I have concluded that while both genes and the environment (cultural and physical) are major determinants of human behavior, every human still has, at least in certain circumstances, what is traditionally called free will. I reject the totally deterministic, and especially the atomic-deterministic interpretation of reality. My rejection of the deterministic hypothesis is not because I find it repugnant, but because I find it to be (partially) misleading and counterproductive.
I am not rejecting causality. My understanding of causality is complicated, not simplistic. To the extent that human decisions are subject to free will, they would also become part of the chain of causality.
Our typical modern picture of the deterministic universe comes from classical, Newtonian physics. In the simplified version of this causality is like a well-constructed set of falling dominoes: once set in motion, it never veers off course. Atoms crashing into atoms form the air, and their micro-movements form the local weather: everything happens because of strict rules of mass, momentum, electricity and other forces.
I do not base my rejection of strict determinism on quantum physics. Causality in quantum physics (the kind studied by scientists, not the new age pseudoscience, pop culture version) is more complicated than classical causality. In some situations the causality is probabilistic. This is related to my free will argument not because it shows Newton was wrong, but because it shows you have to be careful about thinking about our complicated universe. Generally speaking, quantum causality only is an issue in the sub-nano end of the size spectrum.
The common, mistaken view of decision making posits that atoms, molecules and larger structures of the brain are deterministic from the atomic level up. It follows that "making a decision" is simply a name humans give to the compulsions that come from their atomic programming. Unlike mystics and spiritualists, I do believe this atomic viewpoint has some explanatory value. The brain is made up of atoms, molecules, neurons and other cells, and importantly the synapses between the neurons. Sometimes human activity can be attributed to causes from below, as when a clogged blood vessel leads to neural malfunction or death and the kind of strange behaviors sometime seen in people suffering from a stroke.
But causality also comes from outside the brain. It mostly comes from outside the brain. Without sensory experience the brain would learn nothing and do little. Without cultural input the behavior of humans would be the behavior of animals.
Cultural input from other human beings is (almost always) the main driver of behavior of any particular human being. Put two genetically identical babies in two different cultures (whether two families, or two nations) and they will grow up to reflect their cultural background. There are vast chains of transmission in human cultures, both horizontally in the present time and going back in time to the dawn of language and differentiation from the apes.
Humans make such a wide variety of decisions that lumping them all together can be uninformative. I want to focus on decisions that illustrate free will, even though those are also a large, diverse group of different kinds of decisions.
The (pre-Newtonian) classic exercise of free will was characterized as the decision to commit or not commit a specific sin. I am not concerned with divine punishment, but a religious person making such a choice could be. Religion is a learned culture. Drop a baby among the Islamic faithful, and (in traditional cultures were no other choice was available) the adult would be Islamic. Drop the identical baby into a Hindu culture and an adult Hindu would emerge. In diverse cultures like the United States, where children are almost always, at some point, exposed to other religions, free will might be exercised by the choice of another religion, or of no religion.
Suppose a person needs to make a decision, and that there are two clear choices. One involves a clear personal advantage, say not being hungry. The other involves a sin (or ethical breech), say taking food that belongs to someone else, the loss of which could cause them to go hungry.
We know that in this situation some people will steal and eat the food, and others will go hungry, perhaps even to the point of starving to death. The cultural restraint will have been imprinted in the brain from outside, over a period of years. If it is followed, it makes sense to say that behind the atoms in the neural synapses correspond to causation that can fairly be described as a system of culture. On the other side, of the person who steals and eats, we could say that hunger, which is some sort of impulse to eat arising in the neurons, overcame the fear of breaking the taboo against stealing. But excepting for the impulsive case, where little thinking is involved, in most cases there will be a weighing (by the person, the brain, or if you prefer, the synapses) of factors that determines the outcome. This weighing relates cultural inputs to the feeling of hunger, and may involve some amount of thinking, conscious or unconscious. Fear of punishment by gods or by legal authorities may be met with rationalization (say, "but a good God would want me to eat, and has provided this opportunity to eat. It is just food, it is not like robbing a bank or stealing an automobile.")
To say this complicated process is determined by atoms and electrical forces instead of culture, including language, rules of ethics, and metaphysical beliefs, is itself a culturally determined opinion.
A strict determinist (of the simplistic type) would argue that whatever cultural experience the individual had, the resulting structure of the brain atoms would still determine the outcome. But suppose someone else steps into the scene: the owner of the food, or a policeman, or a former schoolteacher, or a hungry, dying son or daughter, or a stranger who may or may not care about what happens. Behavior may change in that case. Perhaps the potential thief no longer feels that free will can be exercised. But in any case it is clearer that atoms, as atoms, are not the sole causal factor in the decision. Something very complex has become part of the chain of causation. Only the most obstinate, idiotic strict atomic determinist can claim that complex objects or humans cannot affect a human decision in such a situation.
Free will derives from the fact that the decision making process takes place. Decisions are not always about ethics. An artisan might have trouble deciding between two tools or approaches that could be used to achieve a goal. A writer might choose between two ways of expressing an idea or describing an event. Choices, thinking, and decisions are everyday human activities.
It is arguable that free will, or decisions made using free will, can cause material objects, or at least human muscles, lips and limbs, to move. A riot may start, and a kingdom may crumble, when one member of a crowd decides to throw a stone, turning the crowd into a mob, and unrest into a revolution.
Determinism is (or should be) a complex idea, and free will can be part of it. Our free will determines the future, usually in small ways, but sometimes in large ways.
The early Newtonian view was not about atoms. In Newton's universe planets, which can be idealized as masses, hurled around the greater mass we call the sun. The parts of the planet, including the atoms and atomic particles and subatomic particles, were just along for the ride.
The key here is to not let one metaphor blind you to the complications of reality. In some cases it makes more sense to say the planets and the force of gravity determine the future. In other cases it is fair to say DNA or cell structures, atoms or quarks determine the future. But for most cultural interactions, culture determines the future, and free will is there to make the call when choices need to be made.
Nature and nurture are both important, but what makes us truly human is free will.
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Wittgenstein, Determinism, and Probability
One of the oldest philosophical questions is whether the Universe is deterministic or indeterministic. In a strictly deterministic universe everything that happens unfolds, causally, from the previous configuration of the universe. In such a universe, the thinking typically goes, man has no Free Will. We do what we are compelled to do by the rules of the Universe, or by the gods, if you prefer religious terminology. Our lives are controlled by Fate.
The advent of quantum physics threw a monkey wrench into the deterministic view of the universe constructed by scientists between 1600 and 1900. After considerable debate and experimentation, quantum physicists decided that at least some things in the universe happened by chance. This gave strength to the Free Will schools of philosophy and religion.
As far as I know my favorite philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, did not decree the universe to be deterministic, or indeterministic either. Wittgenstein was a philosopher's philosopher. He offered no direct guidance to living life, unlike say Friedrich Nietzsche or Henry David Thoreau. In fact it is hard to find a place where he said anything definite about the universe, at least not after his earliest work, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.
In his later works, including Philosophical Investigations, you might say that Wittgenstein deconstructs philosophy. But he is not a nihilist. For Wittgenstein the universe exists, it is no illusion. Instead what gives the aura of illusion to much philosophy, religion, and magical thinking is a swarm of errors that result from careless reasoning and the inexact nature of English and the other languages we use to do our thinking.
So what can best be learned from Wittgenstein is a technique, a critical attitude. It is similar to the ancient Socratic method of asking questions that lead a student to a correct, if complex, viewpoint. The trick to the Socratic method is asking the correct questions. I've never seen a formula for generating the correct questions. Wittgenstein provides no explicit formula, but his later works provide large numbers of examples of trying to apply an analytic (but often intuitive) process to philosophy itself. Frequently we are led to conclude that philosophy, like religion, is riddled with nonsense. Eliminating nonsense is one Herculean task that must be done if you want a clean stable for your ideas about the world.
Based on looking at many human and natural phenomena, we don't need to abandon the terms deterministic and indeterministic. What we have to do is use them more carefully and to realize that in certain situations there are shades of gray between them, and even room for both to be present in the same phenomena.
One of the most interesting and well-examined domains is probabilistic phenomena. We can speak of the probabilities of drawing an inside straight in poker, of an atom of radium decaying within the next pico second, of fog in the morning in London in February, or of Aunt Betty calling unexpectedly. But probability is another big word that may be misleading if we over generalize. Does shuffling a deck of cards create the same sort of probability as weather or quantum uncertainty?
Probability can exist in both a determinate world and an indeterminate world. From Newton's time until Heisenberg every throw of the dice was believed by scientists to be subject to the laws of (what we now call) classical physics, laws that were totally deterministic. Sure, with 2 dice, snake eyes came up every so often, and seven came up a reliable percentage of the time, but that was because humans had devised this method to introduce randomness. The dice were supposed to be shook up or thrown hard, making slight variations in muscle movements, too small to consciously control, result in outcomes that the thrower could not predict. A man of skill, throwing carefully, might cause dice to produce specified results at least some of the time, but other men monitored such cheating. The end result, fair or cheat, was determined by the placement of the dice in space, the momentum of the throw (including angular momentum), the exact characteristics of their bounces, and even the friction of the air.
When quantum physicists first discovered random atomic events many thought that there would prove to be underlying non-random, deterministic events that could explain the randomness. Much like Newtonian physics could explain, at least in theory, any particular throw of the dice. Einstein, for instance, believed that. But they were wrong, as far as anyone can tell. Many atomic and subatomic events do follow classical physics. Momentum, for instance, is preserved in atomic collisions. But decay processes, including radioactive decay and the emission of a light quanta by an electron "falling" from a high energy "orbit" to a lower energy orbit seem to be random events. At least within an envelope.
An envelope? They always leave that factoid out when religious gurus who specialize in the mechanics of separating their followers from money are elevating Quantum Physics to a Recipe for Mysticism. An envelope, here, is a metaphor for bounded probabilities. For instance, no matter how many times you role a pair of dice, the results are limited to the numbers between 2 and 12. That in itself is a kind of fuzzy determinism. Casinos, the old-fashioned kind with roulette wheels and people dealing cards, were built of fuzzy determinism. You could not predict which gamblers would win or lose any given hand or turn of the wheel, but at the end of the night the casino had more money than it started with.
Likewise a radioactive atom. You can't know when a particular atom will decay, but you can bet on a large group of atoms of the same element and not lose your shirt because the group emits radiation at a very predictable rate.
Once you start putting atoms together you quickly reach a point where quantum physics becomes pointless and you might as well fall back on classical physics. Yet engineers can build machines that make use of quantum mechanics for devices humans use, as shown by almost every electronic device made since the invention of the transistor. We use quantum uncertainty in our devices, yet we do that to increase predictable, deterministic behavior. If our devices get a glitch, the most likely sources are not quantum mechanical fluctuations outside the expected envelope but the failure of old classical components like a battery or solder joint.
So be careful about philosophical extrapolation. Or remember the modern key to all knowledge and wisdom: It's Complicated. You are made up of the same stuff of the rest of the universe, the arrangement is just different. We are arranged like mammals, only more so. Thinking about Free Will or Not Free Will will not help you make a decision. So take a deep breath and know that causality and randomness, determinism and indeterminism, are both going on all the time, within you and without you.
This essay is offered as a sacrifice to the Roman goddess Fortuna, and to the lucky Roman soldiers who won Jesus Christ's clothes at the crucifixion.
More quantum physics and philosophy
The advent of quantum physics threw a monkey wrench into the deterministic view of the universe constructed by scientists between 1600 and 1900. After considerable debate and experimentation, quantum physicists decided that at least some things in the universe happened by chance. This gave strength to the Free Will schools of philosophy and religion.
As far as I know my favorite philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, did not decree the universe to be deterministic, or indeterministic either. Wittgenstein was a philosopher's philosopher. He offered no direct guidance to living life, unlike say Friedrich Nietzsche or Henry David Thoreau. In fact it is hard to find a place where he said anything definite about the universe, at least not after his earliest work, the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.
In his later works, including Philosophical Investigations, you might say that Wittgenstein deconstructs philosophy. But he is not a nihilist. For Wittgenstein the universe exists, it is no illusion. Instead what gives the aura of illusion to much philosophy, religion, and magical thinking is a swarm of errors that result from careless reasoning and the inexact nature of English and the other languages we use to do our thinking.
So what can best be learned from Wittgenstein is a technique, a critical attitude. It is similar to the ancient Socratic method of asking questions that lead a student to a correct, if complex, viewpoint. The trick to the Socratic method is asking the correct questions. I've never seen a formula for generating the correct questions. Wittgenstein provides no explicit formula, but his later works provide large numbers of examples of trying to apply an analytic (but often intuitive) process to philosophy itself. Frequently we are led to conclude that philosophy, like religion, is riddled with nonsense. Eliminating nonsense is one Herculean task that must be done if you want a clean stable for your ideas about the world.
Based on looking at many human and natural phenomena, we don't need to abandon the terms deterministic and indeterministic. What we have to do is use them more carefully and to realize that in certain situations there are shades of gray between them, and even room for both to be present in the same phenomena.
