Recent Changes for "The Science of shapes" - Philosophical Investigations

The Science of shapes

PerigGouanvic — 2010-04-24 05:25:34

(quick edit)

Differences for The Science of shapes

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 14:	Line 14:
	+ =Burn the Witch!=

The Science of shapes

PerigGouanvic — 2010-04-24 04:21:41

(quick edit)

Differences for The Science of shapes

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 22:	Line 22:
	+ '''''The term [morphic fields] is more general in its meaning than morphogenetic fields [theorized in developmental biology], and includes other kinds of organizing fields in addition to those of morphogenesis; the organizing fields of animal and human behaviour, of social and cultural systems, and of mental activity can all be regarded as morphic fields which contain an inherent memory.''''' + + —Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past (Chapter 6, page 112)

The Science of shapes

PerigGouanvic — 2010-04-24 04:19:56

(quick edit)

Differences for The Science of shapes

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 21:	Line 21:
- Rupert Sheldrake had proposed the notion of morphogenetic fields, a notion not unlike Plato's Ideas.	+ Rupert Sheldrake had proposed the notion of morphic fields, a notion not unlike Plato's Ideas.

The Science of shapes

Lizz — 2010-04-22 21:39:11

Yes, I know this guy, he's a fellow witch!

Differences for The Science of shapes

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 14:	Line 14:
- And this ''where'' the most heated debate is taking place today. Rupert Sheldrake, a respected biologist, came to the conclusion that the tools he was given were logically incapable of explaining how life develops the way it does: it provided the building material, but not the blueprints. When he published in a book his analyses and hypotheses, the most respected journal, ''Nature'', called his book "a book for burning" through the voice of John Maddox, the editor-in-chief.[[footnote(Important to note, this editorial was not initially signed, but rather appeared as a consensus declaration from ''Nature''. Only later did Maddox reveal that he was the sole author of this text. For a detailed analysis, see Anthony Freeman [http://www.imprint.co.uk/Editorial12_6.pdf The Sense of Being Glared At: What Is It Like to be a Heretic?] Journal of Consciousness Studies Vol.12, No.6)]] Rupert Sheldrake had proposed the notion of morphogenetic fields, a notion not unlike Plato's Ideas.	+ And this ''where'' the most heated debate is taking place today. Rupert Sheldrake, a respected biologist, came to the conclusion that the tools he was given were logically incapable of explaining how life develops the way it does: it provided the building material, but not the blueprints. When he published in a book his analyses and hypotheses, the most respected journal, ''Nature'', called his book "a book for burning" through the voice of John Maddox, the editor-in-chief.[[footnote(Important to note, this editorial was not initially signed, but rather appeared as a consensus declaration from ''Nature''. Only later did Maddox reveal that he was the sole author of this text. For a detailed analysis, see Anthony Freeman [http://www.imprint.co.uk/Editorial12_6.pdf The Sense of Being Glared At: What Is It Like to be a Heretic?] Journal of Consciousness Studies Vol.12, No.6)]] + '''''"This infuriating tract... is the best candidate for burning there has been for many years."''''' + + On BBC television in 1994, + + '''''"Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned in exactly the language that the Pope used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reason. It is heresy."''''' + + Rupert Sheldrake had proposed the notion of morphogenetic fields, a notion not unlike Plato's Ideas.

The Science of shapes

Lizz — 2010-04-22 21:30:39

(quick edit)

Differences for The Science of shapes

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 22:	Line 22:
- it, in time. The generation of configuration is ubiquitous, like other phenomena covered by other ‘laws’ in physics.''' Biological systems are configured. Geophysical systems are configured. Engineering and societal systems are configured. The configuration phenom- - enon unites the animate with the inanimate.''' All the other phenomena of physics (i.e. of ‘everything’) have this unifying power. Falling rocks, like falling animals, have weight, conserve energy, generate entropy, etc.''	+ it, in time. The generation of configuration is ubiquitous, like other phenomena covered by other ‘laws’ in physics.''' Biological systems are configured. Geophysical systems are configured. Engineering and societal systems are configured. The configuration phenomenon unites the animate with the inanimate.''' All the other phenomena of physics (i.e. of ‘everything’) have this unifying power. Falling rocks, like falling animals, have weight, conserve energy, generate entropy, etc.''

