Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and everything?

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }By
my saying that 'individuals are equal ' - I mean politically and
legally. I don't mean that individuals are identical; someone who is
genetically, a mathematical genius is quite different from someone
who is not. And I don't consider that cultures are equal - a
totalitarian ideology is not as socially functional as an open
ideology. 

Yes - I do suggest that, since we have the capacity-to-reason
[Peirce's reference is the Scientific Method] - we can reason about
what is valid or not valid within a set of social beliefs. Many
people arrive at their beliefs via Peirce's 'other methods': by
tenacity, authority, peer pressure, emotional comfort...and don't
bother examining the facts and the analysis. This capacity to reason
enables us to change our cultures - to move from believing that
disease was caused by our own evil nature or by the witch on the hill
- to the belief that it is caused by germs or other physiological
causes.

Edwina
 On Mon 29/10/18  5:06 PM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au
sent:
 Edwina: 
 >"1] I consider that entropy is Firstness and is therefore vital and
necessary. Why do you see it as a problem?" 
 Entropy is not a problem for us. It is a problem for Darwinism; 
 >"2] Non-locality is Peircean Thirdness, which is general knowledge
as differentiated from particular of local knowledge." 
 This merits further exploration; 
 >"3] I agree with the concept that the full hereditary system
[DNA-RNA etc] has the capacity to learn; that is, I reject the simple
neo-Darwinian concept of accidental or random knowledge development." 
 We are on the same page :) 
 >"4] I don't agree that people have different brain wiring; that is
- I consider that individuals are equal but cultures are different -
and - an individual can reason themselves out of their culture." 
 We've tried to cross this bridge before and it didn't work out. To
refresh your memory... BOB (bucket of bugs), no such thing as a DNA
blueprint to specify the functional specializations in the brain,
etc, etc, etc. I don't see it working this time, either. 
 You consider that individuals are equal (but that cultures are
different). What do you mean by "individuals are equal"? That within
a culture they all have the same wiring (same functional
specializations)? How so? While there is such a thing as shared
cultural identity, there are so many experiences, stories, joys and
tragedies within a culture, that to say that everyone within it is
wired identically cannot possibly hold true. Why? Because experience
wires the neuroplastic brain. 
 Your suggestion that "an individual can reason themselves out of
their culture" is a fascinating topic. It relates to Peirce's
"fixation of belief", and it's a big topic. And I am living it, as I
now call central Europe home.  
 Some people might believe that they've reasoned themselves out of
their culture, but all they've likely done is re-contextualize their
existing cultural narratives. An American who goes to Japan or
Germany might believe that they've become Japanesed or Germanized,
but all they've done is re-contextualize their inner American
cultural narratives with Japanese/German labels. So reasoning oneself
out of one's culture? Nope, disagree, it's exceptionally difficult to
do. They'll map their habituated American assumptions onto their
Japanese/German encounters. 
 >"6] I don't agree that Mind precedes Matter; I consider them
inseparable." 
 Fair comment, one that I don't actually care to quibble over. My
argument, though, is that nascent mind is the precursor to the
precipitation of polarities/differences... the difference between the
fleeting existence of virtual particles in a quantum void that don't
know how to be, versus the persistence of matter across time, once
said virtual particles "learn" what the rules are, and "behave"
(habituate/associate) accordingly. Or to put it another way... before
I go to fix my broken computer, to precipitate the changes that make
it work, my mind has to decide that there is a problem that requires
fixing. 
 >"7] You suggest that incorrect imitation is the source of all
problems? I don't agree with utopia and Perfect Forms." 
 You've completely misread my point. By "correct" imitation, I mean
imitation that resonates perfectly with the specific norms of the
culture that one inhabits. No matter what culture we are talking
about, if one misreads its cues (imitating incorrectly), the
culture's antibodies (its groupthink narratives) will kick in to
expel the invading organism (which is you, if you misread the cues).
Some cultures are less dominated by groupthink than others, though,
and they are easier to adapt to. Groupthink antibodies are hard work.

 SJ 
 From: Edwina Taborsky [tabor...@primus.ca [1]]  
 Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 4:47 PM 
 To: 'Peirce List'; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee [2]; Stephen Jarosek 
 Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to li

RE: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and everything?

