Ellis is one of the great "Crap Detectors" of our day, exposing the philosophers who misrepresent science, and scientists who misrepresent philosophy. Stunningly profound ramifications arise out of this lecture, for those who can accept them.
Krauss believes the universe can come from "Nothing" Atheists believe infinite multiple universes and vacuums are possible (which there is no evidence they exist) but god is not possible.. hilarious!
@@5tonyvvvv Well I have read Krauss's book and he doesn't make that claim. He describes our observations on quantum fluctuations and what he really says is that: a. there isn't a "Nothing" as we understanding in our everyday life and in philosophy. Particles pop in and out of existence independent of the structure of our local representation of the universe! b. From that "no Nothing" we can have a universe without the need to introduce any intelligent agents. Well the hypothesis of emerging and collapsing universes is a scientific metaphysical hypothesis suggested by mathematics and logic based on the above observations. But its not something that Atheists need to accept in order to be atheists! The idea of Multiple universes emerging and collapsing is not in the same ball park with the supernatural idea of an intelligent agent (god). For the first idea, we at least know that a universe can exist and that it can have a starting point and probably an end (according to our physics and math). We can not say the same thing about the possibility god(s)
www.amazon.com/Structure-Space-Time-Cambridge-Monographs-Mathematical/dp/0521099064# You can start with this classic! Written by Stephen Hawking and George "The Idiot" Ellis.
Amazingly, those comments below panning this video and arguing for bottom-up reductionism actual assume Ellis's goal-based driver for their critique. Self-refutation is actually a bad thing people.
If the bottom-up "fundamentalists" have problems with simultaneous bottom-up and top-down (and intra-intra) "causal-chain determinism", then we can switch to "block-universe determinism" where T2 appears to an observer to causally follow T1 - but without T1 actually causing T2, since all T's exist eternally and timelessly, just like Julian Barbour's triangles. In a block universe paradigm (and yes QM lives quite happily in a block universe), little billiard balls don't actually knock each other around to causally move things along. Only observable relationships between T1 and T2 matter. Causality becomes nothing more than an interpretation of relationships. As such, interpretations (i.e., explanations) can be and must be multiple.
+Karl Schultheisz And if a computer is a quantum computer ,the complexity is higher and its function more unstable by default, of course even supported by laws of thermodynamics. The higher the causality is proveable only tells something about the structure. ac.els-cdn.com/S1877050913010806/1-s2.0-S1877050913010806-main.pdf?_tid=80f99e9a-7162-11e5-b77e-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1444710538_6a26f7a5edaaba57c99f37b162e44139
That beautifully summarises my understanding of causality in a relativistic world. Do you have any recommendations for further reading along these lines?
I don't really understand why he stops at 1 level. Stating that the polar bear turns white because the environment tells him to seems a bit short-sighted if you don't ask yourself why the environment is white? If you could determine that from a 'starting state', surely you can expect the polar bear to be white as well? Same goes for the thermostat example; of course the goal is determining the outcome if you don't look past 1 level, but what determines the goal and why? Isn't that deterministic? This question is for me also applicable to the computer analogy. It's fine to split the hardware and software and state that the software tells the hardware what to do, but who/what determines the software and isn't that a causal relation that needs explanation before stating that the hierarchy is not bottom-up? What am I missing? ;)
Multi-level causation should be quite sufficient without throwing in quantum uncertainty. When we eventually develop reliable theories of quantum events, this unnecessary inclusion of uncertainty will appear to weaken the case, when it was never essential to the case in the first place.
May I ask for a recommendation? I've been searching for a function (as opposed to an algorithm) which describes the rate of transition, from Gaussian to Pareto power-law, through recursive exchanges only (Perhaps, an iterated function). Thank you.
Could this top-down causation be formed because the atoms have bonded together into complex structure? These complex systems can represent individual reference frames interacting together with other frames of reference that are all based on quantum mechanics. We could have an emergent future unfolding photon by photon relative to the atoms of the periodic table forming what we see and feel as a period of time.
and the peace nobel prize should go to whoever works out how to get the complex systems of science and politics not clash against each other on a global ethical scale, managing to implement it.
Allen Albright lol. The lecture isn't about Quantum Physics :) I know you're upset about the Tom thing...or something. Listen...the Universe is an incredibly weird place, even according to the hard science we know about ..there's a lot of hope and wonder ahead of you. There's really no need to be angry at me. It's good you're interested in these things at your age, you'll probably go far. All the best, good luck.
Allen Albright Yes...because the video is about Complex Systems and not Quantum Mechanics. .....[the clue is in the title] :) Thanks for the Chess offer....I'm sure you'd win.
In Complex Systems, the inverse link becomes dominant instead of the cause-effect link. The inverse link takes place, for example, between a computer on the one hand, and knowledge of how to operate a computer on the other hand. Here, both elements are equally important: without a computer, our knowledge of how to operate a computer is useless, and vice versa, without knowledge of how to operate a computer the very computer is useless as well. In Consciousness Studies, the inverse link appears as a relation of functional tautology (or FT-relation for short). It means that a complex system formalizes itself using its own means of formalization. For example, the FT-relation appears when a researcher uses his/her exemplar of consciousness simultaneously as a tool of studying and an object of studying. For more, see generaltheory.webs.com/GeneralTheory.pdf Section 2.6 and Section 3.2.2
+Serge Patlavskiy This is almost irrelevant as long as the universe is relativistic... You and your computer exist in constant variative relation to The Earth, to microcosmos, to the Big bang if it took place etc. It is relevant to you and your computer. There isn't less or more cause-effect at the computer use contra the shaping of solar systems. Alternatively I misunderstand your point.
5 minutes into the talk I already see the flaw in his reasoning. In case of a computer, software is hardware. Software is a particular arrangement of charges in memory that causes gates to open or close according to the rules of the particular architecture. Software is not immaterial. Software does not exist without a medium, which is material in nature. So the act of introducing software to a computer is a physical process that changes the composition of the computer hardware, if only temporarily.
Yes, it is clear that you *are* missing the point. The lecturer isn't denying bottom-up causation, but pointing out that programs (and most other phenomena) are equivalence classes. Bottom-up causation facilitates the equivalence classes, but bottom-up causation doesn't determine its own boundary conditions, so it doesn't determine the behaviour of the equivalence class. Again, he isn't denying that software is instantiated through hardware, but pointing out that it's instantiated on many different computers/machines. Think of the software as corresponding to the boundary conditions of the physical system. The same goes for equivalence classes generally: they are not determined by bottom-up causal systems, but facilitated by them. You generally have simultaneous top-down and bottom-up causation.
