We are Not Machines and that changes everything
We are Not Machines and that changes everything
Norm: Too long we have believed that everything can be reduced to being machine like. For example, in medicine when they think our bodies are simply biochemical machines. We are not machines, we are organisms. Organisms have a complexity of functioning which is nothing like machines of any kind including computers. Basic medical practice on machines rather than the full complexity organisms is a root cause of the failure of our health care system and of many institutions that are failing. To solve our problems we need to understand organismic reality. And we are going to developing how to understand an organismic reality. And that will be a course to be done on a new thread. We'd like to point to several places on the website where these properties can be referenced right now. www.autognomics.org/Life-itself-as-organ...characteristics.html Talk soon
DWCrmcm: (All complexities are simplicities in waiting) I guess that would depend on how one defines machine.
I think if we are going to tackle this undertaking then we might wish have some robust encapsulations that distinguish between divergent encapsulations. It would be unfortunate if we cultivated indifference about machines too early on in the process. So, while I agree wholeheartedly with goals of this undertaking, "we" run the risk of simply repackaging concepts.
My partner and I have created a lexicon as devoid of conceptualism as we can make it for this iteration of the model (the RMCM).
While we hold primacy on the lexicon and all content of the model, please enjoy the liberty to use all or part of our model in this undertaking.
Nice to meet you and look forward to a fruitful and successful collaboration given that you are comfortable with us.
Skye: Just got on. Welcome to the discourse. We'll look further into your work. And by all means, yes, we do define the difference between machine and that of living domain. do you have a website?
Hi, yes rationalmechanisms.com
Richard and I were thinking of putting up a bulletin board on our website.
Do you think we share a common interest?
Norm: We can explore a critical element is what is meant by rational? What do you mean by rational? We don't see it in your definitions.
DWC: Rational: That which arises directly out of form function cause and effect.
Rational
That which arises directly out of - difference opened - difference closed - iteration - aggregation.
The model must be a servant to greater truth.
No it "is" in the lexicon.
- To Machine or Not to Machine
DWC: What is the difference between a machine and self-awareness arising as an attribute of a machine?
How can this happen?
Was it God's will?
Was it God's design that the machinery of the universe eventually gives rise to living aggregates of machine and non-machine?
Intelligent design?
Yes
Let us begin to understand "in our own way each".
Skye: Ok, to me life is nothing like a machine - with machines being cause and effect, and life as organismic's organizing principles providing maximum freedom while maintaining itself through creative initiating acts/functions. So how do organisms maintain themselves, through laws of coherence; identity, value dynamics, oscillation between contrasts, self-law see Life-itself characteristics under Theory of our website. Question, I don't know that much about Intelligent Design thinking, but it sounds like you consider Intelligent Design /God to be machine or machine like. What do you mean by machine? DWC” The Definitions that constrain the model are hierarchical. To answer your question directly requires a reverse hierarchical iteration descending inwardly toward the primal machine, from the complex to the simple.
The RMCM defines a Machine as: Any given aggregate of mechanisms that implement a mechanism.
The RMCM defines a Mechanism as: Any given aggregate of levers that implement a lever.
The RMCM defines a Lever as: Any given Chase bound to two or three fulcrums.
Clearly, the above can be seen to be confined to the realm of the inorganic.
All machines are capable of acquiring and expressing.
The Car acquires gasoline from the gas tank and expresses movement by metabolising the gasoline such that the vertical motion of the pistons are changed to the rotary motion of the tires.
The step up the ladder of complexity occurs when the machine acquires energy to express the movement necessary to acquire more energy.
The RMCM defines a Complex Mechanism as: any given machine that implements its acquisition through its expression and implements its expression through its acquisition.
The secular term for a complex mechanism is - metabolism.
