Topic: Complex Systems
Emerging simultaneously in a number of disciplines of the natural and social sciences, the study of "complex systems" provides metaphors and potentiallly general laws relevant in an enormous variety of contexts. This forum is for discussion of thoughts arising from and extending materials in Serendip's Complex Systems section. Comments entered here will be automatically posted. Comments not meant to be posted can be sent by Serendip.
Go to last comment or
Post a comment
Serendip's forums sometimes get longer than what can conveniently be accessed and displayed. They are, at the same time, in their entirety an important part of what Serendip has become at any given time (and, of course, particular contributions may well be of lasting significance). To try and balance needs for easy display and those of continuous and permanent record, only this year's forum comments are displayed on this page with earlier comments being preserved elsewhere. To go to the forum for prior years, click on the year below.
Year:
- Current Postings - 1999/2001 - 1998 - 1997
Name: bob jones
Username:
Subject: Nothing
Date: Tue Sep 24 18:50:16 EDT 1996
Comments:
Nothing is Complete.
Name: John Schmidt
Username: schmidt@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu
Subject: Complexulus
Date: Sat Apr 19 09:09:15 EDT 1997
Comments:
Here is a question that was raised by Steven Rose (in his 1992 book about memory): what would be the nature of science, society, and philosophy if Newton had been a biologist and developed a mathematics of complex systems rather the calculus? What if Western society had put the study of complex systems before the study of simple systems? For me, this takes some suspension of belief (how could naturalists be brave enough to confront complexity before they had studied simple physical systems?), but what the heck! Rose suggested that holism would dominate over reductionism. I like to say that I take a holistic approach to my reductionism. (tee hee) But I can not escape the feeling that learning about statistical mechanics in PChem has had a big influence on my thinking about how brains work. How much physics should we expect a neurobiologist to have? Just enough to let them know how to deal with "Quantum Consciousness"?
Name: Jacob Ghitis, M.D.
Username: ghitis@gezernet.co.il
Subject: Resultants and Emergent
Date: Sat May 17 08:43:12 EDT 1997
Comments:
Having just a general idea about the subject of Complexity, I would
like to offer the following knowledge: In order to really get into the
subject of complexity there must be an understanding of Resultants vs.
Emergent. The latter is a unique phenomenon, from which derive many of
the former, which are basically variations on the Emergent theme. To have
some idea of Complexity it is essential to grasp the meaning of these
two concepts. I suggest posing this theme for discussion, once my fellow serendipitants read on the subject, unfortunately rather
esoteric.
Name: Jacob Ghitis, M.D.
Username: ghitis@gezernet.co.il
Subject: Emergent vs. Resultant
Date: Wed May 28 17:41:28 EDT 1997
Comments:
Example of Emergent versus Resultant: We may safely assume that certain animals, such as the dolphin, think. We also may accept that other animals think in a more primitive way. However, probably all of us feel quite sure that only some primates are capable of abstract thinking. And we are quite positive that only H. sapiens is capable of thinking about thinking, i.e., of
metathinking. The different degrees and modes of thinking are natural Resultants.
The capacity to abstract the concept of thinking constitutes a natural Emergent,
which is a complexity, since it actually is not just a variety of thinking.
In fact, metathinking is the highest degree of mental manifestation, the
essence of the mind. Perhaps that is what Aristotle had in mind when he
thought about thought of thought, as the "Primum Movens."
PLEASE DO NOT LEAVE MY COMMENTS UNCOMMENTED!
Name: Paul Grobstein
Username: pgrobste@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Resultants and Emergents - Comment
Date: Wed May 28 20:55:53 EDT 1997
Comments:
Nothing EVER disappears without a trace, commented or no. But this issue is
too interesting to wait too long to see how it evolves. What's needed, it
seems to me, is a concrete basis for distinguishing "resultants" from
"emergents". Let me see if I can attempt one, based on some
earlier thoughts about the relationship of phenomena at different levels of
complexity. "Resultants", I suggest, are those phenomena at a higher level
of organization which follow necessarily and inevitably from phenomena at a
lower level of organization, whether one can easily do the necessary calculations
to establish this or not. The Game of Life
provides a case in point. There are simple objects and simple rules for
their interactions; the outcome is not obvious from the rules and starting
conditions, but is in principle determinable. "Emergents" on the other hand,
following my earlier thoughts, are not even in principle determinable from
the rules and starting conditions, because they depend as well on additional
factors, which come into play subsequent to the establishment of starting
conditions and rules of interaction. To put it slightly differently, the
rules and starting conditions permit a much larger range of possibilities
than the one observed, and what establishes the one observed involves additional
factors. Biological (and social) evolution is almost certainly a case in
point. Current life on earth is among the possibilities permitted by atoms
and their interactions, but was significantly influenced by the collision of
a meteor with the earth multiple millions of years ago. Hence, an "emergent",
rather than a "resultant". Maybe?
Name: Jacob Ghitis, M.D.