One of the most interesting and well-examined domains is probabilistic phenomena. We can speak of the probabilities of drawing an inside straight in poker, of an atom of radium decaying within the next pico second, of fog in the morning in London in February, or of Aunt Betty calling unexpectedly. But probability is another big word that may be misleading if we over generalize. Does shuffling a deck of cards create the same sort of probability as weather or quantum uncertainty?
Probability can exist in both a determinate world and an indeterminate world. From Newton's time until Heisenberg every throw of the dice was believed by scientists to be subject to the laws of (what we now call) classical physics, laws that were totally deterministic. Sure, with 2 dice, snake eyes came up every so often, and seven came up a reliable percentage of the time, but that was because humans had devised this method to introduce randomness. The dice were supposed to be shook up or thrown hard, making slight variations in muscle movements, too small to consciously control, result in outcomes that the thrower could not predict. A man of skill, throwing carefully, might cause dice to produce specified results at least some of the time, but other men monitored such cheating. The end result, fair or cheat, was determined by the placement of the dice in space, the momentum of the throw (including angular momentum), the exact characteristics of their bounces, and even the friction of the air.
When quantum physicists first discovered random atomic events many thought that there would prove to be underlying non-random, deterministic events that could explain the randomness. Much like Newtonian physics could explain, at least in theory, any particular throw of the dice. Einstein, for instance, believed that. But they were wrong, as far as anyone can tell. Many atomic and subatomic events do follow classical physics. Momentum, for instance, is preserved in atomic collisions. But decay processes, including radioactive decay and the emission of a light quanta by an electron "falling" from a high energy "orbit" to a lower energy orbit seem to be random events. At least within an envelope.
An envelope? They always leave that factoid out when religious gurus who specialize in the mechanics of separating their followers from money are elevating Quantum Physics to a Recipe for Mysticism. An envelope, here, is a metaphor for bounded probabilities. For instance, no matter how many times you role a pair of dice, the results are limited to the numbers between 2 and 12. That in itself is a kind of fuzzy determinism. Casinos, the old-fashioned kind with roulette wheels and people dealing cards, were built of fuzzy determinism. You could not predict which gamblers would win or lose any given hand or turn of the wheel, but at the end of the night the casino had more money than it started with.
Likewise a radioactive atom. You can't know when a particular atom will decay, but you can bet on a large group of atoms of the same element and not lose your shirt because the group emits radiation at a very predictable rate.
Once you start putting atoms together you quickly reach a point where quantum physics becomes pointless and you might as well fall back on classical physics. Yet engineers can build machines that make use of quantum mechanics for devices humans use, as shown by almost every electronic device made since the invention of the transistor. We use quantum uncertainty in our devices, yet we do that to increase predictable, deterministic behavior. If our devices get a glitch, the most likely sources are not quantum mechanical fluctuations outside the expected envelope but the failure of old classical components like a battery or solder joint.
So be careful about philosophical extrapolation. Or remember the modern key to all knowledge and wisdom: It's Complicated. You are made up of the same stuff of the rest of the universe, the arrangement is just different. We are arranged like mammals, only more so. Thinking about Free Will or Not Free Will will not help you make a decision. So take a deep breath and know that causality and randomness, determinism and indeterminism, are both going on all the time, within you and without you.
This essay is offered as a sacrifice to the Roman goddess Fortuna, and to the lucky Roman soldiers who won Jesus Christ's clothes at the crucifixion.
More quantum physics and philosophy
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Buddhist Illusion Joke
Three Buddhist monks were walking along a mountain path.
The leading Buddhist stopped suddenly and announced, "That looks like dog shit on the path."
The second, middle monk leaned over the pile and announced, "It smells to me like dog shit."
The third monk poked the pile with a finger, then licked his finger. "It tastes incredibly foul. It must be dog shit."
The leading Buddhist monk proclaimed. "The world is an illusion. We must continue on our path to enlightenment. This dog shit, too, is an illusion."
They proceeded. The second monk was unable to avoid stepping in the dog shit.
A few steps further he commented: "I have the illusion of dog shit sticking to my sandals."
Commentary: For a relatively neutral introduction to the subject, see the Wikipedia Buddhism article. However, note that article leaves out the long history of violence and oppression practiced by Buddhists. For my more serious writings on the subject, see my Buddhism page.
The leading Buddhist stopped suddenly and announced, "That looks like dog shit on the path."
The second, middle monk leaned over the pile and announced, "It smells to me like dog shit."
The third monk poked the pile with a finger, then licked his finger. "It tastes incredibly foul. It must be dog shit."
The leading Buddhist monk proclaimed. "The world is an illusion. We must continue on our path to enlightenment. This dog shit, too, is an illusion."
They proceeded. The second monk was unable to avoid stepping in the dog shit.
A few steps further he commented: "I have the illusion of dog shit sticking to my sandals."
Commentary: For a relatively neutral introduction to the subject, see the Wikipedia Buddhism article. However, note that article leaves out the long history of violence and oppression practiced by Buddhists. For my more serious writings on the subject, see my Buddhism page.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Entangled in Spooky Science
Spooky science sells better than serious science, especially when science requires mathematics beyond 99% of the population's knowledge. The June 2011 Scientific American issue includes an article by Vlatko Vedral, Living in a Quantum World, that emphasizes one spooky corner of reality, quantum entanglement. This is also a favorite topic of New Age purveyors of spooky religious viewpoints, as if it might provide a physical basis for ESP and other tricks of the trade.
We are spooked by the unfamiliar. Familiar things that should be totally amazing, like transistor radios and lasers, which rely on quantum mechanical effects, don't faze us at all these days. We don't have to understand new technologies to stop being spooked by them, we just need to see them in action for a while.
I would argue that quantum physics has few new philosophical implications. It is no where near as revolutionary as what we now call Classical physics.
Classic is one of those words we need to be careful about. It used to allude to the culture of the ancient Greeks and Romans, let's say from 500 B.C. to before the Christ cult took over in the 4th century after Augustus Caesar. In physics it means, roughly, how the world was conceived of by scientists from the era of Galileo and Copernicus until Albert Einstein's four famous papers of 1905.
Classical physics was pretty darned spooky stuff. Not really believable, unless you looked at nature with a great deal of care. Before classical physics there was ordinary human intuition based on experiences in the world, and there was the physics of Aristotle and his cohort of Greek geeks. Today seven year olds know about dinosaurs and galaxies, but no one knew about them in 1400. Except for a very few people who studied the Greek classics (and the equivalents of other civilizations, notably the Arabs, Indians and Chinese), experience was limited. Water flowed downhill, the seasons were reliable, the stars rotated around Polaris, and no one had built a decent sewer system since the fall of the Roman Empire.
For Aristotle objects moved only when under the influence of a continuous force. People familiar with Newton's first law of motion (previously stated by many others, especially Islamic scientists), that an object's velocity remains constant unless acted on by an external force, may laugh at Aristotle. But in the everyday real-world Aristotle is right and Newton is wrong. Aristotle correctly believed there is always friction; he argued that vacuums, required for friction-free maintenance of velocity, cannot exist. The best modern car running on a flat road need gas, and the force from its engine, to maintain a constant speed to overcome friction. For Newton's version of the law to work you need essentially imaginary conditions: a perfect vacuum, which you can't find even in inter-galactic space.
The idea of continuing motion without a force behind it was spooky; it still is if you think about it too much. But it was not as spooky as the revelation that the earth revolves on its axis. We seem to be relatively motionless, hugging mother earth, but we are not.
Electricity and magnetism are part of pre-1905 physics. Talk about spooky. Both were believed by religious types to be the physical basis for ESP and hypnotism (called personal magnetism). Both exerted force at a distance. It took decades of experimenting and thinking to figure out their basic laws. But people got used to them. They got used to the telegraph, electric lights, and telephones.
Other people, including scientists, had trouble with Albert Einstein's work on relativity. Einstein himself had lots of trouble with the concepts of quantum physics, even though he was one of the inventors of the inventors of the field. He called quantum entanglement "spooky action at a distance." This from a guy whose father and uncle had a successful 19th-century electromagnetics business. (Which is why doing well in elementary school was not all that important to his future success.)
Context is as important in the natural sciences as it is in philosophy or dealing with various human cultures. Vedral's "Living in a Quantum World," makes the case that quantum effects can show up in our macro world. In particular he wrote about quantum entanglement. It is interesting stuff, and I applaud those who have figured out how to extend our knowledge of this subtle phenomena. But be forewarned, this is the stuff New Age con artists use to bamboozle their soft-brained victims.
Beware of physics writers over generalizing. Vedral uses the phrase "Quantum mechanics says ..." Quantum mechanics does not say anything. Physicists say things, and they often disagree with each other, especially about quantum mechanics and its philosophical interpretations. As a group they like to say that quantum mechanics has a long history of making correct predictions as verified by experiments. But in fact, as illustrated in, for instance, Abraham Pais's Inward Bound: Of Matter and Forces in the Physical World
It does not serve science, however, to pretend that a theory developed in the 1920's accurately predicted all the results known today.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Of Pharisees and Atheists
I believe God is a confusing concept, and that at its best the god concept duplicates a clearer concept like Nature, Reality or Existence. Yet I am not overly fond of the term atheist because that only says what we don't believe in. Instead I accept the reality of a number of things. I have positive beliefs, which I am explaining in my essays on Natural Liberation Philosophy. In reading, or at least skimming through the 1902 edition of The University Encyclopedia, I came upon the entry for Pharisees. In my childhood I was taught in Catholic schools that Pharisees were bad people, not maybe as bad as atheists, but certainly bad enough to go to Hell when they died. The New Testament shows them tormenting the man-god Jesus with vexatious questions, which of course he turns back against them. The entry quotes the Talmud's (a Jewish holy book's) criticism of certain types of Pharisees. The specifics don't have a one-to-one correlation for atheists, but if you want here's a link to the article: Pharisees. Here I'll lay out my own set of types of atheists who could do with some improvement. I'll admit I struggle with these issues myself. 1. Atheists who think just being an atheist makes them wonderful. Boastful atheists. It is fine to say you are an atheist when appropriate. On the other hand, that does not tell people you are a good person. How do you conduct yourself? Do tell lies other than religious ones, do you steal, are you a helpful member of your community? 2. Atheists who think ethical rules don't apply to them. Also, atheists who make up ethical rules and exceptions to justify their anti-social behavior. Ethics should be a concern of every human being, religious and non-religious alike. 3. Atheists who are not charitable. Just because there is not a priest or minister hammering you for 10% of your earnings (before taxes) on Sunday, does not mean you should forget the unfortunate. I believe it is better to give to charity through a religious organization than to not give at all. Atheists should do more to help the sick, the hungry, victims of injustice, and the homeless. 4. Atheists who have nothing positive to offer society. Just because there is no God and no spirits are keeping score of your good and bad deeds does not mean that selfishness or destructive behavior is to be admired. Help people, be productive, give people an example of embracing life and society for their own sake. 5. Atheists who are intolerant of theists. This ranges from being unfriendly or unhelpful to religious people through actual persecution up to and including killing religious prisoners or civilians in time of war. If atheists were nicer, there would be more atheists in the world. 6. Anti-intellectual atheists. No one has achieved much by realizing that religious theologies tend towards make-believe. There is a lot to learn beyond that.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Not So Much Uncertainty
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, or less pretentiously, the uncertainty relationship, is a fact of nature, discovered as part of quantum mechanics (a subset of the more general quantum physics).
Philosophies and religions that believe in an observer-created reality have interpreted the uncertainty relationship as proof of their viewpoint. They claim that reality is subjective, not objective, and this supports or interweaves with other aspects of their viewpoint. Some, but not all, New Age and Eastern (Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism) religious sects propose that human individuals "create their own world," and that by learning to control their minds can thereby control the world. They may also claim that the world is an illusion, thus justifying not paying attention to it, or basing decisions on faith in religious leaders or scriptures.
These claims warrant examination.
The uncertainty relationship was discovered in 1927, capping a four year period of rapid discoveries in quantum physics which solved problems that had been on the table for decades. It is fair to say that the discovery of the electron (1897), or minimal unit of electric charge, and of the light quanta, or photon in 1905, had started what we now call quantum physics. But in 1923, even though it was believed that electrons associated with atoms obeyed quantum laws, no one could correctly model the spectra (specific frequencies of light) emitted by heated molecules of differing elements.
In September of 1923 Louis de Broglie proposed that electron, like the photon, obeyed the law associating a frequency with its energy level. Energy (E) would equal frequency (f) times Planck's constant h:
E = f x h
In fact he proposed that all forms of matter and energy were governed by that relationship, and thus had a wave property, frequency, associated with them.