@@Dystisis I'll tell you where I am losing the flow of your argument. Maybe you can explain. I am not looking to argue for the heck of it btw, if you have a point I will accept it. "Bottom-up causation facilitates the equivalence classes, but bottom-up causation doesn't determine its own boundary conditions, so it doesn't determine the behaviour of the equivalence class." 1. What does facilitate mean? 2. Boundary conditions are always contingent. Laws + boundary conditions determine the behaviour of in any theory. Lastly, "You generally have simultaneous top-down and bottom-up causation." That's a big claim. Any evidence of it?
*"Software is a particular arrangement of charges in memory that causes gates to open or close according to the rules of the particular architecture."* And does this software come about on its own, purely by the process of bottom-up causation? No. For software to come about there needs to be top-down causation, which increases complexity beyond that which is capable of naturally occurring from bottom-up causation.
The three levels of reality in Platonic Physics Roger B Clough, National Institute of Standards and Technology (Retired) (11-28-2014) Abstract Here we combine the top-down metaphysics of Plato and Leibniz with the inside-out categories of C S Peirce to enable us to view the world in a new, more useful light, simultaneously from two perspectives, and in more detail than Leibniz's pre-established harmony. The top down structuring from Plato and Leibniz allows us to view the world as it is: governed cybernetically by thought from the top singularity (the One, comparable to a computer processing unit), rather than from the ungoverned perspective of current science. This allows us not only to understand the world properly, but to structure the world cybernetically. with all creation, perception and control coming in the form of thought from the top down, but inside out using C S Peirce's three categories. 1. Introduction. While C S Peirce is well known to the philosophy of science, the worlds of Plato and his follower Leibniz have been less explored for such purposes. Plato was an Idealisti and Arthur Eddington spent much of his life adapting Plato to science, but his use of Mind in a world thoroughly established in materialism ihas largely blocked exploration of the use of Mind cybernetically, as a singular, mental control point, so that the current world of science is only governed, if at all, in fiefdoms. But more significantly, materialism and a lack of a single cybernetic control from top down has hindered the develepment of an understanding to consciousness, thought and the role and nature of the self. For example, Dennett in his explanation of consciences does not have a perceiver (or at best a fancifal and abstract invention of one). Moreover the perceiver, to obviate the homunculus with homunculus problem, must be on a higher ontological level, and which has to be a living singular entity, not an abstract reference. By application of Leibniz and Plato and common sense as well,, we see that the perceiver must be singular-- the One, the cybernetic Perceiver and control point, the central processing unit, to use a computer analogy. The learning curve on Plato-Leibniz is a bit steep at first, foreign to most physical scientists because of their unfamiliar top down control, which is also done indirectly by thought rather than directly by physical interaction, but also because of Leibniz's unfamiliar spreadsheet style ontology, using not atoms but complete concepts called monads, which can be nested like sets. That would seem to render Leibniz more understandable to mathematicians and computer science, but his thinking in terms of substances and monads can be off-putting. Once these are understood (through his Monadology [ ]) and if one sticks to the elementary particles scale (the particles are both substance and monads) one can proceed fairly smoothly. 2. The three levels Firstness -Mind- The One, the Monarch- this is the realm of Plato's Mind. It is life itself, pure nonphysical intelligence. Purely subjective, timeless and spaceless - with innate knowledge and a priori memory, containing the pre-established harmony, necessary logic, numbers - the womb of the WHAT. Mind creates all, perceives all, controls all. Thus the individual mind controls the brain, not the reverse. Mind plays the brain like a violin. Secondness -- Mental objects so both subjective +objective- The Many. In this, the WHAT separates from Mind and becomes a HERE. Accordingly. Heidegger referred to existence as "dasein". "Being here." According to Leibniz, all monads are alive to various degrees. There are of three gradations of life in these, according to Leibniz: a) Bare, naked monads, which we can think of as purely physical ( Eg, a fundamental particle). b) Animal and vegetative monads, which Leibniz calls souls, which can have feelings, but little intellect. c) Spirits (corresponding to humans), which have, in addition, intellectual capacities. Mind transforms physical signals in nerves and neurons into experiences. If Mind then reperceives or reflects on these experiences, they are said to be thoughgt or apperceived. To be apperceived is to be made conscious. Thus consciousness is the product of thought. Intentions are also made in the same way, so that we caqn say that thoughts are intentions by Mind. The human brain is a monad which contains as subsets, mental capacities. Neuroscience tells us that there is binding between monads for parts and functions of the brain, but since monads cannot act directly on each other, this binding must be indirect, through the sequential updates of the perceptions and appetites of the subfunction monads. These must be made by Mind, either directly or through the preestablished harmony PEH). Unfortunately the Stanford Leibniz site on Leibniz makes no mention of the action of Mind on the individual mind, IMHO a gross shortcoming. Sensory signals and signals for feelings must also go through such a binding process. In a sense, the binding process plays the role of a self, but in conventional neuroscience self is a function of the brain, rather than the other way round, as common sense suggests and the intentionality of self or mind proves, along with the need for a PEH. This shortcoming in conventional understanding of the brain becomes all the more nagging if we consider thinking, which is closely related to apperception, because it must be conscious.Thinking, we submit, consists of consciously manipulating and comparing such apperceptions. Through Mind, with its potentially infinite wisdom and intelligence, intuitions and thoughts can arise spontaneously in the individual mind. If these are to be immediate and/or original, it is reasonable to believe that they originate in Mind, rather than indirectly through separate although bound parts of the brain. Anyone who has experienced a vocal duet in which the vibratos are in phase should become convinced of this. Mind is the monarch of the intelligent mind, which controls the brain. Mind plays the brain like a violin. Mind is also is able to focus on a thought for a brief period, within the context of one's memory and universal memory, for purposes of thinking an comparison, making the biological brain and its complex bindings seem hopelessly indirect and subject to confusion. Thirdness - Corresponding physical objects as is appropriate- -here the object is born or emittted from the monad--and emerges into spacetime as a particle, becoming completely objective, a WHAT+ HERE +WHEN., In addition the Thirdness of a private thought or experience is its public expression in some appropriate form. 3. Conclusions This format allows us to examine quantum phenomena from inside out and perception, thinking and consciousness ontologically- from physical nerve signals to mental experiences such as thought, consciousness, and cognition. It also avoids problem encountered in “bottom-up” science, such as complexity and emergence, if for no other reason than there is no apparent way of conceiving of a singular control point at the bottom. -- Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000). See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
Top down "causation" is just initial conditions. Software in just initial conditions. Software doesn't affect causality at the lower levels , the laws of physics are unchanged and they determine how the system develops from initial conditions.
