Re: [xmca] Response to David Kellogg about Volition

Is my thinking correct here? If we accept the second law of
thermo-dynamics as true (entropy is natural and in the long term
unavoidable) then the entropy stands in a dialectical relationship to
organisation - life.

On 09/09/07, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> At 12:22 PM 8/09/2007 -0700, you wrote:
> >At 10:37 AM 9/8/2007 +1000, you wrote:
> >>Steve, could you give a simple, 2 or 3 lines maybe, explanation of what
> >>you *mean* by "nature is dialectical"?
> >>Andy
> >
> >
> >Sure,I can give that a shot. Three aspects initially come to mind
> >regarding the claim "nature is dialectical." First, it is a claim that
> >nature is always in flux, always changing, constantly developing and
> >ever-transforming itself.
>
> This is trivial, isn't it? Who on Earth would deny it, since about 1000 BC?
>
> >Second, it is a claim that nature's motions and their history are
> >comprehensible through human practice, science, and the special science of
> >dialectical reasoning (which Engels defined as "the science of the laws of
> >motion").
>
> The claim about the intelligibility of Nature is as much a claim about
> human thought. While it is a claim of profound significance, it is really
> nothing to do with dialectics and the argument over whether Nature is
> dialectic or only thought or only history, as has been disputed over the
> past century.
>
>
> > Third, it is a claim that dialectical reasoning - more precisely,
> > materialist dialectics - incorporates and has advanced beyond mechanical
> > and metaphysical methods of thinking, which offer more limited and less
> > robust views of understanding nature.
>
>
> That is just a sectarian claim, Steve. It will convince no-one who is not
> already convinced.
>
> Andy
>
> >- Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>At 09:23 AM 7/09/2007 -0700, you wrote:
> >>>This is a dense but not too long post on this discussion of volition and
> >>>complexity theory. I think we bump into the question of whether "nature
> >>>is dialectical" in thinking about the question of how complexity theory
> >>>can figure into the study of consciousness. Yesterday I sent David
> >>>Kellog some links to Ethel Tobach (integrative levels) and Ken
> >>>Richardson (levels of self-regulation), two authors I find to be on the
> >>>right track. Both Tobach and Richardson use important ideas from CHAT
> >>>in their theorizing, and have a strong leaning toward integrating
> >>>natural and social science, in ways I find both dialectical and materialist.
> >>>
> >>>Vygotsky was a strong advocate of Engels' position that nature is
> >>>dialectical, as was of course Marx, who I believe contributed two
> >>>chapters to the book Anti-Duhring, where Engels develops this
> >>>concept. The Dialectics of Nature by Engels, a manuscript never
> >>>published in Engels' lifetime, was first published in Russia in the
> >>>1920's and is clearly influential on Vygotsky, who quotes it favorably
> >>>numerous times in his manuscript "The Meaning of the Historical Crisis
> >>>of Psychology" (1927). But this is a minority viewpoint today, it seems.
> >>>
> >>>I found myself spending some time browsing the book Mike mentioned
> >>>earlier this week, Human activity - contributions to the
> >>>anthropological sciences from a perspective of activity theory by Benny
> >>>Karpatschof, available online at
> >>>http://informationr.net/ir/12-3/Karpatschof/Karp00.html . This book is
> >>>a rich and highly worthy exploration of the philosophical underpinnings
> >>>of CHAT, one of the best I have seen on that level, but Benny adopts the
> >>>position that nature is not dialectical, disagreeing sharply with Engels
> >>>- and therefore, Marx, Vygotsky, Leontiev, and all the classical
> >>>Marxists on this question. This idea that Engels was wrong, that nature
> >>>is not dialectical, that dialectics does not apply to nature
> >>>(Karpatschof allies with Sartre on this), is quite popular among many
> >>>dialectical thinkers today, all around the world. The position I lean
> >>>toward, that nature is dialectical, is a minority view today.
> >>>
> >>>I think we bump into this question of the dialectics of nature every
> >>>time we try to integrate explanations across different domains of
> >>>complexity - from the behavior of atoms, to genes, to embryos, to
> >>>children learning to speak, for example - so the question "is nature
> >>>dialectical?" is both an ontological question (what is the nature of
> >>>reality) and epistemological (how do we know anything). I think Andy's
> >>>remarks offer an excellent basis for a critique of the incorrect view
> >>>that conscious human behavior (volition) can be reduced to the laws of
> >>>complexity science. But if we go the route Benny Karpatschof suggests
> >>>and reject the thesis that nature is dialectical altogether, I think we
> >>>can lose a vital link between the natural and the social, both
> >>>ontologically and epistemologically, and how we can use, as Engels began
> >>>to, the discoveries of natural science (laws of mechanics, chemistry in
> >>>his time, quantum electrodynamics, complexity theory, etc. in our time)
> >>>to understand how the even more complex activities of human society and
> >>>the still even more complex and chaotic actions and operations of the
> >>>human individual, emerge. In that way, I think complexity theory is
> >>>very much a powerful tool in trying to link the explanatory laws of
