computation and yinyang

[Guest guest]

I was listening to the mathematician Stephen wolfram talk about his

theory of the formation of the universe. It is his opinion that

although the universe is a complex place, it actually is founded on

very simple computational rules. He first showed their is inherent

order that will emerge from even chaotic appearing systems. This seems

to be a fundamental universal idea. However, the emergence of order

from chaos with no other computational rules applied cannot possibly

lead to the complexity of even the physical universe, much less life.

While orderly, the patterns that emerge from chaos still need a lot of

refinement before there will be life (this is not to say the potential

for life is not inherent; in other words, the presence of order in

chaos can be used to rationalize spirit, god or natural order as

apriori - it doesn't matter to this argument). However add a very

basic computational rule to a pattern generator and all of the sudden

the level of complexity that arises actually could be sufficient to

generate the complexity of life over enough time. The simple

computational rule has to do with binary code in the computer realm.

So from chaos emerge the binary (from the dao arises yin and yang) and

from the interplay of the binary, all else arises (the ten thousand

things). This, in effect, is an elegant explanation as to how a simple

premodern philosophy of nature (yinyang) was actually powerful enough

to construct some degree of science and medicine upon. The chinese

played with this binary idea to its limit, but the inability to see the

invisible world directly led to an inevitable plateau. WM's great

failing is not its power of reductionism, but that it lost sight of the

binary.

 

It is interesting that two areas of modern development have also used

the binary concept to create novelty. I am personally just as amazed

at what computers can create as I am at what nature can create. the

ability to generate patterns from chaos and simple rules seems to be a

universal constant. No one could have ever conceived that computers

could generate the images and realism of modern video games for

example. We had no idea how powerful these rules of order were and

have only yet begun to scratch the surface. We have no idea how far

this can go and what good will come of it. The other area is genetics

where simple on/off functions at numerous points on a gene are the

primary rule of creation. When computers achieve a level of

intelligence (not just data processing) in excess of humans, those

computers will look at the human genome and it will appear as simple to

them as that of drosophila (the fruitfly) is to us. Drosophila and

other simple animals can now be made to live much much longer than

their normal lifespan with no ill effects. The application of such

advances to medicine is currently limited by the computational power of

the human brain. When this happens, its going to be a whole new

ballgame. I find almost amusing the futuristic naysaying on this list

as clearly very few members are familiar with the work I have been

describing. Thus the objections are obviously philosophical or

religious transparently veiled in a conservative view of science.

Rather than seeing this as a threat, we should see it as an

opportunity. If TCM has spent a thousand years mapping the binary as

it applies to health, might this not be of some value to the future of

modern medicine? This has always been my main interest in TCM. It is

a wonderful, important, but limited form of medicine. It is up to us

whether it impacts the future or is merely a footnote of history.

 

Like many of you, I got into this field due to my discontentment with

modernity and especially modern medicine. After some important

advances this century, especially in surgery and emergency care, WM

seemed to plateau, resting on its laurels and insanely pursuing the

same tactic against cancer and heart disease that had worked against

pneumonia and ruptured spleens. Attack or remove or repair

mechanically. One of the main cultural memes throughout the world is

" change is bad " . Ironically, the chinese with all their emphasis in

classical times on the yi jing is one of the most change phobic

societies on the planet. However, now 25 years later, much has

changed. While WM has not yet caught up with its own science, the

direction is clear. It is now well accepted that chronic illness is

due to complex multifactorial processes that involve diet and emotions.