Do you believe your statement is true? How do you explain your position using rationality given that on reductionism there is no supervenience? Seems self-refuting.
+Uber “Genius” Genie You'll have to explain what you mean by "...explain your position using rationality..." If this is just a translation issue I'll take it to mean "...explain your position...". And supervenience. Is supervenience a causal relationship? If it is then please restate it in causal terms. If not then why do you mention it?
+Vector Shift It is not just wordplay as you intuit. Rationality requires a causal chain form reading, thinking about data, determining causal relationships of same, making a group of arguments that follow rules of logic, and typing those into a computer of writing them down. Point is that these causal chains are called "chains" because they are analogous to a chain where if any link fails the chain as a whole fails. So a bottom-up causal chain produces are ideas as a function of non-rational physics, chemistry and biochemistry. Add preconditions and we never get rationality or freewill to think about ideas. Ellis and others are trying to solve those problems without an account that includes an immaterial soul.
+Uber “Genius” Genie If you initially assume free will and rationality then I understand the motivation to explain ways that it might get control of the bottom level physics in order to operate without just being the result of the lower level physics. I see no reason however to reject the idea that the higher level descriptions are any more than 'coarse grained' descriptions of lower level structure and activity. Any causal efficacy on their part might simply be derived from the causal nature of the underlying physics. I believe that this is the usual way of describing such situations. Actually demonstrating this by actual calculation in any but the simplest of circumstances is naturally a practical impossibility due to the complexity of the mathematics involved. However I don't see that as having any weight against being correct in principle. Considerations that something other than this is actually occurring would have enormous theoretical and conceptual implications. I know of no actual evidence that any top down description is actually necessary. His mention of hydrogen atoms behaving differently in free atomic/molecular states and when combined with oxygen in water makes no sense to me. In both cases the lower level descriptions are just fine. The properties of the chemical bonding inherent in the interactions of hydrogen and oxygen need no supplement to produce the difference in how the compound behaves. The lower level description is completely adequate. Similarly with neutron decay. Quantum uncertainty does allow other than causal behavior but that by itself doesn't indicate any new emergent laws/behavior arising in complex systems. It allows for a possibility but empirical evidence would be required for the conclusion. The example of the arrow of time and initial conditions is even more unlikely. He says that the arrow of time is not determined by the micro physics. It is the micro physics that are the initial conditions. The use of various aspects of airplanes flying says nothing that requires emergent behavior/ properties. The situation is exceedingly complicated and mentioning different conceptual levels doesn't untangle them in the least. In order to show top down causation in his emergent sense one would have to show different predictions between lower level models and actual observations. The inability to calculate isn't any such evidence. Where calculations have been done the lower level predictions have been validated. Thank you for your explanation that the effort is based on an agenda of providing a structure to posit free will etc, the motivation for the effort is much clearer.
17:00 - Yes, perfect. This has always been my problem with the argument from the intelligent design camp that evolution couldn't possibly work because it posits the creation of information, an impossibility. No, it does not - the information is already there, in the environment being adapted to. The evolution process merely conforms to that information, much like pouring molten metal into a mold, or like water rolling downhill to occupy the lowest available locations. There is no creation of new information, at all.
Known definition: a Software Process is a Program in runtime. While the Program is perfectly pointable, its associated processes my not be properly pointable - due to their dynamic nature, e.g. actual states of SW & HW, persistence, input & output.
I marvel and try to understand the subject while being impressed by an intelligent speaker. Then he described Microsoft Word as a high level computer program and I lost interest.
"Local entropy decreases as order increases". No. Entropy always "wants" to increase. More order means significantly low entropy of the system but still is driven to increase, and this is how a system becomes more complex. Entropy means that it is a higher cost per volume to preserve energy. If entropy increases in an expanding Cosmos, there is no other potential than an increasing variation to how matter behaves. The result is evolution of organic molecules and then the current ecological systems. At the maximum expansion field the complexity is gone, replaced by a uniformity of temperature. Causality is the overall pattern from the Big bang. Dynamics of wave functions or the weird positioning of quantum processes are not in conflict with causality. The quantum field's exact existence pattern ,unaffected or affected by interaction, does not by default care about our theory on it.
The man confuses the words physical and tangible, perhaps unavoidable for his generation. All visible and known matter is physical, if not it wouldnt be possessing or exchanging energy. Many variations of wave functions however is *intangible*, like sound and light. Sound waves and photons are still a part of the *physical* universe and therefore physics as a science can study it etc.
In living beings the process is both top down and bottom up.That is there are needs or lacking in the so called lower data levels which the top improves upon and this synergy of process is a characteristic of all living systems large or small. The living body is not a machine with exclusive top down causes. That is why pain evolved. It is the communication between bottom to top. This evidence is uncontroversial so to suggest top level information is the only thing managing an arm is just wrong. If one is obsessed with top down views then something other than the topic is skewing the inquiry.
Chaos theory is not related to how he views complexity. Sigh. It takes a while for smart people to see beyond biases in their thinking. Besides that how was the play Mrs. Lincoln.
Definitely there is no top-down causation. In his computer example, Prof Ellis conveniently forgets that software is developed by a human programmer, who creates the algorithms in his/her brain before planting them into the computer. So the real question is how does the programmer's brain create the algorithms in the first place. This is known as the binding problem, or how do loose pieces of information that the programmer's brain receive *bind* together and create meaningful code that can control the hardware. Binding, and its derivatives the scaling problem and the ubiquitous presence of fractals and power laws in nature, are directly contained in the fundamental principle of causality, and can be mathematically calculated from there.
+Sergio Pissanetzky Neurons operate as builders of mind patterns. It is physical information. Humans evolved to have a certain function of how we learn, build or teach something, or operate something. Whether it is "top-down" is a pointless question to me, as the expression is ridiculous. Causality and relativity are simeoultaneous. They involve quantum process and wave functional patterns. Maybe even string process . Humans strive to explain it, and if we can't, we call it divine or random or freewilled or whatever nonsense.
The question is "why" does the programmer create the program. Physics cannot explain this, because the reason does not emerge until intelligence and deliberate behavior emerges. I am 4 things: (1) As a physical object, if you drop me and a bowling ball off the leaning tower of Pisa we will hit the ground at the same time. Physics can only explain passive behavior. (2) As a living organism, I behave purposefully (but not intentionally)to survive, thrive, and reproduce. (3) As an intelligent species I can behave deliberately, by imagining, evaluating, and choosing the option that best suits my purpose. (4) When I act upon that choice, I am a force of nature.
