Scientism

Confronting Existential Chaos

Johannes Lubbe Complexity, Culture, Epistemology, History, Individualism, Liberty, Ontology, Politics, Scientism, Socialism, Sociology, Theory of Everything , , , , , ,

A More Coherent Approach to Self and Others in a Culture Soiled with Ignorance, Error and ‘Evil’.

Modern humanity collectively expends an extraordinary amount of energy in trying to secure individual and social happiness. At this point in our evolution there is yet no agreed upon common approach – current world affairs are a case in point. In fact, many different approaches exist to the basic question of how we should order our lives in common: religious exhortations to submit to a higher reality and promote its spiritual visions; philosophico-ethical commitments to pursue social justice and equity; politico-social commands and mandates to subject the self to an authority in the interest of the greater good. Those who have much should share with the less fortunate in a spirit of charity. Social, political and legal sanctions are meted out to those that transgress or even just challenge the prevailing mores. The range of possibilities seem beyond the limits of rigorous analysis.

Thus far, in spite of the dedication and sincere efforts of many, our pursuit of a more perfect union is a work still very much in progress. Corruption, tyranny and war still plague us, apparently because we cannot even agree on something as fundamental as a common aspiration. The risks of conflict loom ever-present. Politicians, people usually with a gift to instill faith and trust, typically insist that they are on the right side of history because the other factions are the ones responsible for most of the problems, often due to some moral deficiency on the part of those others. We are all quite good at identifying flaws in the narratives of others, not so much our own. Rather surprisingly, a rigorous analysis of problems is not a primary goal of leadership, the media or most of the rest as far as I can tell. The icons of our culture are recognized more for their celebrity than the originality and creativity of their lives.

Thus only focusing on the daily chatter about what to do next would be utterly confusing; a serious systemic flaw inherent in a self-governing society. My basic assumption then is that I am the only one that knows what I think, and that I must attempt to answer the basic questions of existence by and for myself. This ‘simple’ approach leads to some surprising conclusions.

The problem really lies within and among us:

– We do not yet know much about what we are, what makes us tick and how we got here. This basic knowledge would be a requirement for anyone interested in the puzzle of how we should proceed in the future. I have looked at these questions and have concluded that ‘scientism’ or materialism is a useful approach that is more likely to provide a basis from which to proceed. This is NOT to say that just because a theory is based on science that it cannot be profoundly wrong. There have been multiple examples in the past in which science had become disastrously politicized or skewed by groupthink. On the other hand, empirical data, objectively collected and honestly reported, must never be ignored or censored just because they do not fit a pre-existing narrative. Similarly, theories not based on ‘science’ may still be crucial to our appreciation of ourselves and the universe.

– Sensory and cognitive overloads of individuals are unavoidable. In order to survive and flourish everyone has to create a representation of the natural and cultural universe in their head; anthill … bread, brachytherapy, Beethoven, beach, books, birthday, beauty … love … zebra, ad infinitum. It is a superhuman task. Indeed, we are miraculous processors of information but we do not have direct access to most of objective reality, including those most important questions on the nature of our cohorts and our selves. We are forced to interact with self-created representations, greatly reduced and simplified. We now rely on technology to compensate for our limited sensory apparatus. The totality of information that we now have access to increasingly outstrips the processing abilities of the nervous system of any individual. Working together in a committee very likely could even exacerbate the problem.

– Society itself is supercomplex*, i.e. beyond reduction. The dynamics of constant interaction between large numbers of exquisitely social, mutually dependent, highly aware but also separate and different individual biological units presents an enormous challenge that also exceeds our processing abilities. The behavior of others are often profoundly mysterious and inexplicable. No one is an open book. I get the impression that even sociologists are giving up on the idea of understanding our culture. The idea that a 3 lb. brain could understand the whole of an 8 billion member society seems illogical. A similar challenge has been raised against the claims of some that they know or understand the creator of a virtually infinite universe.

– Our naively ignorant and unquestioning acceptance of our own individual faculties in consciousness of logic, reason and narrative analysis – the irresistible theater of the mind – had left us oblivious to our limitations and to the challenges of identifying the basic processes and relationships in the phenomenal world as represented in that consciousness. That most individuals are ignorant of their own ignorance to various degrees is an important example. This affects everything and everyone, including the leadership cliques of every country. Such leaders or groups with power can thus embark on utterly counterproductive campaigns, even when supposedly done in ‘good faith’. Creating a system that is maximally inclusive must take this into account.

– Out of necessity, therefore, most of us place our faith in some group that claims to have found the answers. This move is even more problematical than at first glance since at best the true interests of any such group are unknowable, including to itself. (I guess this is the essence of faith; believing something that one knows is not necessarily true.) Only an individual person can know whether they are expressing an honest opinion about a complex or supercomplex phenomenon, real or virtual. Also, it is only an individual that can make a moral distinction and decide to do something about it. Too often, unfortunately, the choice is to conform and comply with the perceived in-group or leadership – standing up for virtue can be costly and so we go along in order to get along. At worst, one is being purposely deceived and misled in a process more akin to indoctrination and exploitation. On the other hand, it is in our human nature for most individuals to aspire to be a self-affirming agent, not just of their own life, but perhaps also bathing in the admiration and loyalties of others. Thus a group without a recognized leadership is a sitting duck waiting to be coopted and directed by an ambitious egotist. Sometimes groups conspire against the other with devastating effect. A union of the many would therefore inevitably chafe under the dictates of an ascendant few, which is what routinely happens in supposedly egalitarian societies. On the other hand, society grinds to a halt when without governance and rules by which to live. The dynamics of groupthink are unavoidable.

– The ordinary opinions about or within a group often are illusions in the naive minds of almost all of us. When numerous people identify with such a perceived group opinion, this has been referred to as a collective illusion. That a group has an opinion is an illusion since only individuals can think. This illusion is further evidence of our incredible but unreliable creative faculties of thought, awareness, empathy and identification with the other. The group itself may be an illusion since not every supposed member of a group actually identifies themselves as being part of that group – an illusory collective with a collective illusion! The stage is thus set for the seamless appearance of collective delusions in society.

– Everyone is biologically and functionally diverse to varying degrees and have also been exposed to a unique set of cultural experiences. So then, even when people utter the same narrative, the intended meaning of their statements are likely to differ. Communication is therefore not as precise as it seems to be but we nevertheless think that large numbers of people are actually in agreement when they say the same things. I also suspect that we tend to gravitate toward people that ‘think or act like we do’, which further enhances our tendency toward groupthink.

– Language is a ‘cultural construct’, i.e. individuals learn the sounds, structure and purported meaning directly from members of the community in which everyone constantly strings together narratives about everything that occurs to them. Actual meaning is the private product of a living consciousness which itself has no direct connection to any other consciousness. So, when someone tells a meaningful story to nine other people there is one public narrative – everyone heard the same words – but ten private ones since the meaning is different for everyone. Our ability to function in a supercomplex society is thus further testament to the true miracle of individual processing ability.

– Transcendent beliefs therefore seem to be a personal confrontation with the unknowable, nothing more than a very inspired guess. This has been known for at least 2000 years: “Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or, Lo there! For, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” No matter what anyone claims, the universe is actually within you, and among you – a multibillion fold multiverse.

There is therefore a cognitive mismatch between the individual processing abilities of any and all persons and the supercomplexity of our global culture, i.e. the world in which we live. To compensate for this deficiency we rely on and trust the abilities of others, or groups of others for services and sources of information and advice. We unconsciously learn how to deal with these issues from infancy on, but it is obviously impossible for anyone to be completely sure of what is ‘really’ going on, and to accurately and fully explain the situation to others. There are many, however, who claim or pretend to have the final answer. When someone of this type gets into power we could be at the mercy of the psychopathology of that one person.

Like most people, I am and always have been enthusiastic about meeting the challenges of the moment. This drive to survive is a biological reality, something that is true for virtually everyone. However, upon looking around and analyzing the data it has become increasingly clear to me that there is no single or agreed upon set of foundational and/or transcendental truths that could serve as a basis from which I or anyone could proceed. The intuitions ‘about reality’ that have guided me were no more than that – subconscious intuitions. Starting roughly at the age of 15 my life decisions were based on what seemed to make intuitive sense. Sixty years later I now realize that my basic values and responses were unconsciously adopted from my environment; initially much from parents, uncles, aunts, cousins, teachers and friends – learning about groups starts on day one. Looking back I can sort of identify the main themes of my acculturation and how I got to understand and accept them. Our family-group was highly unique and I had erroneously assumed in my ignorance that it was basically the same for most people – an example of projection, an error typical of groupthink. I suspect this fundamental misunderstanding affects most, if not all of us, especially in the early decades of adult life. At least it now seems clear, having been tested by experience and having learned from mistakes, that there are important potential advantages to mature adulthood.

[I still catch myself being uncritically sympathetic to the viewpoints of others, especially when their opinions seem to reinforce mine, their expertise is great, or because they are respected by those that I trust ~ groupthink. However, in many cases doing some further research and a little critical thinking, it appears that divergent opinions are almost always also held by other very knowledgeable persons. These experts not infrequently then accuse each other of being wrong, misguided or sometimes even of having malign intentions. Therefore, viewpoint deferment to others should never happen if one could manage the issue oneself. The problem is that it is not practical and just too tiresome. The easiest and quickest solution is thus more practical and often the preferred one for most issues. Thus, we are prone to following leaders and accepting the judgements of others, but a breakdown of logic and reason is required in order for that approach to work. Hence many ‘great leaders’ have turned out to be completely misguided.]

Our real problem being one of systemic ignorance then becomes clearer. Individuals engaged primarily in self-preservation exist in a social domain upon which they absolutely depend but which is riven by chaos: our generally very useful, fun, enjoyable human culture is continuously soiled by error, lies, misinformation and exploitation through the perfectly natural social processes of groupthink. Most of us sincerely try to do the ‘right thing’ but actually may worsen the problem by being ‘agreeable’ and so unwittingly contribute to the dissemination of error. All of us are born factually ignorant, yet are biologically structured for a prodigious amount of learning and creative action. Again, at the very beginning of our lives we are completely dependent on closely related others who help us make sense of the overwhelming mysteries before us. I suspect that most of what we ‘know’ we acquire through unconscious copying. We must learn how to separate the inner world form the outer, self from other, what to rely on and what to discard. Perhaps most important, underlying all this is the learning of a public language which is wholly acquired from others, but the ultimate meaning of which is subjective, i.e. private. We are all budding philosophers, psychologists, scientists, economists, and artists from day one, but where we end up as individuals depends on fate: a combination of biological configuration, inner drives, specific cultural exposure and chance. Fortunately then, towards the end of life we are in a unique position to abstractly reanalyze it all, try to make more sense of it and, perhaps, identify a new and better approach. Certainly, it would seem reasonable to try something different given the craziness of the past.

If this sounds depressingly nihilistic it should not be for there is much reason for hope: we are a very young species and nevertheless have made amazing progress in a very short time. Furthermore, the popular idea amongst intellectuals that existence is meaningless is irrational. There is still an awful lot we need to learn, and we seem to be doing it in spite of all the challenges. Probably what is happening now is that all the easy dissemination through new technology of vast amounts of information is causing a lot of cultural disruption. For the first time there is now widespread recognition of the massive information overload that everyone has to deal with. There is also a more acute awareness of the mistakes of the past. I believe we are in the process of learning how to deal with these challenges. Of course, it is no surprise that ‘impetuous youth’ are at the ramparts shaking things up, literally. Rather, we should proceed with urgency but first we should try to do no harm.

“We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility [[as individuals?]] is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on. It is our responsibility to leave the people of the future a free hand. In the impetuous youth of humanity, we can make grave errors that can stunt our growth for a long time. This we will do if we say we have the answers now, so young and ignorant as we are. If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming “This is the answer, my friends; man is saved!” we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.

“It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress which comes from a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom; to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed; and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations.”

― Richard P. Feynman, What Do You Care What Other People Think? (Emphasis mine.)

The solution then is not to expend a prodigious amount of intellectual and political energy in trying to discover the one and only true narrative of how to deal with others and the world. As we have suggested, that is a delusion, it cannot exist other than as an instance of virtual groupthink! Naive pursuit of a dominant narrative results in what we can see now all too clearly: angry shouting, vicious confrontation and never ending wars. Politicians seem to always blame the other for what they regard as deficient in society, seeing a venal opposition rather than an opportunity to find practical improvements to our cultural union as a whole – practical improvements that will encourage all those creative people out there. The idea that a revolution is required is a perfect example of the problem.

………..

