Skip to main content

View Diary: ACM: Can the human mind comprehend today's world? A challenge to all who engage in politics (208 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That begs the question. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    don mikulecky

    Why is man a cancer rather than a natural part of the body?

    You're asserting it - it seems - out of thin air.

    What would Mothra do?

    by dov12348 on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 04:26:43 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You do not know about (4+ / 0-)

      global warming
      climate change
      pollution
      massive extinction
      ruining the soil
      overpopulation
      resource depletion

      Need I say more?

      An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

      by don mikulecky on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 04:33:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have differing opinions on each. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lehman scott

        I see some as more serious than others.  But I can see that we're operating from divergent premises.

        Man, in order to survive and flourish necessarily creates changes.  Sometimes they're excessive.  Sometimes not.  So we individually try to spread information and change things for the better.

        Still doesn't equate to cancer.  If so it's benign.  The Earth is one enormous ball of natural resources.  It will survive us.

        What would Mothra do?

        by dov12348 on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 04:44:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  metaphors and analogies equate to nothing (0+ / 0-)

          that is why we use them

          An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

          by don mikulecky on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 04:46:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What do you mean? (0+ / 0-)

            What would Mothra do?

            by dov12348 on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 05:14:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you need a dictionary (0+ / 0-)

              metaphor

              A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object. Metaphor is a type of analogy and is closely related to other rhetorical figures of speech that achieve their effects via association, comparison or resemblance including allegory, hyperbole, and simile.
              In simpler terms, a metaphor compares two objects or things without using the words "like" or "as".
              One of the most prominent examples of a metaphor in English literature is the All the world's a stage monologue from As You Like It:
              All the world's a stage,
              And all the men and women merely players;
              They have their exits and their entrances; — William Shakespeare, As You Like It, 2/7[1]
              This quote is a metaphor because the world is not literally a stage. By figuratively asserting that the world is a stage, Shakespeare uses the points of comparison between the world and a stage to convey an understanding about the mechanics of the world and the lives of the people within it.

              An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

              by don mikulecky on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 05:55:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're not answering my question. (0+ / 0-)

                You need to explain your prior comment.

                What would Mothra do?

                by dov12348 on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 06:01:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  please ask it more clearly...n/t (0+ / 0-)

                  An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

                  by don mikulecky on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 06:04:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You raised the issues: (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    don mikulecky, Diane Gee

                    Let's just take one.  You said there is a new epistemology -in other words a new way we can obtain knowledge.  Is it by observation of reality?  Trances?  ESP?  The Bible?  The Pope?  Nothing new about those, however.

                    So what is yours?

                    What would Mothra do?

                    by dov12348 on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 06:11:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The new epistemology is spelled out (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      lehman scott

                      in many books.  It is the compliment to reductionism in a scientific setting.  Here is an old example for starters:Epistemology and Rosen’s Modeling Relation

                      Rosen’s modeling relation (MR) provides a powerful method of understanding and exploring
                      the nature of the scientific method. Of course, the scientific method is itself epistemology in action.
                      A decade ago Robert Rosen published an essay [1] on epistemology in honor of David Bohm. The
                      explanation and use of the MR in that essay appeared as a revelation that evidently had great explanatory power and seemed to invite further development as an epistemological tool. The scientific
                      method currently receives lip service but little practical understanding in the day-to-day lives of scientists. The method seems to exist more as a topic of intellectual discourse than a guide to pragmatic
                      behavior even though it has been discussed at length by many philosophers, including Karl Popper
                      [2]. A clear and simple model of the scientific method contributes a clarity that volumes of philosophy cannot provide.
                      To provide an appropriate conceptual setting for the extended MR developed here, the necessary background and vocabulary are first presented. Popper’s 3 worlds are then suggested as a “container” for the MR. The ensuing framework allows one to analyze the MR itself, seeing how its parts
                      fit onto the world of organisms, objects, brains, and theories—that is, the exceedingly complex, natural world comprised of all those atoms in their remarkable manifestations “of ships and shoes and
                      sealing wax and cabbages and kings.”
                      As examples of embedding the MR in the 3 worlds, Popper’s problem of demarcation between science and pseudo science is revisited. The famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper serves to
                      introduce the use of the MR as a tool for thinking. Finally, a mathematical definition of “bizarre”
                      systems, based on a real-world bizarre object, is suggested. The definition m
                       Bill Dress is a quantum physicist working on the newest stuff in that field.

                      An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

                      by don mikulecky on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 06:21:46 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Questioning a premise. (0+ / 0-)

                        To what extent does the scientific method utilize induction?

                        What would Mothra do?

                        by dov12348 on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 06:49:38 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  meaningless question....you can't (0+ / 0-)

                          quantify such things....lots of debate...Popper had his ideas others disagreed.  The issue is not that at all.  The issue is how do you integrate science and all other forms of human knowledge and come up with a way of rejecting bad models.  We have a handle on that.