In physics we think more pragmatically. We observe what we can and we measure what we observe. Then we try to find laws and principles that can quantitatively predict what we measured, and write a theory that tells us how to do that. All our principles, laws and theories are falsifiable. One single quantitative experiment can falsify an entire theory. We do, however, gain confidence in a theory when it is verified (but never proved) by many quantitative experiments. But we never declare absolute truth. Actually I did - and published - the experiment you suggest. I started from a man-made program, removed from it every structure that the programmers have created, until I was left with the bare causality - the causal set. Finally I removed entropy from the causal set and ended up with the same structures the humans have created. BTW, in the 80's, soon after the C++ object-oriented language was created, many thought that the intelligent analysis humans do to create the classes and objects would be easy to automate. Thousands of papers were published, but the effort failed. Unfortunately, the task of finding new information (the classes and objects) from existing information (the causal set) falls in the gap of reductionist explanation.
A top-down theory of mind and brain based on neuroscience, and double aspect theory Cybernetics is the top-down control theory similar to the top-down metaphysics of Plato-Leibniz. Neuroscience consists of studying the mental functions assigned to physical components of the brain, providing a double aspect theory of psychology. This dualism also permits drawing a systems theory or cybernetic map of the mind/brain in which all brain functions are created and controlled by Mind. This corrects what we consider to be the current erroneous theory of mind, in which mind is an emanatioon or emergence from the brain. To apply this concept, from neuroscience. we can obtain a rough map of brain functions, an example of which is given below, taken from www.macmillan.org.uk/Cancerinformation/Cancertypes/Brain/Aboutbraintumours/Thebrain.aspx According to the above link, there are five basic components of the brain, which provide the five mental functions: Frontal lobe - This controls thought, memory, planning, problem solving and behaviour. Parietal lobe - This is responsible for language, helping us form words and thoughts. It also deals with touch and how we recognise sensations, and helps us be aware of our body position. Temporal lobe - This helps us understand and process what we hear. It’s also involved with how we learn and organise information.The temporal lobe is also responsible for emotions and emotional memory. Occipital lobe -- This is where all visual information is processed, such as colour, shape and distance. Cerebellum- This is the back part of the brain and is concerned with balance and coordination. Assuming these to be the five major functions/components, we can assign Leibnizian monads to these and arrange them systematicaly according to the five phase cycle of traditional chinese medicine. To do so, we note that according to wuxing, or traditional chinese medicine en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Xing the major brain functions are associated with the five senses, in keeping with Locke and the British empiricists, in which all (current) knowledge from the outer world is obtained through the five senses. Thus we can assign the five brain components (lobes) to the monads of the five mental components. Frontal Lobe =>-Metal => thought, skin, touch Parietal Lobe =>- Water => ears, hearing and sound processing Occipital Lobe =>- Wood => vision and visual processing Temporal Lobe => Fire, speech, organizing information. passions Cerebellum => Earth => balance, coordination' The brain then works in a cyclic fashion, and in the generating cycle, Metal neurons feed into Water neurons into Wood neurons into Fire neurons into Earth neurons back into Metal neurons. There is also a destructive cycle in wuxing, but at the moment it does not seem to apply to the brain. These five monads are subset of the higher level o9f mind, The One or Mind (the Self), which perceives all of the sensory signals coming from the monads of the five basic components and adjusts each one in accordance with Leibniz's pre-established order, which tends to operate by Aristotle's "final causation" so that the mind tends to act , as all life does, purposefully. -- Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000). See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
Ellis might have been a great scientist, but all this downwards causation thing seems bullshit to me. Or, he's using some pretty weird *definition* of "causation".
So true. Neither his concept of "top-down-causation" nor "bottum-up-causation" makes any sense. Gas particles on a wall are not the cause of the pressure - they ARE the pressure. Unfortunately his misunderstanding of causation ruins the whole talk.
A load of crap delivered with high British accent is still a load of crap. The whole of his argument is based on the utterly false statement of computation "software tells the hardware what to do"... which is supposed to be an argument for a "top down" form of emergence. It isn't. Not even close. For an easy to understand example, consider a damn with a valved spill gate. Yes, if you open the valve, you are in essence the "software", but what happens when you turn the crank of the valve is completely dependent on the causal options determined by the damn, the valve, the spill gate, the water behind the damn and gate, the height of the water behind the damn vs the height the water would seek should the damn not be there. Even the turning of the valve is ultimately the result of the bottom up structure of the mechanism capable of both deciding to turn the valve and to execute the mechanical motions required to turn it. The English accented tweed wearing "gentleman" exponding this non-sense is driven by the exact same motives that drive interest in religious and spiritual and mystical notions that humans can gain access to and mastery of causality-free methods of control causal systems. The very notion of course requires a split, some absurd and impossible and absolutely arbitrary line in the sand before which is causal, and beyond which is super-causal. And that is where all of the meaningless and idiotic hand waving is required, at that line in the sand, at that place where causality births non-causal control over causality. The only thing that helps this guy gain an audience is a willingness in most humans to believe in any quantity of bullshit so long as that bullshit makes them feel that there own need for bullshit is valid. Sad.
Ellis is one of the great "Crap Detectors" of our day, exposing the philosophers who misrepresent science, and scientists who misrepresent philosophy. Stunningly profound ramifications arise out of this lecture, for those who can accept them.
Krauss believes the universe can come from "Nothing" Atheists believe infinite multiple universes and vacuums are possible (which there is no evidence they exist) but god is not possible.. hilarious!
well I like his analysis but he has some serious issues with his language mode!
@@5tonyvvvv Well I have read Krauss's book and he doesn't make that claim. He describes our observations on quantum fluctuations and what he really says is that:
a. there isn't a "Nothing" as we understanding in our everyday life and in philosophy. Particles pop in and out of existence independent of the structure of our local representation of the universe!
b. From that "no Nothing" we can have a universe without the need to introduce any intelligent agents.
Well the hypothesis of emerging and collapsing universes is a scientific metaphysical hypothesis suggested by mathematics and logic based on the above observations. But its not something that Atheists need to accept in order to be atheists!
The idea of Multiple universes emerging and collapsing is not in the same ball park with the supernatural idea of an intelligent agent (god).
For the first idea, we at least know that a universe can exist and that it can have a starting point and probably an end (according to our physics and math). We can not say the same thing about the possibility god(s)
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Krause is using the word “nothing” in a fundamentally different way, therefore sidestepping the whole issue of contingency.
One of the best talks on complexity theory that I have ever listened to. Good Job!
I agree : this is a 5 star talk.
Great lecture. Love listening George F.R. Ellis
Not much on youtube with him talking though? 3 or 4 at most?