Much happened in 1924, but in 1925 Werner Heisenberg cracked the basic math for the frequency of atomic spectra problem. He decided he would use no model of atoms at all, but would instead base his Quantum Mechanics only on observable facts, in the first instance, the frequencies of light emitted by atoms. With considerable help from friends (Born, Jordan, and Pauli), and because all the spectral data had been available for decades, the new system was shown to be essentially correct. In addition Erwin Schrodinger in January 1926 solved the hydrogen spectrum with his wave formulation of quantum mechanics. Physics guys liked that because the math was more familiar to them than Heisenberg's, but soon the two maths were shown to be equivalent.
Max Born issued his first paper on the probability interpretation of quantum mechanics in June of 1926, which is of great philosophical importance, but which won't be followed in this essay. In March of 1927 physical experiments first showed that de Broglie was absolutely right: electrons, thought of as particles, did have frequencies and acted like waves in certain situations.
Which brings us back to Heisenberg, and March 23, 1927. His uncertainty relationship was based on the nature of the math used in quantum mechanics to correctly predict spectra, and on a thought experiment (later carried out with real experimental apparatus). It is important to understand the equation:
The "p" represents momentum, "x" can be taken as the location in space, and the triangles in this case indicate the latitude or slack available for their attached variables. The total slack, or uncertainty, from multiplying the observed momentum with the observed locations in space is greater than or equal to Planck's constant (h) divided by 2 times pi (3.14), or about h/6. The best case scenario for accuracy is when the two sides of the equation are equal.
Which is to day if you have really great experimental apparatus and are trying to simultaneously measure something's momentum and position in space, the best you can do overall is get it to within about h/6. If you try to make p smaller (more accurate or certain), x becomes less accurate or certain. If you double the certainty of p, you halve the certainty of x.
Yet on this uncertainty whole philosophies and religions try to defend their metaphysical speculations from the discipline of nature. How much uncertainty are we talking about?
Planck's constant is an experimentally determined number of energy units multiplied by time. Given that our everyday science energy units are on our scale, it is a small number: about 6.626 times ten to the negative 34th Joule seconds. In other words, put down a decimal point, then 33 zeros, then 6626:
.00000000000000000000000000000006626 Joule seconds
You probably have no more sense of how small atomic particles are than I do, but the result is that uncertainty is pretty significant for a light quanta, roughly corresponding to its wave length, and is significant for a single electron. However, it really is not all that significant, most of the time, even for something as light as a hydrogen atom (one proton with one electron). The uncertainty is for the entire experimental system; it does not increase as we work on objects of larger mass.
Upscale to something we think of as really small, say a virus particle, and the uncertainty is still about h/6, which means that determining the momentum and position of our virus is going to be limited by our experimental apparatus and our lack of caring, rather than by the uncertainty relationship.
So how certain were scientists about positions real world things before Heisenberg? The answer is no one had really thought about it clearly. Quick, give me the exact position and momentum of that cloud in the sky over there. See, classical physics was filled with uncertainty, just as life is. But arguing the cloud is not real because you can't tell me to 99 decimals where its center of mass is right now, is foolish. In theory in classical physics the moon has an exact position in space and an exact momentum, but no one was ever able to measure the moon or for that matter anything that would have caused their experiments to be affected by Heisenberg's certainty limitations.
Heisenberg found the uncertainty principle because it finally mattered to scientists. Things that matter in the quantum world of electrons and photons may not matter in our gigantic human everyday scale. The rules of quantum physics apply only to very, very, very small things. In aggregate they average out to ordinary, everyday physics and to our intuitive understanding of dealing with our everyday lives.
What Heisenberg really showed is that we can be highly certain about physical reality if we are willing to put in the effort. Even in the case of electrons.
If you are a carpenter, and are used to your hammer, you know how to hit a nail on the head. There is plenty of uncertainty at a human scale, but its nature is different.
Understand this, and you are probably ready to understand the issue of observation affecting what is observed in the domain of quantum physics. That will be a separate essay.
Key take away: uncertainty is a fact of nature, but in the sense of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it is very, very small.
[special thanks to Abraham Pais for Inward Bound
, pages 252-262 and those who have contributed to Wikipedia articles on quantum physics]
Natural Liberation Philosophy
Philosophies and religions that believe in an observer-created reality have interpreted the uncertainty relationship as proof of their viewpoint. They claim that reality is subjective, not objective, and this supports or interweaves with other aspects of their viewpoint. Some, but not all, New Age and Eastern (Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism) religious sects propose that human individuals "create their own world," and that by learning to control their minds can thereby control the world. They may also claim that the world is an illusion, thus justifying not paying attention to it, or basing decisions on faith in religious leaders or scriptures.
These claims warrant examination.
The uncertainty relationship was discovered in 1927, capping a four year period of rapid discoveries in quantum physics which solved problems that had been on the table for decades. It is fair to say that the discovery of the electron (1897), or minimal unit of electric charge, and of the light quanta, or photon in 1905, had started what we now call quantum physics. But in 1923, even though it was believed that electrons associated with atoms obeyed quantum laws, no one could correctly model the spectra (specific frequencies of light) emitted by heated molecules of differing elements.
In September of 1923 Louis de Broglie proposed that electron, like the photon, obeyed the law associating a frequency with its energy level. Energy (E) would equal frequency (f) times Planck's constant h:
E = f x h
In fact he proposed that all forms of matter and energy were governed by that relationship, and thus had a wave property, frequency, associated with them.
Much happened in 1924, but in 1925 Werner Heisenberg cracked the basic math for the frequency of atomic spectra problem. He decided he would use no model of atoms at all, but would instead base his Quantum Mechanics only on observable facts, in the first instance, the frequencies of light emitted by atoms. With considerable help from friends (Born, Jordan, and Pauli), and because all the spectral data had been available for decades, the new system was shown to be essentially correct. In addition Erwin Schrodinger in January 1926 solved the hydrogen spectrum with his wave formulation of quantum mechanics. Physics guys liked that because the math was more familiar to them than Heisenberg's, but soon the two maths were shown to be equivalent.
Max Born issued his first paper on the probability interpretation of quantum mechanics in June of 1926, which is of great philosophical importance, but which won't be followed in this essay. In March of 1927 physical experiments first showed that de Broglie was absolutely right: electrons, thought of as particles, did have frequencies and acted like waves in certain situations.
Which brings us back to Heisenberg, and March 23, 1927. His uncertainty relationship was based on the nature of the math used in quantum mechanics to correctly predict spectra, and on a thought experiment (later carried out with real experimental apparatus). It is important to understand the equation:
The "p" represents momentum, "x" can be taken as the location in space, and the triangles in this case indicate the latitude or slack available for their attached variables. The total slack, or uncertainty, from multiplying the observed momentum with the observed locations in space is greater than or equal to Planck's constant (h) divided by 2 times pi (3.14), or about h/6. The best case scenario for accuracy is when the two sides of the equation are equal.
Which is to day if you have really great experimental apparatus and are trying to simultaneously measure something's momentum and position in space, the best you can do overall is get it to within about h/6. If you try to make p smaller (more accurate or certain), x becomes less accurate or certain. If you double the certainty of p, you halve the certainty of x.
Yet on this uncertainty whole philosophies and religions try to defend their metaphysical speculations from the discipline of nature. How much uncertainty are we talking about?
Planck's constant is an experimentally determined number of energy units multiplied by time. Given that our everyday science energy units are on our scale, it is a small number: about 6.626 times ten to the negative 34th Joule seconds. In other words, put down a decimal point, then 33 zeros, then 6626:
.00000000000000000000000000000006626 Joule seconds
You probably have no more sense of how small atomic particles are than I do, but the result is that uncertainty is pretty significant for a light quanta, roughly corresponding to its wave length, and is significant for a single electron. However, it really is not all that significant, most of the time, even for something as light as a hydrogen atom (one proton with one electron). The uncertainty is for the entire experimental system; it does not increase as we work on objects of larger mass.
Upscale to something we think of as really small, say a virus particle, and the uncertainty is still about h/6, which means that determining the momentum and position of our virus is going to be limited by our experimental apparatus and our lack of caring, rather than by the uncertainty relationship.
So how certain were scientists about positions real world things before Heisenberg? The answer is no one had really thought about it clearly. Quick, give me the exact position and momentum of that cloud in the sky over there. See, classical physics was filled with uncertainty, just as life is. But arguing the cloud is not real because you can't tell me to 99 decimals where its center of mass is right now, is foolish. In theory in classical physics the moon has an exact position in space and an exact momentum, but no one was ever able to measure the moon or for that matter anything that would have caused their experiments to be affected by Heisenberg's certainty limitations.
Heisenberg found the uncertainty principle because it finally mattered to scientists. Things that matter in the quantum world of electrons and photons may not matter in our gigantic human everyday scale. The rules of quantum physics apply only to very, very, very small things. In aggregate they average out to ordinary, everyday physics and to our intuitive understanding of dealing with our everyday lives.
What Heisenberg really showed is that we can be highly certain about physical reality if we are willing to put in the effort. Even in the case of electrons.
If you are a carpenter, and are used to your hammer, you know how to hit a nail on the head. There is plenty of uncertainty at a human scale, but its nature is different.
Understand this, and you are probably ready to understand the issue of observation affecting what is observed in the domain of quantum physics. That will be a separate essay.
Key take away: uncertainty is a fact of nature, but in the sense of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it is very, very small.
[special thanks to Abraham Pais for Inward Bound
, pages 252-262 and those who have contributed to Wikipedia articles on quantum physics]
Natural Liberation Philosophy
Monday, December 13, 2010
The Soul
People really like the concept of the soul. It is often the last religious relic that modern, non-religious people give up. Atheists often simply dismiss the soul as not worth considering, but I think it is worth considering its varying definitions and its psychological appeal. One goal of my Natural Liberation Philosophy is to align my thoughts as much as possible with Nature. This often requires more careful thinking than that leading to simple Yes or No type answers. The true answer always seems to be, it's complicated. This short essay is an introduction to these ideas and a basis for further discussion.
The basic idea of the soul arose in pre-historic times. Once history starts (with the invention of writing) we start to see ideas mentioned that correspond in some way to our more modern ideas of the soul. Animism, the belief that all things, including mountains, rivers, and trees, have a spirit, is likely to have pre-dated civilization, much less history. As religions developed this basic idea (dualism, the idea that a spirit is necessary to animate a material body) was refined.
Ghosts are associated closely with the ideas of soul and spirit. Some people still believe in ghosts, and some honest research still goes into trying to "find" ghosts, but for the most part the concept is now maintained by horror movies rather than religious belief. Reports of ghosts doubtless are based on the human mind's ability to remember the dead, including in dreams and in waking dreams. Dismissing our modern concept of ghosts simply sharpens the religious definitions of soul.
Like a ghost, a soul is supposed to live after death. The ancient Egyptian view of the soul was quite complex. In Hinduism and Buddhism the soul also exists in a complex state before any particular life, and goes from a dead person or animal into a a new baby person (transmigration or reincarnation). In Christianity, while there are differences of opinion within sects, for the most part humans at conception or birth are given a newly-manufactured soul, pre-corrupted with original sin. In both cases the soul carries, or remembers, the good and bad deeds of a person. In is sort of a sin accounting sheet.
The soul is associated with life (as opposed to dead corpses) and in particular with the mind and consciousness. The mind and consciousness are real enough. However, every indication are that they start functioning around the time of birth and cease functioning at death. The concept of soul extends that functioning to before and after an individual's life. This seems to be mostly a function of fear of death. People fear their own deaths, they mourn the death of people they love, and are frightened by the deaths even of people they do not love. It is also a result of valuing the present over the past.
That type of soul, the kind that is conscious and thinks and holds memories and lives after death, is simply imaginary. If such a soul were real we would not need so many nerve cells in our brains to function, and lesions in the brain would have no effect on our behavior. The body animates itself, when it is healthy.
Another aspect of the soul concept that is appealing to many people is its cleanliness, its theorized inability to be stained by the less pleasant facts of life. The soul does not urinate, defecate, or have bad breath. It appeals to people who fancy that cleanliness is next to godliness. This also pairs up well with many people's desire to think of themselves as "spiritual" rather than greedy and materialistic, even when they are not otherwise religious. It is strange that the opposite of greedy is considered by people to be eternal life, rather than mortality.
But what if we do go looking for eternity, or at least something that does last longer than a particular human brain? There are some soul-like substances worthy of discussion. The main ones are the genes, which provide biological continuity, and culture, which provides a continuity beyond our animal existence.
The one thing intrinsic in us that definitely exists prior to conception and that animates human life is our biological ancestry. I'll use DNA here not just to mean the molecules that code our genes, but the complex fabric of life, including the non-DNA parts of the ovum that contribute to the development of fetuses.
DNA is shuffled quite effectively each time a new human is conceived, so unless a community is highly inbred an individual is not identical to the father or mother, and is not likely to be identical to any particular ancestor. Yet most DNA is shared with all humans, and no individual has any unique DNA unless they have a new mutation or are the last of some line, usually meaning they have a life-threating mutation inherited from an ancestor.