Thus, how do we improve our culture? If the problem is within us then that is where we should find the solution:

1. Avoid repeated misdiagnosis of the problem. The real problem is that there is no one person or group on the planet that can make sense of all of our challenges: our ignorance relative to the challenge is great. We should therefore try to avoid the usual trap of searching for yet another oversimplified (reductionist) false narrative coming from a widely acclaimed expert of what is wrong with the world and thus implying that we then know what others should be doing in order to cure our cultural pathologies. I suspect, in stead, that the answer is within us and among us. ‘Everyone’ already suspects what the problem is but no one as yet has articulated it since the inherent limitations of language are also part of the challenge, as are the miraculous complexity of our human nervous system and supercomplexity of our chaotic, imperfect culture that we create and recreate every day. Everyone should confront the challenges as they best see fit while keeping our strengths and weaknesses in mind. Perhaps there is an answer that is blowing in the wind?

2. Promote individual virtue and agency as opposed to group agency, thus secondarily improving culture from the bottom up. Focussing on how to improve ourselves and our immediate communities inevitably will affect our culture, including the flow of information. This would be a continuous and delicate process starting probably from the first day of life, with support, encouragement, education and learning from the examples of others. Every child is exposed to a different set of influences. Paramount then is the respect for and appreciation of the potential abilities and diversities inherent in all persons. Disagreements are normal and necessary, and could even be encouraged. Culture is not a straightjacket into which everyone should be forced, quite the contrary, it is a play in which 8 billion creative actors participate. There is a positive feedback loop between the quality of human culture and the skills and abilities of all persons. A better culture produces better people. However, the only way culture gets better is when individuals take it upon themselves to find ways to improve their own behavior and interactions with others. Culture does not have a nervous system, does not think, and so the only units that can innovate and improve are individual persons. This may require the recruitment of others into a group to be more effective but individual effort is still the essential part. The ways in which we can improve our culture are limitless since the information embedded in culture vastly exceeds the individual computational powers of anyone. Any behavioral improvement, no matter how small, directly and immediately results in an improved global culture – it’s just a mathematical fact. Forcing changes on others in order to improve behavior is not an essential part since everyone has different interests, perspectives and priorities. Vilifying and disparaging others are often counterproductive and can lead to deadly confrontations.

3. Participate in groups and try to improve them, the ultimate purpose being the sharing of skills and the improvement in the quality and flow of information. Minimize unconscious indoctrination and enculturation with the pervasive, potentially harmful products of ‘groupthink’. Operating within groups is absolutely unavoidable: family, faith, goals of any kind, professions, corporations, etc. Thinking is one kind of activity that does not require the direct participation of others, however, the community does provide the tools and materials with which we create ideas, and may harbor essential expertise. So it is important to recognize the different kinds of groups, their structures and understand both their potential and limitations.  Social psychology in fact examines the dynamics of information processing in groups: in “politics, governance or industry, decision-making is often delegated to groups. These groups make important decisions that impact the lives of many. Groups have the potential of making decisions of higher quality than individual decision makers** [?] when group members open-mindedly contribute and evaluate their own and their fellow group members’ unique information and insights, and when they constructively discuss doubts, criticisms, and competing scenarios. Conversely, the quality of group decision-making is often threatened by individual self-censorship along with conformity pressures and excessive need to affiliate with others. Such “groupthink” biases individuals away from sharing uniquely held insights and information, leaving the potential for groups to outperform individuals unrealized.”  [** Rather, individuals have the opportunity to make better decisions when working together in groups, especially when the group members are honest, fair and diligent. Be very careful.]

4. The most effective governmental arrangement would seem to depend on individual input at all levels. This would then seem to be one in which power is peripherally distributed to individuals and their local groups and governing institutions. A direct benefit is that power and regulatory authority are in close proximity to the information processing units of society, individuals. This would improve feedback and information flow up and down the executive chain. Centralization of power should only occur when practically unavoidable and should be fully and directly accountable to the people with robust checks and balances. In essence, communications between local municipalities and the central executive should be promoted from both ends.

An examination of specific global, internationational and national issues of governance is beyond the scope of my research at this time. A global ‘committee of the whole’ would seem to be necessary in order to honestly and transparently deal with all the most supercomplex cultural issues of global significance. Without full transparency there is a heightened risk of corruption and tyranny. Authoritarians obviously believe that their edicts are superior to the will of the people, and that a small coterie of the committed will deliver superior happiness to the majority. So far history has shown the opposite, the apparent reason being that despite initial high moral standards such a system is continually vulnerable to a takeover by ‘evil’ cliques.

………..

A case in point: right now a powerful psychopath, reportedly one of the richest, and therefore most corrupt, people in the world, is using brutal military force to take control of a non-aggressive, militarily weak neighbor in order, as I see it, to advance his personal interests – money, power, ego – at the same time as he pretends to advance the grand interests of Russia. Since his first inauguration in 2000, and in glaring opposition to his fake inspiring words roundabout that time in support of democracy, free press and international cooperation, he has systematically suppressed competing ideas and sources of accountability through corruption, assassination and imprisonment – effectively separating the levers of power from the people. His military allegedly committed war crimes in Chechnya and Syria. State run media supported the Kremlin’s claims of innocence in all these matters, and, until perhaps now, the rest of the world has been in a groupthink state of denial and went along in spite of the evidence. After all, George W Bush could see his soul and felt reassured. Barack Obama was caught sending a message to “Vladimir” signaling that he, Barack, would be more flexible after his reelection. One of the first things Biden did was to re-open the Nordstream-2 gas pipeline flowing directly from Russia to Germany at the same time as he moved to limit domestic production in the US. Joe probably thought that both Vlad and the climate change lobby would be impressed. Obviously everyone conformed themselves to the idea that they had no other choice but to deal with this genocidal monster. Thus they collectively became complicit in his crimes – more or less unwittingly.

How does this happen . . . that the worst among us can rise to the top and threaten to destroy everything? The probable psychodynamics of this is an example of how groupthink works: in order to understand the other we have to project our thoughts, feelings and reason on them. We have no choice since there is no direct communication between minds. A brutal, devious schemer like Putin takes advantage of the naive innocence of the vast majority of humans who intuitively believe that most people can be trusted, and that outliers are easily identified and can be helped and rehabilitated. An admired, elected leader couldn’t be that evil. The fact is that personality disorder and sociopathic behavior is surprisingly common. This is where groupthink takes over; an unaware and misinformed majority utters the same sentiments which then begin to ring true, and those that strongly disagree and warn of the dangers are then confidently labeled as conspiracy theorists, extremists or enemies of the state that should be canceled or, worse, even be eliminated. However, it seems that the world has slowly been waking up to the fact that narrative is easily manipulated and that we should be more rigorous. A system of regular house cleaning should be part of every power structure in order to discourage systemic corruption by incumbents.

Political matters are routinely settled virtually in ‘the minds’ of the various factions. It is no big deal when the consensus is wrong except, of course, when the leader is a Hitler a Stalin or a Mao. Putin might still back down, who knows. I am worried that it might get worse. It depends a lot on Biden. In my humble opinion, and engaging in groupthink, some feckless corrupt corporate elites are also to be blamed. They continued to deal with this obviously ‘inhuman’ human for their own profit all the while as crimes and atrocities curiously followed in his wake. Sadly, rigorous standards wither in the face of money and power.

The founders of the American Republic were onto this. In order to control corruption they stipulated the separation of powers, delegated only limited authorities to the federal government and included a Bill of Rights protecting individual freedoms from governmental tyranny. There are increasing complaints nowadays that the Constitution of the United States needs to be rejuvenated after almost 250 years of legal and legislative wear and tear at the hands of well-meaning people that apparently had never learned the ‘true’ lessons of history.

Conclusion.

’Everything is the way it is because it got that way”. D’Arcy Thompson, the first ‘biomathematician’ supposedly had said this referring to the principles of change in complex structures. Applying this to global issues it seems clear that we cannot even describe accurately the state of the world, even less how we got here.

Since we are all part of the problem, it stands to reason that everyone should commit to be part of the solution. Therefore, I will personally try to do better and improve my interaction with those around me. I will also be more respectful of others and I will keep my eye out for cheaters. Ultimately, however, a more perfect union awaits a more knowledgeable humanity, and vice versa. Facing up to the challenges of one’s world is the best way to learn. We should be patient while admitting that it has been a very painful wait so far.

And that is the way it is – according to me.

………….

*Supercomplexity. It is becoming apparent that many challenges of life need to be approached from the perspective of supercomplexity: ontologic and epistemic challenges that exceed our ability to specifically conceive of or study objectively. Many questions relating to culture easily fall in the supercomplex category since we can not recognize or define all of the components and how they might relate to each other. We do not even know what the measures for success might be. In algebra supercomplex and hypercomplex are terms used to describe ‘fictitious’ numbers that cannot be described in ordinary language. These concepts appear to be necessary to ‘understand’ data related to gravity and quantum physics, etc. (https://youtu.be/E2zUeCK6k-A) In biochemistry it refers to a stable structure formed by the “association of two or more complexes of biological molecules that occur separately elsewhere”. (http://www.yourdictionary.com/supercomplex) The microscopic structure of our bodies similarly are supercomplex because we do not have the tools to ‘visualize’ what is inside of a neuron, for example. By transferring the rules gleaned from the macroscopic world to the microscopic one, we are engaging in a categorical leap of faith – the lack of reason in quantum phenomena illustrates the point. In addressing the complexities of preparing for tomorrow, Barnett (2004) refers to the supercomplexity of life’s learning challenges: “The challenges of complex systems, even if they could not be altogether unravelled, could be dissolved to a significant degree. The challenges of supercomplexity, in contrast, could never be resolved.

Rose, Todd. Collective Illusions. Conformity, complicity and the science of why we make bad decisions.

Todd Rose et al. Studies on Collective illusions. populace.org

De Wilde, TRW. The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Enhances Information Sharing and Group Decision Making Quality https://www.nature.com/articles/srep40622#ref-CR18

NPR News. Transcript of Putin interview.https://legacy.npr.org/news/specials/putin/nprinterview.html

Scientistic Perspective on Everything – 3. Culture and Existence.

Johannes Lubbe Anthropology, Complexity, Culture, Epistemology, History, Individualism, Politics, Psychology, Scientism, Sociology, Theory of Everything

A SCIENTISTIC PERSPECTIVE ON EVERYTHING.
A PROPOSED BASIS FOR IMPROVED COMMUNICATION IN A WORLD OF CHAOS AND INCOHERENCE.

PART THREE: CULTURE AND SOCIAL EXISTENCE.

Domain 3. Total Global Culture is constituted by the theoretical objective aggregate of all existing humans, including their appearances, stated and recorded beliefs, rules and regulations, observable behaviors, accumulated artifacts and technologies. Everyone constantly interacts with a small unique subset of the whole and comes to their own understanding of the concept. Local, regional and sectarian differences have been labeled as separate traditions or ‘cultures’, but these always interact with each other and change continuously and unpredictably with time.

Culture is a defining feature of everyone’s life and the most super-complex of any subject. Most impressively, like an epiphenomenon, it is created as ~8 billion humans are otherwise focused on their personal priorities. The engine of culture then is the individual and so it stands to reason that as we learn more about ourselves, the better we will understand culture. The recent introduction of intelligent machines has further complicated matters and heightened our concerns. Society composed of humans is real, their virtual culture is continuously made real as a magical representation within each of us.

A complete description of the whole of human culture is not possible: different pursuits, languages, histories, religions, philosophies, economies, polities, disciplines, natural ecologies, etc. prevent everyone from assessing the whole. The obvious implication of this fact is that there is no definitive methodology for predicting the future, and so there is no schema by which anyone or any group could confidently plan for the long term. Progress must then have occurred by means other than through our focused cognitive efforts. The possibility that there is continuous non-cognitive bio-cultural (structural) evolution going on seems to be a likely explanation.

Furthermore, the crucial dynamic interaction of each individual human with society and ‘culture’ is the critical point at which all information becomes real as a phenomenal representation in our minds, the so-called ‘reality’ that we, as individuals, respond to all the time. This actualization of the virtual occurs continually inside everyone in a process that is ineffably complex. We know the brain plays a central role, but we really have no coherent idea of how it works. Our narratives are still woefully incomplete and contradictory at this point, but it seems that it is all due to natural physical processes created by the miraculous 4 billion year evolution of life.

This crucial role of the individual in the creation of culture introduces yet another ineluctable unknown: each individual is biologically different in important but unpredictable ways – biological diversity apparently is a basic adaptational strategy. The representational universe of everything that we create for ourselves and by which we decide and act, is different for everyone. Distinguishing between what is ‘real’ in nature and what exists only in our minds would seem to be basic to any understanding of our world. Some things exist only in our minds and are not objectively real. The virtual idea of Santa Claus is an example. The idea exists, it provides a huge boost to the economy every year despite his being an imaginary figure. However, like all thoughts, the thought of Santa Claus is real in our minds, and so is powerful. There are many such cultural ‘metaphysical’ entities that are not objectively real but, nevertheless, rule our lives: happiness, beauty, truth, love, virtue, morality, good, evil, propriety, acceptance, etc, etc. Even the qualities of mundane things such as smell, taste, color and sound are fictions in our heads. There is within me a self-created universe, the ‘kingdom of god’, an ‘idioverse’ containing everything that I am aware of. Plus, there is much that I am only vaguely aware of, or not at all, but which still affect my behaviors and attitudes. Those that proceed from the assumption that they know what many others think or what is in the best interests of those many others are, therefore, deeply misguided – a common form of ‘delusion’.