Mr . George Ellis . . my main man as always . the most captivating speaker ever seen .
Another beautiful talk, Dr. Ellis. Bravo.
This the clearest explanation of causality of have watched. Superb.
Fascinating. Thank you for including the questions and discussion which I found most interesting.
On the Moral Nature of Universe
Excellent book by G. FR Ellis
Allen Albright "Ellis is an Idiot"......LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on man!
www.amazon.com/Structure-Space-Time-Cambridge-Monographs-Mathematical/dp/0521099064#
You can start with this classic! Written by Stephen Hawking and George "The Idiot" Ellis.
More about George "The Idiot Moron" FR Ellis:
www.mth.uct.ac.za/~ellis/
George "The Idiot Moron" FR Ellis:
scholar.google.com/citations?user=K2h8IqwAAAAJ
Then ... write (and publish) your papers contradicting Ellis. It should not be too difficult (given that he is an "idiot moron").
This is one of the greatest lectures I’ve ever seen. Awesome. Thank very so much.
Is software really complex? Or maybe just complicated...
Complexity arises from a multitude of simplicities.
@@SpatioTemporalEntity Yep, but only in certain contexts... i.e. not in highly controlled closed systems with low variation rates...
This was a very brilliant lecture on complexity in general.
Amazingly, those comments below panning this video and arguing for bottom-up reductionism actual assume Ellis's goal-based driver for their critique. Self-refutation is actually a bad thing people.
It’s the logic of the lower level that drives how higher level systems engage in an emergent causal relationships with lower levels.
If the bottom-up "fundamentalists" have problems with simultaneous bottom-up and top-down (and intra-intra) "causal-chain determinism", then we can switch to "block-universe determinism" where T2 appears to an observer to causally follow T1 - but without T1 actually causing T2, since all T's exist eternally and timelessly, just like Julian Barbour's triangles.
In a block universe paradigm (and yes QM lives quite happily in a block universe), little billiard balls don't actually knock each other around to causally move things along. Only observable relationships between T1 and T2 matter. Causality becomes nothing more than an interpretation of relationships. As such, interpretations (i.e., explanations) can be and must be multiple.
+Karl Schultheisz And if a computer is a quantum computer ,the complexity is higher and its function more unstable by default, of course even supported by laws of thermodynamics. The higher the causality is proveable only tells something about the structure. ac.els-cdn.com/S1877050913010806/1-s2.0-S1877050913010806-main.pdf?_tid=80f99e9a-7162-11e5-b77e-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1444710538_6a26f7a5edaaba57c99f37b162e44139
That beautifully summarises my understanding of causality in a relativistic world. Do you have any recommendations for further reading along these lines?
My little fun time was absolutely amazing!
Thank you for the free information.
I don't really understand why he stops at 1 level. Stating that the polar bear turns white because the environment tells him to seems a bit short-sighted if you don't ask yourself why the environment is white? If you could determine that from a 'starting state', surely you can expect the polar bear to be white as well?
Same goes for the thermostat example; of course the goal is determining the outcome if you don't look past 1 level, but what determines the goal and why? Isn't that deterministic?
This question is for me also applicable to the computer analogy. It's fine to split the hardware and software and state that the software tells the hardware what to do, but who/what determines the software and isn't that a causal relation that needs explanation before stating that the hierarchy is not bottom-up?
What am I missing? ;)
Multi-level causation should be quite sufficient without throwing in quantum uncertainty. When we eventually develop reliable theories of quantum events, this unnecessary inclusion of uncertainty will appear to weaken the case, when it was never essential to the case in the first place.
May I ask for a recommendation? I've been searching for a function (as opposed to an algorithm) which describes the rate of transition, from Gaussian to Pareto power-law, through recursive exchanges only (Perhaps, an iterated function). Thank you.
Could this top-down causation be formed because the atoms have bonded together into complex structure? These complex systems can represent individual reference frames
interacting together with other frames of reference that are all based on quantum mechanics. We could have an emergent future unfolding photon by photon relative to the atoms of the periodic table forming what we see and feel as a period of time.
Great speaker!
A critical problem is: does free will exist? If yes, at which stage does it appear, and what important roles does it play to gain intelligence?
and the peace nobel prize should go to whoever works out how to get the complex systems of science and politics not clash against each other on a global ethical scale, managing to implement it.
+KibyNykraft ...atoms and nature are complex yet human social systems aren't?
Excellent talk
Allen Albright lol.
Allen Albright lol. The lecture isn't about Quantum Physics :)
I know you're upset about the Tom thing...or something.
Listen...the Universe is an incredibly weird place, even according to the hard science we know about ..there's a lot of hope and wonder ahead of you.
There's really no need to be angry at me.
It's good you're interested in these things at your age, you'll probably go far. All the best, good luck.
Allen Albright [sigh..]
Allen Albright you realise that everyone who watches the video will see you're lying....
Allen Albright Yes...because the video is about Complex Systems and not Quantum Mechanics.
.....[the clue is in the title]
:)
Thanks for the Chess offer....I'm sure you'd win.
In Complex Systems, the inverse link becomes dominant instead of the cause-effect link. The inverse link takes place, for example, between a computer on the one hand, and knowledge of how to operate a computer on the other hand. Here, both elements are equally important: without a computer, our knowledge of how to operate a computer is useless, and vice versa, without knowledge of how to operate a computer the very computer is useless as well.
In Consciousness Studies, the inverse link appears as a relation of functional tautology (or FT-relation for short). It means that a complex system formalizes itself using its own means of formalization. For example, the FT-relation appears when a researcher uses his/her exemplar of consciousness simultaneously as a tool of studying and an object of studying. For more, see generaltheory.webs.com/GeneralTheory.pdf Section 2.6 and Section 3.2.2
+Serge Patlavskiy This is almost irrelevant as long as the universe is relativistic... You and your computer exist in constant variative relation to The Earth, to microcosmos, to the Big bang if it took place etc. It is relevant to you and your computer. There isn't less or more cause-effect at the computer use contra the shaping of solar systems. Alternatively I misunderstand your point.
5 minutes into the talk I already see the flaw in his reasoning. In case of a computer, software is hardware. Software is a particular arrangement of charges in memory that causes gates to open or close according to the rules of the particular architecture. Software is not immaterial. Software does not exist without a medium, which is material in nature. So the act of introducing software to a computer is a physical process that changes the composition of the computer hardware, if only temporarily.
Exactly. Software itself is explained using bottoms up causation. So what's the point of the whole talk I wonder.
