Steiner’s first lecture of the First Scientific Lecture-Course, the so called, ‘Light course’, given in Stuttgart, on the 23rd December 1919, can be read here and it can be listened to here
He explains how the natural scientists of his day proceeded. They were interested in categorising, looking for causes behind phenomena, and observing phenomena to arrive at the ‘laws’ of nature. Goethe did not proceed in this way. He was not interested in looking for and speculating about unknown causes or categorisation. He looked at nature and observed how it was forever changing and studied this metamorphosis in great detail. He wished to stay within the observable to ask what it could tell him without speculating about any laws or hidden world behind the one observed.
The natural science are forever looking for pointwise forces to explain life. But, according to Steiner, life cannot be explained in this way. Life is formed out of the universal peripheral forces. These forces are not the same as the mechanical pointwise forces which are open to measurement. Steiner explains it thus:
Say you were studying the play of forces in an animal or vegetable embryo or germ-cell; with this method you would never find your way. No doubt it seems an ultimate ideal to the Science of today, to understand even organic phenomena in terms of potentials, of centric forces of some kind. It will be the dawn of a new world-conception in this realm when it is recognized that the thing cannot be done in this way, Phenomena in which Life is working can never be understood in terms of centric forces. Why, in effect, — why not? Diagrammatically, let us here imagine that we are setting out to study transient, living phenomena of Nature in terms of Physics. We look for centres, — to study the potential effects that may go out from such centres. Suppose we find the effect. If I now calculate the potentials, say for the three points a, b and c, I find that a will work thus and thus on A, B and C, or c on A’, B’ and C’; and so on. I should thus get a notion of how the integral effects will be, in a certain sphere, subject to the potentials of such and such centric forces. Yet in this way I could never explain any process involving Life. In effect, the forces that are essential to a living thing have no potential; they are not centric forces. If at a given point d you tried to trace the physical effects due to the influences of a, b and c, you would indeed be referring to the effects to centric forces, and you could do so. But if you want to study the effects of Life you can never do this. For these effects, there are no centres such as a or b or c. Here you will only take the right direction with your thinking when you speak thus: Say that at d there is something alive. I look for the forces to which the life is subject. I shall not find them in a, nor in b, nor in c, nor when I go still farther out. I only find them when as it were I go to the very ends of the world — and, what is more, to the entire circumference at once. Taking my start from d, I should have to go to the outermost ends of the Universe and imagine forces to the working inward from the spherical circumference from all sides, forces which in their interplay unite in d. It is the very opposite of the centric forces with their potentials. How to calculate a potential for what works inward from all sides, from the infinitudes of space? In the attempt, I should have to dismember the forces; one total force would have to be divided into ever smaller portions. Then I should get nearer and nearer the edge of the World: — the force would be completely sundered, and so would all my calculation. Here in effect it is not centric forces; it is cosmic, universal forces that are at work. Here, calculation ceases.
This lecture was given just over a century ago and so the terminology is a bit dated and science has made a vast amount of progress since then, but his points still stand.
The difference between Goethe’s scientific method and the standard methods of natural science is the same difference that separates the practice of Euclidean geometry from that of projective geometry. In the former, lengths and angles are measured and calculated, in the latter there are no measurements as such, it is concerned with the mobility and transformation of form as it is expressed between point and plane.
Goethe takes natural science beyond its self-imposed limits just as projective geometry takes Euclidean geometry beyond its limits.
Feel free to read or listen to the lecture linked to above and comment as you see fit.
Why do you think they refer to this illusive energy as “dark” energy?
If you are looking for the ultimate example of polarity what about matter and anti-matter? The brilliant anti-religion, anti-philosophy, genius, Paul Dirac, because of his love for the beauty to be found in mathematics, reasoned from the equations that there should be matching pairs of fundamental “particles”. And what could be more polar than electron/positron pairs?
Dirac said:
I don’t want to disappoint you, so to wax lyrical: If projective geometry is a classic movie then Euclidean geometry is its advertising poster on the wall of the cinema.