The mentality that cancer is an evil force separate from the rest of

ones functioning is gone. Nutrition is generally regarded as the

cornerstone of health. While doctors still don't study nutrition, all

HMOs have nutritionists on staff for this purpose. Exercise is also

thought to be key. Thus, both behavioral psychology and fitness

training are now part of Kaiser. So we can sit back and ignore the

evidence and let history pass us by. Or we can join modernity offering

what we can to the mix. Its just boggles the mind that anyone would

think that any premodern medicine has all the answers. I think many of

us need to consider the possibility that the pace of change in modern

science has left us holding onto ideas about western medicine that are

quite outmoded. For example, to mention nutrition again, I frequently

hear holistic folks still talk about how MDs don't study it. But the

point is moot since WM is done HMO style and other healthcare

professionals do indeed address this issue. Its time to wake up and

smell the bacon. Interestingly, I know something that those of you in

private practice don't. the vast majority of the pre-25 age range of

students now dominating the colleges are in pretty close agreement with

me on these issues. So not only is the trend I describe valid in the

larger world, but the future of TCM will also influenced by these

students and that gives me some hope.

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Apr 17, 2005, at 11:02 AM, wrote:

 

>

> I was listening to the mathematician Stephen wolfram talk about his

> theory of the formation of the universe. It is his opinion that

> although the universe is a complex place, it actually is founded on

> very simple computational rules. He first showed their is inherent

> order that will emerge from even chaotic appearing systems. This seems

> to be a fundamental universal idea. However, the emergence of order

> from chaos with no other computational rules applied cannot possibly

> lead to the complexity of even the physical universe, much less life.

> While orderly, the patterns that emerge from chaos still need a lot of

> refinement before there will be life (this is not to say the potential

> for life is not inherent; in other words, the presence of order in

> chaos can be used to rationalize spirit, god or natural order as

> apriori - it doesn't matter to this argument). However add a very

> basic computational rule to a pattern generator and all of the sudden

> the level of complexity that arises actually could be sufficient to

> generate the complexity of life over enough time. The simple

> computational rule has to do with binary code in the computer realm.

> So from chaos emerge the binary (from the dao arises yin and yang) and

> from the interplay of the binary, all else arises (the ten thousand

> things). This, in effect, is an elegant explanation as to how a simple

> premodern philosophy of nature (yinyang) was actually powerful enough

> to construct some degree of science and medicine upon. The chinese

> played with this binary idea to its limit, but the inability to see the

> invisible world directly led to an inevitable plateau. WM's great

> failing is not its power of reductionism, but that it lost sight of the

> binary.

 

I've seen Wolfram lecture at UCSD and read his book sporadically. I

made the same discovery a few years ago of his work, mainly the binary

logic behind the patterns he has uncovered, and immediately connected

it with Yi Jing. There is no reason why we shouldn't use his ideas, as

well as those of complexity/chaos theory to update the binary logic of

Chinese medicine. I've had long discussions with such complexity

theorists such as Stuart Kauffman about this. I highly recommend his

book " At Home in the Universe " to everyone on this list.

>

> When this happens, its going to be a whole new

> ballgame. I find almost amusing the futuristic naysaying on this list

> as clearly very few members are familiar with the work I have been

> describing. Thus the objections are obviously philosophical or

> religious transparently veiled in a conservative view of science.

> Rather than seeing this as a threat, we should see it as an

> opportunity. If TCM has spent a thousand years mapping the binary as

> it applies to health, might this not be of some value to the future of

> modern medicine?

 

I don't know if you consider me to be one of the 'naysayers', but I do

have a strong point or two to add to this discussion:

 

1) All scientific advances that have not been accompanied by

moral/ethical growth have led to destruction rather than creativity.

As technology gets more and more powerful, the potential for good and

bad also increases exponentially. We can look at nuclear energy as one

example, the high doses of 'miracle drug' antibiotics for routine colds

and flus as another. Such scientists as Bill Joy have written in depth

about the potential dangers and abuses of nanotechnology, for example,

it isn't just 'people of faith'. Genetic engineering is just one

example of a new technology that must be accompanied by moral and

ethical decision-making. The potential for abuse by corporations and

the wealthy of this technology should be obvious by now. I don't think

governments can ban research, or that we shouldn't look at new

technologies without enthusiasm, just that we should use caution.

