A How-To To Understand Everything
How it all began
- did it begin?
How life began
- self-catalizing RNA
How the mind works
- what can we know, and how do we do it
- omnipresent paradoxes
- how do we cope with knowing nothing, how shall i live
How systems of minds work
- game theory, institutions
- complex systems of spontaneous order
- economic growth and evolution
http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/acemoglu/books
Where is it all going
emergence (emergence phenomena), complex systems, plasticity, paradoxes (relativity, intersubjectivism), epistemology, theory (interpretation, reductionism)
GTE, GUT, GTE-GUT, GEB
Epistemological principles: evolutionarism, specific comparative advantage, functionalism, (agnostic) determinism, dynamic equilibrium, realist-constructivist cycle of reality (re-) production (=assumptions?)
Ontological principles: mutual constitution
Main actors: subatomic particles/energy, atoms, molecules, organic molecules, organelles, cells, muticellular organisms, animals, humans, ... ((complex?) systems? object-subject, agent-structure, two-bodies/jin-yang)
Dynamic dimensions of evolution: 'history', time, entropy, complexity, plasticity, level of 'development', predictability/knowability, emergent properties of complex systems
'Laws' (a priori axioms/tautologies): What is capable of surviving in a specific environment, survives. "Water follows the path of least resistance." Basic laws ('spontaneity') 'given'.
Main 'inventions': replication, movement, 'learning', self-reflection, (script, digitalization)
Scientific disciplines concerned with actors: (astro-)physics, chemistry, biochemistry, cell-biology, biology, neuroscience, anthropology, sociology, economics, philosophy
Complexity Blog
Santa Fe Institute
Edge Magazine
Dienstag, 15. Mai 2007
Is mind in the body, or body in the mind?
The true answer is that both views are equally sustainable. On the one hand, everything we feel or think of occurs in our mind (at least so we conceive of it), and so do the images of our bodies or the outside world. Without the minds, therefore, there would be no reality. On the other hand, our mind clearly seems to be an evolutionary construct of our physical body: it is determined by the eletric signals in the different parts of the brain, and is greatly regulated by the hormonal system.
The underlying significance of what I am writing here is not whether the one or the other position is true. The crucial importance lies in the fact that the decision one makes about which option to believe in can determine the worldview over his/her entire life course. Yes, after understanding the equal plausibility of both stances, one is free to decide which one to take for his/her own.
The more fulfilling and useful option, in my view, is to take the stance that our body is in the mind. This attitude helps to create a specific unity between the world and the self, in that the world by definition becomes such as the mind conceives of it. This approach helps to overcome pain or misfortune (since these can be 'manipulated' by the mind in the mind; and, after a certain point, thus 'constructed' optimism becomes innate). Similarly, it enables to do away with suffering brought about by desires and, as such, if adopted on a larger scale, could possibly even save the depletion of our planet's resources.
The other view, that the mind is in the body, is typical for classical Western materialism. It sees passing time as a (in the long run a uni-directional) linear development towards progress. The suffering we knew at one point in time is reduced with the coming improvements from the outside (many of these eventually targeted at bodily pleasures). New wants, however, are being automatically created at the same time. The result, in one extreme, can be that one is content because he/she identifies with the world as it is (apologetical stance). More often than not, however, the person slides into a dualist schism of reflection, with his/her desires not in concordance with the state of the outside world and, as such, a person can never feel truly fulfilled.
The real world might bring us times of both - of the outside world determining the state of our mind, as well as the mind controlling our perception of the outside world. In the former case, it does not make sense to counter or devaluate the 'superficial' (deterministic) feelings of happiness, such as enjoying a good meal. In the latter, the free will character of our ability to self-reflect (i.e., having a mind able to counter determinism) provides us with a tool to tackle the seeming limits or downsides of life.
The underlying significance of what I am writing here is not whether the one or the other position is true. The crucial importance lies in the fact that the decision one makes about which option to believe in can determine the worldview over his/her entire life course. Yes, after understanding the equal plausibility of both stances, one is free to decide which one to take for his/her own.
The more fulfilling and useful option, in my view, is to take the stance that our body is in the mind. This attitude helps to create a specific unity between the world and the self, in that the world by definition becomes such as the mind conceives of it. This approach helps to overcome pain or misfortune (since these can be 'manipulated' by the mind in the mind; and, after a certain point, thus 'constructed' optimism becomes innate). Similarly, it enables to do away with suffering brought about by desires and, as such, if adopted on a larger scale, could possibly even save the depletion of our planet's resources.
The other view, that the mind is in the body, is typical for classical Western materialism. It sees passing time as a (in the long run a uni-directional) linear development towards progress. The suffering we knew at one point in time is reduced with the coming improvements from the outside (many of these eventually targeted at bodily pleasures). New wants, however, are being automatically created at the same time. The result, in one extreme, can be that one is content because he/she identifies with the world as it is (apologetical stance). More often than not, however, the person slides into a dualist schism of reflection, with his/her desires not in concordance with the state of the outside world and, as such, a person can never feel truly fulfilled.
The real world might bring us times of both - of the outside world determining the state of our mind, as well as the mind controlling our perception of the outside world. In the former case, it does not make sense to counter or devaluate the 'superficial' (deterministic) feelings of happiness, such as enjoying a good meal. In the latter, the free will character of our ability to self-reflect (i.e., having a mind able to counter determinism) provides us with a tool to tackle the seeming limits or downsides of life.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)
