Thank you Lise Maring for taking the time to read and think about my post on Leonardo Day. You wrote:
It has been my experience that the more we humans try to "control" things, whether synergetically or otherwise, the less control we actually have, and the more "out of control" things become.
We humans are a form of Life. We evolved on planet Earth for some reason. Some like Carl Sagan said it was to bring intelligence to Universe. Our problem is not so much the control that results from that power, but what we do with it. Arthur Young tells us one of the most important contributions to our understanding of Universe and Humanity is the discovery of the scientific basis for control. Young explained:
"Modern science had its origin in Isaac Newton's extension of geometry to include motion. Until then geometry had been a science of position. The first order of motion was velocity, the rate of change of position with respect to time, or, as Newton called it, a fluxion. The second order of motion was the ratio of change of velocity to time, or acceleration. Gottfried Leibniz made the same discovery, and his name for these ratios, derivatives, is the term now used. Through the use of these derivatives Newton defined force as mass times acceleration, and momentum as mass times velocity. Energy, or work, was later found to be distance times force — or feet (distance) times pounds (force). Power was the rate of doing work, the derivative of energy.
"The quantities, most of which are derivatives with respect to time constituting the measure formulae of physics, have become the basic vocabulary of the science of motion. They make it possible to describe and predict the motion not only of the planets but of any inert body. This led to the philosophy of determinism, the theory that an all-knowing mathematician, the LaPlace mathematician, knowing the velocity and position of all the particles in the Universe, could predict their future.
"Note that these measure formulae, made possible by the concept of derivatives, with the exception of power, do not go beyond the second derivative. Energy is ML2/T3 (THE FAMOUS E=MC2), and power is ML2/T3, the third derivative of moment of inertia. Are there other third and higher derivatives? While in theory they would exist, such derivatives are not used, and have been ignored by theoretical science. To see why, we must remember the the laws of motion are considered to apply only when energy is not added to or subtracted from the system. Thus the laws of motion prescribe that a pendulum will swing indefinitely provided there is no friction. Science thus deals with a hands-off or ideal case. Newton thought the orderly motion of the planets was evidence of God, but Peirre LaPlace told Napoleon that their orderly motion made the hypothesis of God unnecessary. There began to be a split between science and free will, with science holding to the view that the laws of motion, which correctly predicted the behavior of most bodies, could also account for living organisms. As Albert Szent-Gyorgyi put it, "As scientists we cannot believe that the laws of nature lose their validity at the surface of the skin." Szent-Gyorgyi didn't leave it at that, but went on to show that something else, some drive, was needed.
"This split becomes apparent in the difference between science and engineering. The scientist tends to think of the laws of nature as inviolate; the engineer thinks of the laws of nature as something to be used to make machines that work. It does not occur to either of them that when they control a mechanical device — by adding or subtracting energy from the system — that this interference does not involve any violation of nature's laws.
"Thus it is possible to control nature and make it do what you want it to do. While it would not be practical to cause Mars to change its orbit, it has been possible to control an orbiting satellite to fly past Mars, to visit Jupiter, and by guiding the satellite to take advantage of Jupiter's gravitational field, to get the extra impetus to carry it to Saturn and beyond.
"But how, if the laws of nature are inviolate, can they be taken advantage of? How do we square this opportunism with Newton? How can creatures, themselves the product of laws, produce results that could not occur in nature as interpreted by science?
"To answer this question consider the derivatives beyond the first and second. What would the third derivative be? The first, or velocity, is rate of change of position (governs position). The second, acceleration, is rate of change of velocity. It follows that the third is the rate of change of acceleration. Now change of acceleration is what we do when we drive a car, by pushing more or less on the accelerator pedal, pushing the brake pedal, or steering. It is our control of the car, and is effected either by adding energy to the system or by withdrawing it. Control is a free option, to be used by the driver.
"So the laws of nature, so often invoked to support determinism, do nothing of the kind. The third derivative, or control, has the same right to status as velocity and acceleration. It is not so much one of the laws of nature as it is an implicit permission to use nature's laws.
"But why is control ignored by theoretical science? It is true that since it is an option, it cannot be measured as can velocity ad acceleration. It may also be true that it does not contribute to the edifice of exact laws so respected by science. This does not justify the neglect of control in cosmology in the old sense, one that includes life, where the belief indeterminism would make self-maintenance, or control, an illusion. Surely plants grow and store energy against entropy by controlling their metabolism; and animals, while subject to instinctive drives, must use control in pursuit of prey or to avoid capture.