 

2) I have said for a few years now on this list that the logical

system, the code that is embedded in Chinese medicine is its most

valuable resource. I've also stated that my biggest concern in

integration was that this logical system would get lost in the shuffle

and integration, as it requires much study and effort to get a grip on

it. Chinese medicine is literary, and that means study. I sometimes

feel that conclusions are drawn too hastily about Chinese medicine when

it is obviously is a vast, complex phenomenon. I think that as a

profession in the West we are too young to draw simplistic conclusions,

and need to just observe, study, learn and practice more before drawing

to conclusions.

 

>

 

>

>

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

I agree with your skepticism that technology will lead to utopia. Todd is

right that this technological understanding of genetics, artifical

intelligence, computational theory, etc. has the ***potential*** for

leading to utopian breakthroughs in health care. The problem, though, is

ultimately an ethical-spiritual one. In my younger days, I was involved

with quite a few high technology projects in medical engineering. In

retrospect, I'd estimate that for each idea with the potential to improve

health, at least 3 parallel ideas emerge with the potential for

destruction.

 

Spengler and Toynbee are among several historians that have observed that

as a civilization reaches its peak and begins to decline, the first signs

of decay are generally seen in its art and music - artists often function

as the soothsayers in many societies, they see farther into the future than

others. Next, one will see a decline in ethics and increasing

contentiousness in legal affairs; corruption begins to eat away at the body

politic. In response to these disintegrating influences, technology

invaribly assumes an increasingly important role - the power structure of

society attempts to hold things together with machines and automata. As the

decline becomes more severe, these machines and automata are called upon to

commit acts of violence and mass destruction, to attempt terrorizing the

population into submission.

 

I am much more pessimistic than although I often agree with his

technical analyses. For every single scientific project in which I've

participated, I've witnessed numerous applications in weaponry and/or

" population control " . However, that does not mean we should ignore

technology. Its development will continue whether we like it or not. It is

essentially a battle on several planes simultaneously - technical and

tactical, political, and " spiritual " -ethical.

 

Roger

 

 

 

>

>1) All scientific advances that have not been accompanied by

>moral/ethical growth have led to destruction rather than creativity.

>As technology gets more and more powerful, the potential for good and

>bad also increases exponentially. We can look at nuclear energy as one

>example, the high doses of 'miracle drug' antibiotics for routine colds

>and flus as another. Such scientists as Bill Joy have written in depth

>about the potential dangers and abuses of nanotechnology, for example,

>it isn't just 'people of faith'. Genetic engineering is just one

>example of a new technology that must be accompanied by moral and

>ethical decision-making. The potential for abuse by corporations and

>the wealthy of this technology should be obvious by now. I don't think

>governments can ban research, or that we shouldn't look at new

>technologies without enthusiasm, just that we should use caution.

>

>2) I have said for a few years now on this list that the logical

>system, the code that is embedded in Chinese medicine is its most

>valuable resource. I've also stated that my biggest concern in

>integration was that this logical system would get lost in the shuffle

>and integration, as it requires much study and effort to get a grip on

>it. Chinese medicine is literary, and that means study. I sometimes

>feel that conclusions are drawn too hastily about Chinese medicine when

>it is obviously is a vast, complex phenomenon. I think that as a

>profession in the West we are too young to draw simplistic conclusions,

>and need to just observe, study, learn and practice more before drawing

>to conclusions.

>

>>

>

>>

 

 

 

---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist

contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/

Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA

Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org

[Guest guest]

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

>

> On Apr 17, 2005, at 11:02 AM, wrote:

>

 

>

> 1) All scientific advances that have not been accompanied by

> moral/ethical growth have led to destruction rather than creativity.

 

I would say that technological change is the one force that constantly demands a

reconsideration of moral/ethical stagnation. But the fact is that change cannot

be

stopped. No amount of social engineering will stop any technology that either

increases

military power or saves lives. We must respond these evolutionary changes with

both

foresight and reaction as they arise. But I think there is no stopping them and

directing all

energy towards these ends is futile. As for immorality and unethical conduct,

I would say

the cure for that would be the end of religion as anything but a privately held

belief

system.

