4 ms·

This podcast will be a shocking experience for anyone who still holds reductionist views on life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8iFtaltX-s https://www.youtu

This podcast will be a shocking experience for anyone who still holds reductionist views on life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8iFtaltX-s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8iFtaltX-s Michael Levin's channel: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+levin+academic+content https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+levin+a... His blog: https://thoughtforms.life/ https://thoughtforms.life/

didericis 1y ago
"The Matter with Things" by Iain McGilchrist has the same effect. Highly recommend it.
- resource0x 1y ago
  By any chance, have you watched the videos from the recent conference? https://ctr4process.org/conference/metaphysics-and-the-matter-with-things-thinking-with-iain-mcgilchrist/ https://ctr4process.org/conference/metaphysics-and-the-matte...
  - didericis 1y ago
    No, but I will. Thanks. (link isn’t loading for me on mobile, will try again later)
red75prime 1y ago
> a shocking experience for anyone who still holds reductionist views on life. As far as I understood he doesn't state that life cannot be explained by physics. But that it might be more productive to choose a more high level view. Makes sense. If a set of physical laws allows life at all, life will maintain its own set of rules (related to reproduction, goal-directed behavior and so on) regardless of low level "implementation details" that are dependent on particulars of the physical laws.
- resource0x 1y ago
  Please read this essay and make your own conclusions. (He rejects physicalism in no uncertain terms). https://thoughtforms.life/platonic-space-where-cognitive-and-morphological-patterns-come-from-besides-genetics-and-environment/ https://thoughtforms.life/platonic-space-where-cognitive-and...
  - fouc 1y ago
    Reminds me of Neal Stephenson's Anathem with the higher plane of truth. Neat! I mean, I figured Neal Stephenson got his ideas from somewhere.
  - red75prime 1y ago
    I don't think that there's a contradiction. "Ingress of platonic forms" is observationally indistinguishable from a selection effect: "Universes that don't admit realization of certain platonic forms are unobservable because they have no observers." For example, a static zero-dimensional universe. There's no pi, no Chaitin's constant, no nothing. Or, in other words, there's no processes or objects in there that we can describe as "ingress of platonic forms" (and no observers to notice that). I do like his ideas (and I wrote similar things about platonic forms elsewhere), but it's not a solid refutation of physicalism. It's an attractive framework, but as almost everything in philosophy it can easily be challenged. A physicalist can say "Physical processes that follow a certain equation trivially have properties corresponding to the properties of the equation. So what? I can measure physical process and I can think about the equation (thinking is a physical process too), but why should I postulate independent existence of a/the platonic form of the equation?" The fact that my subjective experiences undeniably exist makes me reject physicalism, but I can't prove their existence to anyone else and I can't use their existence as a solid basis for some philosophical view. After all it's just one bit of information. Or zero bits? I wouldn't have noticed my own absence.
    - resource0x 1y ago
      But the equation is a platonic form! Otherwise, you will be introducing a third concept, which is unnecessary b/c it has no advantage over the traditional notion of "platonic form". > It's an attractive framework, but as almost everything in philosophy it can easily be challenged. Michael is aware of it. He insists that every speculation has to be experimentally tested. But no experiment of this kind will constitute a "proof" - someone can always "challenge" it. This is no different from a physical theory: every interpretation of QM is challenged by someone. :-)

didericis 1y ago

"The Matter with Things" by Iain McGilchrist has the same effect. Highly recommend it.

resource0x 1y ago
By any chance, have you watched the videos from the recent conference? https://ctr4process.org/conference/metaphysics-and-the-matter-with-things-thinking-with-iain-mcgilchrist/ https://ctr4process.org/conference/metaphysics-and-the-matte...
- didericis 1y ago
  No, but I will. Thanks. (link isn’t loading for me on mobile, will try again later)

red75prime 1y ago

> a shocking experience for anyone who still holds reductionist views on life. As far as I understood he doesn't state that life cannot be explained by physics. But that it might be more productive to choose a more high level view. Makes sense. If a set of physical laws allows life at all, life will maintain its own set of rules (related to reproduction, goal-directed behavior and so on) regardless of low level "implementation details" that are dependent on particulars of the physical laws.

resource0x 1y ago
Please read this essay and make your own conclusions. (He rejects physicalism in no uncertain terms). https://thoughtforms.life/platonic-space-where-cognitive-and-morphological-patterns-come-from-besides-genetics-and-environment/ https://thoughtforms.life/platonic-space-where-cognitive-and...
- fouc 1y ago
  Reminds me of Neal Stephenson's Anathem with the higher plane of truth. Neat! I mean, I figured Neal Stephenson got his ideas from somewhere.
- red75prime 1y ago
  I don't think that there's a contradiction. "Ingress of platonic forms" is observationally indistinguishable from a selection effect: "Universes that don't admit realization of certain platonic forms are unobservable because they have no observers." For example, a static zero-dimensional universe. There's no pi, no Chaitin's constant, no nothing. Or, in other words, there's no processes or objects in there that we can describe as "ingress of platonic forms" (and no observers to notice that). I do like his ideas (and I wrote similar things about platonic forms elsewhere), but it's not a solid refutation of physicalism. It's an attractive framework, but as almost everything in philosophy it can easily be challenged. A physicalist can say "Physical processes that follow a certain equation trivially have properties corresponding to the properties of the equation. So what? I can measure physical process and I can think about the equation (thinking is a physical process too), but why should I postulate independent existence of a/the platonic form of the equation?" The fact that my subjective experiences undeniably exist makes me reject physicalism, but I can't prove their existence to anyone else and I can't use their existence as a solid basis for some philosophical view. After all it's just one bit of information. Or zero bits? I wouldn't have noticed my own absence.
  - resource0x 1y ago
    But the equation is a platonic form! Otherwise, you will be introducing a third concept, which is unnecessary b/c it has no advantage over the traditional notion of "platonic form". > It's an attractive framework, but as almost everything in philosophy it can easily be challenged. Michael is aware of it. He insists that every speculation has to be experimentally tested. But no experiment of this kind will constitute a "proof" - someone can always "challenge" it. This is no different from a physical theory: every interpretation of QM is challenged by someone. :-)