[Stephen Jarosek]

Edwina:

>"1] I consider that entropy is Firstness and is therefore vital and necessary. 
>Why do you see it as a problem?"

Entropy is not a problem for us. It is a problem for Darwinism;

>"2] Non-locality is Peircean Thirdness, which is general knowledge as 
>differentiated from particular of local knowledge."

This merits further exploration;

>"3] I agree with the concept that the full hereditary system [DNA-RNA etc] has 
>the capacity to learn; that is, I reject the simple neo-Darwinian concept of 
>accidental or random knowledge development."

We are on the same page :)

>"4] I don't agree that people have different brain wiring; that is - I 
>consider that individuals are equal but cultures are different - and - an 
>individual can reason themselves out of their culture."

We've tried to cross this bridge before and it didn't work out. To refresh your 
memory... BOB (bucket of bugs), no such thing as a DNA blueprint to specify the 
functional specializations in the brain, etc, etc, etc. I don't see it working 
this time, either.

You consider that individuals are equal (but that cultures are different). What 
do you mean by "individuals are equal"? That within a culture they all have the 
same wiring (same functional specializations)? How so? While there is such a 
thing as shared cultural identity, there are so many experiences, stories, joys 
and tragedies within a culture, that to say that everyone within it is wired 
identically cannot possibly hold true. Why? Because experience wires the 
neuroplastic brain.

Your suggestion that "an individual can reason themselves out of their culture" 
is a fascinating topic. It relates to Peirce's "fixation of belief", and it's a 
big topic. And I am living it, as I now call central Europe home. 

Some people might believe that they've reasoned themselves out of their 
culture, but all they've likely done is re-contextualize their existing 
cultural narratives. An American who goes to Japan or Germany might believe 
that they've become Japanesed or Germanized, but all they've done is 
re-contextualize their inner American cultural narratives with Japanese/German 
labels. So reasoning oneself out of one's culture? Nope, disagree, it's 
exceptionally difficult to do. They'll map their habituated American 
assumptions onto their Japanese/German encounters.

>"6] I don't agree that Mind precedes Matter; I consider them inseparable."

Fair comment, one that I don't actually care to quibble over. My argument, 
though, is that nascent mind is the precursor to the precipitation of 
polarities/differences... the difference between the fleeting existence of 
virtual particles in a quantum void that don't know how to be, versus the 
persistence of matter across time, once said virtual particles "learn" what the 
rules are, and "behave" (habituate/associate) accordingly. Or to put it another 
way... before I go to fix my broken computer, to precipitate the changes that 
make it work, my mind has to decide that there is a problem that requires 
fixing.

>"7] You suggest that incorrect imitation is the source of all problems? I 
>don't agree with utopia and Perfect Forms."

You've completely misread my point. By "correct" imitation, I mean imitation 
that resonates perfectly with the specific norms of the culture that one 
inhabits. No matter what culture we are talking about, if one misreads its cues 
(imitating incorrectly), the culture's antibodies (its groupthink narratives) 
will kick in to expel the invading organism (which is you, if you misread the 
cues). Some cultures are less dominated by groupthink than others, though, and 
they are easier to adapt to. Groupthink antibodies are hard work.

SJ


From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 4:47 PM
To: 'Peirce List'; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and everything?

My brief comments are:
1] I consider that entropy is Firstness and is therefore vital and necessary. 
Why do you see it as a problem?
2] Non-locality is Peircean Thirdness, which is general knowledge as 
differentiated from particular of local knowledge.
3] I agree with the concept that the full hereditary system [DNA-RNA etc] has 
the capacity to learn; that is, I reject the simple neo-Darwinian concept of 
accidental or random knowledge development.
4] I don't agree that people have different brain wiring; that is - I consider 
that individuals are equal but cultures are different - and - an individual can 
reason themselves out of their culture.
5] I agree with autopoiesis and the self-organization of matter.
6] I don't agree that Mind precedes Matter; I consider them inseparable.
7] You suggest that incorrect imitation is the source of all problems? I don't 
agree with utopia and Perfect Forms.
Edwina


 

On Mon 29/10/18 9:32 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:
Members, 

The Peirce list has been relatively quiet over the pa

Re: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and everything?

[michaelcjm]

My name is Michael Mitchell and I've just joined this fascinating list, 
as a complete beginner to philosophy in my sixties - apart from gazing 
"blankly" into "space" all my life of course!