I’d agree with that. I just objected to you labeling all concepts without physical counterparts “imaginary”. Just like “rainbows” or “the government” are not imaginary, neither is “darkness”.
You have no romance in your soul, Alan Fox. “The darkness was dispelled” sounds much better than “somebody switched the light on”
And now I wonder what the smallest unit of understanding quantum theory is.
That’s just what my wife says. 🙁
Whatever you do, DO NOT reply with “romance is imaginary”.
Well, I dunno. Rainbows, without question, are physical phenomena, well understood. Governments are an example of synecdoche. Where is the government: the building, the people in it, just those with power to make decisions, all of that? Darkness? It can only be defined negatively. I don’t see a coherent set here.
Sure it’s real. Emotions are real, and physical, as my wife has demonstrated on occasion.
Just thought, due to weather, lockdown, etc. I’ve been binge-watching The Bridge (Bron/Broen). That may have affected my judgement.
And “particles” such as electrons are seen as focal points of these fields. The particle is the point and the field is the periphery. The field cannot be excluded from the fundamental nature of these so called particles..
So do you think concepts are objective, subjective or neither?
If you look at the timeline of fundamental physics in Wikipedia, last century and into the 21st century is dominated by the investigation of sub-atomic fundamental “particles”. These days biology is dominated by genetic research. The human genome project being a prime example in which people were lead to believe that once our genetic makeup was categorised then we would understand how a human being was made.
He was doing what is now termed Goethean science.
But it’s not just my own way. I had nothing to do with the Wikipedia entry, Goethean science.
That is certainly one way to do science.
Yes, researchers measure, number and weigh when practicing conventional natural science, but not when practicing Goethean science.
The molecules and their energies become part of a human being because of processes taking place within the organism as a whole. Molecules come and go during the processes of growth and degradation, but the organism remains whole and viable throughout its existence.
Wrong. “Genetic research” has a fairly specific meaning, and very few people do it. Many biology researchers use genetic techniques as tools during the course of their research. They are not doing “genetics research”. [I may yet be goaded into channeling Mark Ptashne’s ‘imagine a world with no Frenchmen’ speech]
Of course, I recognize that Charlie may have his own peculiar definition of “genetics research” and of “is dominated by”, for that matter. Perhaps even of “biology”, given his esoteric definition of “science”…
Thank you for using that circumlocution : ‘people were lead to believe’ . Every time I see someone spouting off about how the HGP has underdelivered on its promise, it turns out that the promises they bought into were all produced by breathless journalists, and the occasional politician. That’s on them.
Scientists, guys like John Sulston and Eric Lander, were always quite clear about the utility of the HGP, and the importance of the mouse, nematode, and cress genome projects.
Here’s Lander on the subject:
The story that scientists believed that {knowing the sequence would instantly tell us how everything worked} is a fiction. Way before anybody even suggested genome sequencing, scientists already had had the disconcerting experience of sequencing a gene and going “Huh! What the hell does this do?”
Then you may be the only true materialist at TSZ. Personally, I do not see how something being defined negatively means it only exists in the imagination.
I see quite a few entries with “cosmos”, “universe” and celestial objects, but I guess the real holist only sees the bigger picture.
No such thing as truth.
Perhaps we disagree on what “existence” means. I think we are entering the realm of ontology. Maybe KN will weigh in.
Parmenides maintained that it is self-defeating to say that something does not exist. The linguistic rendering of this insight is the problem of negative existentials: ‘Atlantis does not exist’ is about Atlantis. A statement can be about something only if that something exists. No relation without relata! Therefore, ‘Atlantis does not exist’ cannot be true. Parmenides and his disciples elaborated conceptual difficulties with negation into an incredible metaphysical monolith.
From an article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Epicurus saw things differently, though.
Beliefs about whether sensations correspond to an actually existing thing must be tested against knowledge of the world, as informed by Epicurean theory.
I believe that “kinds” in Genesis is different to our present categorisation of species. In my opinion it is more like what Goethe would term the “typus”. It is a higher category from which present day organisms have obtained their essential form. Present day species are a further differentiation which allowed for the eventual development of a physical organism that is capable of a high level of individuality and self determination. The process of evolution has lead up to this position correlating to the sixth day of creation in Genesis.