Thus far we have rather fancifully attempted to sketch the evolution of Reality over about 14 billion years, from a hypothetical Original Moment to the arrival of molecules that self-organize, grow, replicate and ultimately ‘compete’ for survival – Life. We can only guess as to the process of how larger molecules aggregated to form ‘self-aware’ organisms. Consciousness has evolved over about 4 billion years to the point where it can now describe itself in abstract terms. Continuous improvement over billions of years have yielded us, a species of organism with incredible subtlety and diversity of communication and interaction – just think of all the myriads of things we do, much of it quite astonishing.

All of the circa 8 billion original copies of H. sapiens survive at the trough of society and its culture, all the while as they are also creating it. Culture is so rich and varied that even parts cannot be fully described. It is also riddled with error and confusion, so all historical narratives, no matter how inspired, can not be trusted or relied upon because they are incomplete and dependent on the authors’ personal and cultural point of view at the time, and systemic ignorance.

We will, therefore, simply point out some problems that are not generally appreciated, and then speculate on perhaps a better way forward:

We are unaware of our human limitations. For instance, most people assume that things are fairly simple and that they have a good understanding of their local culture and what their community is about. In reality, each one of us interacts with the small, unique and under-representative sample that we have access to. Extrapolation to larger issues are difficult and highly error prone.

Our exquisite language is at the foundation of culture and the business of life, yet it too is limited in its ability to transfer information fully, especially with regard to subjective matters. As already indicated, it appears that we are the only ones that can recall our experiences, simulate them and relay them for further consideration and commentary. We can also simulate and plan future events, and even freely imagine novel situations or circumstances . Most crucially, we can communicate and share aspects of this virtual simulation with our fellow human beings for the purposes of discussion, learning and planning for the future. Children are most attentive consumers of such information.

Thus, adding together all the things we can learn, do and say, we create our own mental experience of ‘everything’ in a deceivingly effortless and seamless process. We neither understand the processes involved, nor do we agree on the ultimate purposes, but our culture is completely dependent on these processes: the real, dynamic connections of immaterial, virtual ideas and the real material states of our brains. A dynamic web of virtual ideas and practices is created by real material processes brought together in our brains and bodies by evolution. Our mysterious brains are the critical central processing units in the vast web of our cultural universe. Each one of us occupies a small niche in this multidimensional web where we actively participate in this continuously creative and destructive process of maintaining our culture; each brings their own perspective on what is beautiful, good and desirable, or not, and usually acts accordingly. Thus there is a creative and/or destructive liberal agenda to discover the new and replace the old, or a conservative agenda to preserve and protect what works. That every single person brings a totally unique perspective on everything, is a fact that unfortunately is not generally recognized nor appreciated in the vast majority of situations.

The only coherent and comprehensive statement that can thus be made about the structure and content of human culture is that it is so vast and complicated that no one individual is capable of grasping the whole or even understanding it in the abstract. Nor would anyone seriously consider putting a thousand experts in a room, and ask them for a definitive summary – most people would not believe them anyway. Something as simple as a universal declaration of human rights is a bridge too far. There are so many components of culture and divisions of humanity, no one person can understand them all, nor what their essential features are. There are so many different perspectives on our supercomplex ‘reality’ that there can never be universal agreement. (This last sentence would be a candidate for such a universal truth.)

A further fundamental difficulty with culture is the large excess of information; no person is capable of directly sampling even a small fraction of it all. This explains the talk about trans-humanism to augment our thinking by means of prostheses that could download vast amounts of information directly into the brain. These efforts probably are misguided, as is the idea of superhuman computers capable of integrating all available knowledge and then presenting humans with manageable summaries from which they could make more informed and ‘reasonable’ decisions. It is difficult to see how this would work, but it clearly illustrates the problem. However, humans have long transcended their natural inputs and outputs with multiple technologies such as slings, arrows, spears, explosives, telescopes, microscopes, cars, printing presses, telephones, televisions, calculators, copying machines, spread sheets, internet based communication and search engines, etc.; these trends should continue to transform our culture at an accelerating pace, but there are obvious challenges and dangers.

Another challenging aspect of culture is that much of its content is entirely opinion based and personal. Probably all human beings accept as true great swaths of belief that can not be verified or falsified, but are accepted simply because such ideas appeal intuitively, are embedded in tradition or are repeated by large numbers of individuals. Children especially have no choice but to trustingly imbibe much of culture as it is presented to them by important others. This makes perfect sense from a survival perspective, but it leaves every young adult pre-loaded with a large pool of entrenched ideas that will go largely unvetted. The generally accepted ordinary or folk view of ‘reality’ is therefore highly subjective, even as it appears highly real to the observer. Fundamental misunderstandings of ‘the way things really are’ are built into our consciousness.

Subjectivity is absolutely personal. The qualitative experience of culture is different for everyone for social and biological reasons. We exist, intellectually, subjectively or ‘consciously’, in a seamless but virtual, self-enclosed individual-social-cultural continuum. What we see and hear in our heads, the incredible Theater of the Mind, appears to correspond exactly to what is happening out there in the virtual ‘reality’ that is our culture. The reason for this is straightforward: all consciously observed events or objects out there must first be simulated before one becomes consciously aware of them. This process of simulation occurs continuously 100% of the time, separately, in the brain of each one of us. Since all of awareness is continuously created by one instrument, one’s own brain, it stands to reason that everything we are aware of is absolutely personal, familiar, internally consistent and compelling. This is obviously so since there is no other source of information. The interactions between self, society and culture therefore take place in a clear and compelling virtual space that is entirely constituted as a simulation in our unique brains, separately, one at a time – the simulation process is real, the content is virtual. Each one of us is the bearer of their own version of the universe: disagreements about the nature of ‘reality’ are normal and to be expected.

Understanding the individual in society. Thus the individual personality interacts with a simulation of a vast and expanding idio-socio-cultural universe grounded entirely on inter- and intracellular physical processes in their own brain! The obstacles to an accurate understanding of just about anything are enormous. Very few are aware of this and its implications, but realizing this makes it imperative for us to change our perspective and to strive doing better – to begin to think ‘outside the box’: collective progress occurs as a result of the inspired efforts of individuals; how do we communicate better, plan more effectively where we want to go, or exercise our ‘free will’ more constructively. The limits of global cultural possibilities are set by the aggregate limits of individual imaginations, whether that of hunters, gatherers, farmers, workers, managers, investors, owners, artists, musicians, academics, philosophers, libertarians, communists, etc. The idea that an elite alone can take care of matters is a grievous, but still widely prevalent error. The potential total cultural experience is vast beyond comprehension, yet the degree of creative participation by individuals vary tremendously. Greater involvement by everyone, according to their interests and skills, should be more generally recognized as being in the primary political interest of all members of society, liberal or conservative, collectivist or individualist, or somewhere in between. We certainly have so far been frustrated by our inaccurate understanding of self, society and culture.

Time and history are basic aspects of reality. What happened a century or a second ago is determinative in so many ways of what will happen next. Historians claim that we will repeat the mistakes of the past unless we study history writ large, the story of how our culture came to be the way it is today. An obvious problem, however, is that recreating and understanding the more distant past is even more difficult than understanding culture as it is now. Rather, at best it would seem that a careful and sympathetic reading of history might assist us in understanding the present a little better.

So, let us take a quick tour through the past. Existence in culture has continued to become more and more complicated ever since the days of Australopithecus and Homo erectus. Some ancients related our struggles to eating of the fruit of knowledge, expulsion from paradise and a fall from grace. However, our information based culture has nevertheless, defiantly continued to partake over the millennia; even now we seem to be going through a rather tumultuous period of discovery. At the beginning, ~200,000 years ago, ‘modern’ human culture consisted of what was discussed around the campfire – we can only imagine. The hearth fire, in fact, ended up being a central religious symbol of the ancestral gods around which the greco-roman family gathered in prehistoric times.

Communities kept on growing. About 40,000 years ago counting systems began to appear and about 6,000 years ago the first literature on business and entertainment apparently came into use. Almost immediately speculative religious, philosophic, political and scientific writings also appeared. Many great names from that time are still revered today even though most of what happened then is dimly recorded and left to the imagination. A high demand for books finally lead to the development of the printing press in the 15th century; affordable secular works became available for the first time to a rapidly growing audience. Intellectually we were off to the races, consistent with the classical theory of consciousness as primarily involved with discovery, learning, logical analysis and informed executive action based on knowledge and truth. Today there is an over-supply of information, electronic media have made access to content effortless and universal.

One could bet, though, that just like today crowds flocked to the best entertainments of the day. In the early days of Rome one had to venture down to the Colosseum for a distraction from the daily grind. Today we turn on with a billion others to easily watch the big game on one of our devices. The crowd always follows the crowd. It seems to have a mind of its own, whether in search of a charismatic leader or a paragon of entertainment. When aroused a crowd will not be deterred – there is power there, waiting to be unleashed or brokered. This fits the theory, therefore, that human consciousness (language, thought, affect, feelings and emotions) is more involved with social interaction and bonding. The pleasures and rewards of friends and community serve to pull societies together even as these same forces can work to separate us, or, even worse, blow us apart in conflict and war. When the crowd wants to get serious, it engages in dogmatic debates on religion and politics, hurling stock phrases at the perceived opposition in language usually couched in terms of fighting, battle, victory and defeat. However, there are tantalizing signs suggesting that the crowd is wising up, which would be a wonderful thing – why should anyone trust conniving bands of self-appointed elites?

Crowds certainly need to be collectively inspired. Mass religion could thus be viewed as performing important social and cultural functions such as fostering cohesion and reducing internal conflict. Community-wide foundational, explanatory and aspirational narratives eliminate the need for endless debates and argument; society can just go ahead with its daily business. Life is thus certainly made easier for everyone including the rulers who can use religion as a powerful motivational force against an enemy. The great religions have been the most successful in this regard, but, in the end, different doctrines, even within a religion, have almost always led to conflicts on an even larger scale. A temporary peace and quiet is inexorably followed by an uncontrolled eruption of fear, paranoia and war. The naive faithful have a very difficult time psychologically, dealing with challenges to their entrenched foundational beliefs. Unfortunately, confrontations are inevitable since most religions claim to explain all of the mysteries – they are a type of primitive theory of everything. Volumes of objective evidence adduced so far, however, have contradicted the basic religious explanations of life and the cosmos in all cases. Those that remain in denial collectively affirm the infallibility of their blind vision. Their dogma must be preserved against a tide of evidence to the contrary. Finally, when challenges become increasingly existential, a final confrontation ensues. Such a process can be bloody as believers rise in a violent defense of their ‘Truth’ and the superiority of their way of life. Crude political interests usually inflame the passions even more.

Some observers have suggested that, because of the above, the idea of a creative rational person capable of ascertaining truth is an illusion, or even that consciousness may have no real adaptive value. It seems obvious, however, despite our history of irrational and pointless pursuits, rational conscious thought can indeed be a very powerful creative, learning and adaptive tool.

In contradistinction to the mindless crowd, individuals and small groups are the creative forces in society. Philosophy, amongst many others, is such a product of the incandescent power of our minds but, unlike religion, the diversity of its manifestations approach infinity. Individuals insist on expressing their private thoughts. Any interesting question automatically provokes many different and challenging answers – tot homines quot sententiae. As we all know, persons will interpret difficult questions differently and are likely to come up with their own unique answer. It may actually be that we are destined to come up with different answers for multiple reasons: every brain, like every person, is genetically different; every brain is functionally and physically(!) shaped differently, at birth and subsequently by an unique set of experiences (plasticity), especially during development. We are also prone to information processing errors: conscious thought can be susceptible to uncritical acceptance of perceived socially sanctioned solutions; conscious thought sometimes may not be aware that it is making things up; every individual comes from a different perspective and will produce different simulations based on the history of their idio-socio-cultural continuum. Left to our own devises, therefore, we are guaranteed to come up with different conclusions on all questions that are not easily verified objectively. This is true because all complex problems ultimately require unverifiable and unfalsifiable subjective analysis. Philosophy is extremely productive in coming up with fascinating or important questions, but quite the opposite in the discovery of practical answers. Further highlighting the problem, philosophical ‘answers’ usually have political repercussions.