Username: ghitis@gezernet.co.il
Subject: Paul's ideas on Emer. vs. Resul.
Date: Thu May 29 17:51:03 EDT 1997
Comments:
Paul (please excuse me for my familiarity with you, is it OK?) I am so delighted to read your address
to my comment, the more so since I was referring to my fellow serendipitants and not to you. I believe that there must be some reader who wishes to participate (Am I wrong, young fellow?) He should do so! OK, Paul, I imagine that you are very busy at this time of the year, thanks for your trouble.
Well, I entirely agree with your thesis, excepted the last paragraph which leaves me unable to express
any thought for or against. However, perhaps a better example can be given as follows: Soon after the big bang , quarks were formed, creating a nucleus. (I personally suspect that the primal energy-matter
elements of the primal black hole were electrons and positrons, yet this fantasy is not supported by
experimental results.) There was (and is) an extra positive charge in this nucleus, which prevented the
last electron in the vicinity from entering, resulting in its perpetual circling around. This is, of course
the Hydrogen atom. Successively were formed Helium, Lithium and the other elements. Now, Hydrogen was an emergent (quarks plus electrons), while the other atoms are resultants (variations on the H theme). Take now two atoms of H and one of O, both gases, apply a little bit of thermic energy to activate the electrons of a few atoms, and you get a liquid! Now you have an emergent...
Paul, I would like your comments on this, and educated opinions from interested participants. Please, do not take seriously my electron-positron "hypothesis" of the atom! Yet, I enjoy reading on experimental physics and I can grasp better what I read as I relate it to my dilettante musings.
For instance, can anybody offer a better hypothesis to the following on the source of the force of gravity? I posit that in the quarks there are positrons and electrons, right? Well, how about
imagining that they spin in pairs, each one in an opposite direction and that this creates an attraction force on other atoms, having nothing to do with magnetism but wit gravitational pull? There, I exposed myself to ridicule. Yet it sounds so logical! OK, people, lash me with your arguments,
but preferably with your lacerating facts! I am sending this now, before I repent.
Name: Tania Jacob
Username: jacob@net1.nw.com.au
Subject: Jacob?
Date: Mon Jun 2 01:05:57 EDT 1997
Comments:
Gees...this is going from psychology to physics.
Have you read much about quantum mechanics? Maybe what you say about quarks spinning in pairs is related to Bohr's version (i think its his) of the EPR paradox.
Interesting hypotheses!
Name: Jacob Ghitis, MD
Username: ghitis@gezernet.co.il
Subject: TANIA, GRAVITY and COMPLEXITY
Date: Sat Jun 7 02:51:37 EDT 1997
Comments:
A. Tania (the previous comment):
Thanks! I am going to read about the Bohr's theory to see if he anticipated me.
I am also going to @ you. After all, there is something shared by us (Jacob).
B. I read Paul's past writing on complexity. There is little to add to it
except that there is no reference to EMERGENCE theme,reported for the
first time some 150 yr. ago as a mechanism of evolution. It appears
that the subject of complexity is not attracting wide interest among
my fellow serendipitants. I would like to submit a new subject, on axiology,to wit, The
UNIVERSAL Criteria to Judge a HUMAN ACT.Please note: these CRITERIA are UNIVERSAL, but the way they are APPLYED is NOT!! Would Paul consider it of enough
serendipitant interest?
Name: Jacob Ghitis MD
Username: ghitis@gezernet.co.il
Subject: AXIOLOGY
Date: Tue Jun 10 17:00:41 EDT 1997
Comments:
No interest in the UNIVERSAL criteria to judge a human act? Do you realize that
that societies function on those criteria, even though they vary among
themselves? No need to be shy. I developed this area of thought some 30 yr.
ago, and I have kept it all these years for you. Now Paul appears to
not disapprove my suggestion of dealing with axiology. If nobody
shows interest during a few days, I shall start the subject as if you
silently and laizily approve. Please: look up the meaning of axiology
and tell me what it means. Then meditate(think)on one of those ctiteria
and offer a name for it and an example. If you're shy, @ me. If I agree with
you, I will present your suggestion in Comments. If not, I'll write to you,
OK? We might transfer the subject to What is NEW, if suggested by Paul.
The first in writing is the fastest of you!
Name: Jacob Ghitis, MD
Username: ghitis@gezernet.co.il
Subject: About ...SERENDIP
Date: Wed Jun 11 15:56:13 EDT 1997
Comments:
I am cordially inviting all serendipitants to visit About...Serendip.
You will find another theme to chat about: THE SUBJECTS OF CONVERSATION.
Do not miss it!
Name: Jake
Username: ghitis@gezernet.co.il
Subject: DO NOT DESPAIR!