This is the first time I've attempted to reply, I used my "reply to" 
icon so I hope it has worked all right.


Here are my musings on paras 5-12:

The door to consciousness is in the cusp of the not yet a memory and the 
no longer a plan.  This door is in the ineffable but somehow very 
concrete here and now (specific coordinates in the space-time 
continuum).


The self has a door which is locatable - where the atoms of our bodies 
are.  What dimensions the "remainder" of our selves are "in", may be 
partly science in the future, partly not science, I don't know.


In my experience of specific learning differences I gained the following 
insights intuitions inklings etc.  The very good article on allostasis 
and some of your points leave out the additional factors that our bodily 
 construction plus any other unique factors in our personalities also 
help shape our interactions with other people and things.  For example, 
some people like to use peripheral vision, need to be given more time, 
need things and people to be louder or quieter, etc.  Also, it's not 
only in one's young day that one learns new tricks, one can carry on 
learning life long as I do with gusto daily.  It becomes more deliberate 
- with self-talk - but is no less effective for that.


A Mr Matthew (I think) cited a "natural process of selection" in the 
1830s but by that may have meant something like "survival of the 
survivors" in the contingent world as well as any obvious individual 
viability issues.  Stephen Jay Gould highlighted what he detected as an 
intermittent stepping up in diversification.  What this does for 
memetics and mimetics I don't know - perhaps not much - after all, 
animals have a central nervous system and we share in mammalian biology 
and instincts are like bundles of a number of reflexes combined.  Now we 
add not only the level of calculation of certain mammals (and more) but 
individual personality.  On a good day psychology is a science and there 
are perceptive branches of it.


Genetic drift regulates diversification and a sort of homogenisation, 
simulataneously.


I don't know that the meme as "selfish gene" itself causes entropy, I 
think it is neutral.  The moral (which relates to morale) interplays and 
it is the balance of those that increases or decreases entropy.  (The 
universe will continue to expand even when the morally beneficial 
opposite to the nasty chaos kind of entropy applies, just to make it 
more complex.)


I agree with your point about incorrect imitation.  I have always been 
suspicious about alleging desire was a bad thing.


Best wishes all.

Michael Mitchell

On 2018-10-29 13:32, Stephen Jarosek wrote:


Members,

The Peirce list has been relatively quiet over the past few days. 
Perhaps
this is an opportune moment to introduce a different kind of 
exploratory

perspective.

My thinking sprawls across several disciplines and experiences, and so
people often have trouble following where I’m coming from. Let’s see if 
we
can distill everything into a few short lines, in one place, to explore 
why
the DNA molecule might perhaps provide the key to life, the universe 
and

everything.


...


5) Quantum mechanics and nonlocality. Is the self nonlocal? I have
reason to suggest that it is. The local self, by contrast, is an 
assumption,
an illusion based on the fact that all experience can only ever take 
place

in a localized context;
6) At least in the context of epigenetic theory, it is widely 
accepted

that experience changes DNA (which genes are expressed);
7) At least in the context of Darwinian natural selection, it is 
now

widely accepted that experience wires the neuroplastic brain;
8) The previous two points (6 and 7), however, suffer from the
shortcomings of the Darwinian paradigm, which is inconsistent with 
entropy.
The notion of "adaptive traits" is particularly problematic in this 
regard.

Neural plasticity is not merely an incidental "adaptive trait", but
absolutely fundamental to the way that single cells, such as neurons, 
make
choices from their ecosystems. This is more effectively interpreted 
through
the Peircean-biosemiotic paradigm (I believe the term "scaffolding" 
applies.

Systems theorists use the word "autopoiesis");
9) Neural plasticity and cellular autopoiesis (self-organization) 
relate

to systems theory. If experiences wire the brain, it then follows that
experiences are contingent on the body with which they are apprehended. 
In
the context of human culture, human experiences are apprehended by male 
and
female bodies. Our outline sets the stage for properly understanding 
sex
differences and gender roles in culture. Particularly within the 
context of
evolution, the cultural known and the unknown. Here is a web article 
that
nudges o

Re: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and everything?

[Edwina Taborsky]

 

 BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }My
brief comments are:

1] I consider that entropy is Firstness and is therefore vital and
necessary. Why do you see it as a problem?