Individual expertise in any field of practice or knowledge requires much dedicated learning, including familiarity usually with technical languages. The focus of philosophy appears to reside in rigorous analysis of the contents of minds, of the philosopher’s own and that reported by others. Novel ideas and speculations are often introduced, but firm conclusions, though, that universally persuade others are never established, even when some empirical support is found. Alternative formulations are inevitable, challenging the original position, ad infinitum. Many philosophical questions over time have become of interest to scientists, and when science provides reproducible relevant information, philosophy is obligated to take that into account. There is no philosophical position that can survive when it is consistently contradicted by empirical findings. Indeed, psychology and sociology employing the methods of science have contributed much to what used to be the exclusive domains of philosophers. Even in metaphysics empirical findings are changing the landscape. Of course, established scientific consensus has to be revised every now and then, and discredited ideas can likewise be resurrected.

Mathematics, scientific enquiry and technological creativity are the most obvious examples of the positive powers of conscious thought: logic, reason, creative intuition. The apparent explanation for the astonishing successes of science and technology is that their searches, insights and inventions relate to objects or ‘things’ that are available for independent examination and verification or falsification by other interested parties. This is a crucial difference with religion and philosophy. The pursuit of objective knowledge is a cooperative individual effort that always seeks to find support through the accumulation and analysis of objective evidence – the empirical “show me” approach. Science and technology build knowledge one little step at a time, ideally without much concern for authority, the survival of any pre-existing favored opinions or the sensitivities of others. Constant revision is part of the scientific process. Coming up with more accurate and complete answers is, in fact, the goal and a reward in itself. Application of mathematical rules to physical relationships has also been amazingly powerful. Analytic human thought is thus capable of discovering new aspects of phenomena as they directly or indirectly appear in existence around us. We also try to probe the secrets of Reality as it is, but that has been extremely difficult. Deep mysteries still remain at the limits of our imaginations, and wide differences of opinion abound.

What about those unique individuals that make up the crowd? What kind of actors are they? We apparently guide our behavior through continuous simulations of the past, present or future in consciousness. We probably have little control over the content of our simulations. What bubbles up from our unconscious processes is not under direct conscious control as far as we can tell. For example, when one meets an old acquaintance, the name of that person comes to mind automatically. Sometimes the memory can be jogged, sometimes the name pops up two days later, seemingly from nowhere. Conscious efforts to remember only help sometimes. Recall from memory can also be highly unreliable; sometimes memories are simply incorrect no matter how distinct they are. The content of such memories are highly conditioned by our past psychological events, themselves colored by our particular cultural environment. This would roughly correspond to our personality – the type of person we are as perceived by others.

One way to easily enrich culture is to clearly express our thoughts. While conscious thought is conditioned by cultural history, memories and contemporary phenomena, it is still free to ask any question or to simulate any response. The subjective content of thoughts and images is immaterial, purely ideal, and has no specific mass. It is therefore almost effortless to manipulate any thought according to the personal inclination or caprice of anyone. The only requirement is to keep the bodily parts and molecules intact and moving. Unlike anything else in the cosmos that we know of, the range of human thought is potentially infinite. The concept of infinity is a good example. The only place where infinity exists for sure, is in human imagination: infinite number of integers, infinite space and time. (Space and time may or may not be infinite in reality.) All our thoughts, therefore, require approximately the same expenditure of energy, it does not matter whether they are little banal truths or great transcendental errors. The only difference might be that more time could be ‘wasted’ on the latter because they are so beguiling.

The distinct clarity with which we view the world and ourselves thus becomes somewhat suspect once one starts probing into the processes involved. Our pervasive innocence and naivety are not always obvious to ourselves. Nevertheless, it appears that it is our faculties of conscious thought, social interaction and ‘semi-conscious’ culture building that has made us the most successful primate – the most fit for survival. Our greater mental abilities have allowed us to exploit nature to a point where we ourselves have become a problem, primarily due to the recent population explosion. Our benign earth now may need to be protected. Erstwhile predators and competitors are extinct or in danger of going the way. The biggest threat to our survival now is us. That is clear, but what is very unclear is how to tackle the problem that is us. In the past we managed by assuming that an appeal to truth is the best guide for our actions. That foundation is now in ruins; the belief that we have an ability for discovering and being guided by radical existential truth is being assailed from all sides: physics, biology, psychology, philosophy. Support for this conclusion jumps out by simply observing the nature of political action and philosophical discourse. There is no limit on our technological exploitation of natural processes.

Unassailable truth had been a delusion, a pipe dream, inherited from more innocent times. Mastery of truth would require total access to all information and flawless data processing, a situation that could only be found in a Mind of a God. Such a theoretical mind presumably would instantly understand everything that has been, is and will be. A MoG knows ultimate Reality as it is, as it was, and as it will be, without limit of time, place, space or number – no need for counters or clocks. It does not need to think, ponder or plan because that would indicate a degree of uncertainty. A MoG is not dependent on any senses because that would limit the information streaming in, it would also imply that God needs to learn when everything is already known. A MoG is not defined by any human category, distinction or requirement. Is a MoG jealous and wrathful as stated in the Bible? Does it care about human interests but not those of bacteria? And if it does, why? We ask these questions because we can, while knowing that any answers would be human answers, meager anthropocentric efforts, limited by our very impressive but still very finite processing capabilities.

We are created as nature and the cosmos is created, through evolution, but we do not understand the processes well at all. We should be honest and recognize that our answers to existential questions are articles of faith. All philosophers, politicians, pundits and preachers are simply expressing their opinions with varying degrees of insight and skill. Truth by acclamation is a democratic delusion but it has been our best governing option. There is naive untutored personal conviction with clear and distinct opinions at one end and unattainable absolute truth at the other. In between, there are numerous different local combinations of subjective belief and objective fact, depending on which of thousands of subcultural communities is being addressed. Everyone operates in the sphere of their personally held beliefs, their ‘truth’, which merges with their existential reality: all their simulations, memories, internalized values and interactions with others combine to produce an unique instance of personality, beliefs and behavior, an idioverse (Rosenzweig). A personal identification with a particular, self-defined but real community is thus arrived at – no one operates in a vacuum. A further limitation of our deliberations is that most of the information processing occurs unconsciously, away from the theater of the mind. The degree, therefore, to which individual biologic and genetic variations affect our thoughts is presently unknown, but it is an important question that is being asked more and more.

A better, more pragmatic approach to the true nature of our world could, therefore, still be extremely useful: truth is always relative to the perspective of individuals, whether they be the questioner, the responder or an innocent bystander. Every individual therefore is a custodian of part of the truth, wrapped in many layers of hope, faith and, alas, confusion. Everyone is contributing to the structure and content of society, whether they are aware of it, or not. This is a responsibility that should be taken more seriously. Personal convictions have a naive air of certainty and authenticity, but are always riddled with biases, inaccuracies and gaps. Radical self-doubt should not be encouraged, for good reason: no contribution is too small. Religious, cultural and political axioms are nothing more than strong contemporary convictions or passing popular opinions on the diverse needs of individuals, communities and societies. Ultimate and final truth is unattainable, but it still remains as an ultimate aspirational goal and, as such, it is related to such concepts as God and Cosmic Reality. ‘Culture’ is unable to solve our problems for us.

Humanity seems to be in need of a better regime: honesty with oneself diligence in one’s endeavors, fairness to others. Humility, self-reliance and openness should be natural outflows. We should be careful, the only ones that should be trusted are those that have been vetted, preferably in person. All dogmas are suspect. There are thousands of communities that are so focused on their narrow agendas that they are ignorant of the big picture, of what affects the whole of mankind. Life in all its splendor and diversity could pass these specialists by because they are too busy or too distracted. There is a great need to be able to communicate broadly which puts an onus on us to learn, to integrate and improve at the personal and community level. Labor needs to understand capital, collectivists needs to understand individuals, economists needs to understand workers; the list is infinite. Certainly atheists and believers should try empathy for the other. Left versus right, conservative versus liberal – these labels confuse more than enlighten. A generally well-educated layperson would be struck by the obvious biases of these specialists. A better system of education would do wonders. 

Society must learn to flourish as it acknowledges the now very apparent limitations and biases afflicting everyone, especially the so-called elites who seem to be especially vulnerable to the temptations of self-delusion and corruption. The best compromise is to recognize that local community efforts have the potential to leverage individual efforts by generating better information, limiting errors and moderating biases. Promoting the independent efforts of everyone in all their diversity, would be fundamental in our quest to elevate individuals, communities and culture as a whole. Society needs to be more integrated, up and down, back to front, left to right. Imposition of one will over another is always an act of oppression, it is a taking of liberty that should be avoided if possible.

In conclusion, our theoretical scientistic narrative of the evolution of everything places all systems of information and knowledge into a feasible relationship. Any discussion, debate or disagreement could benefit by reference to an overall map of knowledge. At the center of our problems are the many different exclusionary and conflicting formulations of ‘the human condition’.

Additional reading.

Wilson, EO. Genesis. The Deep Origin of Societies

Laland, KN. Darwin’s Unfinished Symphony. How Culture Made the Human Mind

Barrett, LF. How Emotions are Made. The Secret Life of the Brain

Siedentop, L. Inventing the Individual. The Origins of Western Liberalism

Scientistic Perspective on Everything – Introduction.

Johannes Lubbe Epistemology, Ontology, Scientism

PROPOSED: A SCIENTISTIC PERSPECTIVE ON EVERYTHING.
A POSSIBLE BASIS FOR IMPROVED COMMUNICATION IN A WORLD OF CHAOS AND INCOHERENCE.

INTRODUCTION.

Why scientism? And why do we need a perspective on everything? Suffice it to say that Science, Technology and Engineering have changed the world profoundly, but not all to the good. Cataclysmic dangers loom. It therefore behooves us to understand the issues and potential solutions. A Medical Model  is recommended: identify the relevant context, obtain accurate historical information, examine the current situation, test various theories, make a diagnosis, formulate a plan of action, monitor the progress. This may sound complicated, but it probably is not complicated enough. It would, at least, be a major improvement on current approaches.

Cosmos/Reality, Consciousness/Life and Culture/Existence.

All information and knowledge about everything, anywhere, at all times can be filed under at least one of three closely related, fairly distinct domains. They encompass all of human experience, knowledge and creativity. Every opinion of every person is concerned with an aspect of one or more of these areas:

1. The Cosmos represents Reality as it is, it is the foundational and generative basis of everything, including each one of us. With time (Evolution) it directly gave rise to Life. It is the eternal, evolving universe that we know is there, but cannot yet understand.
2. Consciousness, awareness and drive are biological processes inextricable from Life and its Evolution. In animals it additionally includes awareness of phenomena (complex things and events) associated with highly effective responses, frequently with a complex social component. In humans, mostly through language, it uniquely includes the ability to describe, communicate and choose among subjective simulations of past, present and future events. These biological, phenomenal and social components of form the foundational and generative basis of all of our Culture.
3. Human society and culture and our bodily existence in it are the substrates from which are generated the compelling virtual reality of all of our subjective experiences of self, environment and history.

Systematic biases and errors are at the core of our cultural conflicts since they exacerbate our misunderstandings. The above three intimately interwoven domains continuously modify and interact with each other. They are central to all understanding, yet their roles are not generally acknowledged. Scientific, philosophic, political and religious debates proceed almost completely unconcerned with these distinctions. As a result communication is deeply flawed and even superficial mutual understanding across disciplines is very difficult. More precise definitions and better awareness could provide a framework that focuses our discourse and opens channels of communication between disciplines and world views. Since no one has all the answers, no one is qualified to categorically exclude anyone else – but it happens all the time. It is essential that all parties actively participate and contribute, especially religion which has been under relentless and even irrational attack, but also philosophy, art, science, politics, etc

Growing up during the Cold War made a deep impression on many young minds: there were constant rumors of the imminent destruction of civilization. How could this even be that the human race would consider the possibility of destroying itself? It became somewhat of an early preoccupation trying to find the causes and possible cures for such madness. Total killed in conflicts in the 20th century about 100 million, many more injured and maimed. The 21st century already promises another rich harvest of death and destruction in the mass pursuit of delusional sectarian certainties.

There is no agreement even on a general approach to our problems. The proclivity to kill and destroy on a vast scale is dismaying, yet we seem baffled. People wring their hands and utter reassuring platitudes about peaceful co-existence, disarmament, trust, communication and cooperation. “If the others would only correct there ways” is the usual assessment by perplexed philosophers, politicians and spiritual leaders. They seem to be completely oblivious of their culpability and the limits of their understanding.

We all have great difficulty even in understanding ourselves, what we are thinking, and what our motivations are. How could anyone flourish under these adverse circumstances? Are we lost? Is this the inevitable price of ‘progress’? It might even be true that matters could have been much worse had it not been for religious campaigns for peace and universal human rights. The ultimate irony, of course, is that activists in favor of these noble goals may themselves end up rioting, burning and looting. Rather, humanity seems more distracted by other matters.