Date: Sat Jun 14 21:46:00 EDT 1997
Comments:
Other subjects to be tackled are being offered in the Forum
About...Serendip. There is a choice of games, which unfortunately are
reserved for those who like to improve their minds (there are only a
few places available,
which fortunately will be enough): CHOOSE THE CORRECT
ANALOGY, CHOOSE THE APPROPRIATE SUBJECT OF CONVERSATION,and JUDGE
YOUR
FELLOWMAN AS YOU DO NOT JUDGE YOURSELF, PUNISHUNG
HIM ON TOP! Cordially,
Jake
Name: Jacob Ghitis, MD
Username: No need
Subject: TAKE A LOOK AT SERENDIP
Date: Fri Jun 20 14:29:03 EDT 1997
Comments:
I have started a story in About...Serendip.
Name: Jacob Ghitis
Username: ghitis@gezernet.co.il
Subject: METAPHYSICS
Date: Sat Jun 21 02:49:12 EDT 1997
Comments:
This belongs to About ...Serendipity proper. Just for pragmatic reasons I am posting it Here.
June 21, 1997
Two schools of philosophy gained dominance in our century: Existentialism and Linguistic Analysis (Analytic and Linguistic Philosophy). The first deals with man's responsibility for his acts from the point of view of a posited free will. The second proposes that since communication is essential for human enterprise, language--as the principal means of communication--ought to be unambiguous.
I believe that the spirit of SERENDIP agrees with such proposition. Of course, ambiguity is a desirable and actually essential attribute of the arts, as exemplified by Monalisa’s smile and poetry’s similes.
It is most ironic that Aristotle--albeit unwittingly,--is the source of one outstanding confusing concept: METAPHYSICS. In one of his treatises he dealt on PHYSICS and on other subjects. The latter were much latter entitled Metaphysics, the intention being that they were written AFTER (meta) Physics. Now, those writings included musings on Being (what exists); for that reason, Metaphysics came to be understood as Ontogeny, which is actually the developmental life story of an organism. I should add that as Physics is the study of the material aspects of Nature, Metaphysics could be understood as the thoughts on the concept "Physics" itself and its ultimate significance, such as thinking about "thinking" may be called "Metathinking," a central concept in SERENDIP, I should add. Still,
actually the most common application for the term "metaphysics" refers to concepts which cannot be grasped by the senses, i.e., which are NON-PHYSICAL, such as the religious or philosophical ideas
on the "soul," a subject also dealt upon in Aristotle’s "Metaphysics." I strongly oppose, therefore, the unqualified use of that word. In that same vein, I strongly recommend the use of words with
the utmost clarity, avoiding those like " I opine," " I believe," "I think," in favor of more precise ones like "studies have shown that...," "it stands to reason that...," "please expand on...," and so forth.
THAT WILL BE ENOUGH FOR NOW. Would you like me to continue? Please post Comments.
Name: Prof. Jacob Ghitis
Username: ghitis@star.net.il
Subject: Pragmatic reasons
Date: Thu Jul 10 17:33:09 EDT 1997
Comments:
Not having received any feedback (except from Paul), I shall limit my
comments to: About...serendipity. Good luck and so-long!
Name: Jacob Ghitis, MD
Username: ghitis@star.net.il
Subject: ONE LAST COMMENT
Date: Fri Jul 11 07:03:12 EDT 1997
Comments:
The following belongs here, being a continuation of the overview on philosophy and
science. Any observations on this last part, please enter in About ...
serendip.XXXXXXX Following the pathway of thinking traced above, I will endeavor to clarify some basic tenets: Natural Sciences are made by knowledge acquired on what exist in Nature. When this knowledge is applied , i.e., is utilized to obtain a benefit, we talk about Applied Science. Mathematics does not exist in
Nature, therefore, it is not a Science, yet it seems amazing to realize that the more mathematics is applied to a Science, the more exact it becomes! Medicine, as an example, is called an art, yet it is day by day approaching more the status of Science, as more digital technology is invented, including the automated designing of therapeutic agents.
There can be no life without order. The second Law of Thermodynamics --
Entropy, the natural tendency to disorder -- is called The Supreme Law
of the Universe. Energy is applied by living organisms to oppose entropy.
The myths of creation, like that of Genesis, deal with the
imposition of order to end chaos. At the time of Aristotle,
a vast body of knowledge had accumulated; however, it was he who
classified that knowledge. In this way he introduced order
in knowledge, gaining justly the honor of being the first scientist.
Philosophy claimed as its domain the areas virgin of Science,
having therefore shrunk at the onslaught of the latter. Yet,
without the creation of Philosophy there would have not existed
Science. It was Thales who one day declared that one matter is
Mount Olympus with its gods, and another is what happens down here,
meaning, man should think not in terms of godly acts, but in terms
of natural acts obeying non-godly—natural—causes.