 

Yes indeed, many apparently nonreligious types also oppose nanotechnology, but

if you

dig a little beneath the surface, what you will discover is a system of belief

that humanity

should not be altered because it is unnatural or wrong (this is called

biochauvinism or

biofundamentalism). As soon as you use that type of language, however you couch

it, I

call it religion. BTW, I said this type of reasoning was religious OR

philosophical, but not

scientific. so it was not merely directed at religion. Nor do I mention

nanotech in this

post. For the record, genetic engineering makes me uncomfortable and I doubt it

will be

very effective. However stem cell therapy is more like rejuvenation than

engineering, IMO.

And if nanotech means the end of civilization as we know it, so be it. It would

just be

proof that a superior adaptation has arisen in the course of evolution? And how

do we

know its not all part of god's plan anyway. If paradise on earth came to be

through

technological means, perhaps that has been the meaning of the biblical

prophecies all

along. And we couldn't have even guessed that scenario until just recently. It

is not for us

to say how evolution must proceed and it is largely out of our control if you

accpet that

the same forces that drive the evolution of species also drive the evolution of

culture. I

do. Perhaps that's my religion. But unlike other religions, my religion

changes with

evolution and new evidence. So its really not a religion at all.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think we share one thing in common in this discussion. Neither one

of us are describing a world view that is determined by Chinese

medicine. Your world view is largely dictated by Ken Wilbur's ideas,

mine is a Jewish-Kabbalistic perspective. Nothing wrong with having a

perspective on life, but we should expect our conclusions to be

different.

>

> I would say that technological change is the one force that constantly

> demands a

> reconsideration of moral/ethical stagnation. But the fact is that

> change cannot be

> stopped. No amount of social engineering will stop any technology

> that either increases

> military power or saves lives. We must respond these evolutionary

> changes with both

> foresight and reaction as they arise. But I think there is no

> stopping them and directing all

> energy towards these ends is futile. As for immorality and unethical

> conduct, I would say

> the cure for that would be the end of religion as anything but a

> privately held belief

> system.

 

It would seem that you see evolution as the driving force of creation.

.. . if I assume incorrectly, please let me know.

 

Life constantly brings up new challenges to one's moral/ethical stance,

technology or not. Technology is neutral. It is how we apply

technology that determines the outcome. Technology cannot effect our

moral standing one iota. To grow morally/ethically, we need to work on

ourselves as human beings. This is where the great teachings of the

ages have come from, from Buddhism and Confucianism to the Western

religious approaches.

 

I do not believe in evolution as a blind force driving change, because

I think human beings have free will to decide as to how they respond to

change, as well as initiating change. We are not just blind machines

responding to impersonal forces. Issues of technology, medicine,

science actually raise complex moral and ethical questions, and

ignoring these questions are to our peril as humanity. We have too

many examples of this in the 20th century, such as Nazism and two world

wars.

>

> Yes indeed, many apparently nonreligious types also oppose

> nanotechnology, but if you

> dig a little beneath the surface, what you will discover is a system

> of belief that humanity

> should not be altered because it is unnatural or wrong (this is called

> biochauvinism or

> biofundamentalism). As soon as you use that type of language, however

> you couch it, I

> call it religion.

 

Nanotechnology is not good or evil. Technology is neutral. It becomes

right or wrong depending on how free-willed human beings choose to use

it. Bill Joy, judging from his writings is not a 'biochauvanist' or

'biofundamentalist'. Human beings are very complex, and we should be

careful not to label people and put them in boxes.

 

> BTW, I said this type of reasoning was religious OR philosophical, but

> not

> scientific. so it was not merely directed at religion. Nor do I

> mention nanotech in this

> post. For the record, genetic engineering makes me uncomfortable and

> I doubt it will be

> very effective. However stem cell therapy is more like rejuvenation

> than engineering, IMO.

> And if nanotech means the end of civilization as we know it, so be it.

> It would just be

> proof that a superior adaptation has arisen in the course of

> evolution? And how do we

> know its not all part of god's plan anyway. If paradise on earth came

> to be through

> technological means, perhaps that has been the meaning of the biblical

> prophecies all

> along. And we couldn't have even guessed that scenario until just

> recently.