So, from where will salvation come? Do we have to wait on experts to deliver us from this bind? On a deeper level, the quest for understanding is so complicated that everyone always has to rely on authoritative sources who, it turns out, rely on other authorities, and so on. The experts upon which all of us rely are not true masters of all the facts upon which they are pronouncing judgement. Frighteningly, those upon whom much trust and responsibility have been placed, make momentous decisions without even having access to all the relevant information! In other words, assuming a leader is honest, sincere and responsible, she must still proceed by guesstimate or intuition. The crowd is usually anxious to rally behind any skillful or charismatic leader – that is the nature of politics. However, this has been a recipe for terrible mistakes. The battle of ideas too often ends up in real battles. Even in our daily lives there is much confusion, miscommunication and disagreement on everything.

What is the cure for this historic ailment? As any good doctor knows, first make a diagnosis, identify the cause and then prescribe treatment. The diagnosis is not encouraging: (a) Our sources of information are limited and unreliable. Human beings have no choice but to make decisions without ‘knowing all the facts’. (b) We are confused on our aims and goals because we do not understand ourselves or others well. (c) We do not understand our culture very well, much less that of others. (d) Our prescriptions are often based on fantasy, bias or error. For example, conflict appears to be an inherited congenital condition that manifests as a chronic disorder. It should receive more attention and be placed under continuous active management. Furthermore, we do not even have an accurate understanding of the root causes and mechanisms of expression of this malady. Fairy tale assessments are usually offered up that suggest it is all due to a few bad apples: if only the good would band together, our problems would go away!! That sort of wishful thinking has been disastrous. Rather, there is a surreptitious “banality of evil”. Simple narratives about the Son of God, the Chosen People, the Perfect Messenger, a Glorious Leader or a Workers Paradise can be very inspiring, but the net effect on their followers has been to isolate them from new information, to widen the divide amongst communities, and thus to increase the opportunity for conflict.

In too many situations perceptions of irreducible differences with The Other arise because of ‘fundamental’ principles derived from some formulation of reality or another. This error, we believe, very simply has had its roots in the universal failure to appreciate the processes involved in the production of consciousness, thought and culture. Our experiences are so self-reinforcing that very few ask what is going on behind the curtain.

A new approach should not simply be to intensify the same efforts of before, and certainly not to launch yet another triumphalist movement. Diversity of cultures and competition amongst them have been destructive at times. However, efforts at enforcing uniform attitudes and values have been even more destructive. Could there be a way out of this mess?

The cure should include better communication. Our analysis appears to re-emphasize a special role and responsibility at the individual level. We can not rely only on a few of the best and brightest, or only on some elite group. There clearly is a need to re-examine our form of governance. This should be a longterm project involving all citizens who really have the ultimate responsibility for bringing forth a true democracy. (This is all old hat, but it gets lost amidst all the shouting and screaming by leaders in various theaters of operation, departments of opinion and schools of thought.)

Through the use of common sense and common language we hope to describe a framework by which anyone could approach all knowledge and information; to address in accessible terms everything that is real and everything that exists: every thing and every non-thing. Everyone has a huge but nevertheless very incomplete fund of information, yet each has a unique and potentially valuable perspective. An encompassing framework will enable just about anyone to put in perspective what they are thinking or what some specialist is saying. Much new information is inevitable and should affect our understandings profoundly. Nevertheless, the outline of our theory should remain intact.

Everyone should feel encouraged to participate to the maximum of their ability and interest. So what is the average curious layperson to do? Systems of learning have been of two types, and combinations thereof. A still pervasive ancient approach is to wholly accept the pronouncements of a charismatic speaker, a chief, a respected oracle, a mystic master or a divine prophet. Una boca de la verita. A newer approach is practical and scientific. It depends on the cooperative efforts of many individuals applying curiosity and reason. Oracles snared insights intuitively, while the empirically curious meticulously pursued any interesting question, often being surprised themselves by the results at the end of their search. Purely intuitive truths have an attractive quality and have worked quite well, especially in primitive times when there were few alternatives. Experience has since shown many great intuitions of the past to have been simply wrong. The community efforts of scientists, philosophers and others have far outstripped the best efforts of the oracles and, like it or not, society and culture have been transformed. Paradoxically, we now have come to realize that true understanding of ourselves and our world is extremely hard to come by in most areas. So, getting down in the weeds of voluminous scientific information would be deeply frustrating for anyone interested in solving large, overarching problems.

A simpler methodology that will point in the general direction of ‘The Truth’ is needed, stipulating up front that the final destination seems permanently beyond reach. By taking a big picture, holistic approach, combining science and intuition, suggestive answers to our larger questions can be surmised, even questions that have challenged us through the ages. We must begin at the beginning.

The story of life on earth resembles a journey – an evolution. It began at some very distant point and has evolved into what we see now: a wonderful display of phenotypic diversity and superficial teleological design. With each new creature discovered, the picture becomes a little more complete. It has been said that only ~10% of bacteria have been identified. If true, this means that most of the species on the planet have not yet been looked at; many surprises are certain to be still coming our way. Even so, the big picture is pretty clear: life has, more or less coherently, evolved into innumerable niches of survival. These niches, including ours, continue to change and evolve, as does Earth and the cosmos.

Our somewhat historical narrative is all inclusive; no information exists outside the three domains of (1) reality as it is, (2) biological consciousness and (3) culture. A story of everything should establish a framework that identifies the connections between all the parts and could be referred to when difficulties arise between fields of knowledge and systems of belief. Anyone could use this framework in order to gauge where in the universe of information their interests and pursuits lie. One does not have to know everything in order to know some things, but having some idea of everything could be very helpful by putting matters in perspective. No mathematical formulae are used although we grant that they are essential for many analyses. No complex philosophic abstractions, structures or ‘isms’ are relied upon because they are too confusing for everyone, even the professionals. Summaries and perspectives by experts, however, are very useful for up to date objective information in their respective fields; one should always keep in mind that such fields may have their own built-in biases. As new information develops, adjustments must be accommodated. In other words, one must keep an honest and open mind, recognizing that we lack complete knowledge and understanding in virtually every area of human pursuit.

Allowance for ignorance, misunderstanding and error should be an important feature of a complete framework. Perhaps what has been missing in all other efforts at providing a coherent framework of knowledge and understanding has been a recognition of our large information deficiencies and many misapprehensions. Despite our limitations, humans have managed to ‘flourish’ while holding completely incorrect or fantastical ideas. Our numerous gaps are especially acute at the borders of the three knowledge domains: what were the initial conditions at the beginning and what set this majestic process in motion? What were the crucial forces operating at the beginning of life, propelling it in an apparent quest for multiplication, diversification and survival above all else? Perhaps most important, what is driving events now and what is our role in our own future evolution? For instance, is our future wholly dependent on computable events? Or, is there a human element that is undefinable, essential, unpredictable and irreplaceable?

Furthermore, humility should be front and center because no matter how superior anyone’s knowledge might be, any such single individual can theoretically master but a very small percentage of all available information; especially since what is available is itself very limited in relation to the entire universe of potential information. Knowledge is more like a web of ideas to which everyone contributes. Culture is a web of ideas plus a web of behaviors plus a collection of artifacts. Various grandiose claims of profound understanding and mastery are on the order of the day and dot the cultural landscape. Prudence suggests great skepticism, even cynicism. To the extent that these claims motivate individuals and groups to attain new heights of excellence, they may be beneficial. But most of these claims, however, are hyped and subsist largely on the human need to trust, belong and be reassured. Humility notwithstanding, substituting one’s own judgement for that of another is always risky business and should not be done lightly.

Our approach is new of necessity because it has not really been possible until now. In the earliest stages of our culture knowledge was mostly intuitive, based on natural observation of phenomena that were all extremely mysterious then. The Copernican revolution about 600 years ago started the scientific ball rolling in earnest. The amount of information on natural/physical phenomena collected since then is amazing. There are still huge mysteries but now, at least, we have an idea of where to look for the answers. Biology was rather slow out of the gate. There were early fits and starts, but a coherent story has only been emerging over the last 60 years or so, essentially since the identification of DNA. We are only now beginning to understand the basic processes of life.

The most surprising realization, looking at all the different areas of knowledge, has been how coherent the picture seems to be. Despite the accumulation of an almost infinite amount of data, the gaps are still large. At this juncture it would appear that no definitely irreducible gaps are present within this vast body of information. All the processes appear as if they could be interrelated. The reductionism of the physicists studying ‘fundamental’ processes in the cosmos is therefore theoretically possible: all phenomena could in theory be explained in terms of the behavior of elementary particles and fundamental forces. As a practical matter, this is probably not going to happen, ever.

There do appear, however, to be definite irreducible boundaries to what we can know: We cannot obtain information from prior to the alleged Big Bang. We cannot obtain information from any signals that might travel faster than the speed of light, if there are such. We cannot predict the future with certainty because so much information has been lost or is not observable. In addition, human abilities of observation and processing appear to be extremely limited. Culture and behavior also appear not to be predictable because of the complexities involved: each one of us is functionally different; H. sapiens also mysteriously co-evolves continuously with nature and Reality. Absolute determinism and reductionism, therefore, appear to be abstract mathematical formulations, not certainties, and as a practical matter, they appear irrelevant to questions regarding our existence.

The theme of inter-connectedness is especially strong in the biological realm, all of which revolves around DNA. There is surprising genotypic similarity amongst the extremely diverse population of living creatures on earth. What could be more strikingly different to the human eye than a single-celled paramecium, a 1 mm blind worm in the soil, and a two hundred ton whale? Quite amazingly, there are numerous similarities at the molecular level between all these life forms. All life on earth appears to be closely related despite the tremendous diversity. There is also a high level of interdependence. Bacteria are the scavengers, scrubbers and true work-horses of our biosphere. If they went on strike, the rest of the biosphere would quickly grind to a halt.

In summary:
1. All information is relevant to the framework.
2. Most observable information is not observed, consciously or otherwise.
3. An incomplete but fairly coherent narrative is possible when allowing for unobserved and unobservable information.
4. An integrated story of all information always would represent an informed and inspired guess of one person, relying on the efforts of many others.
5. Individuals are the seat of the most coherent evaluation of the greatest amount of information.
6. A working framework of and perspective on everything should facilitate human communication.
7. Improved human communication should increase human flourishing.
8. Each human being consciously and ‘unconsciously’ processes a vast trove of information, far in excess of other animals, yet our abilities are still very finite.
9. Improved networking would be a simple and obvious means by which to improve our knowledge base, coordinate our actions and provide meaning to our existence.
10. The presence, extent, function or purpose of unobservable information will always perplex human imagination.

Scientistic Perspective on Everything – 1. Reality As It Is.

Johannes Lubbe Epistemology, Ontology, Scientism , , ,

PROPOSED: A SCIENTISTIC PERSPECTIVE ON EVERYTHING.
A POSSIBLE BASIS FOR IMPROVED COMMUNICATION IN A WORLD OF CHAOS AND INCOHERENCE.

PART ONE: GENESIS OF REALITY AS IT IS NOW.

Domain 1. Reality as it is (Ultimate Reality, Ontic Reality, the Universe of Everything, the Cosmos) consists of evolving interacting systems, said to be composed of energies, forces, matter, atoms, molecules and structures; animate or inanimate, dead or alive, organic or inorganic, simple or complex, observed or unobserved or unobservable. With the advent of higher forms of life “Reality is now contemplating itself”. (See caveat below.)

Contrary to the imaginary situation described in our still very popular creation myths (mythical ontologies), we now have a pretty detailed and complex idea of Reality based on vast amounts of empirical observation (scientistic ontology). The evidence can not be squared with our inherited ancient myths: we now ‘know’ that our cosmos might have been evolving over the last ~14 billion years. The most popular version of the cosmic story is that in the beginning there was nothing, except maybe a relatively simple hyper-dense state of some sort. Suddenly, this point of comparative nothingness changed and an unimaginable effusion of energy ensued with particles radiating into space, possibly expanding at speeds even greater than light. After about three billion years our galaxy began to form. After another 6 billion more the sun and earth emerged; a billion or so more, i.e. about 4 billion years ago, life came about. Reality as it is had done its own thing for about 10 billion years, violently, in secret, noiselessly and in the dark. There was no person to see, hear or smell, let alone wonder about it. But out of the bosom of a vast interplay of material/physical/natural processes, life somehow became established on our little planet in a panoply of millions of different forms, sizes and shapes, all now orchestrated by an extremely gifted molecule: DNA.