Name: Jacob Ghitis, MD
Username: ghitis@star.net.il
Subject: THE MYSTERY OF EVIL REVEALED
Date: Sat Jul 12 10:15:14 EDT 1997
Comments:
Evil appears to be a mysterious, "satanic"
force, fighting in a Manichean chessboard as the "dark" army against God's supreme creation called "goodness." Not long ago NEWSWEEK published a long, well researched essay on EVIL, yet it missed the real explanation. Also, nowadays a book has appeared on the roots of wars, one of the manifestations of "evil." For that reason I am compelled to analyze critically the complex subject of GOOD, BAD and EVIL. Let us start saying that until a thinking creature called Homo sapiens was developed by evolution , those moral concepts did not exist. In fact, for that very same reason, there could not exist EVIL, which we may safely qualify as a concept signifying BADNESS of extreme degree. How are we going to define GOODNESS? There cannot exist Goodness if there is no Badness. Were Goodness and its apparent opposite created at "The Beginning?" That Manichean concept, so influential on Jewish thought during the Dispersion and passed on to the Christian basic tenets, was and is a commodious way of "understanding" and therefore accepting the harsh realities of the otherwise ununderstandable "mysterious ways of God." Thus the resulting awaiting for the Messiah, or The Second Coming, or the Mahdi. The amazing thing is that "badness" was "created" first, when the second life form evolved. The first one, a microbe of the genus "archaea," lived off the energy provided by heat and from minerals, so that he was not "bad." Comes then a second organism, and both "discover" that ingesting the other is useful, whether for symbiosis or just to use its digested molecules as nutrients. This latter development gave rise to the first "badness," if we judge the act of sacrificing another living form according to Nature's dictates.
It should become clear that without that behavior there would have been no evolution and no Man
to create moral laws. Therefore, "badness" is an integral
attribute of the creative instinct. After thinking Man established moral laws, the axiological definitions became as follows: A human act is Bad when it infringes upon the accepted rules of behavior determined by a society. When this act is excessively BAD, we use the qualifier EVIL. As an example, surviving by means of cannibalism of cadavers is not considered even BAD, while live cannibalism is called EVIL, except in the case of true Cannibals.
So, what is Goodness? It is not the opposite of Badness; it is acting above the minimum dictated by the rules of behavior. Goodness is Man's invention. Badness is Nature's creation. In fact,
Entropy--Nature's tendency
to disorder--is counteracted by
he energy obtained by varied means,
many of which are revolting, like war.
But it is Man who decides and teaches what is revolting in his society.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Please post your comments in About...Serendipity.
Name: Jacob Ghitis
Username: ghitis@star.net.il
Subject: THE mtEVE
Date: Thu Jul 17 15:43:13 EDT 1997
Comments:
The mtEve Jacob Ghitis
All women contain in their ova organelles called mitochondria (mt), inherited from their
mothers and whose main function is to produce the energy required by almost all cells. Mitochondria require DNA, which is the primary source of proteins, mainly enzymes, required for that function. Many women have been tested all over the world and found to have exactly the same mtDNA. Nowadays being known that that DNA mutations occur every 100,000 to 200,000 years, it is accepted that all women, and therefore all of Mankind are descendants of a woman who lived not more than 200,000 tears ago. She has been assigned the very appropriate name "the mtEve." Problem is, what happened to the other women? Why did only one woman leave descendants? This conundrum is referred to as the "bottleneck," which let pass only the mtEve's descendants. For the sake of clarity, let's assume that the legend of the Universal Flood is based on real happenings, and that only one woman on board the ark succeeded in conceiving just one female, from whom all successive generations were descended. This female would then be the mtEve, and the bottleneck the rather drastic theogenic hydrotherapy.
I have written an essay, mostly fantasy, examining the subject from different points of view. I hope that at least one person will enjoy reading it as much as I did writing it. The intention is basically to contribute to the thinking process, the central purpose of Serendip. XXXXXXXXX..
On the subject of the mtEve, I believe that archetypal insights, bolstered by certain myths, may give rise to a theory which purports to clarify the matter.
Firstly, we should contemplate the following possibility: The biblical Eve was a woman who consorted with a man, a provider, impersonated as "God." As he was away, hunting and gathering, she stayed at home with their adolescent son, Adam. Incest, then prevalent, was eventually proscribed as inimical to society. The myth of Paradise reflects this transcendental occurrence, as follows.
Upon his return, the provider found his consort cavorting with Adam. Angrily, he expelled them from his well-provided home (a "Paradise"). Sometime later Eve returned, minus Adam, and was forgiven; she alleged that God had appeared to her in a dream, promising to father her a son {"I got myself a man with God"}. Cain, the paradigmatic bastard, was born. He was not well liked by his putative father, who obviously preferred his true son, the young Abel. Cain, induced by this undisguised and unfathomed preference, murdered Abel, his half-brother, becoming in this way mankind's ancestor.