Our DNA is a record of our past, of over a billion years of choices and interactions with the the rest of nature. It is the soul of each new human. There is no guarantee that an individual will reproduce, but our DNA is a result of a common ancestry we share with all humans. Unless all humans die, all the DNA in you will be passed on to the next generation even if you don't reproduce personally. Whether this is as reassuring to you as the false idea of a ghost-soul that lives after your death depends on your attitude. Life goes on, but not your particular individual life. That said, I don't think DNA, in itself, is conscious. It is the blueprint for the body, which is conscious.
Culture goes on too, and it existed and developed for hundreds of thousands of years before your birth. Culture is more flexible and tolerant than DNA; it is more capable of experimentation. Culture includes art and ethics, language and technology, religious and social beliefs. Without it, you might survive, but you would be very animal like. You would not be able to think in the sense that people who know a language think.
Language, in particular, is a soul-like substance. It penetrates from the adults caring for a baby and wells up within, naming the things of the world and describing their relationships. Language has been described by philosophers and poets alike as a living thing, a vast edifice of spirit that possesses and shapes us throughout our lifetimes.
When someone argues that humans have souls, I want to know exactly how soul is defined by that person. Since most of the religious definitions of soul make no sense or are clearly make believe, I prefer to avoid using the term except in a poetic sense. I am more interested in mind, intelligence, empathy, and consciousness, which while also sometimes vague or difficult to define, clearly have their role in our natural reality.
See also: God, a Confusing Concept
For a rundown of how many religions define the soul, See Soul at Wikipedia.
The basic idea of the soul arose in pre-historic times. Once history starts (with the invention of writing) we start to see ideas mentioned that correspond in some way to our more modern ideas of the soul. Animism, the belief that all things, including mountains, rivers, and trees, have a spirit, is likely to have pre-dated civilization, much less history. As religions developed this basic idea (dualism, the idea that a spirit is necessary to animate a material body) was refined.
Ghosts are associated closely with the ideas of soul and spirit. Some people still believe in ghosts, and some honest research still goes into trying to "find" ghosts, but for the most part the concept is now maintained by horror movies rather than religious belief. Reports of ghosts doubtless are based on the human mind's ability to remember the dead, including in dreams and in waking dreams. Dismissing our modern concept of ghosts simply sharpens the religious definitions of soul.
Like a ghost, a soul is supposed to live after death. The ancient Egyptian view of the soul was quite complex. In Hinduism and Buddhism the soul also exists in a complex state before any particular life, and goes from a dead person or animal into a a new baby person (transmigration or reincarnation). In Christianity, while there are differences of opinion within sects, for the most part humans at conception or birth are given a newly-manufactured soul, pre-corrupted with original sin. In both cases the soul carries, or remembers, the good and bad deeds of a person. In is sort of a sin accounting sheet.
The soul is associated with life (as opposed to dead corpses) and in particular with the mind and consciousness. The mind and consciousness are real enough. However, every indication are that they start functioning around the time of birth and cease functioning at death. The concept of soul extends that functioning to before and after an individual's life. This seems to be mostly a function of fear of death. People fear their own deaths, they mourn the death of people they love, and are frightened by the deaths even of people they do not love. It is also a result of valuing the present over the past.
That type of soul, the kind that is conscious and thinks and holds memories and lives after death, is simply imaginary. If such a soul were real we would not need so many nerve cells in our brains to function, and lesions in the brain would have no effect on our behavior. The body animates itself, when it is healthy.
Another aspect of the soul concept that is appealing to many people is its cleanliness, its theorized inability to be stained by the less pleasant facts of life. The soul does not urinate, defecate, or have bad breath. It appeals to people who fancy that cleanliness is next to godliness. This also pairs up well with many people's desire to think of themselves as "spiritual" rather than greedy and materialistic, even when they are not otherwise religious. It is strange that the opposite of greedy is considered by people to be eternal life, rather than mortality.
But what if we do go looking for eternity, or at least something that does last longer than a particular human brain? There are some soul-like substances worthy of discussion. The main ones are the genes, which provide biological continuity, and culture, which provides a continuity beyond our animal existence.
The one thing intrinsic in us that definitely exists prior to conception and that animates human life is our biological ancestry. I'll use DNA here not just to mean the molecules that code our genes, but the complex fabric of life, including the non-DNA parts of the ovum that contribute to the development of fetuses.
DNA is shuffled quite effectively each time a new human is conceived, so unless a community is highly inbred an individual is not identical to the father or mother, and is not likely to be identical to any particular ancestor. Yet most DNA is shared with all humans, and no individual has any unique DNA unless they have a new mutation or are the last of some line, usually meaning they have a life-threating mutation inherited from an ancestor.
Our DNA is a record of our past, of over a billion years of choices and interactions with the the rest of nature. It is the soul of each new human. There is no guarantee that an individual will reproduce, but our DNA is a result of a common ancestry we share with all humans. Unless all humans die, all the DNA in you will be passed on to the next generation even if you don't reproduce personally. Whether this is as reassuring to you as the false idea of a ghost-soul that lives after your death depends on your attitude. Life goes on, but not your particular individual life. That said, I don't think DNA, in itself, is conscious. It is the blueprint for the body, which is conscious.
Culture goes on too, and it existed and developed for hundreds of thousands of years before your birth. Culture is more flexible and tolerant than DNA; it is more capable of experimentation. Culture includes art and ethics, language and technology, religious and social beliefs. Without it, you might survive, but you would be very animal like. You would not be able to think in the sense that people who know a language think.
Language, in particular, is a soul-like substance. It penetrates from the adults caring for a baby and wells up within, naming the things of the world and describing their relationships. Language has been described by philosophers and poets alike as a living thing, a vast edifice of spirit that possesses and shapes us throughout our lifetimes.
When someone argues that humans have souls, I want to know exactly how soul is defined by that person. Since most of the religious definitions of soul make no sense or are clearly make believe, I prefer to avoid using the term except in a poetic sense. I am more interested in mind, intelligence, empathy, and consciousness, which while also sometimes vague or difficult to define, clearly have their role in our natural reality.
See also: God, a Confusing Concept
For a rundown of how many religions define the soul, See Soul at Wikipedia.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
On Death
Child: During our talk about God, you said we could talk about death later.
Meyers: Certainly. And I agree that now is that conversation's later.
Child: I don't want to die.
Meyers: Of course not. You are like me, you like life.
Child: But everybody dies. Only they don't really. They go to heaven, so they don't really die, at least if they are saved.
Meyers: Another belief system that denies the reality of death postulates reincarnation instead of heaven and hell. In reincarnation the soul, at death, moves into the body of a creature being born. Reincarnation is associated most closely with Hinduism and Buddhism. But let's focus on the death of the human body, and worry about heaven and reincarnation later. Okay?
Child: Okay.
Meyers: How old are you?
Child: Twelve.
Meyers: Then thirteen, or certainly fourteen, year ago you were not alive. Any problem with that?
Child: No, I guess not.
Meyers: And you would agree the past is real. Yesterday was as real as today, and the day you were born was a real day, and before you were born real things happened, like the births and deaths of your ancestors in say the 19th century?
Child: Of course.
Meyers: I only make the point because some religions and philosophies, like Buddhism and extreme forms of skepticism, insist that the present is an illusion, and the past must be an illusion too. We'll talk about the idea that the world is an illusion at some other point, or else we'll lose track of this death question.
Child: So what does the past being real have to do with death?
Meyers: Let's suppose you live for a really long time. Just say 80 years. Now imagine we are both dead, let's say a hundred years from now. Go ahead, try to imagine being someone else, a hundred years from now, who maybe has heard about you or me, and is thinking about the year 2010.
Child: I guess anyone could do that. Anyone alive then. Just like I can imagine my great grandfathers during World War II. Two of them fought, one was too old, one was too young.
Meyers: So it is pretty simple. People are born, live some length of time, and then die. After they die their life is in the past. Can we see the City of London right now?
Child: No, but I could get web cams to come up if you wanted to see.
Meyers: Surely you could. And there are still archives about your soldier ancestors, we could see them if we wanted to. But we can't be in two geographic locations at once, and we can't be in two times at once. Our present is your ancestors' future and your descendents' past. It is all real.
When someone dies their life is simply in the past, to the people whose life goes on. But their life is still real. The common phrase "he passed away" really should be "he's in the past now."
Child: But what about heaven? Your body could be in the past, and your soul could go to heaven.
Meyers: People are sad when their relatives and friends die. They wish they were still alive, in the present. So a long, long time ago people invented the idea of ghosts. They would dream they saw their dead friends, so they thought they were still alive in some form. Then the professional religious racket got a hold of the idea. They encouraged people to think that ghosts are real, and they invented a home for them. At first it didn't sell well, because the home was pretty gloomy. Then some priests realized that inventing a happy ghost home, heaven, made living people happy. They wanted their dead to be alive in a happy home, and they wanted to go to a happy home themselves when they died. But it is just a story. The truth is dead people are in the past.
Child: I don't know. Seems you could have both.
Meyers: Sure. Some time when you have some time to put to use, you could read some about the Greek and Egyptian religions that were around before Christianity. You get an idea of the trajectory, of how religious and philosophic ideas developed. Sorting out what is true from what is false is no easy task. A lot of people want you to believe what they believe. And a lot of people choose that, to go along, to pretend to believe, just to get along with their friends and family.
Child: I want to know the truth.
Meyers: I think that's good. But the truth is not always beautiful, at least not in detail. Ugly things happen in this world. Hopefully you'll avoid the worst of them.
Meyers: Certainly. And I agree that now is that conversation's later.
Child: I don't want to die.
Meyers: Of course not. You are like me, you like life.
Child: But everybody dies. Only they don't really. They go to heaven, so they don't really die, at least if they are saved.
Meyers: Another belief system that denies the reality of death postulates reincarnation instead of heaven and hell. In reincarnation the soul, at death, moves into the body of a creature being born. Reincarnation is associated most closely with Hinduism and Buddhism. But let's focus on the death of the human body, and worry about heaven and reincarnation later. Okay?
Child: Okay.
Meyers: How old are you?
Child: Twelve.
Meyers: Then thirteen, or certainly fourteen, year ago you were not alive. Any problem with that?
Child: No, I guess not.
Meyers: And you would agree the past is real. Yesterday was as real as today, and the day you were born was a real day, and before you were born real things happened, like the births and deaths of your ancestors in say the 19th century?
Child: Of course.
Meyers: I only make the point because some religions and philosophies, like Buddhism and extreme forms of skepticism, insist that the present is an illusion, and the past must be an illusion too. We'll talk about the idea that the world is an illusion at some other point, or else we'll lose track of this death question.
Child: So what does the past being real have to do with death?
Meyers: Let's suppose you live for a really long time. Just say 80 years. Now imagine we are both dead, let's say a hundred years from now. Go ahead, try to imagine being someone else, a hundred years from now, who maybe has heard about you or me, and is thinking about the year 2010.
Child: I guess anyone could do that. Anyone alive then. Just like I can imagine my great grandfathers during World War II. Two of them fought, one was too old, one was too young.
Meyers: So it is pretty simple. People are born, live some length of time, and then die. After they die their life is in the past. Can we see the City of London right now?
Child: No, but I could get web cams to come up if you wanted to see.
Meyers: Surely you could. And there are still archives about your soldier ancestors, we could see them if we wanted to. But we can't be in two geographic locations at once, and we can't be in two times at once. Our present is your ancestors' future and your descendents' past. It is all real.
When someone dies their life is simply in the past, to the people whose life goes on. But their life is still real. The common phrase "he passed away" really should be "he's in the past now."
Child: But what about heaven? Your body could be in the past, and your soul could go to heaven.
Meyers: People are sad when their relatives and friends die. They wish they were still alive, in the present. So a long, long time ago people invented the idea of ghosts. They would dream they saw their dead friends, so they thought they were still alive in some form. Then the professional religious racket got a hold of the idea. They encouraged people to think that ghosts are real, and they invented a home for them. At first it didn't sell well, because the home was pretty gloomy. Then some priests realized that inventing a happy ghost home, heaven, made living people happy. They wanted their dead to be alive in a happy home, and they wanted to go to a happy home themselves when they died. But it is just a story. The truth is dead people are in the past.
Child: I don't know. Seems you could have both.
Meyers: Sure. Some time when you have some time to put to use, you could read some about the Greek and Egyptian religions that were around before Christianity. You get an idea of the trajectory, of how religious and philosophic ideas developed. Sorting out what is true from what is false is no easy task. A lot of people want you to believe what they believe. And a lot of people choose that, to go along, to pretend to believe, just to get along with their friends and family.
Child: I want to know the truth.
Meyers: I think that's good. But the truth is not always beautiful, at least not in detail. Ugly things happen in this world. Hopefully you'll avoid the worst of them.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
On Nothing
Child: My parents say you are an atheist.
Meyers: I have a positive system of knowledge called Natural Liberation Philosophy. But yes, in your parents' culture that makes me a kind of atheist.
Child: I don't see how you can say there isn't a God. How did everything get here? God created everything.