The cosmos has been evolving on scales so immense that we can not intuitively understand it – from the beginning, now and henceforth. Each supposed little particle or wavy fluctuation has its place. Physicists use mathematical abstractions and a special language to describe their findings, still there reigns much disagreement amongst different schools of thought. Those who claim to understand the physics and math – many say it is impossible to grasp it all – admit that the submicroscopic universe is very different from the ‘natural’ phenomenal world we intuitively know. In fact, an ordinary language narrative describing the structures and events yields a very sparse picture of what is going on.

Chemists and biologists have also amassed libraries of information, far more than what any one person could possibly digest. No one can claim to understand all the ‘fundamental’ processes. We don’t even fully understand how the humblest forms of life manage to do the very complex things that they do – sensing, taxis, communication, etc. Reality as it is does not readily conform to the ‘laws of nature’ as we know them from our natural perspective and common sense analysis. Natural logic, language and human imagination are incapable of describing reality as it is, albeit now partially and indirectly observed in a very small nook of the cosmos. All we know for certain is that the findings are real, observable by anyone who would make the effort, and could be independently confirmed by anyone with huge resources. The findings have a basis in Reality but their interpretation is highly controversial and may yet prove to be highly inadequate. Our narrative therefore could be likened to a fairy tale based on reams of very strange but hard data.

Anyhow, our infant universe supposedly expanded prodigiously as it cooled from billion degree plus temperatures down to 1000 degrees C. in the course of the first 200,000 years. (It may have taken 10 billion years to get the temperature down to the about 70 degrees C. at which DNA could exist.) Out of this opaque miasma things coagulated and precipitated on a microscopic and macroscopic scale. The early universe was lifeless, but definitely not still. Tumultuous energy, force and motion was everywhere, yet exquisitely directed by intrinsic, systemic relationships. Then, still quite inexplicably, about 4 bya there arose molecules that had the ability to multiply and organize other molecules such as to create minute little organic systems of energy processing and molecule building: LIFE. There is nothing known for certain about what produced this miracle. Likely precursors or initial conditions have been modeled based on creative guess-work; we now have some vague suspicions of a series of events that could have lead to the evolution of DNA as the replicating molecule responsible for this diverse abundance of life on our planet. The possible roles of nanomotors (molecular motors) as drivers of an evolutionary process based on enhanced survival have been suggested. DNA must be such a rapidly replicating nanomotor, a local, microscopic conduit of basic physical and chemical forces that drive it along – the will to power, an élan vital, whatever. DNA appears to select in favor of survival, efficiency or fitness through competition. Perhaps this selection is in favor of greater information processing – an early sign of ‘intelligence’ in a molecule? The essence of this replicating force is that it appears to enhance survival through learning, adapting and diversifying as vast numbers of different iterations compete for limited resources. Probably viral RNA and DNA contributed crucially to the creation of life. A dynamic universe, therefore, drives all processes, including life, but how? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3185796/) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)

And then life bloomed in dazzling profusion! Our earthly sector of living Reality rapidly proliferated and spread to populate seemingly every niche on our tiny planet, located near the sun, toward the edge of the Milky Way, one galaxy among a supercluster of 100,000! After about 3,800 million years of life, the first mammals arrived, circa 200 million years ago. The first anatomically modern humans appeared only about 200,000 years ago, having the most complex anatomy and physiology of any animal, regardless of size, and a clear and distinct human consciousness which is manifested in an utterly unique and exceptional socio-cultural existence. There thus seems to have been an inexorable drive toward ever more diverse and complex organisms, possibly having something to do with processing more information, exact reason unknown, but in the process probabilities of survival are increased. This promotion of diversity appears to hold even down to the individual level. For example, at least 12% of the human genome is highly variable, adding yet another level of mystery, uncertainty and unpredictability. Each individual human organism thus represents a unique assemblage of Reality, as it is now. And, as far as we know, there are only about 8 billion copies extant in the universe; an infinitely small number in the greater scheme of things.

Reality, as it is in itself, has certainly come a long way! From our perspective, the arrival of life and the arrival of abstract, symbolic hominid self consciousness demarcate important phases in the evolution of Reality as it is. The fundamental lesson to be learned from this story is that we do not see a clear break when traveling from quark to neuron. Reality, as it is, supposedly started out as an undifferentiated singularity, and we, like everything else, are all descendants of that hypothetical Big Bang. Life and all its processes are expressions of this dynamic universe, even though it is limited to an extremely minute section of the whole, as far as we can tell. It appears that each of us is a slightly different and unique variation on this overarching theme. You and maybe sextillions of other organisms incarnate Reality as it is here on Earth in its most up to date version. This is awesome. Congratulations – we have been lucky indeed!

It is impossible for us to fully understand what utterly amazing creations we are. We do not come with an operator’s manual or list of components, and so we have to slowly uncover our own miraculous design and structure. Our nervous system is at the apex of complexity in our universe, unparalleled amongst most of the animals: about 100 billion interconnected neurons, approximately 100 trillion synapses continuously transmitting electrochemical signals. Each one of the neurons may be nothing less than a small (collection of) quantum computer(s). The neuronal cell body is stuffed with microtubules apparently containing quantum critical proteins that could function like quantum computers. This is still highly preliminary but does show the vast amount of information that would be required to understand brain function and the processes of life. We are just beginning to scratch the surface. (Kaufmann/Hameroff 2015)  Killer whales and elephants have somewhat comparable brains to primates.

This is probably more than what most of us would want to know about reality as it is (Reality). Most of the evidence and science is beyond me, and, I would assume, for many others. Still this new story told through science, even though extremely incomplete, rings truer now than all the wonderful creation myths of old.

HOWEVER, a major caveat is in order. The above description is very misleading because the language used to describe Reality is derived from reality as we experience it, subjectively, in consciousness, and not as it is in itself. There are no words to describe Reality since human consciousness has no direct access to Reality. The eye of the mind can not see Reality. Despite our direct sensing of it, intimate interaction with it, and the existence of volumes of investigative information about it, Reality still hides behind an impenetrable electrochemical fence in our brain.

We cannot conceptualize Reality except through representational imaginings correlating with our senses, or from experimental information obtained in ways that are very mysterious to almost everyone. Hence there is a very troubling, but not very surprising, degree of conceptual disagreement amongst researchers and ordinary folk. These conceptual imaginings exist in consciousness thus allowing us to describe in words what we think about this all encompassing presence. Unfortunately for us, our words are not up to the task, our communications are nothing but hints of the Real. (Here, as an example, is a fun review of the common sense difficulties encountered in imagining the atom.)

Furthermore, the overwhelming number of people on our planet do not agree with this naturalistic, physicalist, materialist or scientistic narrative because it is based on new and unfamiliar information, and it calls into question age-old settled beliefs. Our natural experience of reality in consciousness also is so compelling that we are not inclined to second guess it, or our intuitive understanding of it. Most also feel that this cosmic evolution could not have occurred without the guiding hand of a Creator and want to see an accommodation for this external force. It is becoming increasingly clear that direct evidence for such an intervention will never be forthcoming. The supreme intelligence of the design is in its divine seamlessness, in its inexplicability and ineffability. Clues leading to a designer are either everywhere or nowhere.

In stead of relying on oracles and revelations, us humans should realize that we are an intimate part of an evolving reality, changing ourselves and the world as we unravel its mysteries. Reality as it is is now engaged in trying to understand itself. But there is much more to this story!

First published 2015. Revised 2018.

Scientistic Perspective on Everything – 2 Consciousness.

Johannes Lubbe Epistemology, Ontology, Scientism , , ,

PROPOSED: A SCIENTISTIC PERSPECTIVE ON EVERYTHING.
A POSSIBLE BASIS FOR IMPROVED COMMUNICATION IN A WORLD OF CHAOS AND INCOHERENCE.

PART TWO: LIFE, CONSCIOUSNESS AND HUMAN THOUGHT.

Domain 2. The necessary interaction of all living organisms with reality as it is (Reality) occurs through exquisitely precise physical, chemical and biological mechanisms that themselves are part of and harness the intrinsic ‘physical’ processes of Reality. Real or physical signals are recognized, internalized and processed in organized, interdependent, ‘intelligent’ biological systems (organisms) that respond to the environment, grow and multiply. This primary response to the environment can be recognized in all organisms, i.e. they appear to be ‘conscious’ of their environment. Animals have added prodigiously to this basic template: nervous systems and sense organs allow for a representational awareness of the internal and external world.

Let us start with what we all know well, our minds, and work backwards.

Embedded in our conscious minds lies a deep contradiction: we know it intimately, it is part of us yet we know very little about it. Mind is inexplicable even as everyone is utterly familiar with it: the greatest show on earth, the Magnificent Theater of The Mind, featuring true feeling, compelling narrative, cycloramic 3-D full color and stereophonic sound – even in our dreams as we sleep. Add to this our favorite tastes, smells and pleasurable activities; everything.

Despite this intimacy, perhaps because of it, we have always been confused about what and how it is and what it all means. There are many fanciful theories: an immaterial spirit that enters our body, an accurate representation of the external and internal world, our governing faculty, seat of the decider making choices, or even a completely pointless and distracting epiphenomenon of unconscious brain processes. Actually, the objective answer is disarmingly simple: Consciousness is everything an organism does in response to its environment, whether that includes thinking about it or not. The mechanisms by which our subjective experiences are produced are still shrouded in mystery. There is no adequate explanation, despite prodigious amounts of empirical data, because we still do not know all the structures that are involved. Invoking patterns of electrical discharges across trillions of synapses does not explain much. Our narratives are still pretty paltry.

Human self-aware consciousness, thought and language, along with their social implications, without doubt are amongst our most characteristic attributes. We are constantly aware of our feelings and our interactions with both the environment and our fellow sapient creatures, with an almost limitless ability to think, talk and write about it. We are compelled by our inner experiences and social interactions; it is there that we feel we find the reasons for our existence, our purpose and the meaning of it all. Many believe that this represents the essence of who and what we are. But in order to really understand what this means we need to examine the process, the underlying mechanics. After all, one would be very confused about the workings of a TV by analyzing the content of the programs on its screen. Rather, by unlocking the biological secrets of human thought we may be able to extend our self-understanding greatly, in turn, hopefully opening up opportunities for social improvement. Ignorance is not bliss.

Thus, if consciousness relates to the essence of who and what we are, it would be critically important to understand it. That would be a great step toward understanding ourselves and others. A good place to start, then, is to separate subjective content from the underlying objective physicochemical and biological, including psychological, processes.

We are not alone. Clearly, many other animals have easily recognizable consciousness since they objectively exhibit behaviors associated with consciousness – eating, drinking, sleeping, seeing, hearing, caring for off-spring, etc. Mammals and primates have sense organs just like ours with large brains and behaviors that parallel ours for the most part. Animals also exhibit on careful study what appears to be emotions, learning, memory, language and problem solving ability. The prior opinion that we were the only conscious creatures appears to have been based on prejudice and deep ignorance. Or, perhaps, we do not understand what our ancestors meant by consciousness In all likelihood, we will never fully know what it is like to be a bat, a lion, a dog, a dolphin or an ant. Each species represents their own very special case. We are constantly being amazed by how complex and intricate the lives of other creatures are. The closer we look the more common threads there are between all living creatures.

The Unity of Life

All animals capture and process ‘information’ from the environment in very similar ways. One of the major discoveries of evolutionary biology over the last 5 decades is the surprising degree to which all animals, down to the very simplest, share in a large set of common molecules that coordinate development and allow interaction with the environment. About 40% of the genes of a tiny worm, Caenorhabditis elegans, persist in humans. It has been possible to insert the human version back into the worm where it continued to perform its functions quite well. Outwardly, then, there is no similarity between this worm and a human being, but if one drills down on the molecular details, the correspondences are astounding. The similarities may even outweigh the differences. Human and worm have about the same number of protein coding genes, ~20,000, even though the human genome is about 30 times longer. But, by studying this little denizen of the dirt, we have learned a lot about ourselves. Certainly, we must accept the very likely possibility that any creature with neurons shares the beginnings of consciousness with us in some essential but not yet clearly identified way. Anyway, rejecting this possibility out of hand would be repeating a mistake we have often been guilty of in the past.

Let’s get to know this sightless little nematode a little better. C. elegans was first described by Emile Maupas in 1900. Then it was left mostly alone until 1960 when Sidney Brenner suggested that this humble, ~1 mm worm with no brain or respiratory and circulatory system would be ideal for intensive, collaborative study in the hope of understanding the mysteries of life. Brenner ultimately received a Nobel Prize in 2002. Today it is the best understood animal of all, including us. It was the first multi-cellular organism to have its genome sequenced. This little worm is also extremely predictable structurally: every one of 959 somatic cells of hermaphrodites has been mapped, including the structure and connections of each of its 302 neurons (males, a minority of the population, have 383):

“With only five olfactory neurons, C. elegans can dynamically respond to dozens of attractive and repellent ‘odors’ or ‘tastes’. Thermosensory neurons enable the nematode to remember its cultivation temperature and to track narrow isotherms. Polymodal sensory neurons detect a wide range of nociceptive cues and signal robust escape responses. Pairing of sensory stimuli leads to long-lived changes in behavior consistent with associative learning. Worms exhibit social behaviors and complex ultradian rhythms driven by calcium ion oscillators with clock-like properties. Genetic analysis has identified gene products required for nervous system function and elucidated the molecular and neural bases of behaviors.” [De Bono, 2005.]