Yes, it is clear that you *are* missing the point. The lecturer isn't denying bottom-up causation, but pointing out that programs (and most other phenomena) are equivalence classes. Bottom-up causation facilitates the equivalence classes, but bottom-up causation doesn't determine its own boundary conditions, so it doesn't determine the behaviour of the equivalence class.
Again, he isn't denying that software is instantiated through hardware, but pointing out that it's instantiated on many different computers/machines. Think of the software as corresponding to the boundary conditions of the physical system. The same goes for equivalence classes generally: they are not determined by bottom-up causal systems, but facilitated by them. You generally have simultaneous top-down and bottom-up causation.
@@Dystisis I'll tell you where I am losing the flow of your argument. Maybe you can explain. I am not looking to argue for the heck of it btw, if you have a point I will accept it.
"Bottom-up causation facilitates the equivalence classes, but bottom-up causation doesn't determine its own boundary conditions, so it doesn't determine the behaviour of the equivalence class."
1. What does facilitate mean?
2. Boundary conditions are always contingent. Laws + boundary conditions determine the behaviour of in any theory.
Lastly, "You generally have simultaneous top-down and bottom-up causation." That's a big claim. Any evidence of it?
*"Software is a particular arrangement of charges in memory that causes gates to open or close according to the rules of the particular architecture."*
And does this software come about on its own, purely by the process of bottom-up causation? No. For software to come about there needs to be top-down causation, which increases complexity beyond that which is capable of naturally occurring from bottom-up causation.
@@kyabe5813 See what I said to Jan Luszczek, if you are truly interested in knowing the point of the talk.
this was brilliant!
The three levels of reality in Platonic Physics
Roger B Clough, National Institute of Standards and Technology (Retired)
(11-28-2014)
Abstract
Here we combine the top-down metaphysics of Plato and Leibniz with the inside-out categories of C S Peirce to enable us to view the world in a new, more useful light, simultaneously from two perspectives, and in more detail than Leibniz's pre-established harmony. The top down structuring from Plato and Leibniz allows us to view the world as it is: governed cybernetically by thought from the top singularity (the One, comparable to a computer processing unit), rather than from the ungoverned perspective of current science. This allows us not only to understand the world properly, but to structure the world cybernetically. with all creation, perception and control coming in the form of thought from the top down, but inside out using C S Peirce's three categories.
1. Introduction. While C S Peirce is well known to the philosophy of science, the worlds of Plato and his follower Leibniz have been less explored for such purposes. Plato was an Idealisti and Arthur Eddington spent much of his life adapting Plato to science, but his use of Mind in a world thoroughly established in materialism ihas largely blocked exploration of the use of Mind cybernetically, as a singular, mental control point, so that the current world of science is only governed, if at all, in fiefdoms. But more significantly, materialism and a lack of a single cybernetic control from top down has hindered the develepment of an understanding to consciousness, thought and the role and nature of the self. For example, Dennett in his explanation of consciences does not have a perceiver (or at best a fancifal and abstract invention of one). Moreover the perceiver, to obviate the homunculus with homunculus problem, must be on a higher ontological level, and which has to be a living singular entity, not an abstract reference. By application of Leibniz and Plato and common sense as well,, we see that the perceiver must be singular-- the One, the cybernetic Perceiver and control point, the central processing unit, to use a computer analogy.
The learning curve on Plato-Leibniz is a bit steep at first, foreign to most physical scientists because of their unfamiliar top down control, which is also done indirectly by thought rather than directly by physical interaction, but also because of Leibniz's unfamiliar spreadsheet style ontology, using not atoms but complete concepts called monads, which can be nested like sets. That would seem to render Leibniz more understandable to mathematicians and computer science, but his thinking in terms of substances and monads can be off-putting. Once these are understood (through his Monadology [ ]) and if one sticks to the elementary particles scale (the particles are both substance and monads) one can proceed fairly smoothly.
2. The three levels
Firstness -Mind- The One, the Monarch- this is the realm of Plato's Mind. It is life itself, pure nonphysical intelligence. Purely subjective, timeless and spaceless - with innate knowledge and a priori memory, containing the pre-established harmony, necessary logic, numbers - the womb of the WHAT. Mind creates all, perceives all, controls all. Thus the individual mind controls the brain, not the reverse. Mind plays the brain like a violin.
Secondness -- Mental objects so both subjective +objective- The Many. In this, the WHAT separates from Mind and becomes a HERE. Accordingly. Heidegger referred to existence as "dasein". "Being here."
According to Leibniz, all monads are alive to various degrees. There are of three gradations of life in these, according to Leibniz:
a) Bare, naked monads, which we can think of as purely physical ( Eg, a fundamental particle).
b) Animal and vegetative monads, which Leibniz calls souls, which can have feelings, but little intellect.
c) Spirits (corresponding to humans), which have, in addition, intellectual capacities. Mind transforms physical signals in nerves and neurons into experiences. If Mind then reperceives or reflects on these experiences, they are said to be thoughgt or apperceived. To be apperceived is to be made conscious. Thus consciousness is the product of thought. Intentions are also made in the same way, so that we caqn say that thoughts are intentions by Mind.
The human brain is a monad which contains as subsets, mental capacities. Neuroscience tells us that there is binding between monads for parts and functions of the brain, but since monads cannot act directly on each other, this binding must be indirect, through the sequential updates of the perceptions and appetites of the subfunction monads. These must be made by Mind, either directly or through the preestablished harmony PEH). Unfortunately the Stanford Leibniz site on Leibniz makes no mention of the action of Mind on the individual mind, IMHO a gross shortcoming.
Sensory signals and signals for feelings must also go through such a binding process. In a sense, the binding process plays the role of a self, but in conventional neuroscience self is a function of the brain, rather than the other way round, as common sense suggests and the intentionality of self or mind proves, along with the need for a PEH.
This shortcoming in conventional understanding of the brain becomes all the more nagging if we consider thinking, which is closely related to apperception, because it must be conscious.Thinking, we submit, consists of consciously manipulating and comparing such apperceptions.
Through Mind, with its potentially infinite wisdom and intelligence, intuitions and thoughts can arise spontaneously in the individual mind. If these are to be immediate and/or original, it is reasonable to believe that they originate in Mind, rather than indirectly through separate although bound parts of the brain. Anyone who has experienced a vocal duet in which the vibratos are in phase should become convinced of this.
Mind is the monarch of the intelligent mind, which controls the brain. Mind plays the brain like a violin. Mind is also is able to focus on a thought for a brief period, within the context of one's memory and universal memory, for purposes of thinking an comparison, making the biological brain and its complex bindings seem hopelessly indirect and subject to confusion.
