Friday, April 11, 2014

Contending Forces

So how do you disobey a law of nature?  By obeying a conflicting law?  Where does the choice lie, or was it made in some way by the law that has forced the entity to obey, and forced it to choose to disobey the counter law.  
(But how can you force a choice and have it remain as a choice?  Contrary to the usual jargon, to defeat it, you do have to eat it.)
In nature, rather than by laws, are not the choices made by competing strategies for control of both themselves and their competing entities?  And were not those forces within those entities to begin with?  Do they not constitute the strategic forces that construct the entities that then use them for their evolving purposes?  Their "life" being in the strategies that are in themselves the essence of what causes force to have a strategic direction?
To be in other words, strategically directed forces?
Forces that in effect make what we call their laws?

Yes, strategies exist to accomplish strategic purposes.  Which are, in other words, contending purposes. Either cooperating to contend or competing, but otherwise we don’t strategize for a non-contending need.
What did these strategic systems “know” or have to know at the minimum beforehand and how was the skill acquired to use that knowledge actively? To act on it with the curiosity to add to it?  To become a budding strategy that knew somehow that it had the need to learn?  
And yet how could it and how did it know that it was contending for survival to begin with?   The incremental changes and their causes over time that led to these purposive activities seem almost impossible for our human minds to deal with.

Take magnetic forces for example.  Can they exist without the entities that they are exerting force either for or against?
Take light as well - does it exist to ferry protons for their own purposes, and/or are proteins themselves being ferried for various other entities’ forceful purposes?  And what were light’s existing uses and purposes to begin with?
And why are forces in contention, or were ever in contention to begin with?  Or did there ever need to be a first contention?  And what’s the best educated guess for answers to any of that?  

Perhaps the answer's this:  Contention must have to be a natural state of affairs.  Perhaps anything that has to move will have to contend with anything else that moves.  Doing so intelligently, or otherwise chaotically at the very least.  
So what’s wrong with chaos?  Well, it’s not predictable and it’s not evolvable.  It’s not amenable to any natural strategic purposes.

Then how does a strategy direct force, unless the strategy is the essence of the force which exists as a self responsive energetic entity?  But then strategies exist both to thoughtfully construct their entities and as the controlling aspects of the forces that operate their systems.  And they’re set up in addition to evolve all types of their intelligent operative characteristics; in which case they try and they err and try again continuously.

So stay tuned.

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Can we have been unconsciously intended? Or consciously unintended? Did we pave an unpaved road? Or unpave the paved?

intention |inˈtenCHən|
1 a thing intended; an aim or plan:

For us at least, unconscious intention, as a process, is still intentioned (i.e., intended).  We've planned it and we've aimed it.  We chose to react OR we operated from a pre chosen process.  Intended is also something done that would otherwise have been called unintended, or in other words either a mistaken intention or an unintended mistake.  Yet at some point, if there was a behavior, there had to have been an intent to act - to behave or decide to not behave.
And in the end, all our living activities have at some point been made possible by a plan where intelligence was involved.  As it would seem was necessarily intended.  But by what, the unliving that preceded us?

But wait, this begins to seem a bit too silly.  I’m essentially arguing that nothing is unintended when I should at least concede that unintended has a practical meaning, which is to distinguish the planned from the unplanned, even though in theory, something happening is always a preplanned action.
But if an "aim" as well, if it was not the goal that the particular plan was aimed at, then we can have something intended that was also unintended.  Can't we?
Aha!  Context, context.  But what, intended context?  And are there intended or unintended purposes? Or is there any such thing.  Unintended must apply to results, no?  Otherwise we’re only talking of unintended intentions.
Which I suppose are theoretically possible, but meaning becomes lost when we’re simply playing with words for no other purpose than to play with meanings.

Well let's find a serious example, and one with a universal application!  Such as this one:
What do I mean exactly when referring to intentional construction as "intelligent" construction?  Well, that the construction was accomplished through some entity that had “the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.”  And that this constructive something could have, in and of itself, been intelligently constructed to accomplish any intended or intentional purposes.
But nowhere down the line will we be able to find, logically, that this process had an absolutely accidental beginning.  Knowledge is not acquired by an entity that has no ability to use or process it.
And the having of skills is just another way of saying that a thing has the knowledge to be skillful.  Trial and error learning of a skill may occur through a series of obtaining accidental results.  But not by accidental trials with no ability to acquire a purpose in the process.
So what then is the ability to acquire purpose?  It may come down to the fact that there’s nothing in existence that doesn’t have some measure of that quality.   The quality of using at the least, the simplest of strategies.  The quality that allows the application of a known skill.  If only to follow the simplest of instructions or commands.  If only to consistently react.