When describing the behavior of a 1 mm blind roundworm, dispassionate scientific observers cannot avoid using anthropomorphic terms because the objective similarities to human activities are undeniable. Memory, learning, smell, rhythms, tracking, escape, social behavior and measurement of time; these terms describe intelligence and consciousness, not necessarily of the human kind, but of an organism fully engaged according to its needs and abilities in its world, sensing it, evaluating it, applying memory and making choices, using all available tools to flourish and survive. Lacking eyes it does not see, without ears it can not listen, BUT like the retina it has photoreceptors and like the cochlear membrane this little worm has mechanoreceptors. It does have an extremely rudimentary ‘nose’, and it does feed on bacteria so we can wonder what it likes best. There is neural circuitry for navigation and exploration to satisfy a natural curiosity perhaps.

Some populations of C. elegans feed in social groups, other populations consist of solitary individuals proceeding by themselves – a genetic basis for political preferences??. This is all due to the presence of a variant of one gene that codes for neuropeptide-y receptor. A related receptor is found throughout the animal kingdom and affects food consumption, mood and anxiety. Interestingly, it may modulate our intake of alcohol.

A small worm with no brain thus appears to be highly intelligent and clearly displays awareness of its surroundings – consciousness! (In fact, it is surprising how much can be done with so little.) This kind of anthropomorphizing (teleonomy) risks the introduction of confusing biases, but one has to start somewhere to gain insight and understanding of ourselves, others and the natural world. The complex and graceful interaction between a male C. elegans and an hermaphroditic partner is a choreography of multiple intricate steps that has to be perfectly sequenced for success: contact, reversing, finding the entrance, inserting spicules and ejaculation. This particular behavior (e-motion) is coordinated by oxytocin-like peptides (nematocin) without which the sequence becomes uncoordinated, ineffective and impotent. A few neurons are capable of producing very complex responses to the environment, responses that can be modulated and coordinated by chemicals.

If a short oligopeptide hormone can do this for a tiny worm with 302 neurons, imagine what it could do for an animal with millions or billions of neurons: oxytocin is a peptide consisting of 9 amino acids – not big enough to be called a protein – and it contributes much to what makes us human. It affects sexual, social and maternal behavior, controls lactation and uterine contraction; it can also affect levels of anxiety and fear, even ethnocentric behavior; the list is long and the interactions are extremely complicated. The cellular and tissue distribution of receptors for these neuropeptides varies widely among species and this has a profound effect on the many different types of behavior expressed by different animals, amongst closely related species, and even within a species such as C. elegans. It is complicated! With more basic information forthcoming, we are bound to learn much and our understanding of behavior should become even more nuanced. At this stage it seems that, while inputs and outputs are extremely variable, the internal tools with which responses are managed are surprisingly uniform. A stark, fundamental difference between worm and man is that the latter has a vast amount of DNA that is ‘non-functional’, i.e. DNA that we do not quite understand yet. [Bargmann, 2013.  Wikipedia.  Insel, 2010.]

Climbing further down the phylogenetic ladder in our search for what might be deemed unconscious life, let us take a quick peek at Paramecium, a unicellular creature with multiple nuclei. However, this one extremely large cell has many specialized intracellular organelles. There is a mouth area where food vesicles are ingested and then funneled through the cell as digestion takes place. Its cell membrane bears cilia for propulsion, is excitable and, like a neuron, can maintain a surface electrical charge due to the presence of ion channels. One cell thus performs many specialized functions. Its genome codes for about 40,000 proteins, almost double that of Homo. This is also, therefore, not a candidate for simple, unintelligent life. It is very complex, coordinated and extremely good at what it does. A Paramecium likely is more complex than any single mammalian cell. It performs many different specialized tasks and it is ‘conscious’ of its environment. It even has the ability to solve ‘simple’ navigation problems by ‘choosing’ between a few ‘simple’ strategies. Memory appears to be involved.

Bacteria occupy the bottom rung of life on the complexity scale, so what can these minute unicellular creatures do? Most of them amount to almost nothing, up to a million or more could fit inside a single Paramecium. However, once methods were developed to study their behavior and correlating such behavior with molecular structure, there ensued shocked surprise: “Nearly all motile bacteria can sense and respond to their surroundings—finding food, avoiding poisons, and targeting cells to infect, for example—through a process called chemotaxis” which exhibits “exquisite sensitivity, extensive dynamic range and precise adaptation”. [PhysOrg, 2012.  Hazelbauer, 2008.]

Rich systems of communication via chemical signals can exist between individuals of the same or different strain, sometimes communicating with a different species or even the host. Thus bacteria can sense their population density, and so judge whether conditions are favorable or adverse (quorum sensing). This allows bacteria to coordinate their gene expression and the behavior of their entire community to enhance collective survival and prosperity. This may even entail a life-style switch, from a nomadic individual, “planktonic” existence to that of a strictly controlled community, e.g. a biofilm, one that is relatively impervious to toxins, or to a virulent community that can attack other organisms or their host. In biofilms it has been found “that the descendants could remember the surface sensing signals of their ancestors”, suggesting primordial memory and learning. This is surprising. Also quite impressive has been the discovery of electrical signaling resembling neuronal activity, allowing different parts of the biofilm to communicate. [Lee, CK et al. 2018, Prindle, A et al. 2015, Masi,E et al. 2015]

There seems to be no limit to the strange behaviors of bacteria; strange because such behavior seems, improbably, to be an analogue of human behavior. For example, there is community policing of ‘cheaters’ that benefit from collective efforts but do not contribute their part. In some situations, some cheating is tolerated, apparently because such diversity improve chances of overall survival. Sometimes competing entities might try to disrupt the cooperative efforts of others by chemically interfering with their signals. Bacteria are actually engaged in a never-ending arms-race with intense and lethal competition for lebensraum and natural resources! (Humans can benefit from this because bacteria are the major pathway for introducing non-carbon elements into the food chain.) Bacteria thus have a very impressive arsenal of toxins and weapons at their disposal, even leading to feasting on DNA released during the fray. A recent sensational headline warned “Killer Cholera Bacterium Stabs Others With Tiny Spear, Steals DNA” – some fragments of victims’ DNA may become incorporated in the genome of the victors in the hope of promoting fitness for survival. Sometimes fratricidal groups will kill off their non-aggressive comrades, but the opposite can also happen: virulent individuals commit suicide when exposed to the ‘love-hormones’ of their more peaceful kin – give me freedom, or give me death. [Speaker Abstracts, 5th ASM Conference on cell-cell communication, 2014.]

Bacteria are the smallest free-living units of DNA – viruses exist at the borderline of life. While animals are infinitely more complex, bacteria are definitely not simple. There are predictions now being made that we will never be able to accurately conceptualize the submicroscopic structure and inner workings of even a single cell. Therefore, it seems rather odd to call something simple when one is utterly unable to explain how it works. That almost everyone is guilty of ignoring this paradox raises interesting questions about the accuracy and precision of human thought: maybe close is good enough? Now that we are able to study bacteria with more sophisticated tools we have been surprised at their level of complexity and exquisite interaction with their environments. This now makes sense given the fact that life and its precursors have been incubating for ~4 billion years or more. Today’s survivors are all highly evolved and maximally complex, it being highly unlikely that a bacterium from the dawn of life could survive today.

Nobody would seriously suggest that bacteria think the way we do. However, careful observation of them leads to the firm conclusion that they are very ‘intelligent’, conscious in an operational and objective sense of the word, and that they react purposefully. It is apparently built into their DNA, or, more precisely, that is what DNA does. Understanding what exactly that purpose is and how it is pursued is still a deep and fascinating mystery. A better intuitive understanding of what drives molecules would be very helpful. DNA is a very talented, purpose driven and intelligent molecule indeed! In its most basic bacterial form, it has managed to infiltrate and populate every nook and cranny where life could survive.

A common thread in human history seems to be that we always have been and continue to be surprised by Reality. Now that oracles have been proven unreliable or possibly deceitful as sources of knowledge regarding the nature of reality, all possibilities are now on the table. We should continue to expect more surprises.

Human Sociobiology

After learning of the extraordinary ‘intelligence’ of bacteria, worms, fruit flies, fish and so on, we come face to face with a very interesting and revealing set of questions: what a piece of work is man? How do we do what we do? But most important, perhaps, what, exactly, are we doing, and why? One of the first attempts at a science based materialist investigation of these matters was apparently met with anger and derision. Edward O. Wilson has said that he was taken completely by surprise by the reaction to his “Sociobiology, The New Synthesis” published in 1975. Political biases came into play. However, answers to our basic questions about  life are seemingly far more subtle and  complex than what we had anticipated. Our universe contains much more intelligence than we ever imagined. But how does this help us in dealing with our apparently chaotic culture? That is our fundamental challenge. It has been said that ignorance is bliss. However, our thesis is that ignorance is also very dangerous – it certainly has been so far.

From what we now know, it seems clear that all of life exhibits a form of intelligence by directly responding to and interacting with its environment, even altering that environment in a particular niche of Reality. We will call this biophysical consciousness. It has been stated that most or all animals also exhibit phenomenal awareness which would be in addition to the various forms of basic biophysical awareness. That is, most animals are also aware of macroscopic structures and events in their environment – the crash of a falling tree, a sudden flash of lightning or the repellent stench of rotting flesh (repellent to us but attractive to flies). Thus through enhanced processing and integration of the basic physical signals that give rise to biophysical consciousness many animals have senses like ours; sight smell, sound, vision, touch, etc. It seems almost certain that animals with bodies like ours (eyes, ears, noses, tongues and brains, etc.) would experience the world generally in the way we do, but with numerous specific differences. For example, most primates have trichromatic color vision – they can see red. Most other mammals are dichromatic and can not see red. Shapes, sizes and movements seem to be observed similarly to us, but we can not even imagine what their sense of smell or taste is like, or what they feel when threatened or in danger. Trying to imagine the world of very different creatures like fish, worms and bacteria at this time is asking too much. (Since there is also a wide variation in how humans are constituted, we are also never quite sure what another person would be experiencing.)

Furthermore, as an example, it is still a profound mystery as to how the utterly reliable and predictable subjective sensation of any color comes about – the qualium of color. Apparently, we can distinguish ~200,000 shades of color. It is another one of those ‘miracles’. Add to this the stunning variety of  tastes, smells, sounds and feelings that we experience, pleasurable and otherwise, and we can not help but being cognitively overwhelmed. Apparently, the nervous systems processes signals from everywhere in the body in a complex hierarchical system, feeding information via the autonomic and peripheral systems upwards through the hind-, mid- and forebrain. It then seems as if there is a cortical network that looks at all the intracranial activity and then produces a report to a separately experienced self. The dimensions of what is happening as we laugh, cry and dream are practically infinite: billions of neurons, trillions of synapses, interactions with peptides, hormones and the immune system, ad infinitum. But, put it all together and there effortlessly appears before us a clear and distinct world. It is quite beguiling, another miracle.

We have learned much about human consciousness by studying animals. Parallels with primates and mammals are now obvious. Somewhat surprising, it has also been very revealing to learn that fruit flies, fish and many other lower animals also use social strategies that can be correlated in humans: strategic copying, innovation, social learning. (Laland, KN. 2017) With new technologies we are now also learning much by scientifically studying human subjects. Research over the last few decades in human consciousness has yielded quite surprising results, leading to a complete rethinking of how it works and what its biological correlations are.

The almost universal assumption that what you see is what you get is not tenable anymore. The longstanding, still popular, common sense view that “the conscious self is fully in charge of behavior, sees the world generally as it is, and directs behavior as it sees fit” has been almost completely revised based on human psychological research. In essence, close observation of humans under controlled conditions has revealed that our mental processes may produce unreliable results unbeknownst to ourselves: our explanations of our own behavior are often not very rigorous at all; rather, the most convenient or facile reason may be selected from a trove of stock explanations, especially if it is socially acceptable. Actions may already be underway before conscious thought joins in, even though we might still think that we are consciously initiating the process. Gaps in a narrative or pattern may be unconsciously filled in. Conscious analysis may not even be essential for complex planning; goals and social motives can be activated in the absence of a conscious decision. There are therefore multiple extraordinary complex processes occurring while we are under the impression that a ‘simple’ conscious act is underway.