Thirdness - Corresponding physical objects as is appropriate- -here the object is born or emittted from the monad--and emerges into spacetime as a particle, becoming completely objective, a WHAT+ HERE +WHEN., In addition the Thirdness of a private thought or experience is its public expression in some appropriate form.
3. Conclusions
This format allows us to examine quantum phenomena from inside out and perception, thinking and consciousness ontologically- from physical nerve signals to mental experiences such as thought, consciousness, and cognition. It also avoids problem encountered in “bottom-up” science, such as complexity and emergence, if for no other reason than there is no apparent way of conceiving of a singular control point at the bottom.
--
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough
For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
Causality can originate in any component of a complex system.
Top down "causation" is just initial conditions. Software in just initial conditions. Software doesn't affect causality at the lower levels , the laws of physics are unchanged and they determine how the system develops from initial conditions.
Do you believe your statement is true? How do you explain your position using rationality given that on reductionism there is no supervenience? Seems self-refuting.
+Uber “Genius” Genie You'll have to explain what you mean by
"...explain your position using rationality..."
If this is just a translation issue I'll take it to mean "...explain your position...".
And supervenience. Is supervenience a causal relationship? If it is then please restate it in causal terms. If not then why do you mention it?
+Vector Shift It is not just wordplay as you intuit. Rationality requires a causal chain form reading, thinking about data, determining causal relationships of same, making a group of arguments that follow rules of logic, and typing those into a computer of writing them down. Point is that these causal chains are called "chains" because they are analogous to a chain where if any link fails the chain as a whole fails. So a bottom-up causal chain produces are ideas as a function of non-rational physics, chemistry and biochemistry. Add preconditions and we never get rationality or freewill to think about ideas. Ellis and others are trying to solve those problems without an account that includes an immaterial soul.
+Uber “Genius” Genie If you initially assume free will and rationality then I understand the motivation to explain ways that it might get control of the bottom level physics in order to operate without just being the result of the lower level physics. I see no reason however to reject the idea that the higher level descriptions are any more than 'coarse grained' descriptions of lower level structure and activity. Any causal efficacy on their part might simply be derived from the causal nature of the underlying physics. I believe that this is the usual way of describing such situations.
Actually demonstrating this by actual calculation in any but the simplest of circumstances is naturally a practical impossibility due to the complexity of the mathematics involved. However I don't see that as having any weight against being correct in principle.
Considerations that something other than this is actually occurring would have enormous theoretical and conceptual implications. I know of no actual evidence that any top down description is actually necessary. His mention of hydrogen atoms behaving differently in free atomic/molecular states and when combined with oxygen in water makes no sense to me. In both cases the lower level descriptions are just fine. The properties of the chemical bonding inherent in the interactions of hydrogen and oxygen need no supplement to produce the difference in how the compound behaves. The lower level description is completely adequate. Similarly with neutron decay.
Quantum uncertainty does allow other than causal behavior but that by itself doesn't indicate any new emergent laws/behavior arising in complex systems. It allows for a possibility but empirical evidence would be required for the conclusion. The example of the arrow of time and initial conditions is even more unlikely. He says that the arrow of time is not determined by the micro physics. It is the micro physics that are the initial conditions.
The use of various aspects of airplanes flying says nothing that requires emergent behavior/ properties. The situation is exceedingly complicated and mentioning different conceptual levels doesn't untangle them in the least. In order to show top down causation in his emergent sense one would have to show different predictions between lower level models and actual observations. The inability to calculate isn't any such evidence. Where calculations have been done the lower level predictions have been validated.
Thank you for your explanation that the effort is based on an agenda of providing a structure to posit free will etc, the motivation for the effort is much clearer.
17:00 - Yes, perfect. This has always been my problem with the argument from the intelligent design camp that evolution couldn't possibly work because it posits the creation of information, an impossibility. No, it does not - the information is already there, in the environment being adapted to. The evolution process merely conforms to that information, much like pouring molten metal into a mold, or like water rolling downhill to occupy the lowest available locations. There is no creation of new information, at all.
I thought this was an excellent talk. :D
Known definition: a Software Process is a Program in runtime.
While the Program is perfectly pointable, its associated processes my not be properly pointable
- due to their dynamic nature, e.g. actual states of SW & HW, persistence, input & output.
I marvel and try to understand the subject while being impressed by an intelligent speaker. Then he described Microsoft Word as a high level computer program and I lost interest.
"Local entropy decreases as order increases". No. Entropy always "wants" to increase. More order means significantly low entropy of the system but still is driven to increase, and this is how a system becomes more complex. Entropy means that it is a higher cost per volume to preserve energy. If entropy increases in an expanding Cosmos, there is no other potential than an increasing variation to how matter behaves. The result is evolution of organic molecules and then the current ecological systems. At the maximum expansion field the complexity is gone, replaced by a uniformity of temperature. Causality is the overall pattern from the Big bang. Dynamics of wave functions or the weird positioning of quantum processes are not in conflict with causality. The quantum field's exact existence pattern ,unaffected or affected by interaction, does not by default care about our theory on it.
The man confuses the words physical and tangible, perhaps unavoidable for his generation. All visible and known matter is physical, if not it wouldnt be possessing or exchanging energy. Many variations of wave functions however is *intangible*, like sound and light. Sound waves and photons are still a part of the *physical* universe and therefore physics as a science can study it etc.
haha yeah right :)
Generally, I speed lectures up to 1.5 but here I must slow down to .75
I've enjoyed all of these seminars. But I have to ask, why are all of the speakers men? Not one woman out there able to pull it off?
+Dale Walker They lack the IQ.
In living beings the process is both top down and bottom up.That is there are needs or lacking in the so called lower data levels which the top improves upon and this synergy of process is a characteristic of all living systems large or small.
The living body is not a machine with exclusive top down causes. That is why pain evolved. It is the communication between bottom to top. This evidence is uncontroversial so to suggest top level information is the only thing managing an arm is just wrong.
If one is obsessed with top down views then something other than the topic is skewing the inquiry.
Chaos theory is not related to how he views complexity. Sigh. It takes a while for smart people to see beyond biases in their thinking. Besides that how was the play Mrs. Lincoln.
Definitely there is no top-down causation. In his computer example, Prof Ellis
conveniently forgets that software is developed by a human programmer, who creates the algorithms in his/her brain before planting them into the computer. So the real question is how does the programmer's brain create the algorithms in the first place. This is known as the binding problem, or how do loose pieces of information that the programmer's brain receive *bind* together and create meaningful code that can control the hardware. Binding, and its derivatives the scaling problem and the ubiquitous presence of fractals and power laws in nature, are directly contained in the fundamental principle of causality, and can be mathematically calculated from there.
nonsense
+Sergio Pissanetzky Neurons operate as builders of mind patterns. It is physical information. Humans evolved to have a certain function of how we learn, build or teach something, or operate something. Whether it is "top-down" is a pointless question to me, as the expression is ridiculous. Causality and relativity are simeoultaneous. They involve quantum process and wave functional patterns. Maybe even string process . Humans strive to explain it, and if we can't, we call it divine or random or freewilled or whatever nonsense.