Next, we have to consider the following other possibility: According to the Bible, "Man" was
originally made both male and female (androgynous). If we theorize that originally all animals were androgynes, it is possible to envision a peculiar cosmic phenomenon at a given time, which produced a mutation affecting one of the two germline genes of an early human (androgynous) embryo. As a result, not only the feminine traits of this embryo became less apparent, but the masculine ones expanded by virtue of the molecular changes in the damaged germline gene, which now became "male," as opposed to the "androgynous" gene. That other genes, non-germline were knocked-out from the affected X chromosome, giving rise to future hemophilia and other unrelated "sex-linked" diseases, just goes to show that there was no teleological determinant in such mutation.
Now, this fetus, "ADAM", the first X/Y creature, was bigger than the androgynes, thus causing suffering at delivery, giving rise to the archetypal-mythological expression of delivering sons with pain. His mother, "EVE", had to hide from her consort, who did not like the little monster. As this son grew to maturity, he and his mother begot a "CAIN," who had inherited from Eve most of the half genome and all of the mtDNA that Adam had previously inherited from her. Cain was regaled with several brothers (men) and "sisters" (androgynes) born to Adam and Eve after himself. In this closed society, Cain hated those who didn't resemble him, on account of being endowed with Eve's other X chromosome and therefore a different mtDNA. Cain systematically murdered those siblings, so that eventually one single type of mtDNA remained. These males were not only giants, they were aggressive. By mutation they had become not only sexually distinct, but also carnivorous, adept at swinging an antelope's femur to bash the crania of edible baboons. {"There were giants at that time and they populated the earth"}.
Eve's powerful progeny, suitable selected by Cain, multiplied and eventually exterminated
the weak surrounding androgynous populations, leaving to posterity the exclusive mtDNA
of "Eve" in all human cells, thus explaining the "bottleneck."
By the way, the androgynes underwent "androgenic" evolution: Those with predominantly male characteristics were rejected as mates or else died when delivering a son, on account of their narrow pelvises. Woman is basically "complete" and consequently emotionally independent of the male, while the latter is defective, incomplete, looking for females to complement the deleted counterpart.
If this "Cain's theory" is true, then the mutagenic conversion of one of our androgynous ancestors into our ancestral father ("Adam") and the subsequent forced selection of our ancestral mother ("Eve"), happened some 200,000 years ago, when Paradise was truly lost, if being androgynous, gentle and herbivorous embodies the picture of happiness.
''''
Name: J.Ghitis
Username: ghitis@star.net.il
Subject: http://www. kaput
Date: Fri Aug 1 15:15:33 EDT 1997
Comments:
Next time you look for a site, skip the above and go straight to the name.
Please send me an @ to confirm. In this way I'll know that I contributed
someting of some use.
Name: Tania Jacob
Username:
Subject: To Jacob
Date: Sat Aug 23 07:25:23 EDT 1997
Comments:
Have you considered becoming an author? I think you'd make a good one.
Name: Jacob
Username:
Subject: TANIA AND LITERATURE
Date: Mon Aug 25 19:51:49 EDT 1997
Comments:
YOU ARE A DARLING! It would appear that my mind is better suited for
short and pithy essays, which you appear to appreciate. Available time is being displaced
by digitation. I prefer to devote it to concise ideas dealing with the
brain, mind and thinking. Literature is for special minds. Do you
create poems? I was thinking of you when writing THE THREE LAWS OF BEING
in ...Serendip.
Name: Jacob Ghitis,MD
Username: ghitis@star.net.il
Subject:
Date: Wed Aug 27 16:55:22 EDT 1997
Comments:
THE GAME OF ANALOGIES
Consulting a dictionary and an encyclopedia, you will
find definitions and explanations
on the subject of analogy. My impression is that
those to follow are far clearer and more comprehensive.
If two things look or behave similarly, it is said that they resemble each other in a given attribute. But the pair 4:8 is said to resemble the pair 8:16 by way of ratio.One’s country is called ‘motherland’ by way of simile,for the country is like a mother to us. ATRIBUTE, RATIO AND SIMILE are the bases on which analogies stand. In metaphor, one word or phrase are utilized for rhetoric purposes, being therefore literary devices, as when one says, "Her emerald eyes," to indicate that her eyes are green and brilliant. Simile, per se,is another rhetorical device, where the accessory word like makes the difference with metaphor, as in: "Her eyes are like emeralds."
One famous analogy states: "If one finds a watch, one concludes that there is a watchmaker; therefore, if there is a world, there must be a world-maker." This proposed analogy is by attribute: a watch has the attribute of being made; an analogous attribute is ascribed to the world. However, since the existence of a world-maker has not been demonstrated, this analogy remains hypothetical. Not so with Galileo’s hypothesis that as Jupiter has satellite moons, so the planets are Sun’s satellites. This proposed hypothesis was eventually proven as being true. Again, this analogy is by attribute: Jupiter’s attribute of having satellite moons is analogous to Sun’s attribute of having planet satellites. Most significant analogies are by attribute; they serve as the principle of hypotheses, to be tested scientifically. They are frequently exploited—wrongly--in order to ‘make a point.’
