Minds have changed the causality on the surface of the earth (Deacon). I am not sure, people are fully aware of the exceptional talent this man has with communication.
The brilliance of this system is that it explicitly draws on ancient Greek wisdom and then develops it in modern scientific terms. The mechanism of Limit vs. Limitless as organising principles is first found in the Pythagoreans and then Plato (in some way also in Heraclitus, whom Deacon mentions, as the Measure that organises the ever-flowing boundless potential of the universe). The core idea is that rational order, life, and the self arise from these two interacting principles. The downside of Deacon's theory is that it assumes the notion of "self" in general (self-organising structures) to explain the emergence of the conscious "Self". I don't think this works as well as he thinks it does. On the one hand, it begs the question because it introduces an unexplained notion of selfhood in order to explain conscious selfhood - it just assumes that something like the Self as we experience it exists, without further explanation. On the other hand, it assumes the notion of conscious representation, which is what pertains inherently to conscious experience and self-consciousness (representing one's self to one's self), but it does not explain how this self-representing could emerge from stuff that does no representing. Simply put, I think that Deacon does an amazing job at explaining how the Self is compatible with the mechanic world (they work based on the same principles), but he does not quite reach the demonstration that one emerges from the other. He has demonstrated compatibility, not emergence.
Clear, succinct, promising. Deacon’s use of Aristotle and Descartes to introduce his perspective on physical nature and living organisms as complex systems I found plausible and promising. Thank you this amazing conversation. 👍
This is new to me and very complicated. What I take from what he is saying in a general sense is that life is a paradox. Constantly trying to maintain order in a chaotic universe? Anotherwords conscience brings order or at least control to chaos?
intersting connection between Talebs concept of antifragility, and need for constant perturbation in all dissipative systems including the highly emergent teleodynamic in your phraseology ones
Terrence should have mentioned that the problem with western science's inability to reconcile "gaps" and "empty spaces" began even prior to Descartes. The real culprit here is Aristotle with his dichotomy of motion/rest etc.
Aristotle got stuck to a two-value logic. Binary dichotomies drive his system. The law of non-contradiction prevails. Aristotle recognizes the bind that put him in when he came to the philosophical problem of explaining how one thing could be many (even if in different respects). So his doctrine of equivocity, of how health has many meanings according to health’s specific referent while continuing to refer to one (whole) thing - how many parts can be different yet be part of a greater (coherent) whole. Deacon mentions this but does not elaborate. His inversion of Aristotle leads him to say the whole is less than its part as an illustration of his approach to his dichotomy of freedom and constraint. Deacon inverts our intuitions to show how new powers and potentials arise from the loss of freedoms.
They elaborate more on this, but here’s en easy example: “The key concept: if one starts with something like a water molecule, it is nothing but two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, but each molecule has something- else properties that cannot be ascribed to hydrogen alone nor to oxygen alone. The interaction between the three atoms entails a reconWguration of electron orbitals and generates a trapezoid-shaped entity that is more electrically positive on one facet and more negative on the opposite facet. Compared with hydrogen and oxygen atoms, a water molecule has unprecedented attributes, because the joining of these atoms has distorted the shapes of each and produced a composite shape with its own intrinsic properties. In chemistry, shape matters.”
@@herrizaax no problem! You should also check out: ua-cam.com/video/8JwefpId97Y/v-deo.html It’s a collab between Terrence Deacon and Jeremy Sherman who’s whole thing is simplifying deacon’s ideas. The book is called Neither Ghost Nor Machine and its a summary of Deacon’s work. Great videos made simple. Really helped me
ahhh...so this is where the non ergodicity of the universe above the level of atoms (Kauffman) rears its head. Less than the sum of its parts in terms of totality of interactions, the propogation, memory, and constant novelty of constraints on the one hand demands that living systems are less than the sum of their parts with respect to freedom of interaction of constituents, yet far more in terms of emergent abilities to harness and chanel work ( against constriants) in ways that are useful self referentially with respect to living purpose.
I was wondering about that too. He introduces the concept of negation as inherent to the notion of representation. This notion goes all the way back to Plato's Sophist (an image is conceived as an image only insofar as it is /not/ the object it represents, and yet it can embody it), which is the first philosophical exploration of the concept of negation. And the fact that you need the negative in your system in order to organise and explain the positive/affirmative and ultimately reach self-consciousness sounds both very Greek and very Hegelian.
@@andreab380 Yin-Yang has it too. "If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't" -Lewis Carroll
@@JudoJonny5 Agreed, although I think that the ideas Deacon is building on come from or can be found in western philosophy (except maybe the whole "absence" central idea, although westerners do have a tradion about the importance of negation and non-being).
+Isabel Taube :) Commonly, conversational nose touching indicates deception - in this case however, I strongly suspect, the extra forceful, louder volume of his speech is inducing resonance to internal, possibly dried mucus reinforced, from a recent case of sniffles, nose hairs. There may also be an emotive component as he is offering statements which he may feel are naturally subject to a certain degree of incredibility.
But before it was known, Zero did not exist. No number when multplied by all others, would invariably result into itself. Before Zero existed, numbers started with 1. And you could risk your life, and some have died I'm sure, just suggesting that Zero could be a good idea. Before zero existed, it was an absential feature of mathematics.
Nowadays, when you talk about end-tentional processes, end-directed processes, on Richard Dawkins Facebook group, you risk expulsion. You may not die, but some will do violence to you (verbally). Because even after all these centuries, humans are stil very uncomfortable with absent features, which are important non the less. We shall all continue walking with our head in our butt, according to darwinists. Case is solve.
Object A x 1 = object A Object A x 2= object A + object A Object A x 0= 0 What is zero? Anything multiplied by zero gets deleted. Anything thats divided by zero gets Breaks laws of math.
Deacon is my hero. The interviewer, though a bit awkward, actually does a really nice job facilitating the conversation. Great clip!
This is fascinating stuff. Thanks so much for talking about it with such an open mind and in language we all can understand.
Minds have changed the causality on the surface of the earth (Deacon).
I am not sure, people are fully aware of the exceptional talent this man has with communication.
The brilliance of this system is that it explicitly draws on ancient Greek wisdom and then develops it in modern scientific terms.
The mechanism of Limit vs. Limitless as organising principles is first found in the Pythagoreans and then Plato (in some way also in Heraclitus, whom Deacon mentions, as the Measure that organises the ever-flowing boundless potential of the universe). The core idea is that rational order, life, and the self arise from these two interacting principles.
The downside of Deacon's theory is that it assumes the notion of "self" in general (self-organising structures) to explain the emergence of the conscious "Self". I don't think this works as well as he thinks it does. On the one hand, it begs the question because it introduces an unexplained notion of selfhood in order to explain conscious selfhood - it just assumes that something like the Self as we experience it exists, without further explanation. On the other hand, it assumes the notion of conscious representation, which is what pertains inherently to conscious experience and self-consciousness (representing one's self to one's self), but it does not explain how this self-representing could emerge from stuff that does no representing.
Simply put, I think that Deacon does an amazing job at explaining how the Self is compatible with the mechanic world (they work based on the same principles), but he does not quite reach the demonstration that one emerges from the other.
He has demonstrated compatibility, not emergence.
Clear, succinct, promising. Deacon’s use of Aristotle and Descartes to introduce his perspective on physical nature and living organisms as complex systems I found plausible and promising. Thank you this amazing conversation. 👍
This is very interesting and inspiring, especially the idea of 'absence'.
Just great to take part of this 🙏
This is new to me and very complicated. What I take from what he is saying in a general sense is that life is a paradox. Constantly trying to maintain order in a chaotic universe? Anotherwords conscience brings order or at least control to chaos?
Brilliant man. I have difficulties even understanding his qualifications.
intersting connection between Talebs concept of antifragility, and need for constant perturbation in all dissipative systems including the highly emergent teleodynamic in your phraseology ones
Great stuff.
so brilliant! Just found this sir deacon! thank you!
This really does look like a video from the late 1970s. Kinda gives it gravitas.
I took a double take when he talked about the Fourth of July Higgs boson announcement, I really thought this was from the 70s
Terrence should have mentioned that the problem with western science's inability to reconcile "gaps" and "empty spaces" began even prior to Descartes. The real culprit here is Aristotle with his dichotomy of motion/rest etc.
Aristotle got stuck to a two-value logic. Binary dichotomies drive his system. The law of non-contradiction prevails. Aristotle recognizes the bind that put him in when he came to the philosophical problem of explaining how one thing could be many (even if in different respects). So his doctrine of equivocity, of how health has many meanings according to health’s specific referent while continuing to refer to one (whole) thing - how many parts can be different yet be part of a greater (coherent) whole. Deacon mentions this but does not elaborate. His inversion of Aristotle leads him to say the whole is less than its part as an illustration of his approach to his dichotomy of freedom and constraint. Deacon inverts our intuitions to show how new powers and potentials arise from the loss of freedoms.
The interviewers shoe 👞 is almost touching the interviewee’s knee
It looks closer due to the camera angle. But, yeah...
I'd like to hear an example of the statement given at 28:00. Could anyone be as kind to help me out? :)
They elaborate more on this, but here’s en easy example: “The key concept: if one starts with something like a water molecule, it is nothing but two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, but each molecule has something- else properties that cannot be ascribed to hydrogen alone nor to oxygen alone. The interaction between the three atoms entails a reconWguration of electron orbitals and generates a trapezoid-shaped entity that is more electrically positive on one facet and more negative on the opposite facet. Compared with hydrogen and oxygen atoms, a water molecule has unprecedented attributes, because the joining of these atoms has distorted the shapes of each and produced a composite shape with its own intrinsic properties. In chemistry, shape matters.”
@@MrJustSomeGuy87 thank you!
@@herrizaax no problem! You should also check out: ua-cam.com/video/8JwefpId97Y/v-deo.html
It’s a collab between Terrence Deacon and Jeremy Sherman who’s whole thing is simplifying deacon’s ideas. The book is called Neither Ghost Nor Machine and its a summary of Deacon’s work. Great videos made simple. Really helped me
@@MrJustSomeGuy87 Excellent quote - citation?
what year was this interview?
ahhh...so this is where the non ergodicity of the universe above the level of atoms (Kauffman) rears its head. Less than the sum of its parts in terms of totality of interactions, the propogation, memory, and constant novelty of constraints on the one hand demands that living systems are less than the sum of their parts with respect to freedom of interaction of constituents, yet far more in terms of emergent abilities to harness and chanel work ( against constriants) in ways that are useful self referentially with respect to living purpose.
Greatness!
Reminds me of Levi-Strauss structuralism
Determinate Negation?
I was wondering about that too.
He introduces the concept of negation as inherent to the notion of representation. This notion goes all the way back to Plato's Sophist (an image is conceived as an image only insofar as it is /not/ the object it represents, and yet it can embody it), which is the first philosophical exploration of the concept of negation.
And the fact that you need the negative in your system in order to organise and explain the positive/affirmative and ultimately reach self-consciousness sounds both very Greek and very Hegelian.
@@andreab380 Yin-Yang has it too.
"If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't" -Lewis Carroll
@@JudoJonny5 Agreed, although I think that the ideas Deacon is building on come from or can be found in western philosophy (except maybe the whole "absence" central idea, although westerners do have a tradion about the importance of negation and non-being).
Professor Terrence Deacon thinks!
❤❤❤
Thinking takes a certain amount of nose rubbing
+Isabel Taube :) Commonly, conversational nose touching indicates deception - in this case however, I strongly suspect, the extra forceful, louder volume of his speech is inducing resonance to internal, possibly dried mucus reinforced, from a recent case of sniffles, nose hairs. There may also be an emotive component as he is offering statements which he may feel are naturally subject to a certain degree of incredibility.
Not that radical or new, but valid.
We need Bigger Physics, do you mean Metaphysics?
"Ratchet effect" is responsible for complexity: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratchet_effect
What numerology with this zero thing. Zero is just a thing multiplied by any other thing gives itself again.
+DerMacDuff usually, it is counted as absence of evidence. But one can make some inference from that absence nontheless
But before it was known, Zero did not exist. No number when multplied by all others, would invariably result into itself.
Before Zero existed, numbers started with 1. And you could risk your life, and some have died I'm sure, just suggesting that Zero could be a good idea.
Before zero existed, it was an absential feature of mathematics.
Nowadays, when you talk about end-tentional processes, end-directed processes, on Richard Dawkins Facebook group, you risk expulsion. You may not die, but some will do violence to you (verbally).
Because even after all these centuries, humans are stil very uncomfortable with absent features, which are important non the less.
We shall all continue walking with our head in our butt, according to darwinists. Case is solve.
Object A x 1 = object A
Object A x 2= object A + object A
Object A x 0= 0
What is zero?
Anything multiplied by zero gets deleted.
Anything thats divided by zero gets
Breaks laws of math.
Truth, wins
www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/excellent-beauty/201710/is-science-religion
I didn't understand shit. Very cool tho!