2] Non-locality is Peircean Thirdness, which is general knowledge as
differentiated from particular of local knowledge.

3] I agree with the concept that the full hereditary system [DNA-RNA
etc] has the capacity to learn; that is, I reject the simple
neo-Darwinian concept of accidental or random knowledge development.

4] I don't agree that people have different brain wiring; that is -
I consider that individuals are equal but cultures are different -
and - an individual can reason themselves out of their culture.

5] I agree with autopoiesis and the self-organization of matter.

6] I don't agree that Mind precedes Matter; I consider them
inseparable.

7] You suggest that incorrect imitation is the source of all
problems? I don't agree with utopia and Perfect Forms.

Edwina
 On Mon 29/10/18  9:32 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au
sent:
 Members, 
 The Peirce list has been relatively quiet over the past few days.
Perhaps 
 this is an opportune moment to introduce a different kind of
exploratory 
 perspective. 
 My thinking sprawls across several disciplines and experiences, and
so 
 people often have trouble following where I’m coming from. Let’s
see if we 
 can distill everything into a few short lines, in one place, to
explore why 
 the DNA molecule might perhaps provide the key to life, the universe
and 
 everything.  
 1) The semiotics of CS Peirce plays a fundamental part in my
reasoning. 
 But I also extend Peircean semiotics to the biosemiotics of Jakob
von 
 Uexküll, down to habituation and associative learning in single
cells (e.g., 
 with reference to the work of Eric Kandel on habituation and
association in 
 Aplysia, or AH Klopf on association); 
 2) Entropy needs to be taken seriously. No, not the 
 over-intellectualized entropy of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but
the 
 tendency to disorder as per Shannon entropy. Here is an excellent
review of 
 the entropy issues as they relate to evolution by natural selection
(Beisner 
 1987, with reference to the work of Byles 1972): 
 https://www.icr.org/article/270 [1]; 
 3) One can get an intuitive appreciation of the scale of the
entropy 
 problem from this video, Inner Life of the Cell, which is a
simulation of 
 the incredibly complex goings-on inside the cell. Incredible
complexity is 
 one thing. But that it persists across time is quite another, and
the onus 
 is on the Darwinists (especially Neo-Darwinists) to prove that their
natural 
 selection theory has properly dealt with entropy. Their onus of
proof 
 remains outstanding. Video from More Thinking: 
 https://youtu.be/FzcTgrxMzZk [2]; 
 4) Intelligent Design (ID) has competently addressed the most
salient 
 issues before, such as irreducible complexity and entropy. But then
they go 
 and spoil it all with their human exceptionalism. Human
exceptionalism has 
 no place in science. Converging on the god question certainly might,
but 
 indulging in value-judgments about how exceptional humans are, does
not. 
 That the folk of ID do this demonstrates their failure to understand
key 
 ontological/phenomenological issues, which are more potently
addressed 
 within the semiotic/biosemiotic paradigm. The same biological
principles 
 must apply to all organisms, including human, otherwise it is not
biology 
 that they are studying. If they want to celebrate their humanity,
then by 
 all means go for it, but please don't call it science; 
 5) Quantum mechanics and nonlocality. Is the self nonlocal? I
have 
 reason to suggest that it is. The local self, by contrast, is an
assumption, 
 an illusion based on the fact that all experience can only ever take
place 
 in a localized context; 
 6) At least in the context of epigenetic theory, it is widely
accepted 
 that experience changes DNA (which genes are expressed); 
 7) At least in the context of Darwinian natural selection, it is
now 
 widely accepted that experience wires the neuroplastic brain; 
 8) The previous two points (6 and 7), however, suffer from the 
 shortcomings of the Darwinian paradigm, which is inconsistent with
entropy. 
 The notion of "adaptive traits" is particularly problematic in this
regard. 
 Neural plasticity is not merely an incidental "adaptive trait", but 
 absolutely fundamental to the way that single cells, such as
neurons, make 
 choices from their ecosystems. This is more effectively interpreted
through 
 the Peircean-biosemiotic paradigm (I believe the term "scaffolding"
applies. 
 Systems theorists use the word "autopoiesis"); 
 9) Neural plasticity and cellular autopoiesis
(self-organization) relate 
 to systems theory. If experiences wire the brain, it then follows
that 
 experiences are contingent o

Re: [PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and everything?

