The best analysis is synthesis
The best analysis is synthesis, or the embedding of the construct of interest into a theory
~Mario Bunge, "Energy: Between Physics and Metaphysics"
I really like this view, because it highlights the inextricability of the analytic from the synthetic. Hence I thought I would share the idea and the source in case others might find it useful.
Bunge has some other remarkable observations, that energy is the only "universal physical property," for example. But what I like most is his conclusion that "the general concept of energy is so general that it belongs in metaphysics." Because it is so big that it overflows our scientific conceptions of it. This coincides rather well with some observations I have made about the interrelationship of science and metaphysics. If you read this essay, it really makes the point with clarity. Highlighting how the best analysis is synthesis.....
~Mario Bunge, "Energy: Between Physics and Metaphysics"
I really like this view, because it highlights the inextricability of the analytic from the synthetic. Hence I thought I would share the idea and the source in case others might find it useful.
Bunge has some other remarkable observations, that energy is the only "universal physical property," for example. But what I like most is his conclusion that "the general concept of energy is so general that it belongs in metaphysics." Because it is so big that it overflows our scientific conceptions of it. This coincides rather well with some observations I have made about the interrelationship of science and metaphysics. If you read this essay, it really makes the point with clarity. Highlighting how the best analysis is synthesis.....
Comments (24)
I just read that essay. It's what you would expect, surveys the various takes on causality across the socio-scientific spectrum. Concludes with an affirmation of "spontaneity," but in the context of an "enriched determinism."
I found the essay on energy more thought-provoking. Essay on the Mind-Body problem tomorrow.
The collection of essays is available from Kindle and is intended as a kind of survey of Bunge's mammoth body of work.
https://dokumen.pub/qdownload/scientific-realism-selected-essays-of-mario-bunge-9781573928922.html
Thanks. I downloaded it. Bunge has a bunch of interesting books on subjects I've wondered and spouted off about. If I like this, I'll take a look at some of them too.
I'm not familiar with Bunge's work. Say something more about his conception of "energy" that 'belongs in metaphysics" (like e.g. Schopenhauer's Will). Thanks.
The challenge of evolving consciousness in a commoditized society requires a multi-faceted approach that includes reorienting AI development towards ethical goals, educating and empowering individuals, promoting holistic economic models, and advocating for supportive policies. By addressing the root causes of value distortion, it is possible to create a society that genuinely supports the evolution of consciousness and well-being.
Why do you assume "AI" will ever be "conscious" or that it needs to be in order to function at or above human-level cognition?
I don't and I didn't think that was what I said. I assume that is the goal of the people developing it and in particular those who are part of the governing hype. I suppose the opposite. However, assuming that were the goal, then one reasonable way of viewing it would be as the next iteration in the evolution of consciousness.
All of those goals were set by mankind once, but only a few nations ever pursued them. Now, it appears that most people have given up on themselves and are thinking, "Let's try to be more supportive or ethical towards others using AI," because it is evident that we will not be able to achieve such goals.
Quoting javi2541997
Yes. I set some transcendental conditions of consciousness based on certain rational-cybernetic constraints on conscious self-perpetuation (and accounting for such classic problems as why people do not choose the good when it is evident that choosing the bad is bad for them.) Chatgpt4 merely summarized the conclusions.
Quoting Pantagruel
Quoting 180 Proof
:lol: I like this!
~C.S. Peirce
~R.G. Collingwood, Principles of Art
Maybe a side note, but...
What usually comes to mind for me about energy is how scale influence the perception of entropy. We often think of an explosion as this violent distribution of energy, this extremely rapid dispersion and release of energy from it's matter-trapped form into heat and kinetics.
However... when you look at an even larger explosion, like that of a nuclear bomb, the perception of its scale is like watching a liquid slowly flowing through another medium, even if a nuclear bomb is many times more destructive than a regular small scale explosion.
If you then scale things up. The sun.
If you then scale things up...
The dispersion of energy, the entropic process of our entire universe is a form of explosion. Even if scientists aren't really looking at the Big Bang as an actual explosion, I can't get the concept out of my head that it wasn't an explosion, but rather... the entire universe acts as an explosion.
On this scale, just like a mushroom cloud feels like a slow process, our perception of the explosion is so limited that we aren't even looking at it as an explosion. Or fully understand the implication of it as an entropic process of dispersing energy until that energy settles into its most entropic end time; the heat death of the universe.
In what medium did it explode?
I wonder too about time, whether time at micro-scales is even a well-defined property.
You got the Planck scale in which spacetime breaks down. But relativity is tricky on our perception and the well-defined becomes abstract concepts for that perception. By verification we know something is objective and tapping into that for inventions and engineering, it further verifies that our theories are correct. But it doesn't help for our perception and understanding as human beings...
We lack enough comprehension to fully grasp the implications of what we objectively know. And therefor we lack in the instinct which guides us towards further knowledge.
Which is why it is so important not to overestimate the scope of our empirical "knowledge". What is real now might not cover what is real tomorrow.
But that isn't a foundation for "anything goes". Science is a process, not a statement. It's the process of knowledge; what we know at this moment going into the next. The next moment we will know something else, something further and built upon yesterday's knowledge. But we are still using this knowledge to build, engineer and have agency in our reality. The fluid nature of science does not mean it is rendered irrelevant or lacking; it is the best tool we have against the chaos of human nature and our limits in knowledge. I'm merely pointing out the limits of our relation to the answers, that some answers require a drastic change in perception in order to know where to look and where to conduct the further research.
Thomas Kuhn's paradigm shift.
Still there can be no science without art:
"For Collingwood, art is the beginning of the process by which we create the self and the world. The distinctions between the self and the world and between the world as discovered and the world as made only occur at the level of intellect. However, for intellect to function, there must first be art."
~Richard Murphy, Collingwood and the Crisis of Western Civilization
If science is a tool then it is susceptible of improper use, like any other tool.
"That truth is greatest or truest which expresses most, which includes most successfully within itself a number of diverse and by themselves conflicting points of view."
~R.G. Collingwood, Truth and Contradiction