Norm: I’d like to go slow. What are our underlying metaphysics assumptions; the most fundamental of assumptions about reality are what is known as metaphysics as you may know. The dominant metaphysical paradigm til now has been the metaphysics of materialism that includes reductionism and mechanism. With life/organisms, they obey different laws of organization and they can't be understood through a materialism/mechanistic view we believe. We’ll explore more on this later. The new metaphysics that we think best fits organism functioning, is process metaphysics of Whitehead and others. It lays out underlying assumptions about reality that allow us to see and recognize holism, creative, generative, oscillations, and value driven processes etc.
What is the difference between a machine and self-awareness arising as an attribute of a machine? How can this happen?
I am not aware of any machine acquiring self-awareness nor am I aware of any such possibility. Thus I believe it cannot happen. Why would you think otherwise?
Under the old understanding of what was thought to be reality, the materialistic view, it seemed everything was a machine. Some things it appeared had self-awareness. Thus we concluded self-aware machines. However in the last two, possibly three, decades research into the nature of life by disciplines such as biophysics has shown the materialistic approach to be hopelessly inadequate when applied to life. Following where the research seemed to be going I defined life as societies of creative organisms. Organisms are self-aware. Where you perceive self-awareness you perceive an organism, not a machine. Comparing how they are organized to function, machines are organized to function by force, i.e, cause and effect. In living organisms there is no force cause and effect. They are organized to function by internal and external values, even in the bodies, the living cells are working by mutual values. Ok. there we are for now.
DWC: Hello, I am pleased to meet you.
In the history of software development, programming languages evolved to handle increasingly sophisticated problems. early on of course they used punch cards to program those monstrous machines. The punch cards manipulated attributes of the computer machinery such as setting gate values to 0's or 1's and implementing the Boolean structures true and false - This type of programming became know as machine language programming. As computer technology improved - faster smaller - and acquired the capacity to store binary data on tape, a new language emerged to manipulate "groups" of gates or binary digits- This language was called assembler. It was a very simple language and interestingly was bound to the machine it was being used on. This language had the capacity to group small sets of sequential instructions syntactically. Over time new languages emerged to provide evermore sophisticated intruction groups through syntax. This perpetual augmenting of syntax began to resemble less the machine and more the person writing it. This phenomenon was described in software development as moving away from the machine.
In the above I have alluded to behavior. The behavior of the machines and the behavior of the people using them.
Let us consider a completely different behavior.
Consider oxidation - binding oxygen to another molecule. Is this chemical reaction a machine or a mechanism? The RMCM is indifferent to encapsulations like system or process.
According to The RMCM if all that moves is light, force, or mass, then it is a mechanism.
If on the other hand the mechanisms behavior directly causes movement in another mechanism, then The RMCM defines it as a machine.
Life begins to emerge when the waste produced by that machine is fuel for another machine, and like wise the fuel used by the fist machine is the waste from the other machine.
This proto-symbiosis hides all the attributes of self awareness. They lie Inexpressed. The scope and extense of the machines is too primitive and too simple.
Norm: Yes, I've been programming professionally since 1956 and I'm well aware of all you've just said here. According to The RMCM if all that moves is light, force, or mass, then it is a mechanism. In the RMCM realilty you may make this declaration, but in more general realities it would not be tru.and Life begins to emerge when the waste produced by that machine is fuel for another machine, and like wise the fuel used by the fist machine is the waste from the other machine. THis is so wide a field of how life begins that it looks to me like plain foolishness. Everything I know based on modern research in biophysics would be outraged by such a thought. I guess we've come to an impass as RMCM ideas seem to relate very little to anything about which we are trying to explore. If I can be of any help to you learning more relevant theories of what life is about, I would be glad to work with you. Such relevant theories are not models or wild ass guesses, but genuine scientific well grounded theories. I applaud your creative intentions, but where is the meaning?
DWC: As I became frustrated with coding and Booch's attributes of complex systems, I had an epiphany. There are no Causal Constraints on software.
So what would be a causal constraint?
Impossible to determine given our collective failure to define cause effect form and function. Sure we use them all the time and for every purpose under the sun.