The Science of shapes

PerigGouanvic — 2010-04-20 20:48:20

Differences for The Science of shapes

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 16:	Line 16:
- ==Also see==	+ ==Constructal Theory == +
Line 18:	Line 19:
	+ ''In 1996, the constructal law was formulated and proposed to expand thermodynamics in a fundamental way. First was the proposal to recognize that there is a universal phenomenon ''not covered by the first law and the second law''. That phenomenon is the generation of configuration, or the generation of ‘design’ in nature.'' + + ''All thermodynamic systems in nature are flow systems (i.e. live, non-equilibrium systems), and they all have configuration. If they do not have it, then they acquire + it, in time. The generation of configuration is ubiquitous, like other phenomena covered by other ‘laws’ in physics.''' Biological systems are configured. Geophysical systems are configured. Engineering and societal systems are configured. The configuration phenom- + enon unites the animate with the inanimate.''' All the other phenomena of physics (i.e. of ‘everything’) have this unifying power. Falling rocks, like falling animals, have weight, conserve energy, generate entropy, etc.'' + + + + Adrian Bejan and Sylvie Lorente + The constructal law of design and evolution in nature + Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2010 +

The Science of shapes

PerigGouanvic — 2010-01-21 21:31:59

Differences for The Science of shapes

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+ [[include(templates/stub)]] +
Line 5:	Line 7:
- -->''This page is a stub. You can help expand it. - Ideas, and some possible material, for the page - are on the related discussion page.''<--
Line 16:	Line 15:
	+ + ==Also see== + [http://www.constructal.org/ Constructal Theory Web Portal] + ''Constructal theory is this mental viewing: + + (i) The generation of design (configuration, pattern, geometry) in nature is a physics phenomenon that unites all animate and inanimate systems, and + + (ii) This phenomenon is covered by the Constructal Law: "For a finite-size (flow) system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must evolve such that it provides easier and easier access to its currents." (Bejan, 1996) + + The Constructal Law is about the time direction of the "movie" of design generation and evolution. It is not about optimality (min, max), end design, destiny or entropy. + '''The concept that the Constructal Law defines in Physics is "design" (configuration) as a phenomenon in time'''. ''

The Science of shapes

PerigGouanvic — 2009-08-30 21:37:40

Differences for The Science of shapes

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 8:	Line 8:
- [[image(dnaawe.jpg)]] - No one can derive a machine from the laws of physics and chemistry, a vocabulary from phonetics, a grammar from a vocabulary, a good style from the laws of grammar, or the meaning or content of a composition from stylistic strategies. At each consecutive level there is a state which can be said to be less tangible than the one below it. - > - The more intangible the matter in the range of these hierarchies, the more meaningful it is. This is my criticism of all redactionist, mechanistic programs founded on the Laplacean ideal which identifies ultimate knowledge with an ''atomic topography'', the lowest level of the universe. - > - The full import of my criticism of the avowed program of biology can now be seen. The organism has a mechanism, and this mechanism is like a machine. It has operating principles which harness the powers available from the laws of inanimate matter. - An organism is not reducible to these laws, for in fact ''its morphological principles are extraneous to the operation of these laws'', ''though morphology '''controls''' these energies for the functions of the organism.''[[footnote(Michael Polanyi. [http://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/mp-transcendence.htm Transcendence And Self-Transcendence]. Soundings 53: 1 (Spring 1970): 88-94)]]	+ [[image(dnaawe.jpg, left, thumbnail, 300)]] + ''No one can derive a machine from the laws of physics and chemistry, a vocabulary from phonetics, a grammar from a vocabulary, a good style from the laws of grammar, or the meaning or content of a composition from stylistic strategies. At each consecutive level there is a state which can be said to be less tangible than the one below it. + The more intangible the matter in the range of these hierarchies, the more meaningful it is. This is my criticism of all redactionist, mechanistic programs founded on the Laplacean ideal which identifies ultimate knowledge with an ''atomic topography'', the lowest level of the universe. + The full import of my criticism of the avowed program of biology can now be seen. The organism has a mechanism, and this mechanism is like a machine. It has operating principles which harness the powers available from the laws of inanimate matter. + An organism is not reducible to these laws, for in fact ''its morphological principles are extraneous to the operation of these laws'', ''though morphology '''controls''' these energies for the functions of the organism.''[[footnote(Michael Polanyi. [http://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/mp-transcendence.htm Transcendence And Self-Transcendence]. Soundings 53: 1 (Spring 1970): 88-94)]]''