Meyers: When we humans create something we make it from things that are already here. We use the phrase "create a cake" to mean "bake a cake from ingredients." Except for what people make, things don't need to be created. They just are. We don't create trees: they just grow. Scientists say everything is made of matter and energy, and matter and energy can't be created or destroyed.
Child: But God had to create something in the first place.
Meyers: People say things like: God created the Universe out of nothing. But pretend for a moment the Universe needs a Creator. The theory behind that would be that a Creator is necessary for the Universe to exist. But what created the Creator? The Creator would need to be self-creating. And once we allow for something to be self-creating .. do you think we should allow self-creation?
Child: Yes!
Meyers: Then we might as well allow that the Universe itself is, or at some time was, self-creating. Do you see how much of your problem comes from applying the word "create" in a context where it does not apply?
Child: [Silence]
Meyers: Let me help you here. Do you think there would be nothing, if God or the Universe had not been self-creating!
Child: Maybe God is the Universe, but there would be nothing if something had not been made!
Meyers: Some would argue that nothing can beget only nothing. But consider how we use the word "nothing." It makes sense in everyday use. What did you bring home from the store? Nothing. What are your plans for the day? Nothing. What did you accomplish on your hike? Nothing. Nothing is a lot like zero.
Child: So?
Meyers: Nothing is a sort of counter. It is the absence of things to count. But I can count billions of people, 10 or so planets in the solar system, millions of stars in the sky, million of galaxies in the Universe. Reality is something. The Universe is something. They are not nothing.
Child: But they were nothing before the world was created.
Meyers: You are applying a human word where it should not be applied. You are using it out of context. Nothing is a contrast to the existence of particular things. You are trying to make it contrast with Everything, or the Universe.It only makes sense within a system of things. You can try other language constructions. Here is one: outside our system of reality. Outside reality, in short. You can make what sounds like a sensible sentence: outside of reality is nothing.
Child: Exactly. Outside of reality there is nothing. And before reality there was nothing. So you still need God to create everything.
Meyers: For there to be before, there has to be time. Time would be something. Not nothing. The nothing of time would be No Time. That makes sense in everyday life: no time to do my homework! But no time at all, or a time before the Universe began, those are just misapplying the English language.
We might say, take away the entire universe, and there would be nothing. But the universe can't be taken away. Parts of it can be wrecked, but it can't be destroyed. The absence of the entire universe is an impossible construct. Nothingness, in the absolutely nothing sense, is a misconception.
Child: So what is the point of all this bull about God and philosophy?
Meyers: Exactly. You are in a very real world. Learn all you can about it. Do what you think is right within it. And beware that many humans have become very confused over the course of civilization by using the same word to mean two or more things, or by extending an analogy way beyond its reasonable context.
Child: Maybe. But what happens to people when they die, if there isn't a God?
Meyers: I think you can figure that out for yourself. Run along now. I need to check my text messages.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Lazy Nature, Lazy God
Is nature lazy? It certainly is slow. Look how long it took for life as we know it to evolve.
The ancient Greek philosopher-scientists knew that light was lazy. They showed that when light is reflected from a surface the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence. Whatever the speed of light was, this reflection rule resulted in the shortest, and therefore the fastest, path between a source of light, an observer, and a reflective surface between them. Light takes the shortest path.
In the era historians refer to as the Enlightenment, this came to be called the principle of least action.
Nature has a number of definitions; when I write Nature, I mean the Universe or totality of things, including the principles that cause it to exist and determine the specifics of existence. Primitive people take the ancient idea of a god (tree, rock, ghost, or human) and try to amplify that up until they have a God that created and rules over, or at least within, Nature. Whether you believe in God or Nature, the physics experiments come out the same.
So the principle of least action implies that God is lazy too. God's laziness makes the universe predictable.
You can make a lot out of this simple principle, which applies to solid physical objects as well a light and energy fields. To understand this, unfortunately, the path of least effort leads through the quicksand of something called the calculus of variations. And of course, most people in the world need to start working or fighting or begging before they even get to regular calculus in school. On the other hand, if you do happen to study calculus and then the calculus of variations, you can get anything you want in the world. You will be able to see deeper and further than other humans, and make of it what you will.
With your math magic, you are now ready to do Lagrangian dynamics, among other things. You can see where Newton's Laws come from: a lazy, symmetrical universe (designed by a lazy God). And using only the principle of laziness, you can work out Schrodinger's equation (for the motion of a non-relativistic particle in a potential field) [Byron & Fuller, Mathematics of Classical and Quantum Physics, p. 71]. Thus you have the key to quantum physics. In retrospect it is surprising no one came up with it before Erwin Schrodinger.
Which brings up another important point: Chance. Or probability, if you like the more modern formalism. Many Romans worshipped Chance, or Fortuna (Tyche to the Greeks). In addition to the chance events of human lives, the practice of gambling was already well-developed. Dice pre-exist recorded history, as did other methods of casting lots or determining oracles. The minor Christian god Jesus Christ may have been an incarnation of chance, as it was written in the Bible (King James translation), Mark 15:24, "And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take." [Alternate versions found in Matthew 27:25, where this is attributed to fulfilling a Jewish prophecy; Luke 23:34; and John 23:24]
The role of probability in quantum physics, and in particular the Uncertainty Theorem, has led to a lot of guru-driven nonsense spouted in the popular arena of wishful thinking. There is probability in quantum physics, which is to say in Nature, but it is of a type. We say things like "the probability of finding an electron within this space-time region in our experiment is 40%." It sounds like "there is a 40% chance of rain today." But if an experiment where the equations create a 40% expectation is run a few hundred times and the electron is only found 37% of the time, what physicists do is alter their equations. Afterwards it looks like they got the 37% figure from theory, but in fact they got it from practice and molded their theory to their results. See Inward Bound by Abraham Pais for numerous historical examples.
Asking where an electron is in space-time relative to an atomic nucleus is actually simply asking a bad question, although strangely it is fine to ask where the same electron is traversing a vacuum tube. Chance in quantum land is probably best seen in radioactive decay, where it is clearly a result of a probabilistic decay mechanism, not of observational or prediction problems.
The principle of least action leads to quantum probability equations. So in some sense the rules of probability in quantum phyics are themselves predictable. Just as we cannot be sure what any throw of the dice may bring, but we can predict the outcome of large numbers of throws using the rules of probability.
In classical physics, laziness appears to be exact (assuming you know exactly everything about your system), or too pick an exact shortest path. In quantum physics the mask of exactness is removed, but the laziness of Nature is still the rule.
Book references:
The ancient Greek philosopher-scientists knew that light was lazy. They showed that when light is reflected from a surface the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence. Whatever the speed of light was, this reflection rule resulted in the shortest, and therefore the fastest, path between a source of light, an observer, and a reflective surface between them. Light takes the shortest path.
In the era historians refer to as the Enlightenment, this came to be called the principle of least action.
Nature has a number of definitions; when I write Nature, I mean the Universe or totality of things, including the principles that cause it to exist and determine the specifics of existence. Primitive people take the ancient idea of a god (tree, rock, ghost, or human) and try to amplify that up until they have a God that created and rules over, or at least within, Nature. Whether you believe in God or Nature, the physics experiments come out the same.
So the principle of least action implies that God is lazy too. God's laziness makes the universe predictable.
You can make a lot out of this simple principle, which applies to solid physical objects as well a light and energy fields. To understand this, unfortunately, the path of least effort leads through the quicksand of something called the calculus of variations. And of course, most people in the world need to start working or fighting or begging before they even get to regular calculus in school. On the other hand, if you do happen to study calculus and then the calculus of variations, you can get anything you want in the world. You will be able to see deeper and further than other humans, and make of it what you will.
With your math magic, you are now ready to do Lagrangian dynamics, among other things. You can see where Newton's Laws come from: a lazy, symmetrical universe (designed by a lazy God). And using only the principle of laziness, you can work out Schrodinger's equation (for the motion of a non-relativistic particle in a potential field) [Byron & Fuller, Mathematics of Classical and Quantum Physics, p. 71]. Thus you have the key to quantum physics. In retrospect it is surprising no one came up with it before Erwin Schrodinger.
Which brings up another important point: Chance. Or probability, if you like the more modern formalism. Many Romans worshipped Chance, or Fortuna (Tyche to the Greeks). In addition to the chance events of human lives, the practice of gambling was already well-developed. Dice pre-exist recorded history, as did other methods of casting lots or determining oracles. The minor Christian god Jesus Christ may have been an incarnation of chance, as it was written in the Bible (King James translation), Mark 15:24, "And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take." [Alternate versions found in Matthew 27:25, where this is attributed to fulfilling a Jewish prophecy; Luke 23:34; and John 23:24]
The role of probability in quantum physics, and in particular the Uncertainty Theorem, has led to a lot of guru-driven nonsense spouted in the popular arena of wishful thinking. There is probability in quantum physics, which is to say in Nature, but it is of a type. We say things like "the probability of finding an electron within this space-time region in our experiment is 40%." It sounds like "there is a 40% chance of rain today." But if an experiment where the equations create a 40% expectation is run a few hundred times and the electron is only found 37% of the time, what physicists do is alter their equations. Afterwards it looks like they got the 37% figure from theory, but in fact they got it from practice and molded their theory to their results. See Inward Bound by Abraham Pais for numerous historical examples.
Asking where an electron is in space-time relative to an atomic nucleus is actually simply asking a bad question, although strangely it is fine to ask where the same electron is traversing a vacuum tube. Chance in quantum land is probably best seen in radioactive decay, where it is clearly a result of a probabilistic decay mechanism, not of observational or prediction problems.
The principle of least action leads to quantum probability equations. So in some sense the rules of probability in quantum phyics are themselves predictable. Just as we cannot be sure what any throw of the dice may bring, but we can predict the outcome of large numbers of throws using the rules of probability.
In classical physics, laziness appears to be exact (assuming you know exactly everything about your system), or too pick an exact shortest path. In quantum physics the mask of exactness is removed, but the laziness of Nature is still the rule.
Book references:
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Weeds, Windows, and Wind
It was only a matter of time. Giant mutant weeds are taking over America's farmland. When environmentalist alarmists said it would happen, and then said it had started to happen, they were mostly ignored. The New York Times article today, Farmers Cope with Roundup Resistant Weeds. A variety of such weeds are proliferating, including giant Palmer Amaranths. Strangely, the amaranths are natives that were used, even cultivated, by the native American Indian tribes as food. The Times article wisely mostly avoids quoting gloating environmentalists, or organic farmers. It quotes a variety of commercial farmers who use Monsanto's Roundup Ready genetically-modified seed along with Roundup poison itself telling their woes with weeds.
I'm behind the curve, but slowly working my way through the Weeds TV series. I tried it a couple of years back and found be reminded how stupidly people act when stoned to be only minimally humorous. Having resumed the series recently, I find the later season's showing that being a dealer or a grower is not always all that easy to be a much funnier theme. Here in Mendocino County a lot of growers are not finding the idea of legalizing marijuana in California to be very funny either. The word is that prices dropped the last few years, between the recession and the semi-legal medical marijuana industry. Of course, on a small scale they can grow more and market more easily. There is also an apparently factual story circulating that a large tobacco company has bought up a lot of vacant land in our county.
So evolution rolls along, according to God's will (just kidding, I think God is a confusing concept). But try this one out for shutting up your local religious parasites. Darwin was God's prophet. God revealed to Charles Darwin how He had created the World, and how it works. Religious people can't usually help but argue about God. Once they See that Charles was His Prophet, they might get enough of a grip on reality to stop anthropomorphizing the universe.
Speaking of weeds, good politicians are almost always choked out by bad ones. The process begins at the town council and school board level. By the time you get to Congress, you got almost all Giant Mutant Amaranths. Some have red flowers, some have blue flowers, but they are all crowding out the rest of life on Earth. Or maybe the metaphor works better in reverse. The citizens are amaranths. By the time any get to Congress, they are Monsanto genetically-modified corporate freaks. The only way we can fix things is by becoming Giant Mutant Amaranths ourselves.
Windows and Wind. I almost forgot, and it is tempting to re-write the previous paragraph because of the obvious connection between politicians and wind. But let's take on Windows first.
Glass is everywhere in our society, but that is a recent development. Windows, classically, were just holes in walls. Usually with shutters so they could be closed on cold days. They have given philosophers much to ponder upon. Centuries of philosophic endeavor were spent worrying about whether the eyes and human senses, our windows on the world, could be trusted. (See Questions to the Illusionists). Windows typically are distinguished from their cousins, ports and valves, by the idea that they mainly let in information: a view. In letting in (or out) a view they create their own problems, mainly of a defensive nature. Castles and forts have minimal windows. You want to see the enemy, but don't want arrows or bullets flying in your windows. For those who want to see and be safe, there is bulletproof glass, but that is rapidly being replaced by cameras. Politicians and military men, being camera shy, are masters at the art of smokescreens. Strangely, there are more video cameras spying on us in our supposedly free nation than George Orwell ever imagined in his totalitarian novel 1984.