 

While it is very possible that we can effect the aging process, or even

alter life and death, it will not relieve us from the responsibility to

deal with the vast moral and ethical dimensions that will arise. The

Terry Schiavo ordeal is just the beginning of what awaits us.

 

I've enjoyed this discussion.

 

 

[Guest guest]

, rw2@r... wrote:

> Z'ev,

>

> I agree with your skepticism that technology will lead to utopia. Todd is

> right that this technological understanding of genetics, artifical

> intelligence, computational theory, etc. has the ***potential*** for

> leading to utopian breakthroughs in health care. The problem, though, is

> ultimately an ethical-spiritual one. In my younger days, I was involved

> with quite a few high technology projects in medical engineering. In

> retrospect, I'd estimate that for each idea with the potential to improve

> health, at least 3 parallel ideas emerge with the potential for

 

Roger

 

If you believe in cultural evolution, these things will come to pass. They will

either be

dystopic or utopic, that part we have a say in. If we put our heads in the

sand, we can

almost guarantee dystopia. So unless we embrace the inevitable and act

accordingly. we

are indeed doomed. But this luddite mentality is the same mentality that led

other

generations of ethical humans to renege on their social responsibilities in the

face of

changing technology. Then, like now, people thought they could stop evolution

by

hysterical claims about imminent catastrophe and resistance to change. This is

evident in

the revolt of textile workers against machinery at the turn of the 19th century

as the

movement of romantic literature (which is back to nature stuff, not sleazy sex).

If

concerned citizens don't embrace inevitable change and act, but rather just

leave society

or rebel against obvious goods (mechanizing the manufacture of clothes is an

obvious

good - it helped eliminate child labor in the US), then they leave the citizens

in the hands

of the corporations.

 

As Roger admits, I am not really exaggerating the possibilities for good; these

breakthroughs are indeed possible. But even despite our worst excesses, I would

like to

remind people that we DID not blow up the world during the cold war. And while

it is

highly likely that terrorist will launch a nuke someday, it is unlikely they

will have more

than one. The fact is that if we don't develop technology to clean up our mess

from the

last century and prevent further ones, then we are indeed at the end of time.

Because the

degradation and climate change we have caused are past the carrying point. If

the status

quo persists, most mainstream ecologists think catastrophe is already on the

way. There

is really no conceivable way to clean up the environment other than with

nanotech and

even if we stop polluting now (which aint gonna happen), it would be too little

too late.

 

Fools like Jeremy Rifkin will be proven right unless we proceed forward. It

seems we have

two choices: Maintain the staus quo out of fear and definitely have an

ecocastrophe or

embrace change and work to insure that ethics prevail. Most folks who want

power, want

power over something or someone, so I really think this concern is overblown.

It makes

no sense to destroy what you want to possess. The real concern is an accident

or

technology out of control. But like all potetially dangerous things,

safeguarding is always

possible. Again, not a big fan of nuclear power, but despite all the rhetoric,

we have had

only 3 containable events in the past 30 years worldwide. The real problem is

stored

nuclear waste, something that could be made harmless by nanotech. The danger is

great,

but we really have less to lose by moving forward, IMO. The dao is not our

personal

servant; it is the fountainhead of all change (read: evolution).

 

The evidence is overwhelming; we are not moving backwards into an agrarian

premodern

world and those who think that would be fun, I hope you enjoy endless

backbreaking labor

and no recourse for major accidents requiring surgery, etc. I couldn't imagine

a more

terrible world. Resisting change rather than riding the waves of change is

about the least

daoist thing I can imagine. It is quite confucian, though. I know some of you

don't care if

the rest of the world goes to hell and just a few folks manage to survive in

some remote

farming villages to start over again. but that idea is repugnant to me. Ethics

is a double

edged sword. I'll take my chances with modernity any day of the week. Beats

the hell out

of the spanish inquisition, that's for sure. Hey, I have an idea. Lets block

this research in

the US. Then only the chinese will develop it. Now that's asking for trouble.