"Here we might take time to answer the claims of behaviorism, whose prestige is based on the assertion that living creatures are subject to "drives" just as inert bodies are subject to laws, and that therefore consciousness is superfluous or erroneous notion. But hold on a minute. Let us admit that when, say, a seal migrates northward in summer for breeding purposes, it does so in response to a drive triggered by the seasons. Even if this were interpreted to mean the seal has no free will, note that the seal is an organization of many trillions of cells, and each cell an organization of trillions of molecules. this enormously complex association of molecules behaves in unitary fashion, and not according to the Newtonian determinism that would apply to the individual molecules if they were not so organized. How does the seal control all those molecules in a way that Newton's laws would not? Even if we say the seal has no free will, it does have control of its own metabolism, of its musculature, or its growth and self reproduction. Instinct is not due to laws of gravitation and electromagnetism.
"While we cannot release the behaviorist from some responsibility for his interpretation of instinct as equivalent to Newton's laws, the real blame falls on the theoretical physicist who draws his credo, his dogma, from a partial reading of the derivatives.
"Of course the physicist is entitled to define his own discipline, and if he wants to base this discipline on the first two derivatives only, he is at liberty to do do so. By the same token, he cannot claim to know the workings of a Universe that includes life.
"What about the derivatives beyond the third: It might be thought that since the third derivative is an option, there is no point in going further. We cannot even measure free option, much less find its derivative, but a closer scrutiny shows that there is the equivalent of a fourth derivative. What is it that changes (governs) control? While control is an option, or at least not mechanically determined, it is also not completely free. If a child runs in front of the car, we steer to the side or put on the brakes. If the road curves, we steer accordingly. Out control of the car is continually governed by its position relative to other cars and objects. If fact, our destination is the ultimate governing factor.
"Our destination is a position — not the position we started with, but the same kind of measure. It is something we observe — it is not velocity, which we can compute, nor acceleration, which we feel; nor is it control, which we exercise. If the fourth derivative takes us back to position, which was the zeroth derivative, we have what is called a four-operator. After four 90° steps, we get back to the starting point, position.
"This concept has important implications for science. Not only does it limit the time derivatives to four, but it permits an important step in finding a definition of dimension in terms of angle. Since dividing by time four times brings us back to the start, we can equate division by time to a rotation of 90 degrees." (6)
Young's discovery of the scientific basis for control is enormously important in Universe2002. Control is the very basis of LIFE. Returning to our earlier discussion of choice, when a living system makes a choice based on the knowledge of its needs, based on the knowledge of its abilities it is making a controlled choice. When a living system chooses with knowledge, it is making a controlled choice — a choice made with knowledge.
Now how we exert control in the world depends on what we believe the rules to be! Depends on what we believe about how the world works.
Adversaries believe there is not enough for everyone and only the physically strong will survive. They believe humans are coercively dependent on others, and they best understand the language of force. Control rests in the hands of the warlords who rule in a One Bullet=One Vote system of adversary political-economics.
Neutralists believe there is enough for everyone, if only you work hard enough and take care of yourself. They believe humans are financial independent and should be self-sufficient unless they are too lazy or defective. They best understand the language of money. Control rests in the hands of elected politicians who live in a One Dollar=One Vote system of neutral political-economics.
And, finally a new type of human is still emerging. Synergists believe there is enough for everyone but only if we work together and act responsibly. They believe humans are interdependent and can only obtain sufficiency by working together as community. Synergists best understand the language of love. The synergists have some new tools for organizing human society. They are Synocracy and the GIFTegrity . Using these tools, we could create a new world where control rests in the hands of those who give the most to others in their community. In this world the only rule would be the Golden Rule and a One Gift=One Vote system of synergic political economics would emerge with control in the hands of the greatest Giftors.
However, to be successful in our present world, the synergist must understand all three languages and know when to use them. Synergists must sometimes use the language of force, and sometimes the language of money, it depends on whom they are talking to. However, when synergists are seeking allies—when synergists are seeking to build community—they must speak the language of love.
I am also very bothered indeed by the totally "human" perspective given here. We share this very small planet with millions of other life forms....the operative word being "share". To even think about creating a world strictly for humans is to think about creating a world that is totally out of balance.
I agree. We must make a world that works for everyone and everything. I believe in win-win-win-win. You win. I win. Others win, And, the Earth wins.
I love my family dearly, but the thought of having to share this very small world with 50 billion other humans, just makes my skin crawl. I need my personal space, thank you very much.
Not to worry. At our present stage of evolution, we can't make the world work for 50 billion humans. While we are currently the dominant form of life on this planet because of our intelligence, human intelligence produces different levels of knowing.
One of the levels of knowing is called Knowledge. An example of knowledge is knowing how to build a nuclear weapon. Another level of knowing is called Wisdom. An example of wisdom is knowing NOT to build nuclear weapons.
Another example of wisdom is knowing not allow ourselves to produce 50 billion humans.
Thanks for all your comments.
Timothy
12:04:37 AM 
|
|