I believe that the story of the Garden of Eden is meat to depict a time before the condensation of the human into dense physical matter. Prior to this the human would have been thought of as belonging more to the realm of the Elohim.
If my granny had balls I would not be here.
I’m not sure what you chart has to do with reality. But apart from that, in what way is there a correlation between the figures shown? I remember a correlation Steiner mentioned between the movement of the hands of a clock and the rotation of the earth. Nobody would suggest that the movement of the earth caused the hands of a clock to move.
The process of biological evolution is a tree, not a ladder. Genesis is not even internally consistent.
One god, two names? How does that work?
Good point. 🙂
It is meant to show that correlation does not necessarily indicate causality.
OMG, the guy doesn’t know the difference between a parts list, a blueprint, and an instruction manual. You’re sure you want to stand by that mess? And, of course, he doesn’t know the full extent of what the DNA does.
Who does? I’m guessing DNA_Jock knows a fair amount about how DNA functions in gene sequences as a storage and replication medium for proteins and RNAs. And that would be a lot lore than me and, without a doubt, a great deal more than you
It’s an interview transcript, kiddo. He’s actually contrasting a parts list with a blueprint.
And you, nonlin.org, are telling us that Eric Lander doesn’t know “the full extent of what the DNA does”.
This is comedy gold!
I guess he forgot to mention that DNA is also a clockwork cogwheel. Use analogies at your own peril!
“DNA is commonly referred to in textbooks of molecular biology as the “blueprint” for an organism. I think it is better not to call it a blueprint. I would rather call it a recipe or it is a bit like a computer program.
The difference between a blueprint and a recipe is that a blueprint is reversable, and a recipe is not. If you have a house and you have lost the blueprint you can reconstruct the blueprint by taking measurements, but if you have got a well prepared dish in a great restaurant you may enjoy the dish and you may dissect it and look at it in every detail but you cannot reconstruct the recipe.”
Richard Dawkins
I’m sure he’s been making this point since the eighties and I remember reading it first in either Selfish Gene or Blind Watchmaker.
And who would deny that orthodox natural science produces vast amounts of data? The strength of the physical sciences is precisely that they deals with numerical relationships. But should we restrict science to numerical relationships? I am far from advocating the abandonment of this type of science. What I am saying is that science should be extended to include other methods of gaining knowledge of the perceived world.
And this is why I keep plugging projective geometry. It is a tool which has no interest in measurement but it can tell us a great deal about spatial reality.
After watching the video of a discussion on this book between Ladyman and Tallis, it would seem that Ladyman believes quantum physics to be in some way fundamental. Tallis comments that Ladyman gives quantum mechanics some sort of primacy and Ladyman does not challenge that statement.
In the book that rocked your world, according to Ladyman and Ross, earth, water, air, and fire; the previous fundamental constituents of matter have been replaced by:
When it comes down to it my observations are regarding modern science and not what Ladyman or Tallis believe. I enjoyed watching the discussion and I thought that both of them made some sesnsible, thought provoking comments. The idea that there are no ‘things’ but only relational entities is one point that we could agree on.
But they are still divided up in order to categorise them. And because they are so categorised then convergent evolution must be down purely to the environment. It allows for no other explanation.
I’m not talking about causal influences, I am talking about correlations. For instance regarding fractals, there is no causal influences between the levels but there is an underlying unity.
In pure light we would be totally blind, in pure darkness we would be totally blind. Sight is only possible in an area between them both.
I wonder what you mean by “pure light”. Humans only see certain wavelengths of light (other species have receptors reacting to a broader spectrum and some have additional photoreceptors to the three colour receptors humans have) and we lose colour vision in low light. We are dazzled by bright, direct sunlight and bright enough light will cause physical damage.
Are you trying to make a point about human visual acuity or is this another bad analogy?
“forget understanding, just note how well the math works at making predictions!”