Windows keep out the wind, but environmentalists are loving wind these days. Why with wind you can have power without pollution. The problem is there are just too many human beings in the world these days, and their individual and collective power expectations are phenomenal. Massive amounts of wind power require massive turbines, which require massive amounts of steel, which requires massive mines, and steel mills, and burning of coke (which produces carbon dioxide). The wind gathering machinery itself is a blight on the land, killing birds and driving away other wildlife.
I love technology and science, but it seems that every time we solve a problem with technology, we create a bigger one. Modern medicine, largely a fruit of Darwin, has led to lower human death rates, giving us an unsupportable population.
There really is only one environmentally friendly technological solution, and that is birth control. World wide, and compulsory.
And because politicians have other concerns, that solution is not going to happen. Voluntary birth control helps, but it has proven to be insufficient.
I am no prophet, but I can see the most likely future: intensifying competition between humans for resources, and for survival itself.
I suspect the new winners will be those who thrive on a diet consisting largely of giant mutant amaranth.
I'm behind the curve, but slowly working my way through the Weeds TV series. I tried it a couple of years back and found be reminded how stupidly people act when stoned to be only minimally humorous. Having resumed the series recently, I find the later season's showing that being a dealer or a grower is not always all that easy to be a much funnier theme. Here in Mendocino County a lot of growers are not finding the idea of legalizing marijuana in California to be very funny either. The word is that prices dropped the last few years, between the recession and the semi-legal medical marijuana industry. Of course, on a small scale they can grow more and market more easily. There is also an apparently factual story circulating that a large tobacco company has bought up a lot of vacant land in our county.
So evolution rolls along, according to God's will (just kidding, I think God is a confusing concept). But try this one out for shutting up your local religious parasites. Darwin was God's prophet. God revealed to Charles Darwin how He had created the World, and how it works. Religious people can't usually help but argue about God. Once they See that Charles was His Prophet, they might get enough of a grip on reality to stop anthropomorphizing the universe.
Speaking of weeds, good politicians are almost always choked out by bad ones. The process begins at the town council and school board level. By the time you get to Congress, you got almost all Giant Mutant Amaranths. Some have red flowers, some have blue flowers, but they are all crowding out the rest of life on Earth. Or maybe the metaphor works better in reverse. The citizens are amaranths. By the time any get to Congress, they are Monsanto genetically-modified corporate freaks. The only way we can fix things is by becoming Giant Mutant Amaranths ourselves.
Windows and Wind. I almost forgot, and it is tempting to re-write the previous paragraph because of the obvious connection between politicians and wind. But let's take on Windows first.
Glass is everywhere in our society, but that is a recent development. Windows, classically, were just holes in walls. Usually with shutters so they could be closed on cold days. They have given philosophers much to ponder upon. Centuries of philosophic endeavor were spent worrying about whether the eyes and human senses, our windows on the world, could be trusted. (See Questions to the Illusionists). Windows typically are distinguished from their cousins, ports and valves, by the idea that they mainly let in information: a view. In letting in (or out) a view they create their own problems, mainly of a defensive nature. Castles and forts have minimal windows. You want to see the enemy, but don't want arrows or bullets flying in your windows. For those who want to see and be safe, there is bulletproof glass, but that is rapidly being replaced by cameras. Politicians and military men, being camera shy, are masters at the art of smokescreens. Strangely, there are more video cameras spying on us in our supposedly free nation than George Orwell ever imagined in his totalitarian novel 1984.
Windows keep out the wind, but environmentalists are loving wind these days. Why with wind you can have power without pollution. The problem is there are just too many human beings in the world these days, and their individual and collective power expectations are phenomenal. Massive amounts of wind power require massive turbines, which require massive amounts of steel, which requires massive mines, and steel mills, and burning of coke (which produces carbon dioxide). The wind gathering machinery itself is a blight on the land, killing birds and driving away other wildlife.
I love technology and science, but it seems that every time we solve a problem with technology, we create a bigger one. Modern medicine, largely a fruit of Darwin, has led to lower human death rates, giving us an unsupportable population.
There really is only one environmentally friendly technological solution, and that is birth control. World wide, and compulsory.
And because politicians have other concerns, that solution is not going to happen. Voluntary birth control helps, but it has proven to be insufficient.
I am no prophet, but I can see the most likely future: intensifying competition between humans for resources, and for survival itself.
I suspect the new winners will be those who thrive on a diet consisting largely of giant mutant amaranth.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Spring Equinox Thoughts: Philosophy, and the Pope
Today is the spring equinox, a day all we warm-blooded animals in the northern hemisphere should celebrate. Things seem to be getting warm for the Pope (Benedict XVI), who is being linked closely, for the first time, to the failure of the Roman Catholic Church to protect its own children from its own priests. The increased web traffic to this site from my censorship by the Alpine School Board has worn off. The censorship was partly because of my summer solstice essay musing that it makes more sense to worship the Sun than to worship the Son. Apparently there are limits to compare-and-contrast essay topics in schools in the state of Utah.
By way of contributing to sanity on earth, yesterday I copies two brief articles on Common Sense philosophy from an old (copyright expired) encyclopedia. Apparently some of the arguments used by the Common Sense school (in Scotland in the 18th and 19th centuries) against ultra-skeptical and illusionist philosophies are similar to those I am using in Natural Liberation philosophy. However, I have not yet been able to get their original publications, much less read them. Curiously, in my technical work I am working on a model for the human brain that demonstrates, on a computer, how accurate knowledge of material things and causes can be constructed out of noisy, fragmented sensory information (see in particular Hierarchical Temporal Memory, Part 8, Specific Memories). Even more curiously, last night, viewing an episode of Numb3rs, they talked about obscure notions I have been studying recently: Bayesian probability and Markov chains. They even wrote out an equation for conditional probabilities that I recognized.
So on the one hand we have the Pope and the majority of the Catholic Church hierarchy trying to send the earth back to the Middle Ages (the technology of which would only support perhaps one-tenth of today's human population). The problem is not just Catholic child abuse of the newsworthy sort. The Catholic Church abuses the minds of children, filling their heads with lies, punishing them for any challenge to church authorities. Most organized religions do the same, but I am not looking for kindler, gentler religions peddling the same basic lies about Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Moses and their lot.
An equinox is a tipping point. Hopefully the trend away from ill-founded religions and philosophies will lead to a world where people understand their relationship to nature and behave appropriately. More likely we are just headed towards an ecological apocalypse, which the religious crazies will fit into their scheme of things as best they can.
By way of contributing to sanity on earth, yesterday I copies two brief articles on Common Sense philosophy from an old (copyright expired) encyclopedia. Apparently some of the arguments used by the Common Sense school (in Scotland in the 18th and 19th centuries) against ultra-skeptical and illusionist philosophies are similar to those I am using in Natural Liberation philosophy. However, I have not yet been able to get their original publications, much less read them. Curiously, in my technical work I am working on a model for the human brain that demonstrates, on a computer, how accurate knowledge of material things and causes can be constructed out of noisy, fragmented sensory information (see in particular Hierarchical Temporal Memory, Part 8, Specific Memories). Even more curiously, last night, viewing an episode of Numb3rs, they talked about obscure notions I have been studying recently: Bayesian probability and Markov chains. They even wrote out an equation for conditional probabilities that I recognized.
So on the one hand we have the Pope and the majority of the Catholic Church hierarchy trying to send the earth back to the Middle Ages (the technology of which would only support perhaps one-tenth of today's human population). The problem is not just Catholic child abuse of the newsworthy sort. The Catholic Church abuses the minds of children, filling their heads with lies, punishing them for any challenge to church authorities. Most organized religions do the same, but I am not looking for kindler, gentler religions peddling the same basic lies about Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Moses and their lot.
An equinox is a tipping point. Hopefully the trend away from ill-founded religions and philosophies will lead to a world where people understand their relationship to nature and behave appropriately. More likely we are just headed towards an ecological apocalypse, which the religious crazies will fit into their scheme of things as best they can.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Green Party Food Fight
A subcommittee of the Green Party I am on recently considered a platform plank called "Ethical Treatment of Animals". The discussion brought up a number of interesting points about ethics as applied to humans and animals. At the core of controversy was the unstated assumption that any human use of animals is unethical, as is any killing of animals by humans. The entire proposed plank is reproduced below, as well as the plank it would replace.
The key parts I want to discuss here include the definition of animal and the assumption that all animals are sentient beings; banning the use of animals in science and medicine; banning animal foods; closing zoos and aquaria, and not allowing animals in classrooms; and encouraging a vegan lifestyle.
Vegan lifestyle is not defined, but my understanding is that vegans neither eat nor wear anything that is an animal product (See also veganism at Wikipedia).
I think we can apply human ethics to the treatment of animals by humans, but the first thing to remember is that they are human ethics, not the ethics of animals. Carnivores do not eat vegan diets, and carnivores are crucial components of ecological systems. Recall that carnivores do not just include large mammals like wolves and tigers; carnivores come in all sizes, right down to the microscopic level.
Just as animals can be classified as herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores, there are many classifications of animals. I have no problem with arguing about how sentient specific species of animals are, but I find calling a tick or nematode sentient to border on ludicrous. The most basic problem with this plank, and vegan philosophy (which is derived from a branch of the Hindu religion), is that it allows thinking only in terms of broad moral absolutes. Fact-based knowledge of the world is excluded. Vegans want all animals, including wild animals (and pests that exist in large numbers because they have accommodated well to humans) treated as if they were pets. No argument is allowed. By the vegan gospel humans should not be allowed to treat (kill) animal parasites like worms and malaria.
Which is a major difference between my Natural Liberation Philosophy and many of the doctrines that are current among environmentalists. We need to be able to apply our ethics and philosophy to specifics. Deep Ecology also appreciates the importance of carnivores.
The proposed plank sees a future in which all human food is plant material. How much more unecological could you get? This proposal eliminates not just carnivores, but also all herbivores from the equation. No cows, sheep, goats, or pigs. Just wall to wall soy and carrots.
Even the allegation that the plank stops cruelty to animals (and that those of us who voted against the plank are cruel, by implication) does not stand up to scrutiny. The plank wants children to go to schools where there is not an animal, dead or alive, to be seen or studied. What kind of children would that produce? And since it would ban all dissections, there would be no way for veterinary students to learn to do surgery. Nor could scientists find new cures for animal diseases.
In fact, the plank really advocates a total separation of the human world from the animal world.
I do believe that some scientists, both private-sector and academic, have abused their power over animals. I have no problem with setting up animal ethics committees to deal with these questions. But I also don't believe that simply raising an animal in a laboratory is inherently cruel, and I do believe we have a right to weigh the value of what is learned.
I was surprised that many people on the subcommittee could not handle gray areas. They wanted absolutes. In that way they resembled the anti-abortion, anti-contraception movement. I can see that an egg and sperm are not a human being, and that a one-year old child is. People can have all the facts about fetal development and still disagree on the ethics of the timing of when a fetus or baby gains a right to life. But when they say "The Bible says ..." they are no longer arguing about either the facts of development or the fine points of ethics. And vegan absolutists do not argue about ethics or cruelty, as I learned in this discussion. They try to use environmental concerns ("cows cause greenhouse gas") to support what is essentially a religious, moral position. They refused to make reasonable compromises, and mainly because of failed to get their plank out of our committee.
I think healthy farms include animals that produce eggs and milk, and even meat. A truly valuable animal byproduct is manure, which is indispensable to keeping the vegetable part of a farm thriving. I would rather legislate that farms must start be more diverse in what they create than that they can't raise animals.
People are mortal. Accepting the mortality of people and of all life forms is crucial to developing a sound philosophy and a sound society. To a large extent a vegan lifestyle is an attempt to deny death. It is a lifestyle based on fear and denial.
A little honey won't hurt anyone. Bees seem to like to make it. And bees will sting their enemies. I hope Green Party members will become more like bees, and less like walking ghosts, too busy being afraid of breaking imaginary rules of karma to actually get anything productive done.
Proposed new Green Party U.S. Ethical Treatment of Animals plank
Cruelty to animals is repugnant and unacceptable. The mark of a humane society lies in how we treat the least protected among us. Our species does not have the right to exploit and inflict violence on other animals simply because we have the desire and/or power to do so.
We call for an intelligent, non-hierarchical and non-exploitive relationship with other animal species and the natural world. We reject the belief that nonhuman species exist only to serve the needs of the human species.
There is a moral equality between humans and nonhuman animals in that we are all sentient beings. Such an ethic not only upholds the value of biological diversity and the integrity and continuity of species, but also the value of the lives and interests of individual animals.
The Green Party advocates the following policies:
1. Redirect nationally-funded research away from animal experiments and towards health care, preventive medicine, and biomedical research using non-animal procedures determined to be scientifically valid. Halt wasteful public funding of unnecessary or duplicative animal experiments. Establish procedures to develop greater public scrutiny of all animal research.
2. Phase out the use of animals for consumer product testing, tobacco, alcohol, drug and psychological testing, classroom demonstrations and dissections, weapons development and other military programs. Ban pound seizure of animals for research.
