There's certainly nothing wrong in dispelling mysteries when it comes to empirical enquiry. And I'm not "attacking authoritarianism" or pretending to attack it, but rather questioning the justification of reason that bases itself upon empirical observation that purports to explain (and explain away) that which is beyond its ambit.

The sense of impenetrable mystery is a matter of experience, and I am speaking from experience. I don't expect anyone who doesn't have that experience to understand, much less be convinced, by what I say. I don't believe philosophy properly consists in rigorous argumentation at all, but rather in invitations to think about the world in new and more imaginative ways; it is more art than science.

With this kind of philosophical thinking it is not a matter of being right or wrong, in some intersubjectively determinable sense, but of finding ideas that are transformative for creative understanding; ideas that work, in other words. As I understand it that is actually the essence of pragmatism. The valuing of imaginatively, creatively and spiritually transformative ideas is not a merely epistemic matter as it is with science; which of course is also pragmatic in terms of its set of more purely utilitarian concerns.

So in terms of metaphysical reasoning, it [pansemiosis] can lay claim to being the best model of triadic systems causation - if you apply the epistemic constraint of demanding a scheme with the least possible transcendent mystery or uncertainty...But hey, I get it. Most folk are really into mystery. — apokrisis

Most scientists should be "into" complete explanations which transcend spatiotemporal domains. Since human beings are natural, living, psychophysical unities, and pansemiosis only describes physical phenomena, pansemiosis is an incomplete (i.e., reductionist) explanation of nature as a whole.

What are you trying to say?

What are you not understanding?

What transcendent thing is semiosis missing, given it covers both information and dynamics?

What transcendent thing is semiosis missing, given it covers both information and dynamics? — apokrisis

The subject is pansemiosis, not semiosis. Sorry, I'm not interested in playing word games. Enjoy yourself!

I see you realise your error. But even physio-semiosis would combine information and dynamics.

So where does sand get its shape so that it might compose a beach? How does it get roundish, smoothed and graded by size? What higher constraints lead to the formation of every particle of sand. — apokrisis

Natural selection. Organisms are shaped by natural selection. Planets are shaped by natural selection. Sand gets it's shape from natural selection. Natural selection, in this sense, is the process of environmental feedback acting on an individual and the individual's influence on the rest of the environment.

A bunch of billiard balls — Pneumenon

On the wiseass front...it's always struck me as surprising that the classic example (who first cited it?) is 'billiard balls'. This places the entire motion of the balls in a framework that is wider than the balls, and in a culture derived from France and England, and ultimately dependent, as my great uncle Ludwig might say with glee, on the rules of a game.

From this wiseass angle the reductionist and irreductionist seem part of the same narrow perspective.

Natural selection, in this sense, is the process of environmental feedback acting on an individual and the individual's influence on the rest of the environment. — Harry Hindu

Hi Harry,
I am assuming that by Natural Selection you are referring to the Survival of the Fittest model.
The problem I can see with Natural Selection, defined by Survival of the Fittest, is that it is a culling operation. I am sure that there were times in Earth's history when an impossible leap was needed by life so that it either perished from existence completely or it survived. If we simply culled all life because no variant could make the leap, life would have died out many times in Earth's history. To make the impossible leap requires that life is not clinging on to survival with its bare teeth but has an excess capacity to throw out variants. That is, it must be have a creative potential beyond what is demanded by survival of the fittest models. The difference is subtle in its distinction but enormous in its ramifications. And we know that time after time, when the environment gets nasty, life bounces back. What did that guy say on Jurassic Park - Nature finds a way?

Survival of the Fittest model. — MikeL

The feeling of wanting to survive is a trait of life, not of a soup of chemicals. Survival works against entropy. Materialists have no explanation of how such a trait magically, miraculously springs from some soup of chemicals, in such a way that the chemicals start fighting among each other for survival. They hope that no one notices how outlandish is this story (which is why the indoctrination begins at a very young age, when children cannot question), and if someone should notice, the answer is "It's very complicated and it takes a long time". Is such an answer and more scientific than God did it? There is literally zero evidence for any of this.

A more concrete answer it's that the mind, life, works against entropy in order to create. When one thinks about it, the metaphorical description in the Bible is probably a better description of life and far less miraculous in nature than the story that Evolutionists concocted, i.e. the famous "selfish gene".

A more concrete answer it's that the mind, life, works against entropy in order to create. — Rich

There's could be a problem of restraint here Rich. Creativity by definition is working against rigidity - against restraint, and yet you've defined it as a restraint on entropy. However without restraint it is entropic in nature.

Even talking with Apokrisis yesterday, I needed to invoke a restraint on the DNA and have only sections of high recombination for it to work. Otherwise we end up with a puddle of goo, which is entropic.

Quite the opposite, I'd say: irreductionist is only describing the situation by generalizations and taking a look at the bigger picture. The reductionist is the one explaining. This is all assuming the reductionist is correct of course, in that there's no supernatural force affecting the situation.

Quite the opposite, I'd say: irreductionist is only describing the situation by generalizations and taking a look at the bigger picture. The reductionist is the one explaining. This is all assuming the reductionist is correct of course, in that there's no supernatural force affecting the situation. — BlueBanana

According to your interpretation, none of them is explaining anything. A full description of all the details involved in an event is not an explanation. "Explain the murder to me, please" cannot be answered by, "well, when he pulled the trigger, it started this specific chemical reaction in the gunpowder and then some gases expanded quickly, pushing the bullet...."

And of course we don't need 'mind' and 'life' to work against entropy because entropy already works against itself (in the form of mind and life, among other things) - the production of local negentropy accelerating and advancing the production of global entropy.

There's could be a problem of restraint here Rich. Creativity by definition is working against rigidity - against restraint, and yet you've defined it as a restraint on entropy. However without restraint it is entropic in nature. — MikeL

Choice is constrained. Life is self-organizing.

It's a bit of a prickly paradox. It needs the order to allow the disorder. It can't be All Creative. It is the order part of the creative 'package' that is resisting entropy.

Yes, this is an interesting aspect. Bergson writes that the disorder (decay) is the waste of life. In other words spent Elan vital.