The Science of shapes

PerigGouanvic — 2009-08-30 21:35:52

Upload of image dnaawe.jpg.

The Science of shapes

PerigGouanvic — 2009-08-30 21:34:56

Differences for The Science of shapes

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
-
Line 6:	Line 5:
- -->'' - ''This page is a stub. You can help expand it.	+ -->''This page is a stub. You can help expand it.
Line 9:	Line 7:
- are on the related discussion page.'' - ''<-- - [[=image dnaawe]]	+ are on the related discussion page.''<-- + [[image(dnaawe.jpg)]]

The Science of shapes

PerigGouanvic — 2009-08-30 21:34:17

(quick edit)

Differences for The Science of shapes

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 4:	Line 4:
- ''Does science have, in its own terms, a way to account for shapes in nature?''	+ ==''Does science have, in its own terms, a way to account for shapes in nature?''==

The Science of shapes

PerigGouanvic — 2009-08-30 21:34:06

(quick edit)

Differences for The Science of shapes

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 2:	Line 2:
- === Or Being in shape(s)	+ ===''Or Being in shape(s)''===

The Science of shapes

PerigGouanvic — 2009-08-30 21:33:08

Differences for The Science of shapes

Deletions are marked with - .	Additions are marked with +.
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+ + === Or Being in shape(s) + + ''Does science have, in its own terms, a way to account for shapes in nature?'' + + -->'' + ''This page is a stub. You can help expand it. + Ideas, and some possible material, for the page + are on the related discussion page.'' + ''<-- + [[=image dnaawe]] + No one can derive a machine from the laws of physics and chemistry, a vocabulary from phonetics, a grammar from a vocabulary, a good style from the laws of grammar, or the meaning or content of a composition from stylistic strategies. At each consecutive level there is a state which can be said to be less tangible than the one below it. + > + The more intangible the matter in the range of these hierarchies, the more meaningful it is. This is my criticism of all redactionist, mechanistic programs founded on the Laplacean ideal which identifies ultimate knowledge with an ''atomic topography'', the lowest level of the universe. + > + The full import of my criticism of the avowed program of biology can now be seen. The organism has a mechanism, and this mechanism is like a machine. It has operating principles which harness the powers available from the laws of inanimate matter. + An organism is not reducible to these laws, for in fact ''its morphological principles are extraneous to the operation of these laws'', ''though morphology '''controls''' these energies for the functions of the organism.''[[footnote(Michael Polanyi. [http://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/mp-transcendence.htm Transcendence And Self-Transcendence]. Soundings 53: 1 (Spring 1970): 88-94)]] + + + And this ''where'' the most heated debate is taking place today. Rupert Sheldrake, a respected biologist, came to the conclusion that the tools he was given were logically incapable of explaining how life develops the way it does: it provided the building material, but not the blueprints. When he published in a book his analyses and hypotheses, the most respected journal, ''Nature'', called his book "a book for burning" through the voice of John Maddox, the editor-in-chief.[[footnote(Important to note, this editorial was not initially signed, but rather appeared as a consensus declaration from ''Nature''. Only later did Maddox reveal that he was the sole author of this text. For a detailed analysis, see Anthony Freeman [http://www.imprint.co.uk/Editorial12_6.pdf The Sense of Being Glared At: What Is It Like to be a Heretic?] Journal of Consciousness Studies Vol.12, No.6)]] Rupert Sheldrake had proposed the notion of morphogenetic fields, a notion not unlike Plato's Ideas.