So just what are they really?
This was circa late 2003.
I reflected and prayed on it for a year or a little less, and ...
Cause is difference opened.
Effect is difference closed.
Function is a zero voulume container.
Form is any given bound aggreggate of function.
Norm: We are trying to encourage creative thought and you clearly have done a lot of work on RMCM. What might help us is to learn more about what inquiry drives your thinking? What do you wish to accomplish with this work? Maybe we could meet on more neutral ground a bit to learn more about each other to find common ground, if possible. We appreciate your time as well.
DWC: We use the pendulum as our model.
Archimedes brought us the fulcrum. What is the other part of the lever called?
It has no name - we have defined it as the Chase - that which binds two or more fulcrums.
Atoms sub-atomic particles are all implementations of Levers (pendulums).
Now we understand that traditionally there are three classes of levers. However, if you turn the base of any of them 90 degrees (perpendicular) to the pull of gravity, then they too become pendulums.
So why complicate things? pendulum-lever energy-mass just different forms of the same thing.
Now what is the most common attribute of levers and pendulums?
They move mass.
Levers as described above provide us with a complete definition of complexity.
Ploymorphic multibehavioralsim.
Richard Silliker:
We are trying to encourage creative thought and you clearly have done a lot of work on RMCM. What might help us is to learn more about what inquiry drives your thinking? What do you wish to accomplish with this work? Maybe we could meet on more neutral ground a bit to learn more about each other to find common ground, if possible. We appreciate your time as well." Thank you.
DWC: A model of the universe.
I am driven by God.
What I hope to achieve is a common language that is applicable to all disciplines.
Something we can teach our children that enables them for the widest possible choice of pursuits.
And finally if this is a good model it will be the implementation or organic intelligence within an inorganic metabolism.
Autognosticguru wrote:
According to The RMCM if all that moves is light, force, or mass, then it is a mechanism. In the RMCM realilty you may make this declaration, but in more general realities it would not be tru.and Life begins to emerge when the waste produced by that machine is fuel for another machine, and like wise the fuel used by the fist machine is the waste from the other machine.
THis is so wide a field of how life begins that it looks to me like plain foolishness. Everything I know based on modern research in biophysics would be outraged by such a thought.
I agree. I can only answer the questions that you ask.
Norm: I guess we've come to an impass as RMCM ideas seem to relate very little to anything about which we are trying to explore. If I can be of any help to you learning more relevant theories of what life is about, I would be glad to work with you. Such relevant theories are not models or wild ass guesses, but genuine scientific well-grounded theories. I applaud your creative intentions, but where is the meaning?
DWC: Theories? No there is no theory involved. I have laid down my definitions and worked cautiously within those constraints.
Hierarchies are no theory they are well known.
What does science tell us about the difference between something that appears to move and that which moves?
The model distinguishes them without dismissing either. Movement is function iterating form and form implementing function.
It is an important distinction. Motion is quite different from movement.
The only thing that moves on your computer monitor is the light from the light emitting source. Without the encapsulation of motion we are left with the dismissal - the illusion of movement.
We instead encapsulate this as motion - the changing shape of flow.
According to neurologists and psychiatrists everything sensory in the brain is contrived.
There is no such thing as the mind. What we refer to as the mind is an illusion born of events occurring in a place that is itself devoid of sensation - no feeling. Of course it feels like a unity, rather than the orchestration that it really is.
Because there is no mind The RMCM simply encapsulate the phenomenon as the abstraction of experience.
The abstraction of experience is also known as trajectory.
You appear to want to constrain the behavior of governments, businesses, NGOs and I assume all power structures to keep them honest. I want to see studies and statistics constrained by force of law.
My model does this. The newest or closest thing we have is forensics.
Cause effect form and function, regardless of what science discovers it will be one of these four.
I see.
I won't take up any more of your time.
Thank you for taking the time to read what I have written.
God Bless