The question is "why" does the programmer create the program. Physics cannot explain this, because the reason does not emerge until intelligence and deliberate behavior emerges. I am 4 things: (1) As a physical object, if you drop me and a bowling ball off the leaning tower of Pisa we will hit the ground at the same time. Physics can only explain passive behavior. (2) As a living organism, I behave purposefully (but not intentionally)to survive, thrive, and reproduce. (3) As an intelligent species I can behave deliberately, by imagining, evaluating, and choosing the option that best suits my purpose. (4) When I act upon that choice, I am a force of nature.
In physics we think more pragmatically. We observe what we can and we measure what we observe. Then we try to find laws and principles that can quantitatively predict what we measured, and write a theory that tells us how to do that. All our principles, laws and theories are falsifiable. One single quantitative experiment can falsify an entire theory. We do, however, gain confidence in a theory when it is verified (but never proved) by many quantitative experiments. But we never declare absolute truth. Actually I did - and published - the experiment you suggest. I started from a man-made program, removed from it every structure that the programmers have created, until I was left with the bare causality - the causal set. Finally I removed entropy from the causal set and ended up with the same structures the humans have created. BTW, in the 80's, soon after the C++ object-oriented language was created, many thought that the intelligent analysis humans do to create the classes and objects would be easy to automate. Thousands of papers were published, but the effort failed. Unfortunately, the task of finding new information (the classes and objects) from existing information (the causal set) falls in the gap of reductionist explanation.
Humanity will have to return to hegel and Marx in the near future to figure out these processes.
Deterministic, linear
It takes outright denial of evidence, scientific and otherwise, to stay an Atheist.
lol.
A top-down theory of mind and brain based on neuroscience, and double aspect theory
Cybernetics is the top-down control theory similar to the top-down metaphysics of Plato-Leibniz.
Neuroscience consists of studying the mental functions assigned to physical components of the brain, providing a double aspect theory of psychology. This dualism also permits drawing a systems theory or cybernetic map of the mind/brain in which all brain functions are created and controlled by Mind. This corrects what we consider to be the current erroneous theory of mind, in which mind is an emanatioon or emergence from the brain.
To apply this concept, from neuroscience. we can obtain a rough map of brain functions, an example of which is given below, taken from
www.macmillan.org.uk/Cancerinformation/Cancertypes/Brain/Aboutbraintumours/Thebrain.aspx
According to the above link, there are five basic components of the brain, which provide the five mental functions:
Frontal lobe - This controls thought, memory, planning, problem solving and behaviour.
Parietal lobe - This is responsible for language, helping us form words and thoughts. It also deals with touch and how we recognise sensations, and helps us be aware of our body position.
Temporal lobe - This helps us understand and process what we hear. It’s also involved with how we learn and organise information.The temporal lobe is also responsible for emotions and emotional memory.
Occipital lobe -- This is where all visual information is processed, such as colour, shape and distance.
Cerebellum- This is the back part of the brain and is concerned with balance and coordination.
Assuming these to be the five major functions/components, we can assign Leibnizian monads to these and arrange them systematicaly according to the five phase cycle of traditional chinese medicine. To do so, we note that according to wuxing, or traditional chinese medicine
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Xing
the major brain functions are associated with the five senses, in keeping with Locke and the British empiricists, in which all (current) knowledge from the outer world is obtained through the five senses.
Thus we can assign the five brain components (lobes) to the monads of the five mental components.
Frontal Lobe =>-Metal => thought, skin, touch
Parietal Lobe =>- Water => ears, hearing and sound processing
Occipital Lobe =>- Wood => vision and visual processing
Temporal Lobe => Fire, speech, organizing information. passions
Cerebellum => Earth => balance, coordination'
The brain then works in a cyclic fashion, and in the generating cycle,
Metal neurons feed into Water neurons into Wood neurons into
Fire neurons into Earth neurons back into Metal neurons.
There is also a destructive cycle in wuxing, but at the moment it does not seem to apply to the brain.
These five monads are subset of the higher level o9f mind, The One or Mind (the Self), which
perceives all of the sensory signals coming from the monads of the five basic components
and adjusts each one in accordance with Leibniz's pre-established order, which tends
to operate by Aristotle's "final causation" so that the mind tends to act , as all life
does, purposefully.
--
Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
See my Leibniz site: rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
The fact that says Level 4 Supestrings what a clown
Glosses over the important unifying nature. What a shame.
Ellis might have been a great scientist, but all this downwards causation thing seems bullshit to me. Or, he's using some pretty weird *definition* of "causation".
So true. Neither his concept of "top-down-causation" nor "bottum-up-causation" makes any sense. Gas particles on a wall are not the cause of the pressure - they ARE the pressure. Unfortunately his misunderstanding of causation ruins the whole talk.
A load of crap delivered with high British accent is still a load of crap. The whole of his argument is based on the utterly false statement of computation "software tells the hardware what to do"... which is supposed to be an argument for a "top down" form of emergence. It isn't. Not even close. For an easy to understand example, consider a damn with a valved spill gate. Yes, if you open the valve, you are in essence the "software", but what happens when you turn the crank of the valve is completely dependent on the causal options determined by the damn, the valve, the spill gate, the water behind the damn and gate, the height of the water behind the damn vs the height the water would seek should the damn not be there. Even the turning of the valve is ultimately the result of the bottom up structure of the mechanism capable of both deciding to turn the valve and to execute the mechanical motions required to turn it. The English accented tweed wearing "gentleman" exponding this non-sense is driven by the exact same motives that drive interest in religious and spiritual and mystical notions that humans can gain access to and mastery of causality-free methods of control causal systems. The very notion of course requires a split, some absurd and impossible and absolutely arbitrary line in the sand before which is causal, and beyond which is super-causal. And that is where all of the meaningless and idiotic hand waving is required, at that line in the sand, at that place where causality births non-causal control over causality. The only thing that helps this guy gain an audience is a willingness in most humans to believe in any quantity of bullshit so long as that bullshit makes them feel that there own need for bullshit is valid. Sad.
Randall Lee Reetz
He is South African... and very smart.
Is this a joke?
Yes, one started by a divine being. That's how we get the top-down causation, you know?