AND If only to know to obey a natural law.  Or to have the ability to disobey it.  To have, in other words, the ability to choose the extent of our otherwise necessary reactions to a force!!
SO now we get to the very essence of the deterministic arguments, which make a difference between intelligent determination or the non-intelligence of a predetermined world and universe.  A universe where all things indeterminate will need to have retained an element of reactive choice!

Intended in the absence of the unintended.  What a crooked road to hell did I intend to pave with that one?

Monday, March 10, 2014

An Energetic Stream from my Consciousness

Riffing on 3-9-14:

Energy is the life of our universe.  It consists of necessarily self evolving strategies as well as their ever evolving fields of forces that, with the ongoing diversity of its strategic changes, have been variously constructed and regulated to use, direct, and accomplish a growing diversity of purposes.
Ah, you ask, but isn’t it simply a speculative assertion that strategic systems at the proverbial start will have needed to act at cross purposes to evolve?
No, because there must have been cross purposes available to act on if strategies were able to develop at all, since all strategies are ipso facto deceptively constructed.  Thus creating entities that, as strategic systems have been discovered to do, inevitably conflict.  And in ways that have allowed them to survive via the inevitable circumstances where strategies have had to develop competitive interests.  Interests that, in the sequential change of time, have developed a randomly chaotic system which, despite its trials and necessary errors, has eventually worked to the overall evolutionary advantage of strategic systems.
Why then was there anything like these systems in the universe to begin with since of course we can clearly see that such strategies are with us now.  That question however assumes there was a beginning, just as some assume there was a starting point for anything at all to exist.  I on the other hand am forced to assume there wasn’t one, a something being unable logically to arise from a nothing. Or, by an even lesser logicality, for there ever to have been a nothing.

Sunday, March 02, 2014

Regarding what Charles Sanders Peirce had to say about everything having purposes.

May I mention as well
that we serve our own as well as others' purposes?
Everything in existence serves a purpose, whether it’s for our own or someone or something else’s prior purpose.  Which may in its turn be one of a series of purposes being served for the initial constructor of the first in that series of purpose servers; a series  which will tend, with intelligent assistance from other purpose servers, to predictively multiply itself exponentially (but not necessarily in a perfectly mathematical sequence).
And since a purpose requires an intelligence to form itself, all purposive somethings have been constructed by and for their purposes intelligently.  Some of these functional constructions having also been supplied enough of that existing intelligence to reconstruct and evolve themselves, and others more simply to consist of dullish servers in a train of future services.
And then if the initial purpose of all creative and constructive work in the universe was an intelligent one, who or what was the ultimate constructor?  We can logically, and then again with better logic, presume to have an answer, but we’ll never know to any certainty at all, or will we?.
Oh and yes, what was that initial purpose anyway, or what must it have been?
Or is it something that was always there?

And I haven't even tried to talk about how or why purposes can and will evolve in sequence to serve newer purposes countering those originally intended to be served. 

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Our self structured capacities

Taken from the notes for a new book:

The human brain has restructured itself continuously since our species’ strategic needs and purposes diverged from those of our nearest ancestors - since we left the trees as they say to resourcefully walk about the earth.  The time taken for that measurably huge difference in the brain’s physical and functional complexity is evidence enough, for me at least, that these differences could not possibly have been brought about by mutational accident, and not even by a series of intelligent responses to any such a series of evolutionary events.
What must have had to happen were constructive responses to the “intelligence” of anticipation, based on our functional abilities to analyze our conceptions of strategic needs and responses to those from the very similar to the very different needs of others in the predictively foreseeable future.
And it bears repeating that the structural work required WAS done by our physical resources, and even if somehow magically directed from afar, needed the brain itself as an onsite observer and problem discerner as well as immediate construction trier and corrector of the inevitable series of construction errors.

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Accidentally Acquired Intelligence?

Accidental Intelligence?

An accident can’t make something choose that has no ability to make a choice.  It can’t confer intelligence on something that can’t choose to use it.  So if an entity that’s supposed to be living can react to an accident by choosing a different path, then that entity has made a choice that the accident has caused it to make. Intelligence was at work within that entity as well as, in my view, “outside” of it.
Does that mean the accident itself was intelligently directed?  Not necessarily, as more likely intelligently created for what had likely been a different purpose.  It also means the living entity was intelligently devised, because being alive requires the ability to intelligently react.
Then how or why could intelligence be at work outside of that entity as well?  Because it took an outside event to produce the initial something that intelligence has evolved to advantageously react to.