3. Mandate clear labeling of products disclosing whether or not they have been tested on animals and if they contain any animal ingredients.
4. While we recognize our current laws are not sufficient to end the abuse of animals, in the meantime, we support amending the Humane Slaughter Act and the Animal Welfare Act to cover those animals currently excluded in agriculture and research.
5. Phase out as a matter of urgency the most egregious examples of animal cruelty practices in Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) at the federal and state level. We ultimately envision a time when U.S. public policy recognizes CAFOs to be inimical to the interests of a healthy human population and to the promotion of environmental and animal protection.
6. Ban the transport of live horses to other countries for foreign consumption.
7. End international and national trade in wildlife. Ban the use of goods produced from exotic or endangered animals, and promote the use of non-animal, sustainable materials in all manufacturing.
8. Prohibit the use of inhumane and indiscriminate wildlife control methods to address human-wildlife conflicts.
9. Prohibit large scale commercial breeding facilities, such as “puppy mills,” mandate spay and neuter laws, subsidize spay and neuter clinics, and discourage further breeding of companion animals by incurring breeder fees such that they fund no-cost spay and neuter clinics.
10. Ban the exploitation of animals in entertainment, gambling and sports, including, but not limited to, dog fighting and cock fighting, rodeos, horse and dog racing, American bullfighting, circuses, zoos, aquariums and theme and roadside parks. We advocate converting zoos, wildlife parks, aquariums, and similar facilities into sanctuaries for rescued animals.
11. Ban canned hunts and the corresponding trade in animals from zoos and other commercial “entertainment” industries. Ban other hunting and fishing for sport.
12. Eliminate free-trade laws that weaken or revoke efforts to end animal cruelty in commerce.
13. Ultimately, we acknowledge that it is not possible to treat farm animals in an ethical manner given that the end result, in most cases, is to send animals to slaughter. In the interests of ecological sustainability, health and non-violence, we support transitioning from an animal-based agriculture system to a plant-based system, and encourage more individuals to adopt a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle.
14. As a world view that respects animals as fellow sentient beings expands within our society, it will lead to a future kinship with them that we currently do not have. In such a society, the "use" and killing of animals as resources for humans will naturally be phased out and a more cooperative ethic between species will take its place.
Currently written 2004 Ethical Treatment of Animals plank (that the above plank would replace)
Cruelty to animals is repugnant and criminal. The mark of a humane and civilized society lies in how we treat the least protected among us. To extend rights to other sentient, living beings is our responsibility and a mark of our place among all of creation. We call for an intelligent, compassionate approach to the treatment of animals.
We reject the belief that our species is the center of creation, and that other life forms exist only for our use and enjoyment. Our species does not have the right to exploit and inflict violence on other creatures simply because we have the desire and power to do so. Our ethic upholds not only the value of biological diversity and the integrity and continuity of species, but also the value of individual lives and the interest of individual animals.
The Green Party advocates humane treatment of animals with the following policies:
1. Redirect the funds that are disbursed annually by the National Institutes of Health away from animal experiments and more towards direct health care, preventive medicine, and biomedical research using non-animal procedures such as clinical, epidemiological, and cell culture research.
2. Phase-out the use of animals for consumer product testing, tobacco and alcohol testing, psychological testing, classroom demonstrations and dissections, weapons development and other military programs.
3. Mandate clear labeling of products to tell whether or not they have been tested on animals and if they contain any animal products or by-products.
4. Establish procedures to develop greater public scrutiny of all animal research. These should include the welfare of laboratory animals, and a halt to wasteful public funding of unnecessary research such as duplicative experiments.
5. End the abuse of animals, including farm animals, and strengthen our enforcement of existing laws.
6. Ban the use of goods produced from exotic or endangered animals.
7. Prohibit large scale commercial breeding facilities, such as “puppy mills,” because of the massive suffering, overpopulation, and ill health such facilities produce.
8. Subsidize spay and neuter clinics to combat the ever-worsening pet overpopulation problem that results in the killing of millions of animals every year. Where unwanted companion animals are being killed in shelters, we advocate mandatory spay and neuter laws.
9. Ban the exploitation of animals in violent entertainment and sports.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
The Five Admissions of Natural Liberation Philosophy
The five admissions of Natural Liberation Philosophy are:
Why do we call these admissions? Philosophers traditionally have become confused by trying to work from axioms or postulates, in the manner of Euclid. While this approach has its merit at times, it often leads to errors. Nature, or reality, is not built on axioms or postulates.
We believe that individuals making these admissions have a basic, correct orientation towards nature, society, and themselves. Distinguishing what is true from what is false is a complex process, made more difficult for most people by the various illusionists philosophies and religions.
We believe that admitting that you are mortal, and that nature is a greater power than any human individual or group of people, is a fundamental indicator of one's philosophical standing.
We could call these points conclusions, for they are often conclusions reached after much study and consideration. But admissions implies that once there was doubt, and now things are clear.
We could have picked other points for our 5 admissions, or used less or more points. These cover the basic admissions an individual makes that allow for: ethical development; a correct view of one's relationship to nature; rejection of illusionist ideas.
Some related essays:
Natural Truth. A summary by William P. Meyers
Philosophy in Tune with Nature [February 8, 2007]
Groping Towards Reality 1 [May 23, 2009]
If Wishes Were Horses [December 10, 2008]
Charles Darwin Was God's Prophet [June 17, 2008]
Questions to the Illusionists [March 22, 2008]
The Powerlessness of Positive Thinking [March 28, 2007]
- Individual humans are mortal.
Nature is everything.
Past and future are as real as the present.
People depend on society, and society depends on nature.
Continuity beyond an individual life is found in society and nature.
Why do we call these admissions? Philosophers traditionally have become confused by trying to work from axioms or postulates, in the manner of Euclid. While this approach has its merit at times, it often leads to errors. Nature, or reality, is not built on axioms or postulates.
We believe that individuals making these admissions have a basic, correct orientation towards nature, society, and themselves. Distinguishing what is true from what is false is a complex process, made more difficult for most people by the various illusionists philosophies and religions.
We believe that admitting that you are mortal, and that nature is a greater power than any human individual or group of people, is a fundamental indicator of one's philosophical standing.
We could call these points conclusions, for they are often conclusions reached after much study and consideration. But admissions implies that once there was doubt, and now things are clear.
We could have picked other points for our 5 admissions, or used less or more points. These cover the basic admissions an individual makes that allow for: ethical development; a correct view of one's relationship to nature; rejection of illusionist ideas.
Some related essays:
Natural Truth. A summary by William P. Meyers
Philosophy in Tune with Nature [February 8, 2007]
Groping Towards Reality 1 [May 23, 2009]
If Wishes Were Horses [December 10, 2008]
Charles Darwin Was God's Prophet [June 17, 2008]
Questions to the Illusionists [March 22, 2008]
The Powerlessness of Positive Thinking [March 28, 2007]
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Materialism and Idealism
A long time ago I was in a discussion group at an anarchist conference (yes, anarchists hold conferences). At this point I can't remember what the discussion topic was, but for some reason I was prompted to state that I was a materialist.
A young (younger than I was) female anarchist spoke up next. She attacked materialism. She could not believe an anarchist would be a greedy materialist. The whole problem with the world was that people were not idealistic enough.
It was my fault. I had forgotten the vast difference between intellectual, academic speak and ordinary person speak. Because our time was almost up, and others were in line to speak, I did not get to make a clarification.
Idealism, in ordinary language, is acting according to one's ideals. This is generally believed to be a good thing, although people argue about what ideals should be upheld. Philosophic idealism (see also idealism at Wikipedia) has to do with the nature of reality. In simple terms it posits that reality is shaped by idea-like substance. There are lots of versions of philosophic idealism, but they don't correlate much with ordinary ideals like honesty, courage, patriotism, public service, or selflessness.
Similarly, philosophic materialism has little in common with street materialism. Philosophic materialism (see also materialism at Wikipedia) posits that reality is made of substances (usually atoms) that, in combinations, give rise to the world that humans experience, and that exists apart from human perceptions. This is your garden variety scientific view. The Universe existed for billions of years before humans started chatting about philosophy and spinning epic poetry. Thought and even consciousness are created from the ordinary substances of the universe. This is not necessarily a simplistic view. In quantum physics, our best guess at how the substances of nature work, we have a very complex system of space, time, energy fields, quantum rules and waves.
Ethical systems are not very closely tied to the idealism or materialism of philosophy. Often philosophic materialists have highly developed ethics. And idealism, all too often, ends up as either a system of rules of faith with horrid implications (killing non-believers is good) or a vapid nothingness because, for example, if the world is an illusion, if it is all in your head, how do you decide questions of ethics?
I think many people have a sort of natural dualism, and that most religions encourage this. In dualistic philosophies there is both material substance and an idealistic component (often called spiritual) identified with mind, souls, and gods. This appeals to our unanalyzed experience because what goes on in the human mind, particularly imagination and consciousness, seems rather divorced from the muddle and muck of the world, including the mortal and disease-prone human body.
You can spend a lot of time reading the writings of philosophers and religious texts; I certainly have. You may get lost in some complex system that appeals to your personality, but probably you will eventually find your way out of the thickets of philosophic argument back to dealing with the world we all live in.
Philosophy was the precursor of science, and what we now call science used to be called natural philosophy, or the philosophy of nature.
In dealing with that part of the world consisting of human society, we develop a system of ethics, whether we call it that or not. Ethics is a big topic in philosophy. I think society could use a lot more discussion of, and analysis of, ethics. Practicing ethical behavior, and setting up social incentives to encourage ethical behavior, are two important goals for the natural liberation movement.
Philosophic materialism, in summary, is not about greed or the desire to own material things. Dualists and philosophic idealists seem just as prone to greed as materialists. But simply concluding that one is a materialist (or realist) does not provide much guidance in our complex world. A philosophy of life, including an ethical system, is still needed.
A young (younger than I was) female anarchist spoke up next. She attacked materialism. She could not believe an anarchist would be a greedy materialist. The whole problem with the world was that people were not idealistic enough.
It was my fault. I had forgotten the vast difference between intellectual, academic speak and ordinary person speak. Because our time was almost up, and others were in line to speak, I did not get to make a clarification.
Idealism, in ordinary language, is acting according to one's ideals. This is generally believed to be a good thing, although people argue about what ideals should be upheld. Philosophic idealism (see also idealism at Wikipedia) has to do with the nature of reality. In simple terms it posits that reality is shaped by idea-like substance. There are lots of versions of philosophic idealism, but they don't correlate much with ordinary ideals like honesty, courage, patriotism, public service, or selflessness.
Similarly, philosophic materialism has little in common with street materialism. Philosophic materialism (see also materialism at Wikipedia) posits that reality is made of substances (usually atoms) that, in combinations, give rise to the world that humans experience, and that exists apart from human perceptions. This is your garden variety scientific view. The Universe existed for billions of years before humans started chatting about philosophy and spinning epic poetry. Thought and even consciousness are created from the ordinary substances of the universe. This is not necessarily a simplistic view. In quantum physics, our best guess at how the substances of nature work, we have a very complex system of space, time, energy fields, quantum rules and waves.
Ethical systems are not very closely tied to the idealism or materialism of philosophy. Often philosophic materialists have highly developed ethics. And idealism, all too often, ends up as either a system of rules of faith with horrid implications (killing non-believers is good) or a vapid nothingness because, for example, if the world is an illusion, if it is all in your head, how do you decide questions of ethics?
I think many people have a sort of natural dualism, and that most religions encourage this. In dualistic philosophies there is both material substance and an idealistic component (often called spiritual) identified with mind, souls, and gods. This appeals to our unanalyzed experience because what goes on in the human mind, particularly imagination and consciousness, seems rather divorced from the muddle and muck of the world, including the mortal and disease-prone human body.
You can spend a lot of time reading the writings of philosophers and religious texts; I certainly have. You may get lost in some complex system that appeals to your personality, but probably you will eventually find your way out of the thickets of philosophic argument back to dealing with the world we all live in.
Philosophy was the precursor of science, and what we now call science used to be called natural philosophy, or the philosophy of nature.
In dealing with that part of the world consisting of human society, we develop a system of ethics, whether we call it that or not. Ethics is a big topic in philosophy. I think society could use a lot more discussion of, and analysis of, ethics. Practicing ethical behavior, and setting up social incentives to encourage ethical behavior, are two important goals for the natural liberation movement.
Philosophic materialism, in summary, is not about greed or the desire to own material things. Dualists and philosophic idealists seem just as prone to greed as materialists. But simply concluding that one is a materialist (or realist) does not provide much guidance in our complex world. A philosophy of life, including an ethical system, is still needed.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Natural Liberation Perspective
No matter where my mind wanders to, I come back to this basic thought: natural liberation philosophy is the essential forward path for the human race and our earth-species cohorts.
Natural Liberation of necessity uses abstractions, but it is by no means an abstract philosophy. It is a philosophy of concrete knowledge and a basis for intelligent and ethical action.