-Some physicists “whose name I’d rather not remember.”
I don’t know if you picked up on this, but the bit you quoted “tiny, indivisible, ultimate particles . . . from which everything is composed” is exactly the view that Ladyman and Ross think we must reject if we are to take the science seriously.
I don’t see how this follows. Convergent evolution can be explained in lots of ways, including the idea that there are developmental constraints in how animals respond to the laws of physics at work in their environments. There are good reasons why icthyosaurs and dolphins look so similar — because there are so only many ways to swim. Ankylosaurs and glyptodonts are another good example of convergent evolution.
Fractals are structures of pure mathematics, so there’s no possibility of causal influences at all.
He that speaks up has an obligation to know what he’s saying. Don’t you think?
Oh, so anything goes in interviews? Good to know. Btw, would you mind answering the question? Do you stand by?
I’d go further and say he doesn’t even know the parts he comments on. And that is a no-no.
And The Jock is voting for “parts list” or “blueprint”? Hilarious either way.
Whohe?
Dawkins is another clueless clown. “Reversible” must means you can turn over the paper. Haha. Over to you, The Jock. Enlighten us.
Reading for comprehension Nonlin. Alan answered only the part about knowing “the full extent of what DNA does.” Nobody knows the full extent of many things. There might always be something we’re missing, we haven’t witnessed, etc. That doesn’t mean that Lander didn’t know what he was talking about at all. If you weren’t such an illiterate, you could have saved the embarrassment of complaining about an obvious point.
DNA_Jock is telling you that you missed what the transcript was about. That you didn’t read it properly. Yet, all you could see was “it’s an interview”, further demonstrating that you’re not very good at reading for comprehension.
Given your inability to read for comprehension, I’d go further and claim that your opinions against what an expert might say are inconsequential and profoundly misinformed.
Metaphors are often used to try and convey some understanding about some phenomena for which direct explanations might be lost for an audience. Thus, they’re bound to have limitations, some more than others. that doesn’t make them any more hilarious than your proclivity to opinionate with arrogance from your position of profound ignorance.
Again, reading for comprehension Nonlin, the meaning of reversible was right there after what you quoted. Look:
It’s hilarious to see you missing something that’s right there. Ironically enough, that makes you a clueless clown.
Learn to read Nonlin. It might save you a lot of embarrassment.
As Entropy points out, my question was rhetorical, “Nobody knows the full extent of many things.” There is much scientists don’t know fully about how DNA sequences result in the replication of organisms. That doesn’t prevent us from already knowing a great deal and carrying on investigating to find out more.
Nothing prevents you except your own fear from finding out more, too.
I agree. I can think of no better demonstration of this fact than your contributions here.
As already noted, the key word here is “transcript”. If you had watched the actual interview, you would realize that Lander was drawing a distinction between a ‘parts list’ and a ‘blueprint’.
And to answer your question, yes I ‘stand by’ Eric’s comments on this subject. The ‘parts list’ analogy is a good one. Eric is in my opinion the best science communicator alive, and a brilliant mathematician/scientist too!
I need a new irony meter. The self-pwning is amazing.
I vote for ‘parts list’. For the very specific scope of explaining to a lay audience why the genome sequence is not the end of genomics, but rather the beginning. Your hilarity is given the full weight it deserves 😀
As I have said before, I’m not a fan of Dawkins. However, for understanding how the genome works, the cookbook analogy is the best one. Computer program, not so much.
The genome is like a cookbook, a heavily cross-referenced one: lots of recipes refer to other recipes, as in “first, make a roux” or “make a ghee”.
Before you even start trying to understand how genes work, I recommend watching a few seasons of The Great British Bake Off…
By “pure light” Charlie means light that is unsullied by matter or darkness.
Who-osh!
Wow, I’m impressed, Corneel. Did you remember the previous exchange? I confess, these days, I’m often struggling to remember what I had for breakfast.
I see John Harshman was as baffled by that reply. as I am.
