KARL  JASPERS  FORUM
TA 108 (Green)

Commentary 9 (to C8, Joseph Johnson)

ON MATERIALISM, TRIALISM, and NATURAL LAW
by Serge Patlavskiy
14 August 2008, posted 23 August 2008


{1}
[Joseph Johnson] wrote:
" <3> What the materialists fail to understand is that it is consciousness that is fundamental, i.e. the Source, the abstract, the general, and it is the material that is contrived, derivative."

{2}
[S.P.]
I am not saying that materialism is false. The materialistic doctrine works fine while we investigate the objects whose entropy state is quasi-unchangeable during the experiment. But when we investigate the consciousness-related phenomena we cannot neglect the change of the entropy state of the object of investigation. In this case, to stay within the scientific framework, we should come from the materialistic doctrine to, what I call, informationism, which presumes that consciousness (or sensitivity to information), matter, and energy are three equally fundamental factors that influence the existence and development of our Reality. At that, "equal fundamentality" means that none of the listed factors is derivative from any other; "trialism" means that each of the listed factors has its sense only when being regarded together with the other two factors (for details, see [1], Table 1).

{3}
[Joseph Johnson] wrote:
" [S.P.] TA108 C3<20> "Consciousness, rather, organizes. Namely, it tends to reduce the entropy of the system which is described by informational characteristic. In case of the living organisms, consciousness (or, the acts of processing and conceptualization of information) is responsible for the effect of self-organization, and life as such. Therefore, the formulated law may be accepted if by the term "creation" we would mean "organization, or the improvement of something which already exists". For example, "creation of a life-form" should be meant as an "improvement, or organization of some already existent dead-form". [J.J]: Stated in that manner suggests dualism; intervention in a mechanistic universe, which is misleading. Bioscience reveals that self-organizing even precedes living organisms, to say nothing of creation of more complex atoms in stars, etc, so self-organization (consciousness) is there from the beginning, further supporting the notion that the deeper structure of natural order is singular, unitary, rather than dualistic."

{4}
[S.P.]
It is standing to reason that the effect of self-organization precedes living organisms. What I say is that the life forms are such ones whose self-organization is caused to a considerable degree by processing and conceptualization of information, or by activity of consciousness. Informationism presumes trialism (not dualism), or that even a dead-form has to be described using the tri-unity of informational, material, and energetic characteristics. From this follows that "from the beginning", the consciousness-related factors played crucial role in emerging of everything existent. A transition from the dead-forms to the living forms is not a transition from something nonexistent to something existent. It is, rather, the enhancement of the role the already available consciousness-related factors start to play in a given complex organic (or non-organic) system. If those factors play sufficiently considerable role, the effect of self-organization triggers, and the (dead) complex organic system transforms into a living object, like unicell or protozoan.

{5}
[Joseph Johnson] wrote:
"<6> Again, we wrote natural laws simply to describe our experience of objective relationships within closed, isolated physical systems, rather than to cosmos as a whole. They become essential tools to support our own creativity, independent of the larger cosmic process. On the other hand, natural order is the specification of the hierarchic structure of the essential qualities of the whole cosmic process; qualities which begin subjective and general, expressed as increasingly refined particulars, both objective and subjective, as the cosmic process in time."

{6}
[S.P.]
If it is stated that the total number of the (exemplars of) consciousness in the Universe is limited and conserves (see TA108 C3), does not it already mean that we DO NOT "describe our experience of objective relationships within closed, isolated physical systems, rather than to cosmos as a whole"? Informationism presumes that the same natural law governs as the "whole cosmic process", so the whole "machinery" of consciousness.

-----------------------------------------

[1]    http://www.geocities.com/spatlavskiy/KeyIngredients.pdf

-----------------------------------------

Serge Patlavskiy
     e-mail <prodigypsf  (at) rambler.ru>