[Stephen Curtiss Rose]

Thanks for this. Will peruse carefully. Shades of Deely's thinking here I
think. Syntropy and entropy may be in balance. There is more to be said.
Thanks for caring to put this all together.
https://medium.com/everything-comes/syntropy-ba9da91fbb32


On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:32 AM Stephen Jarosek 
wrote:

> Members,
>
> The Peirce list has been relatively quiet over the past few days. Perhaps
> this is an opportune moment to introduce a different kind of exploratory
> perspective.
>
> My thinking sprawls across several disciplines and experiences, and so
> people often have trouble following where I’m coming from. Let’s see if we
> can distill everything into a few short lines, in one place, to explore why
> the DNA molecule might perhaps provide the key to life, the universe and
> everything.
>
> 1) The semiotics of CS Peirce plays a fundamental part in my reasoning.
> But I also extend Peircean semiotics to the biosemiotics of Jakob von
> Uexküll, down to habituation and associative learning in single cells
> (e.g.,
> with reference to the work of Eric Kandel on habituation and association in
> Aplysia, or AH Klopf on association);
> 2) Entropy needs to be taken seriously. No, not the
> over-intellectualized entropy of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but the
> tendency to disorder as per Shannon entropy. Here is an excellent review of
> the entropy issues as they relate to evolution by natural selection
> (Beisner
> 1987, with reference to the work of Byles 1972):
> https://www.icr.org/article/270;
> 3) One can get an intuitive appreciation of the scale of the entropy
> problem from this video, Inner Life of the Cell, which is a simulation of
> the incredibly complex goings-on inside the cell. Incredible complexity is
> one thing. But that it persists across time is quite another, and the onus
> is on the Darwinists (especially Neo-Darwinists) to prove that their
> natural
> selection theory has properly dealt with entropy. Their onus of proof
> remains outstanding. Video from More Thinking:
> https://youtu.be/FzcTgrxMzZk;
> 4) Intelligent Design (ID) has competently addressed the most salient
> issues before, such as irreducible complexity and entropy. But then they go
> and spoil it all with their human exceptionalism. Human exceptionalism has
> no place in science. Converging on the god question certainly might, but
> indulging in value-judgments about how exceptional humans are, does not.
> That the folk of ID do this demonstrates their failure to understand key
> ontological/phenomenological issues, which are more potently addressed
> within the semiotic/biosemiotic paradigm. The same biological principles
> must apply to all organisms, including human, otherwise it is not biology
> that they are studying. If they want to celebrate their humanity, then by
> all means go for it, but please don't call it science;
> 5) Quantum mechanics and nonlocality. Is the self nonlocal? I have
> reason to suggest that it is. The local self, by contrast, is an
> assumption,
> an illusion based on the fact that all experience can only ever take place
> in a localized context;
> 6) At least in the context of epigenetic theory, it is widely accepted
> that experience changes DNA (which genes are expressed);
> 7) At least in the context of Darwinian natural selection, it is now
> widely accepted that experience wires the neuroplastic brain;
> 8) The previous two points (6 and 7), however, suffer from the
> shortcomings of the Darwinian paradigm, which is inconsistent with entropy.
> The notion of "adaptive traits" is particularly problematic in this regard.
> Neural plasticity is not merely an incidental "adaptive trait", but
> absolutely fundamental to the way that single cells, such as neurons, make
> choices from their ecosystems. This is more effectively interpreted through
> the Peircean-biosemiotic paradigm (I believe the term "scaffolding"
> applies.
> Systems theorists use the word "autopoiesis");
> 9) Neural plasticity and cellular autopoiesis (self-organization)
> relate
> to systems theory. If experiences wire the brain, it then follows that
> experiences are contingent on the body with which they are apprehended. In
> the context of human culture, human experiences are apprehended by male and
> female bodies. Our outline sets the stage for properly understanding sex
> differences and gender roles in culture. Particularly within the context of
> evolution, the cultural known and the unknown. Here is a web article that
> nudges onto the significance of this point, particularly in the context of
> the primary nurturer (Ibelle, 2018, citing Lisa Feldman Barrett and Atzil
> et
> al, 2018):
>
> https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/08/06/what-if-people-from-different-cultu
> res-and-economic-backgrounds-have-different-brain-wiring/
> 
> 10) Do 

[PEIRCE-L] DNA - The key to life, the universe and everything?