                          An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

                          by don mikulecky on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 06:54:05 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Okay. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Diane Gee

                            You've convinced me there's no way you can communicate your position through a diary.  Which is ok - I guess people would just have to read your book.

                            What would Mothra do?

                            by dov12348 on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 06:55:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hate to find you wrong again. (0+ / 0-)

                            Have done it many times.  I wish I could help everyone but the world is diverse and some comprehend better than others.   I never remember you trying to understand before so maybe it takes time?

                            An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

                            by don mikulecky on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 07:02:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, I don't fault myself. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Diane Gee

                            I do tend to question things that others might accept cart blanche.

                            I don't fault you either - maybe you are attempting the impossible by trying to communicate something in a small space that your book might explain, as more foundation can be established there.

                            What would Mothra do?

                            by dov12348 on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 07:06:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  we both are trying and the task is hard...n/t (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dov12348

                            An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

                            by don mikulecky on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 07:08:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  I am acquainted with the EPR Paradox and (0+ / 0-)

                        have read Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order.  While I find his Holographic Paradigm rather interesting in a discussion of fundamental epistemology, I think the possibility of its practical applications to real-world problems is very remote at best.  Does your book attempt to do this?

                        Pessimism of the intellect; optimism of the will. - - Antonio Gramsci

                        by lehman scott on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 07:31:07 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You missed the point...we worked with Dress (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          lehman scott

                          and others years ago bringing the new paradigm to birth...so I thought it might be an example of how widespread the ideas are...we are well beyond that 1999 stuff now...here's the book:Global Insanity: How Homo sapiens Lost Touch with Reality while Transforming the World

                          The Global Economy that sustains the civilized world is destroying the biosphere. As a result, civilization, like the Titanic, is on a collision course with disaster. But changing course via the body politic appears to be well nigh impossible, given that much of the populace lives in denial. Why is that? And how did we get into such a fix? In this essay, biologists James Coffman and Donald Mikulecky argue that the reductionist model of the world developed by Western civilization misrepresents life, undermining our ability to regulate and adapt to the accelerating anthropogenic transformation of the world entrained by that very model. An alternative worldview is presented that better accounts for both the relational nature of living systems and the developmental phenomenology that constrains their evolution. Development of any complex system reinforces specific dependencies while eliminating alternatives, reducing the diversity that affords adaptive degrees of freedom: the more developed a system is, the less potential it has to change its way of being. Hence, in the evolution of life most species become extinct. This perspective reveals the limits that complexity places on knowledge and technology, bringing to light our hubristically dysfunctional relationship with the natural world and increasingly tenuous connection to reality. The inescapable conclusion is that, barring a cultural metamorphosis that breaks free of deeply entrenched mental frames that made us what we are, continued development of the Global Economy will lead inexorably to the collapse of civilization.

                          An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it at the moment. It stands or falls on its own merits.

                          by don mikulecky on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 07:40:50 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

    •  You're not understanding the idea of a system (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nada Lemming, lehman scott, Diane Gee

      However you characterize "man," the bottom line is that humanity is just part of the current system, which would continue in some form or other without it.

      While cancer or perhaps better a virus (think Matrix, Agent Smith analogy, etc.) are possible analogies to man on Earth, perhaps. Where the cancer analogy falls short is the idea that humans could "kill" Earth and end its existence. Something short of a catastrophic meteor impact (including even a nuclear holocaust) would allow some version of the Earth system to "live" on, regardless.

      Humanity is a blip on the geological radar screen. Problem is, we ARE a cancer endangering the health of the current Earth system as we've known it throughout the short time of Man. We are changing the current system in radical ways that will reverberate for millenia, and lead to the extinction of a majority of current species -- perhaps even our own, and significant reduction of stable living space for most more complex organisms.

      Whether that's good or bad is a value judgement. But if you believe we are slowly, and by geological time very rapidly, destroying a perfectly good complex system that's been wonderfully fit for mammalian existence in ways no other planet known to exist has, then yes: We ARE a cancer, or an Ebola virus, or whatever disease analogy you'd choose.

      "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by Kombema on Sun Jun 09, 2013 at 04:56:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Doesn't have to be a 'rather'. (5+ / 0-)

      I won't speak for Don, but a lot of people use the cancer metaphor, for the very reason given in, of all places, the Matrix movies.  

      Cancers do nothing but exist and replicate, using any and all possible resources, without any sort of regard for the larger system, beyond the ability of the normal feedback mechanisms of the system to prevent them from taking resources needed elsewhere.  Generally, they're simply normal cells that have had their DNA scrambled in some way, transcription or translation errors that result in a sequence that says 'reproduce!' while ignoring any other instructions from the system.

      So cancers are 'normal', in the sense that they can arise in the course of everyday life in an environment with various forms of radiations and chemicals, but at the same time are antithetical to what we assume the 'normal stasis' (if such an oxymoron can be used) of life to be.

      Humans are smart enough to make ourselves tough for the planet to kill off, just like those cancer cells, and we just keep reproducing, taking ever more of the system resources for our own species' use.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site