It should be clear by now that analogies compare a pair of objects or concepts with another pair, to find a possible parallelism. This principle was enunciated by Aristotle in his tractate TOPICS, where he wrote that likeness is present when A is to B as C is to D, or when A is in B as C is in D. Analogy tests are employed in psychometric evaluation, as when the subject has to complete the following: Day - Light Night - ......, where the answer is ‘Darkness.’
When my children reached the age to understand the concept, we spent some time playing the ‘Game of Analogies,’ whereby I offered a pair of objects or concepts as the model and three pairs as samples, one of which had to be chosen as the most analogous, explaining why so. The three samples were made to appear in some way analogous to the model—the important point being to find a fundamental basis for the choice. Take the following example: the model is White ball - Red ball ; the samples are: 1. / Red cube - White pyramid / 2. / Black cube - Green cube / 3. / Red table - White table/ END OF FIRST PART
Name: Tania Jacob
Username: jacob@net1.nw.com.au
Subject: to Jacob
Date: Fri Aug 29 08:54:14 EDT 1997
Comments:
No, I don't write poems, although I love to read them and have tried to write them, without much success.
I do write science fiction stories, though, and have seen every science fiction movie around.
By the way, my e-mail is still not functioning too well. I'll write as soon as I can (which won't be for quite a while)
Name: Ron
Username: saspc@saspc.asn.au
Subject: I s the proof really in the pudding?
Date: Sun Aug 31 12:29:44 EDT 1997
Comments:
Lovely post Jake, I particularly like the watchmaker analogy(ana-l-ogy - retentive science?? (sorry)).
I guess the logical extension is that there may be many watchmakers..
and they may not know what all the watches they ever made are up to..
Food for contemplation.
Name: Jacob Ghitis
Username: ghitis@star.net.il
Subject: THE GAME OF ANALOGIES II
Date: Tue Sep 2 16:00:19 EDT 1997
Comments:
ANALOGIES #2
The first and third samples share the same colors as the model; not so the pair of cubes. Yet, color is a superficial attribute, compared to shape. Since two balls are present in the model, I expect twin objects to be the choice for analogy, therefore I choose cubes, since table is not a geometrical form. Had I written 'sphere' instead of 'ball' would have facilitated the choice, because not all balls are spherical. I decided to make the choice more difficult, leading to argumentation about ambiguity, one of the central themes of Serendipity.
A number of analogies will be presented, with the corresponding explanations about the choice of samples. The reader is not expected to agree with my choices, being welcome to present his own arguments as email or comment. I do expect that the readers will be stimulated to consult dictionaries and encyclopedias. They might be pleasantly surprised to realize how much they have learned while having fun, and how their reasoning has improved. At least I did.
LIST OF ANALOGY GAMES : The model is in Italics. Chose one of the three samples as the most analogous and write it down, with your reasoning. Here I present just two cases.
Ball - Sphere /Table - Square\ /Giraffe - Tall\ /Lead - Heavy\
Regular solids - 5 /Directions - 6\ /Continents - 5\ /Cardinal points- 4\ END
Tania, good to hear from you; have your email fixed, missing your letters. Ron,I just had my PC fixed.
Name: Jacob Ghitis, MD
Username: ghitis@star.net.il
Subject: OF QUANTUM AND LOVE
Date: Sun Sep 7 16:37:34 EDT 1997
Comments:
OF QUANTUM AND LOVE
QUANTUM is number. It is energy made discreet: proton, magneton, graviton. Quanta are the language of matter,of atoms: electron, proton, neutron.
Electrons spin and orbit following definite physical laws. One might that electrons move according to an inherent proto-intellect. Electrons interact in certain proportions, with variable speeds, with given degrees of attraction or repulsion. One might sesnse that electrons interact according to an inherent proto-affection (in the same way that one might sense that RNA and DNA are proto-life.
Feeling evolves from proto-affection. Intelligence evolves from proto-intellect.
Intelligence is causal inference, sensing cause and effect.
Being able to figure out what intelligence is requires abstracting--high intelligence, human intelligence: 'meta-intelligence.' Humans are metaintelligent creatures.
Feeling is sensing harmony and rhythm.
Art is expressing the sense of harmony and rhythm and the knowledge of cause and effect by means of words, sound, color, movement and shapeable materials. Great art is adding originality. Subtle ambiguity is of the essence of originality in art.
The ineffable harmony and rhythm of great art--sheer proto-affection--may cause a sympathetic vibration that is interpreted as deep feeling. Be this feeling strong, call it emotion...Be the arousal very intense, but not excessively so, live a 'peak experience.' Or live it when for an elusive orgasmic instant you vibrate attuned to Nature's harmony and rhythm.
Literature is art employing language as the means of expression..
Prosody is the 'music' of language.
Language is the foremost expression of human intelligence.
Human intelligence is word with syntax.
Feeling is number with harmony and rhythm.
Language--as thought--mirrors the intellective structure of the universe.