[Stephen Jarosek]

Members,

The Peirce list has been relatively quiet over the past few days. Perhaps
this is an opportune moment to introduce a different kind of exploratory
perspective.

My thinking sprawls across several disciplines and experiences, and so
people often have trouble following where I’m coming from. Let’s see if we
can distill everything into a few short lines, in one place, to explore why
the DNA molecule might perhaps provide the key to life, the universe and
everything. 

1) The semiotics of CS Peirce plays a fundamental part in my reasoning.
But I also extend Peircean semiotics to the biosemiotics of Jakob von
Uexküll, down to habituation and associative learning in single cells (e.g.,
with reference to the work of Eric Kandel on habituation and association in
Aplysia, or AH Klopf on association);
2) Entropy needs to be taken seriously. No, not the
over-intellectualized entropy of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but the
tendency to disorder as per Shannon entropy. Here is an excellent review of
the entropy issues as they relate to evolution by natural selection (Beisner
1987, with reference to the work of Byles 1972):
https://www.icr.org/article/270;
3) One can get an intuitive appreciation of the scale of the entropy
problem from this video, Inner Life of the Cell, which is a simulation of
the incredibly complex goings-on inside the cell. Incredible complexity is
one thing. But that it persists across time is quite another, and the onus
is on the Darwinists (especially Neo-Darwinists) to prove that their natural
selection theory has properly dealt with entropy. Their onus of proof
remains outstanding. Video from More Thinking:
https://youtu.be/FzcTgrxMzZk;
4) Intelligent Design (ID) has competently addressed the most salient
issues before, such as irreducible complexity and entropy. But then they go
and spoil it all with their human exceptionalism. Human exceptionalism has
no place in science. Converging on the god question certainly might, but
indulging in value-judgments about how exceptional humans are, does not.
That the folk of ID do this demonstrates their failure to understand key
ontological/phenomenological issues, which are more potently addressed
within the semiotic/biosemiotic paradigm. The same biological principles
must apply to all organisms, including human, otherwise it is not biology
that they are studying. If they want to celebrate their humanity, then by
all means go for it, but please don't call it science;
5) Quantum mechanics and nonlocality. Is the self nonlocal? I have
reason to suggest that it is. The local self, by contrast, is an assumption,
an illusion based on the fact that all experience can only ever take place
in a localized context;
6) At least in the context of epigenetic theory, it is widely accepted
that experience changes DNA (which genes are expressed);
7) At least in the context of Darwinian natural selection, it is now
widely accepted that experience wires the neuroplastic brain;
8) The previous two points (6 and 7), however, suffer from the
shortcomings of the Darwinian paradigm, which is inconsistent with entropy.
The notion of "adaptive traits" is particularly problematic in this regard.
Neural plasticity is not merely an incidental "adaptive trait", but
absolutely fundamental to the way that single cells, such as neurons, make
choices from their ecosystems. This is more effectively interpreted through
the Peircean-biosemiotic paradigm (I believe the term "scaffolding" applies.
Systems theorists use the word "autopoiesis");
9) Neural plasticity and cellular autopoiesis (self-organization) relate
to systems theory. If experiences wire the brain, it then follows that
experiences are contingent on the body with which they are apprehended. In
the context of human culture, human experiences are apprehended by male and
female bodies. Our outline sets the stage for properly understanding sex
differences and gender roles in culture. Particularly within the context of
evolution, the cultural known and the unknown. Here is a web article that
nudges onto the significance of this point, particularly in the context of
the primary nurturer (Ibelle, 2018, citing Lisa Feldman Barrett and Atzil et
al, 2018):
https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/08/06/what-if-people-from-different-cultu
res-and-economic-backgrounds-have-different-brain-wiring/
10) Do we follow where this is taking us? Mind precedes matter. Only by
taking this route, might we be better able to address the entropy problem.
Entanglement and imitation tend to structure and order. Richard Dawkins was
on the right track with his memetic theory... how unfortunate that he
allowed this to languish, in favor of his selfish gene narrative. Both
selfish genes and selfish people increase entropy because they act contrary
to the interests of structure and order;
11) Eastern religions, most notably Buddhism, converge on these sorts of
questions quite impressively. Though I suggest th