> >>>nature and society, although by no means is it sufficient. That will
> >>>require a new level of integrated science and general psychology along
> >>>the lines that Vygotsky envisioned.
> >>>
> >>>- Steve
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>At 04:18 PM 9/7/2007 +1000, you wrote:
> >>>>Welcome aboard Steve.
> >>>>
> >>>>I have always thought that the proposition that thinking is like
> >>>>computation is so barren, so stupid and so obviously an reflected
> >>>>projection, that to argue against it is to enter into the stupidity,
> >>>>and I would rather not. It's similar to people finding proof of
> >>>>neo-liberal economics in Darwinian biology, overlooking the fact that
> >>>>Darwin imported liberal economic ideas into his view of Nature in the
> >>>>first place. Computers are the latest thing, and information scientists
> >>>>develop tools for humans to use by emulating human activity, and then
> >>>>other people discover that people think like computers. Upside-down.
> >>>>Generates lots of academic salaries and popular book sales anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>>Although I think complexity theory and the concept of chaos are very
> >>>>rich and interesting ideas, I think they are out of place in
> >>>>describing the working of such a "well-oiled machine" (he, he) as the
> >>>>human mind. One thing about the application of this theory to the mind,
> >>>>and this is David's issue I believe, is that it is a radically unfree
> >>>>concept of the human condition. Allied with the concept of emergence,
> >>>>it is a fig leaf to cover a lacuna in positivist knowledge of the mind.
> >>>>We cannot explain how a few bits of flesh can be so creative and so
> >>>>clever, so its must be emergence, complexity, chaos, etc., etc.,
> >>>>
> >>>>I am intrigued also by David's question as to why learners should be so
> >>>>in favour of learning theories which give them no power. Perhaps it is
> >>>>because those learning theories also give them no responsibility?
> >>>>
> >>>>Andy
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>At 09:41 PM 6/09/2007 -0700, you wrote:
> >>>>>First time poster here and this may be from out of
> >>>>>left field, I'm not sure. I am not active in the
> >>>>>field so forgive me if but:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Roger Penrose, a prominent asttrophysicist, (among
> >>>>>others) has advanced the case that human
> >>>>>thinking/consciousness/cognition is not
> >>>>>"computational". Here he follows Kurt Goedel in the
> >>>>>use of the term computational. He wrote a book that
> >>>>>started with this premise and then further wrote a
> >>>>>response to a chorus of influential academics, all of
> >>>>>whom issued polemics against his book and especially
> >>>>>the "non-computational" thesis.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The contents of his reply somewhat step into the
> >>>>>middle of the debate but should be perfectly
> >>>>>understandable even to someone who hasn't read the
> >>>>>book or the scathing reviews. The Contents are
> >>>>>numbered and I recommend especiallyr reading #s 3 and
> >>>>>4 and then some of the later items at your own
> >>>>>discretion, evocatively titled "Free Will", "What Is
> >>>>>Consciousness?" and so on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Penrose is not really trying to answer those
> >>>>>questions, by the way, only remove them from a
> >>>>>reductive, emergent from matter, reducible to physical
> >>>>>properties and laws, perspective.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Might at least help center your search for how and
> >>>>>where volition fits into the puzzle.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>This is a wonderful list by the way, thanks guys
> >>>>>
> >>>>> > It's a good read too, but it wasn't what I was
> >>>>>looking for. I need
> >>>>> some
> >>>>> > > way of integrating complexity theory and VOLITION
> >>>>>(or
> >>>>> CONSCIOUSNESS). In
> >>>>> > > language teaching (which is what I do)
> >>>>>volition-free approaches are
> >>>>> very
> >>>>> > > popular (nativism, subconscious acquisition, and
> >>>>>now
> >>>>> chaos-complexity
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>____________________________________________________________________________________
> >>>>>Need a vacation? Get great deals
> >>>>>to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
> >>>>>http://travel.yahoo.com/
> >>>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>>xmca mailing list
> >>>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>
> >>>> Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
> >>>> AIM identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651
> >>>>
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>xmca mailing list
> >>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>xmca mailing list
> >>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
> >> Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435, AIM
> >> identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>xmca mailing list
> >>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >xmca mailing list
> >xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435, AIM
> identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>

-- 
Geoffrey Binder
BA (SS) La Trobe, BArch (Hons) RMIT
PhD Candidate
Global Studies, Social Sciences and Planning RMIT
Ph B. 9925 9951
M. 0422 968 567
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca