<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Despite my reputation for doing otherwise, I don't *intend* to
splatter this already splattered thread, but I can't help
observing that from what little biosemiotics I am familiar with,
it seems like what we are hashing significantly overlaps their
core tenets.<br>
</p>
<p>From Biosemiotics (Hoffmeyer, von Uexkull):</p>
<p> “[i]n a world where nothing was predictable, Life would be
out of a job” (Hoffmeyer,
Signs 28).</p>
<p><a
href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Signs_of_Meaning_in_the_Universe/L5nSVthCFzUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22on+nature%27s+tendency+to+acquire+habits%22&pg=PA24&printsec=frontcover">https://www.google.com/books/edition/Signs_of_Meaning_in_the_Universe/L5nSVthCFzUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22on+nature%27s+tendency+to+acquire+habits%22&pg=PA24&printsec=frontcover</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p> "Meaning is the guiding star that biology must follow. The
rule of causality
is a poor guide: causal relationships deal only with antecedents
and
consequences, thereby completely concealing from us broad
biological
interrelationships and interactions11 (Meaning 43)." </p>
</blockquote>
<p><a
href="https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/viewFile/30210/21688#:~:text=In%20the%20relation%20between%20the,star%20that%20biology%20must%20follow.">https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/viewFile/30210/21688#:~:text=In%20the%20relation%20between%20the,star%20that%20biology%20must%20follow.</a></p>
<p>My summary of the issues is roughly that what makes "life" unique
from all other forms/organizations of matter is the *apparent*
ability/goal of sensing/predicting/acting. <br>
</p>
<p>- Steve<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/17/20 12:29 PM, ∄ uǝlƃ wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5b155556-c552-ab87-cb51-76720f7da2a8@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Yes! That's an excellent example of when faith is useful. I've argued that that particular usage isn't canonical, though. The canon I learned was that faith is a truncation of inference useful in many types of circumstance. In the end, it boils down to let's just get on with it and see what happens ... as opposed to hand-wringing and worrying - analysis paralysis. I also think it plays an important role in hypothesis formation. E.g. if we take physics *seriously*, there must be some thing, XYZ, that plays the role of a magnetic monopole. Such "taking seriously" is an act of (revocable) faith. I.e. you don't have to stop the presses and derive everything from first principles ever day all day, arguing about fundamental concepts ... you just get on with it and see what happens. Relatedly, the "shut up and calculate" accusation is really a strawman. Everyone *wants* to go deeper. But many of us have jobs, and grass to mow, and children to raise, etc. We can't spend all our time thinking about the One True Meaning of "free will".
On 6/17/20 11:09 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Maybe this has a lot to do with why people have "faith", they just get tired of trying to figure it all out, and it is so much easier to accept what a large group of your peers tells you. I think true wisdom starts when one realizes those limitations.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>