Mathematics--as harmony and rhythm--mirrors the universe’s sentient attribute. Language is intelligence--and creation. Mathematics is feeling--and discovery.
Illumination is the discovery of the creation.
Poetry is language with mathematics, thought with harmony and rhythm, intelligence with feeling.
Poetry mirrors the whole universe.
Quarks are the unit, the one. Quarks are life, are proto-good, proto-god.
Antimatter is death, proto-evil, proto-devil.
Religion is the consciousness of life and death, and the unconsciousness of archetype, of continuance.
Cognition (intelligence) and affection (feeling), yes-- but what is will?...
Will is intelligence and feeling's child.
Will is desire: Love and hate.
Hate is the other face of love
Love is desiring and desiring to be desired.
Name: J.G
Username: ghitis@star.net.il
Subject: LISTEN TO MY SONG
Date: Mon Sep 15 17:29:48 EDT 1997
Comments:
LISTEN TO MY SONG
I am the moon, I am the stars,
I am a blade of summer grass,
I am you and you are me.
I believe in what I see:
My mind is analytic,
My brain empiricist.
I am a poem:
Poetry reflects
The whole universe.
Listen, listen to my song,
But write and sing your own.
J.G.
.
Name: Jacon Ghitis, MD
Username: ghitis@stsr.net.il
Subject: ON AXIOLOGY (Value judgments)
Date: Thu Sep 18 18:18:45 EDT 1997
Comments:
The text is available in Serendipia.
Name: Jacob Ghitis, MD
Username: ghitis@star.net.il
Subject: A BRIEF HISTORY OF MANKIND
Date: Fri Oct 17 18:57:16 EDT 1997
Comments:
The text is available in Serendipia.
Name: Jake
Username:
Subject: SERENDIP DISCOVERED IN THE HOLY LAND!
Date: Sat Oct 25 17:57:36 EDT 1997
Comments:
ON SERENDIPITY
Jeff Abramowitz , the Internet weekly columnist in the Jerusalem Post weekly magazine, and whom I do not know personally, printed SERENDIP'S logo as the week's choice and wrote the following on October 24 1997 :
"SERENDIP" (serendip.brynmawr.edu) is another fine site, aimed at "people who suspect that life's instructions are always ambiguous and incomplete." All of us, in other words. Actually, it is difficult to classify this one. It is not fun, although fun is to be had; it doesn't qualify fully as entertainment, since you have to do a fair amount of thinking, and it isn't really 100% educational, although you emerge from it edified. I would call it "edutainment," except I hate that word, and after the revolution, who ever invented it can look forward to be edutained in front of a firing squad. It's best to let the site describe itself: "Serendip is both an expanding forum and a continually developing set of resources to explore and support intellectual and social change in education, in social organization... and in how one makes sense of life." Forget the bit about change in education, and social organization (unless you're that way inclined, in which case abi gezunt). It's the last bit, making sense of life, which provides the serendipity.
Each subarea of "Serendip"--the brain, biology, science, culture and so on--contains interactive games, puzzles, quizzes, tests; call them what you will, they're thought-provoking and give you a different perspective on things. Since there's a lot here, and most of it is good, it's worth bookmarking for repeated visits.
Note added by Jake: SERENDIP was created and is continuously developed by Prof. Paul Grobstein, Brynmawr College and U., Pensylvania.
Name: shrestha
Username: shrestha@princeton.edu
Subject: life
Date: Mon Dec 8 11:47:37 EST 1997
Comments:
Life used to come in circles; it comes in triangles now.
Name: Jacob Ghitis, MD
Username: ghitis@star.net.il
Subject: ANALOGIES
Date: Mon Dec 15 16:06:07 EST 1997
Comments:
THE GAME OF ANALOGIES
Consulting a dictionary and an encyclopedia, you will find definitions and explanations on the subject of analogy. My impression is that those to follow are far clearer and more comprehensive.
If two things look or behave similarly, it is said that they resemble each other in a given attribute. But the pair 4:8 is said to resemble the pair 8:16 by way of ratio.One’s country is called ‘motherland’ by way of simile, for the country is like a mother to us.
ATRIBUTE, RATIO AND SIMILE are the bases on which analogies stand. In metaphor, one word or phrase are utilized for rhetoric purposes, being therefore literary devices, as when one says, "Her emerald eyes," to indicate that her eyes are green and brilliant. Simile, per se,is another rhetorical device, where the accessory word like makes the difference with metaphor, as in: "Her eyes are like emeralds."
One famous analogy states: "If one finds a watch, one concludes that there is a watchmaker; therefore, if there is a world, there must be a world-maker." This proposed analogy is by attribute: a watch has the attribute of being made; an analogous attribute is ascribed to the world. However, since the existence of a world-maker has not been demonstrated, this analogy remains hypothetical. Not so with Galileo’s hypothesis that as Jupiter has satellite moons, so the planets are Sun’s satellites. This proposed hypothesis was eventually proven as being true. Again, this analogy is by attribute: Jupiter’s attribute of having satellites is analogous to Sun’s attribute of having planet satellites. Most significant analogies are by attribute; they serve as the principle of hypotheses, to be tested scientifically. They are frequently exploited—wrongly--in order to ‘make a point.’