So if we have an intelligent system that needs to evolve for the purposes of better taking advantage of accidents, then we’ve either had accidents that have always existed along with the intelligence that accidents then served to evolve, or had intelligence that created accidents as potentially beneficial, or accidents that, illogically, created intelligence (or had a form of logical accident that we can only conceive of as magical).
So then do we have what appears to be an evolving series of more effective accidents, which would seem to mean then that accidents were self created for a purpose?
Because the apparent paradox here is, first, that we’ve had accidents that have created intelligence. (Which would seem to be a logical impossibility).
Or second, intelligence that then created accidents for its own evolutionary purposes. (Except that, as another logical impossibility, intelligence had somehow not needed accidents to reach the stage where it began to need them.)
Or third, that accidents and intelligence somehow have existed for all of time as separate phenomena, each being necessary for the other to exist at all.
(Possible if only because of the impossibility of having nothing.)

And take mathematics for example, which many of our educated brethren see as evidence for a non-intelligent universe that follows its fixed rules in an automatically mechanical fashion, and yet if its systems haven’t learned to do these things intelligently, won't that mean they've never needed to be taught them?  The universe then being accidentally mathematical?
So again we come back to the only alternative set, a magical creator of these phenomena with conflicting purposes, or as some will say, no purposes, while they also say any appearance of purpose at all is accidental - since purpose requires an intelligence that these accidental forces did not have - because of course they could not - unless by magic.

What’s left then?  Can an intelligent universe have created what only appear to be accidents, or did an accidentally directed one create what only appears to be intelligence, yet at the same time do so in the presence of an unexplainably intelligent observer from which our more intelligent creatures have somehow now evolved?
Some observing physicist will now raise the possibility that multiple worlds exist which are also (or apparently) intermingled - one for example that’s unintelligently accidental (and neither frozen nor chaotic) and one that’s intelligent, yet not with any accidents available for that intelligence to have ever found the need to use.  (Neediness being logically unable, in my book anyway, to exist without a purpose.)
The question remains that since we, as humans, must use a trial and error method for the exercise of intelligence, how compatible is that to existing with an intelligentless system of accidents, unless it may have happened that accidents are not entirely a non-intelligent procedure?
In other words, if all’s said and done, there must be an element of intelligence to every accident, no?
And if intelligence cannot be accidentally caused, I must ask again, have all accidents been intelligently caused? 

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Time Reversal and the like. Can we know the logically impossible to be possible?

John A. Wheeler, re A Life in Physics, page 347, commented in effect as follows:  You will say that the time reversal view of a torn piece of paper being ‘untorn' could never happen.  But in fact it could happen albeit with an incredibly small probability.  You and the universe won’t live or exist long enough to see it happen, yet in principle two torn sheets could weld themselves into a single mammoth sheet.  And the molecules of perfume that have spread to fill a room could migrate back and regather on the starlet who entered the room.

Wheeler’s argument appears to be then that no matter how unlikely the possible, the improbable is not the same as the impossible.
There are clearly several things wrong with this argument, logically as well as scientifically.  First, how did the reversal of a change somehow become a reversal of the “time” it took to make the change and then reverse it?  That would appear to be the problem whether time is seen as a separate dimension or a measure of the ongoing changes of all other dimensions in the here and now.
And if time is in fact a measure of the rate of change, then the sequence of those changes will continue to move in the direction that allows each bit of sequence to replace the other but never to effectively undo each others “doing.”  A happened sequence in other words cannot have never happened.
Further, a scientific theory that fails to recognize the role of purpose in all of the events it studies is not a proper demonstration of scientific logic.  A situation where nature will inevitably find some purpose for reversing the strategic processes that led over countless eons to the evolution of its regulated laws is simply not going to occur, as an intelligently devised strategy allowing it to start all of its systems over and reinvent those laws will not be found. If any thing is impossible, changing the beginnings of a system that has theoretically had no beginning seems to be that thing.

But, to take another tack, can’t something be illogically possible?  And if so, then anything is logically possible, right?  No.  Why not?  By our definition of sense and nonsense, okay?
But then, on the one hand, am I not playing with the necessary ambiguity of our words in order to offer evidence of the clearly impossible?  Yes, but on the other hand, I’d be violating all the rules of the game to claim to know, logically or illogically, that the logically impossible is possible.