted from this? Prigogine, you must remembe, spent many years wandering about not really making concrete contributions to science.
Mathematics is a metaphor. But I can make predictions with it. Emergence on the other hand, along with terms such as fractal and chaos, are largely metaphoric with no predictable aspects. They've not proven useful.
And finally, Troy still hasn't told me whether his brain/mind can coerce his fingers. The answer of course is yes. That which emerges can coerce and, as we see with our brain/mind and fingers, happens all the time.
(There are people with nervous disorder that don't allow them to control their fingers. Believe me--you wouldn't want it.)
Prigogine won a nobel prize. So did Al Gore. And Paul Krugman. I'm not sure what the point is. I can't say "won a nobel prize" and automatically win an argument.
Prigogine developer ideas about the properties of system far from equilibrium. These are interesting ideas. I'd like to know though, going back to my point: what are the predictable results that have resulted from this? Prigogine, you must remembe, spent many years wandering about not really making concrete contributions to science.
Mathematics is a metaphor. But I can make predictions with it. Emergence on the other hand, along with terms such as fractal and chaos, are largely metaphoric with no predictable aspects. They've not proven useful.
And finally, Troy still hasn't told me whether his brain/mind can coerce his fingers. The answer of course is yes. That which emerges can coerce and, as we see with our brain/mind and fingers, happens all the time.
(There are people with nervous disorder that don't allow them to control their fingers. Believe me--you wouldn't want it.)
Accusing chaos and complexity of failing to generate predictions seems to me to miss the point, as they deal in part with the practical impossibility of making predictions about the future states of complex systems, each of which is its own fastest computer, so to speak.
I don't believe the qualitative difference between coercive control and cybernetic "steerage" is merely a semantic phenomenon, but it is a subtle one, especially in the example of the brain and fingers, since, for example, the beginning pianist must face considerable neural and muscular resistance, and likely is exhausted more than once by her effort.
But the fingers and the brain are 2 parts of a complex feedback system. The pianist's brain isn't just telling the fingers what to do--the fingers are telling the brain where they are, the eyes are reading the music that tells the fingers where to go, etc. Coercive control, rather than cybernetic guidance, would be like having a second person in the room trying to read the music and watch the piano player's hands, and calling out commands to the piano player regarding where she should put her hands next. Such a situation would be impossible to manage, because it thwarts feedback rather than using it.
Oh, and the pianist pays heavy fines or goes to jail if she doesn't put her hands where person # 2 (who is probably a politician, not a musician) tells her to.
I can't improve much on John's reply, except to add that John points to the very thing which is at issue in socialism: it involves an outside system/force trying to control the economic system. One can also point to martial arts as another example, where the mind has to work hard to influence one's actions. Most of the body isn't even under conscious control. THe entire body is a set of systems and subsystems influencing each other through various feedback loops in a complex interaction. Even the emergent mind can only influence some of it. And the more you can make things automatic, away from the thinking mind, the more you can actually do. THe best pianists don't think any more about what they are doing, except when they practice. THe rest of the time, when they are playing their best, they are no longer using their conscious minds.
Also, prediction is only useful in the simplest of sciences -- physics and physical chemistry. Complex chemical systems (what Prigogine was dealing with) and biological, psychological, social, economic, political, culture, artistic, etc. systems are too complex to predict. Even a simple system like the weather cannot be predicted beyond a week -- and not accurately toward the end of that week. Emergence, self-organization, information, game, chaos, bios, and other theories of complexity are models that help us understand those complex systems that cannot in any way, shape, or form be predicted.
The problem is that socialism is a theory based on an overly-simplistic understanding of how the world works. When implimented, it simplifies the complex economy, and thus kills it -- which is what happens when you simplify a complex system.
Post a Comment