It should be clear by now that analogies compare a pair of objects or concepts with another pair, to find a possible parallelism. This principle was enunciated by Aristotle in his tractate TOPICS, where he wrote that likeness is present when A is to B as C is to D, or when A is in B as C is in D. Analogy tests are employed in psychometric evaluation, as when the subject has to complete the following: Day - Light Night - ......, where the answer is ‘Darkness.’
When my children reached the age to understand the concept, we spent some time playing the ‘Game of Analogies,’ whereby I offered a pair of objects or concepts as the model and three pairs as samples, one of which had to be chosen as the most analogous, explaining why so. The three samples were made to appear in some way analogous to the model—the important point being to find a fundamental basis for the choice. Take the following example: the model is White ball - Red ball ; the samples are:. 1... Red cube - White pyramid... 2... Black cube - Green cube... 3... Red table - White table
Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject: ANALOGIES
Date: Mon Dec 15 16:21:05 EST 1997
Comments:
THE GAME OF ANALOGIES II
The first and third samples share the same colors as the model; not so the pair of cubes. Yet, color is a superficial attribute, compared to shape. Since two balls are present in the model, I expect twin objects to be the choice for analogy, therefore I choose cubes, since table is not a geometrical form. Had I written 'sphere' instead of 'ball' would have facilitated the choice, because not all balls are spherical. I decided to make the choice more difficult, leading to argumentation about ambiguity, one of the central themes of Serendipity.
A number of analogies will be presented, with the corresponding explanations about the choice of samples. The reader is not expected to agree with my choices, being welcome to present his own arguments as email or comment. I do expect that the readers will be stimulated to consult dictionaries and encyclopedias. They might be pleasantly surprised to realize how much they have learned while having fun, and how their reasoning has improved. At least I did.
LIST OF ANALOGY GAMES
The model is in bold. Chose one of the three samples as the most analogous and write it down, with your reasoning. Here I present two cases.
Ball - Sphere..1. Table - Square...2. Giraffe - Tall...3. Lead - Heavy
Regular solids - 5..1. Directions - 6...2. Continents - 5...3. Cardinal points - 4
Name: anonymous
Username:
Subject: ANALOGIES
Date: Mon Dec 15 16:44:12 EST 1997
Comments:
ANALOGIES III
1.- Ball-Sphere
Table - Square
Giraffe - Tall
Lead - Heavy
2.- Short - Long
Big - Small
High - Low
Second - Hour
CHOICE AND EXPLANATION
1.- Table - Square:-)... Sphere and Square are geometrical forms. Tall refers to length. Heavy is intrinsic, invariable property of lead. The analogy is by attribute of geographical form. 2.- High - Low:-)... High is actually Long, and Low is Short when considered as vertical entities... Big - Small are also opposites, relative to standards, but are not indicative of extension in just one direction. Second - Hour is a bad pair: Second is a short period of time
compared to Hour, but can you see time? The analogy is by attribute of length.
Name: Jacob Ghitis, MD
Username: ghitis@star.net.il
Subject: ANALOGIES IV
Date: Sun Dec 21 10:18:00 EST 1997
Comments:
ANALOGIES IV
3.- Regular solids - 5
Directions - 6
Continents - 5
Cardinal points - 4
4.- Tree - Branches
Soil - Grass
Table - Legs
Animal - Ears
CHOICE AND EXPLANATION
3.- Direction - Six:-) The regular solids in the model are: piramid, cube, octahedron, and two more. Of the samples, the six directions are: forward, backward, upward, downward, rightward and leftward. These directions can be pointed out in solids. The cardinal points are: north, south, east and west; they are planar. The five continents are concrete entities, while the other sampes are concepts. It cannot be said that five is to solids as six is to directions. Therefore, this is an irregular type of analogy, or no analogy at all. The model should have been 'Solid - Directions' and the samples something like 'Map - Cardinal points.'
Still, this game serves the purpose of making the mind work to solve a problem analytically. In the present case, the mind is 'fooled' into 'organizing' the pairs to make them appear adequate for a game of analogy. This is a mechanism of the mind to avoid disorder.
4.- Animal - Ears:-) Ears are part of an animal, as branches are part of a tree. Legs are also part of a table, yet they are artificial. Grass is not a part of the soil. If there had been a sample 'Rose - Petals,' it would have been the right choice, for being vegetals too. Thus, class is another type of attribute. In the present game one may chose the attribute of belonging to the class of being living entities. However, before the attribute of class, stands the attribute of being a constituent (Aristotle's 'being in'). Therefore, one would say, "As branches are constituent parts of an organism, so are ears."
END OF ANALOGIES IV
|