J Harshman to CharlieM
Darkness is the absence of light.* We see objects as dark when there are not many photons coming from that direction, often relative to other directions. Darkness does not generate a spectrum, whatever you think you mean by that. You are so hopelessly confused about nearly everything that it’s almost impossible to talk to you.
*My emphasis
Good grief, I participated in that thread. Not even a hint of déjà-vu on re-reading! Scary.
Fair enough. But when it comes to teaching biology genetics is taken to be fundamental.
Visit MIT – Fundamentals of biology and the first thing you will see is an image of the double helix of DNA.
A video on The Fundamentals of Biology for Marine biology begins by explaining the constituent chemicals of life and teaching the students about the “building blocks of life”.
Thanks for the link. That was an interesting read. Here is some further remarks from the interview:
Lander still believes it’s all in the genome and it’s just a matter of figuring out how all the genes interact with each other. He believes that the creativity, the story, the melody, lies within the genes.
Yes and very often entities in the wider cosmos, celestial objects and such like, are explained in terms of the interactions of fundamental “particles”.
Here Steiner explains how a division between trust in the thought world over the sense world and trust in the sense world over the thought world was unified in Goethe’s understanding of nature.
He said:
For Parmenides truth cannot be gained from the ever changing flux of sense experience.
In ancient Greek culture there was a transition from a belief where the true and the good had its unified source in the world of the Gods. Goodness and truth were one. Then came a time when they were seen as separate. As Steiner said:
In past ages humans had a collective belief in divine powers supplying them with the idea of the true and the good. Now people are tasked with the responsibility of acquiring their own truth for themselves as individuals. Whether we believe this has been granted by the forces of evolution or by higher powers does not alter the fact that we have been given this freedom.
It’s neither a tree nor a ladder, it’s an overall progressive stream incorporating eddy currents running in all directions.
One god, two names? How does that work?
Multiplicity in unity. And not forgetting that “Elohim” is plural.
Where is the correlation? The points on the chart show a continuous increase but the numbers along the bottom do not show a continuous decrease.
And my point was that there need not be a causal link between planet positions and individual life histories for there to be a relationship.
Where is the correlation? The points on the chart show a continuous increase but the numbers along the bottom do not show a continuous decrease.
And my point was that there need not be a causal link between planet positions and individual life histories for there to be a relationship.
Parmenides definitely gets the whole ball of Western metaphysics rolling. He argues that we cannot conceive of non-being, since all thought is thinking of something: there’s no thought without content, and as a result we cannot conceive of non-being (that which is not).
Why does this matter, though? It matters because all ancient Greek myth and speculative thought before Parmenides depended on the thought that change involve coming-into-being. Something wasn’t, then it became, and now it is; when it changes again, it could cease to be.
Parmenides was the first to realize that this is absurd, because it involves the very idea of non-being. Something comes into existence means that it did not exist before then. But can this non-being really be coherently understood? Parmenides reasoned, quite elegantly, that it could not be.
From this Parmenides drew the radical conclusion: there is no change. Nothing ever becomes or changes. There is only the appearance of such. That insight generates the whole reality/appearance distinction from which the rest of Western metaphysics derives.
The post-Parmenidean challenge became: (1) what is the nature of Being, that which exists without change? and (2) why do we experience the world as one of change or becoming? Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Epictetus all offer different answers to that question, and its those answers that define the basic parameters of Western thought: rationalism vs empiricism, idealism vs materialism, holism vs reductionism, etc.
I don’t think that’s wrong, but it’s a bit misleading. Epicurus accepted Democritus’s argument for why the world must be explained in terms of atoms and void. (Fun fact: given the legacy of Parmenides, the real challenge for the ancient Greek atomists was trying to explain how they were able to conceive of empty space!) But the Democritean argument was based on abstract reasoning, not experience.
One of Epicurus’s major innovations was to show how atomism needed to meet the challenge posed by Aristotelian empiricism. To do this, he has to invent an atomistic explanation of sense-perception — one that actually turns out to be insightful, thousands of years before empirical science showed that it’s almost right.
A statistical correlation is a conceptual relationship, not an actual one.
It’s perhaps a shame that only fragments of his writings survive.