Call it by other names if you will. My philosophy has certainly been influenced by the works and thoughts of millions of people. Even philosophies and religions I mainly disagree with in their present forms, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Fascism, Islam, Deconstructionism, Leninism, etc., have provided, particularly in their historical application, much food for thought. More positive influences include Deep Ecology, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Charles Darwin and biologists generally, class and national liberation movements, Albert Einstein, anarchism, secular humanism, the Ten Key Values of the Green Party, etc.
Change in human behavior on a massive scale is needed if we do not want to perish, more or less, in a tidal wave of ecological destruction. Change tends to come in one of two forms. Some times practices change, and mental changes follow. This happens with the introduction of new technologies and imposed social organizations. Thus capitalists in the United States and communists in Russia both industrialized their nations, making them predominantly urban rather than agricultural. Minds adapted per force. Change also can come when minds change first and then try to apply the new way of thinking to actions. The spread of a religion, philosophy, or knowledge of an economic or political paradigm change are all good examples (the results can be good or bad, depending on the change).
Natural Liberation philosophy has been bubbling about in human culture since at least the great era of biological discovery that started in the 1600's. I can only hope to clarify it, to help it spread faster before it is too late for people to act. That said, it is actually too late to take the best actions. We have missed many opportunities, mainly because of greed and cultural inertia. But there are still choices to be made, and some very bad ones are still being made by individuals, corporations, and governments around the world today.
I hope to do a series of Plutarch (Lives of Great Men) style essays comparing Charles Darwin with figures like Jesus, the Prophet Mohammed, the Buddha, Karl Marx, etc. The idea is not to glorify Darwin, who, even if he was a prophet of sorts, was just a human being, but to delineate just what we should expect of cultural leaders, knowing what we now know.
I also hope to move to the organizational stage soon. This would first involve working closely with a small group of people who want to make developing and spreading natural liberation theology a center of their lives. Organizations are tricky. I have come to believe that a nucleus of high-functioning individuals is critical to launching an organization that is mentally and culturally healthy, yet dynamic enough to grow. Contact me if you are interested.
Such an organization cannot long remain primarily educational in nature. Real world projects need to be undertaken. Feedback from the world is crucial to human knowledge. Since real world projects are needed, and feedback is needed, taking action will be critical to making the project work.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Groping Towards Reality
Humans are part of reality, but seeing reality clearly is sometimes difficult. I have been looking for a metaphor for the process of orienting oneself to reality and avoiding fiction. The best I have come up with so far is groping towards reality.
From ancient to modern times people have both groped towards a clear understanding of reality and attempted to construct blinders so that they could misinterpret the world to suit themselves. More often than not, the world being a complicated place, the same person or groups of persons would get parts of the picture right while painting in illusions for other parts.
Both the existence of reality and the human ability to know it have been questioned from ancient times. I believe questioning things, including what appear to be fundamental truths, is a good thing. What is funny is that having concluded either that reality is an illusion, or that humans can not know anything much about reality, people seldom question those conclusions. [See also my Questions to the Illusionists].
In some ways certain Buddhist critiques of the reality of reality are more cogent than their modern philosophic counterparts. In the Surangama Sutra the Buddha asks Ananda, "What is it that gave you the sensation of seeing? What was it that experienced the sensation? And who is it that experienced the feeling of being pleased?" The analysis that follows, in question and answer style, is quite sophisticated even if it ultimately leads one astray.
Cast forward to the modern philosophy of deconstructionism and you have Wittgenstein's (later) philosophic methods turned on their head to create a rationalization that amounts to saying: the world is not real, or at least we can't really know much about it.
But we do know a great deal about the world, both individually and collectively. Not only that, but other animals know about the world, even if they are not smart enough to create a theory of why it is just an illusion. We are both in and of the world.
It has taken our sensory apparatus and nervous system a couple of billion years to evolve. Our genetic inheritance gives us the ability to survive in the world, and that requires the ability to gain a knowledge of the world. Human babies are prepared to learn about the world. They learn from their interactions with the world. Their learning is held in their brains.
Groping is a good word for the process. The baby feels its way, reaching about uncertainly. It uses the resulting memories to build maps and images of the external world. It learns about its body. It begins to learn a language.
Having learned a language, a child starts learning about the world second hand. Family members relate what they did when "away." They talk about events that happened in the past, or what they plan to do in the future.
They also inevitably tell the child things that are not true, or are partly true. Prejudices, superstitions, and religions. Cultural behaviors: how to behave, what is expected of a child, a man, or a woman.
Children cope as best they can. One thing leads to another. There may be formal schooling. Some people eventually feel impelled to try to figure out what "the truth" is. But it is a complex world. Some people change religions, but in most cultures during most of history changing religion was a dangerous and daring act. Today in these United States of America people shop for a religion, a philosophy, a self-help guru, or a school of psychology. Most are shopping for amenable society, not so much for truth.
I think that philosophies tend to oversimplify the human condition. It is a complex world. We are complex. Each brain is a wonder of cellular architecture, capable of holding and comparing billions of memories of experiences.
Lately, I have been inspired by the work of Jeff Hawkins and colleagues on how the cortex of the brain might work [See my Machine Understanding blog]. The process described by Hawkins can fairly be described as groping. He believes that the detailed structure of the brain has evolved to turn sensory input into memories and automatic predictions about the world. Humans constantly adjust to the world, noticing when it does not conform to prior predictions.
The culture of science, while it has been used with bad motives all too frequently, for the most part follows the same pattern. The scientific method, amidst the ugly complexity of the world, is a kind of groping. We look at the world and what we think we already know. We form a hypothesis, or prediction. We set up an experiment to test the prediction against the hypothesis.
Quantum physics and molecular biology are usually considered to be very difficult sciences. You must work hard and be smart to succeed at them. But when it comes to studying humans, there are extra difficulties. The world is not an illusion, but humans are particularly good at distorting data about themselves.
On that line, a comment on a book I just finished, Outliers: The Story of Success
by Malcolm Gladwell. This is an illuminating book about the human condition. It picks apart our assumptions about what makes a human highly successful in our society. Each of the chapters, focusing on one aspect of human culture and how it impacts success, is a great read. You will see Bill Gates, The Beatles, and math test scores in a whole new light if you read it. There are illusions in the world, but the world is not an illusion. The idea that success is a simple result of genius is one of our cultural illusions.
From ancient to modern times people have both groped towards a clear understanding of reality and attempted to construct blinders so that they could misinterpret the world to suit themselves. More often than not, the world being a complicated place, the same person or groups of persons would get parts of the picture right while painting in illusions for other parts.
Both the existence of reality and the human ability to know it have been questioned from ancient times. I believe questioning things, including what appear to be fundamental truths, is a good thing. What is funny is that having concluded either that reality is an illusion, or that humans can not know anything much about reality, people seldom question those conclusions. [See also my Questions to the Illusionists].
In some ways certain Buddhist critiques of the reality of reality are more cogent than their modern philosophic counterparts. In the Surangama Sutra the Buddha asks Ananda, "What is it that gave you the sensation of seeing? What was it that experienced the sensation? And who is it that experienced the feeling of being pleased?" The analysis that follows, in question and answer style, is quite sophisticated even if it ultimately leads one astray.
Cast forward to the modern philosophy of deconstructionism and you have Wittgenstein's (later) philosophic methods turned on their head to create a rationalization that amounts to saying: the world is not real, or at least we can't really know much about it.
But we do know a great deal about the world, both individually and collectively. Not only that, but other animals know about the world, even if they are not smart enough to create a theory of why it is just an illusion. We are both in and of the world.
It has taken our sensory apparatus and nervous system a couple of billion years to evolve. Our genetic inheritance gives us the ability to survive in the world, and that requires the ability to gain a knowledge of the world. Human babies are prepared to learn about the world. They learn from their interactions with the world. Their learning is held in their brains.
Groping is a good word for the process. The baby feels its way, reaching about uncertainly. It uses the resulting memories to build maps and images of the external world. It learns about its body. It begins to learn a language.
Having learned a language, a child starts learning about the world second hand. Family members relate what they did when "away." They talk about events that happened in the past, or what they plan to do in the future.
They also inevitably tell the child things that are not true, or are partly true. Prejudices, superstitions, and religions. Cultural behaviors: how to behave, what is expected of a child, a man, or a woman.
Children cope as best they can. One thing leads to another. There may be formal schooling. Some people eventually feel impelled to try to figure out what "the truth" is. But it is a complex world. Some people change religions, but in most cultures during most of history changing religion was a dangerous and daring act. Today in these United States of America people shop for a religion, a philosophy, a self-help guru, or a school of psychology. Most are shopping for amenable society, not so much for truth.
I think that philosophies tend to oversimplify the human condition. It is a complex world. We are complex. Each brain is a wonder of cellular architecture, capable of holding and comparing billions of memories of experiences.
Lately, I have been inspired by the work of Jeff Hawkins and colleagues on how the cortex of the brain might work [See my Machine Understanding blog]. The process described by Hawkins can fairly be described as groping. He believes that the detailed structure of the brain has evolved to turn sensory input into memories and automatic predictions about the world. Humans constantly adjust to the world, noticing when it does not conform to prior predictions.
The culture of science, while it has been used with bad motives all too frequently, for the most part follows the same pattern. The scientific method, amidst the ugly complexity of the world, is a kind of groping. We look at the world and what we think we already know. We form a hypothesis, or prediction. We set up an experiment to test the prediction against the hypothesis.
Quantum physics and molecular biology are usually considered to be very difficult sciences. You must work hard and be smart to succeed at them. But when it comes to studying humans, there are extra difficulties. The world is not an illusion, but humans are particularly good at distorting data about themselves.
On that line, a comment on a book I just finished, Outliers: The Story of Success
by Malcolm Gladwell. This is an illuminating book about the human condition. It picks apart our assumptions about what makes a human highly successful in our society. Each of the chapters, focusing on one aspect of human culture and how it impacts success, is a great read. You will see Bill Gates, The Beatles, and math test scores in a whole new light if you read it. There are illusions in the world, but the world is not an illusion. The idea that success is a simple result of genius is one of our cultural illusions.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
If Wishes Were Horses
This blog was meant to be mainly about philosophy, but I have been writing a great deal about politics lately. That is okay, history and politics are about reality, and philosophy is (or should be) about reality. Reality is everything, but looking only at subsets of reality can send you astray.
Now let's look at some folk wisdom:
"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."
As far as anyone can tell, this is genuine folk wisdom, not to be quoted from the Bible, the Tao Te Ching, Benjamin Franklin, The Beatles or even Ludwig Wittgenstein. According to my Familiar Quotations, it first was printed in 1670 in John Ray's English Proverbs as "If wishes were horses, beggars might ride."
Nothing quite sums up the case against prayer, subjectivist philosophies, wishful thinking, and the power of positive thought quite like this proverb.
Few people worry about not having a horse these days. Horses being the object of desire gives the phrase a vintage that could pass for wisdom even if it were unwise.
Am I saying it is best to dwell in negative thoughts, or to be in a constant state of pessimism? No, though occasional thorough examination of the negative is as instructive about reality as is occasional thorough examination of best case scenarios.
I want a philosophy that corresponds to, that accurately describes, reality. On that tiny bit of reality we call Earth, in the tiny sliver of time I will live, I don't want to waste all my time on illusions. Illusions are a part of reality we humans construct in our minds. We can learn a lot about our mental parameters by looking at illusions. In our lives the illusion/reality foreground/background sometimes inverts; we become disillusioned. Illusions are sold to people for a variety of reasons. When we are children we have little choice other than to believe the stories we are told of the world, whether they are true or not. I thought Heaven and Hell (and Purgatory and Limbo) were real when I was a young child. More complex illusions, more believable ones anyway, may fool me yet. The important thing to remember is that people may be lying to you, or they may be telling the truth, and it is up to you to decide when it is important enough to investigate a matter for yourself.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
If you want to ride a horse, you need to do more than wish for it. Wishing for it does not prevent you from riding it; it might be a first step. You still need a plan and you need to execute on plan.
Are people's interpretations, and even perceptions, of reality subjective? Sure. Leaping from that to the idea that people create reality is a leap to nowhere. Reality was around before people. Even horses were around before people. People are a creation of reality, not the other way around.
Read all about the various philosophies and religions; it won't take that much time, it should not hurt you. But when it comes time to chose a philosophy, and make a life plan, and execute that plan, you should start with a firm foundation. If you turn out to be wrong, admit you are wrong and right yourself. If the popular consensus is wrong, be aware that people will think you are wrong for not agreeing with them, but keep in mind that reality is on your side. Reality is heavy; it is your best friend and ultimate refuge.
Reality is very complex, to be sure. One day the wind blows from the north, another day from the south. One day we do everything we can to keep cool; another day we can survive only by setting the world on fire. Weathermen are fine, but if you want to know the way the wind is blowing where you are, the best thing to do is just step outside and feel it.
Natural liberation might be defined as being liberated by knowing you are part of nature, and knowing what you can about nature, and acting on what you know.
See also my Philosophy page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
