Stuart Kauffman

>>9890645
No, but I want to now. Thanks.

>>9890727
Which of book of his will you be reading (first)? I've read Reinventing the Sacred twice and chapters I find interesting several times. The other books I've read partly but I have not yet finished them.

>>thread
For those interested, Stuart Kauffman is a complexity scientist. He has written several books in which he discusses the work he has done. There is also some (scientific) speculation and philosophy in his books.

>>9890770
https://vimeo.com/30875984
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O97EdmVJ5M

I have a limited knowledge of biology and am working on improving my understanding of mathmatics, plus I have a deep stack around me that makes me feel guilty, so I'll start with these to pique my interest and then maybe by next summer I'll read one of his books - unless of course it's as fascinating as it sounds and I attempt to get into what I'm sure I'll completely misunderstand.

Are you one of those co-opting preachers looking for a good scientific backing to help you propagate dogma by any chance?

>>9890789
>Are you one of those co-opting preachers looking for a good scientific backing to help you propagate dogma by any chance?
If I think what that means then no: I'm not a theist. I do not even believe there is "something". Reinventing the Sacred was Kauffman's latest book at that time and I saw it mentioned in a comment somewhere, so that's why. However, at the time I was intrigued by the idea of "Reinventing the Sacred". It just wasn't what I imagined it was and Kauffman's attempt didn't satisfy me. What influenced me more was "the humble screwdriver" thing that Kauffman likes to repeat and repeat. That is the seemingly simple idea that we cannot predict the future (but many think that if we just have enough data, models and knowledge we can).

I am atheist but not of the new atheist strain, as I differ with them on several points. I have an interest in biology, namely evolution, and Kauffman contributed to my interest in complexity science, and those have given me a bleak outlook on humanity.

Kauffman on the other hand is a hopeful optimist. Anyway, I have time and I think I will be reading one chapter and post some of it. Kauffman also discusses meaning and agency, and I want to look up what his views are on that.

Ever since I've read the book my own views have changed substantially, and they still do. Though there is also much the same.

>>9890967
Please do. I'm going to watch these and then look around for his work. All of this sounds interesting to me. But maybe a bit out of my league for comprehension.

>>9891145
>But maybe a bit out of my league for comprehension.
That's also true for me though. If you have a solid background in physics Kauffman will be much easier to understand, which I don't have. It is really embarrasing actually. I just read the chapter on "Agency, value and meaning", and while I can follow it, and have no problem with the biology, a few physics terms are alien to me. So I will have to reread it and look up some terms. Here is his conclusion (sorry for any typos):
>Consider then a bacterium swimming up the glucose gradient. The biological function that is being fulfilled is obtaining food. The capacity to do so by detecting the local glucose gradient and swimming up it was assembled into a working organization of structures and processes by natural selection. This requires at least one receptor for glucose, or better, two receptors spaced some distance apart to detect the presence or absence of a steep enough local glucose gradient. Without attributing consciousness to the bacterium, we can see in this capacity the evolutionary onset of choice and thus meaning, value, doing and purpose. The technical word for meaning is semiosis, where a sign means something. Here, the bacterium detects a local glucose gradient, which is a sign of more glucose in some direction. By altering its behavior and swimming up the gradient, the bacterium is interpreting the sign. The bacterium may, of course, be mistaken. Perhaps there is not much glucose to be found in that direction. Neither "signs", "interpretation", nor "mistakes" are logically possible in physics, where only happenings occur. Thus meaning has entered the universe: the local glucose gradient is a sign that means glucose is - probably - nearby. Because natural selection has assembled the propagating organization of structures and processes that lead to swimming up the glucose gradient for good selective reasons, glucose has value to the bacterium. And because getting food is the function of this organized behavior, as assembled by natural selection acting on fitter variants, getting food is the purpose of the activity, and is the doing or action of the bacterium. Just as heart sounds are not the function of the heart, other causal features of the swimming bacterium and its precise route up the gradient are side effects with respect to the purpose of the activity.

>>9891293
>Without attributing consciousness to the bacterium, we can see in this capacity the evolutionary onset of choice and thus meaning, value, doing and purpose.


>Just as heart sounds are not the function of the heart, other causal features of the swimming bacterium and its precise route up the gradient are side effects with respect to the purpose of the activity.

So individual agency, value and meaning are under selective pressure, and the consciousness attributed to an individual is a by product of selection? And these meanings affect the social group less than the activity that consciousness is bound to? I'm not sure if I'm even getting close on this.