Perhaps the most arresting feature of all the new information about consciousness is that we have historically neglected the role of affect, feelings, mood and emotions in our lives – swept under the rug, as it were, because, quite simply, emotions were beyond the reach of all rational understanding. They needed to be suppressed or controlled, certainly banished from rigorous intellectual, scientific or philosophical discourse. Unlike intentional cognition, there is nothing clear and distinct about affect, yet here may lie another great store of future discovery and understanding. Emotions appear to provide the underpinnings of all our behavior, even ‘rational’ thought.

We know guilt, shame, fear, disgust, anger, hate, etc. These negative emotions tend to narrow the focus onto a problem to the exclusion of everything else. They often end in separation, loss, destruction or worse. Positive emotions may be less conspicuous or salient; they broaden and build, bring growth and innovation with improvements in health, wealth and happiness. Given our state of ignorance, we do not know how to best harness the powers within. The range of possibilities beckon, especially if it turns out that emotions are not as automatic and primitive as had been thought. (Barret, LF. 2017)

The adaptive value of human thinking and communication thus far appears centered primarily around social goals such as inclusion, cohesion, security and survival. Our interests in philosophy and science, i.e. pursuit of reliable and useful knowledge, are rather recent and had been largely secondary. This now appears to have changed, with science, technology and engineering affecting human social existence radically. These findings, accumulating now for a couple of decades, have been devastating to the classical conceit that consciousness controls input and output from the perspective of objective knowledge. The concept of humans as independent rational conscious executive agents is rarely true, if ever. [Baumeister et al, 2010.  Panksepp, The affective brain and core consciousness, 2008.]

What have we learned then, so far, about human consciousness that is likely to be true? Well, as we already know, humans occupy a special place amongst the animals when it comes to thinking, language and complex social interaction. However, our consciousness, like all others, has evolved from basic biophysical consciousness over billions of years. It is an attribute of our particular biological heritage. At least all animals with brains have what is referred to as phenomenal consciousness; awareness of the structures and events in their surroundings through sense organs leading to highly intelligent responses, e.g. tracking a smell across an open field, identifying the prey and then capturing it. Humans can do much the same, except for the tracking of a smell part, but what no other animal can do is to communally identify a goal, devise a specific strategy, communicate it amongst the group, assign different responsibilities and then execute based on the mutual understanding of the articulated plan. Non-humans are at a deep existential disadvantage in this theater of operations! Each human can mentally simulate what is being discussed as if it were really happening. No other animal can communicate in complex logical sentences because none can think in such sentences. So their powers of simulation have to be very limited compared to ours. That, at least, is what the latest evidence suggests, but it is likely that animals will again surprise us to the upside.

We have diverged from other animals by virtue of this ‘quantum leap’: our ability to simulate events and circumstances away from the here and now, to communicate what is in our mind, and attempt to emulate what someone else is simulating in their mind based on their words. Past or future events can be simulated, shared, discussed and analyzed, leading to vastly improved cooperation, execution and coexistence. Such advanced teamwork obviously has been of great adaptive and survival value – fitness in our case is determined by how much information is processed, communicated and stored. We have access to a total store of about 200,000 words, the average person has a vocabulary of about 20,000 words, with an upper limit of about 100,000. We all have quite a memory for words, but there are extraordinary individuals, for instance, that can remember every day of their life. There are others that can remember a sequence of about 80,000 random digits. There are yet others that can replay a piece of piano music after hearing it once.

Nevertheless, notwithstanding the unreliabilities already mentioned, conscious thought has a creative ability of coming up with novel situations and ideas, including the ability to imagine, fantasize and speculate without limit or regard for practicality. These are the skills that produce art, literature, music or play-acting for entertainment and enlightenment. There are, also, real strengths inherent in our focused thinking: many individuals are able to intensely concentrate on logic, evidence and innovation, achieving very impressive results in technology, science, mathematics and philosophy. Our greatest creative achievements have been thus inspired, but also some of our worst misadventures. This creativity is the source of our celebrated faculty of  so-called ‘free will’; mind can seemingly go anywhere. A garden of both good and evil is enclosed within the walls of our skull.

The evidence alluded to so far exposes numerous, unsuspected large gaps in our understanding of human and animal consciousness. Interestingly, while human consciousness is rightly elevated on a pedestal, much of what we know is based on studies in animals, including primates, rodents, insects, worms and bacteria. The evidence so far does not support the popular but ancient concept of a specific supra-natural or extraneous human faculty inserting itself into our bodies. All of the vegetative, tropic and reflexive functions, as well as many of their molecular and genetic underpinnings, present in humans, can be found in other animals. Our unique specializations, such as complex language and socio-cultural interactions, are very exceptional indeed but their primordial beginnings can be recognized in other animals. All this correlates very well with our large neocortex, great number of neurons and possibly 100 trillion synapses that are further fine tuned by physiological factors. Therefore, no unbridgeable gap or irreducible mystery appears to exist – our biological equipment seems very much to be up to the task. Our perplexity and confusion is due to the extraordinary nature of our subjective experiences, which had led many to assume a  divine gift. However, it now seems likely that mammals also see, hear and taste like we do. They too have phenomenal consciousness, but, unlike us, they probably just don’t think or talk about it as  much or as clearly as we do. Like many other mysteries, we can not explain phenomenal consciousness yet – it is extraordinarily complex, another ‘miracle’. Evidence based theories are only now beginning to show up.

In summary, consciousness divides the universe of information into two: the little that we are aware of and the rest that we are not. Protagoras had said something similar, “Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not”. Consciousness is a fundamental feature of life, itself having been produced by the dynamic natural processes of a submicroscopic and cosmic Reality. All species have their unique qualities. Our unique human mind appears to be a culmination of the ancient processes of biophysical awareness and phenomenal consciousness. Most of our processing of vast amounts of information still occurs in the biophysical realm without involvement of phenomenal or conscious thought (mind) centers. Everything that we find interesting is addressed in the realm of thought and simulation, and it becomes part of our culture when it is socially shared in words, sounds, images, tastes and artifacts. Our responses to information that we acquire from the environment (culture), however, are usually and mostly managed through automatic and semi-automatic processes residing in biophysical and phenomenal consciousness. Affect, emotions and feelings are central to our humanity, and, unsurprisingly, we understand even less about their role in our personal lives. It appears that conscious thought is very selective in its involvement in day to day operations, monitoring our activities and intruding when necessary. Intense focus and concentration on certain selected tasks are possible.

Human consciousness is, therefore, an extraordinary complex incarnation of biophysical and phenomenological awareness. Still, it is, in theory, potentially explainable by the underlying biological processes. Human behavior now might seem limitless and it had been easy to dismiss less complex organisms as unconscious machines or automatons, as some scientists and philosophers still do. That clearly is a mistake and it appears to be a vestige of prior ignorance. We have been blinded by the infinitely complex and utterly compelling nature of our subjective social and cultural experiences, erroneously concluding that lower animals can not possibly share anything like this with us; mythical narratives have also contributed to this prejudicial attitude. This represents a still very prevalent basic anthropocentric error.

Published 2015. Revised 2018.

Scientistic Perspective on Everything – Epilogue.

Johannes Lubbe Epistemology, Ontology, Scientism , , , ,

PROPOSED: A SCIENTISTIC PERSPECTIVE ON EVERYTHING.
A POSSIBLE BASIS FOR IMPROVED COMMUNICATION IN A WORLD OF CHAOS AND INCOHERENCE.

EPILOGUE.

All things appear connected in a vast, complex, ineffable system constantly in evolution. A dynamic, prebiotic Reality gave rise to forces for survival, life and, ultimately, imaginative exploration beyond the here and now. We now dare to think that we could decide the future.

The complex relationship of our experienced universe and the actual universe is managed by little understood processes of life and consciousness, instantiated in our bodies, or brains, to be more specific. Mankind continues to be befuddled by the dual questions of what to make of ourselves and all that we are confronted with. The clues are most intriguing.

A surprising result of our scientistic project has been that, although there may never be a final answer, many of our past understandings have been incompatible with the evidence.

Another surprise of our study has been that this triune relationship of Reality as it is, the reality of life’s processes and the virtual reality of culture strangely resembles the structure of the Christian God: an all-powerful Father and Creator; the Holy Ghost, giver of life; and a Son struggling with society. The Sumerians, Egyptians, Etruscans, and others all had made reference to magical triads of gods that seemed as one. Emperor Constantine for political reasons tried to unify the Roman church under one creed in the 4th century. The end-result was an official statement on the Holy Trinity. This correspondence is very interesting, its explanation might very well reside in the intuitive recognition of the basic structures of Reality, consciousness and culture. It certainly is fun to think about.

A prime lesson issuing from this personal review of all that I know, believe or suspect is that there is no single foundation, perch or fulcrum from which to view our challenges, or from which to move the world and those in it. Diversities and differences are baked into our biological selves. Intellectually there is also no infallible tool, all-revealing instrument or reliable method to apply. Logic, reason, science and faith/intuition all fail to account for everything. For one, we have inherited so much subconscious knowledge and skill from our distant ancestors. Therefore, if our goal can not be certainty then perhaps we should strive to manage uncertainty, i.e. be aware of its presence in everything we do. At this point we must concede that all knowledge, except perhaps the most basic or simple, is relative and incomplete, representing nothing more than fallible opinions. This probably will never change, but in the meantime, we will and should keep on with our collective explorations, society imperceptibly changing as a result. We might never get there but that arduous and virtuous road might reveal clues to the key that has eluded us thus far.

All foundational religious and creative myths thus far have been proven wrong because they were unable to predict the unfolding of knowledge, and so were contradicted by it. Since the whole is evolving, accounts of the whole must be able to evolve also. There is no escape from this conundrum for anyone, unless the seeker opts for a delusion of absolute knowledge. No secret door leads out of our personal ‘universe’ which is only one of billions of other such personal ‘universes’. Our culture is therefore a multiverse made up of about 8 billion separate but interconnected idioverses. Engagement through honesty, humility, love, caring, diligence and generosity sounds like a good thing.

Older fixed ideas with little supporting evidence riddle all cultures, and with good reason. Such endemic fallacies may have played a very constructive role in a society and may have been supported by most at some point in time. Unfortunately these fossils of the mind often survive beyond their usefulness; foundational ideas are not easily discarded. Replacing these important existential ideas with the latest and greatest liberal thought would be too chaotic. So there are very good reasons for being conservative. It would be such a very good thing, though, if all could learn to be more diligent, open-minded and sympathetic. Engaging in honest and fair discussion would seem the best way to do cultural maintenance. The time honored methods of settling disputes through conflicts are too brutal and destructive.

Some examples of endemic fallacies:

EF1. God is an entity with humanoid features.

Many conservatives are committed to defending and some liberals have dedicated themselves to destroying this obviously fantastical idea. At one time the idea of gods actively intruding in the operations of the world was generally accepted by most. A Wizard of Oz hiding behind some cosmic curtain! There is not one iota in support of such fantasy, but here is the paradox; one cannot disprove this myth either. It is a matter of unsupported opinion and fantasy. HOWEVER, we all are still completely baffled by the world around us. Whether there is a higher pan-cosmic or supra-cosmic intelligence or creative agent is something we can only speculate on, using the rather limited information we are able to access in our region of the universe. The concept of god will continue to evolve as more information is revealed.

EF2. Truth is real and eternal.

Reality, knowledge and culture are in a state of continuous change, but our ancient myth-makers forgot to include that little fact in their story. Obviously, the creators of those myths were ignorant of evolution’s pervasive and powerful presence. Societies and communities, however, depend for their existence, it seems, on the binding power of a grand story. Central to many of these stories is an all-knowing, changeless generator of all things that provides a solid foundation upon which all can confidently build. There may, indeed, be such a Supreme Entity, but only in extreme reaches outside the cosmos, far beyond our most creative imaginations, in speculative regions such that it could have absolutely nothing to do with our mundane lives as we must live them, or with the universe as we continue to find it.

EF3. History follows the actions of a few great men and women (placed there by God for a purpose).

It is convenient to attach a famous name to an important development in history. Yes, a few ‘geniuses’ have done spectacular things and seem to have ‘rewritten history’, but they have all stood on the shoulders of others and reflected the culture of their time. They were completely dependent on the work of predecessors and colleagues. Einstein could not have done what he did had he lived in the 18th century. Conversely, many once great personalities are now almost completely forgotten – probably because they were later proven wrong. The vast floods of real-time information that determine events are lost almost immediately. What survives is a miserably anemic rendition of very complex events. The majority of us know almost no history, and much of what is regarded as history is nothing more than propaganda. The idea that a few great leaders have forged our present is not believable. With trepidation we can now see in real-time the clay feet of the self-anointed great ones when we turn on a 24-hour news channel. Leaders, wielding frightening power, thrash blindly hither and thither. We could even feel sorry for these feckless ones, but we all really need to figure out a more manageable system of government. Communication technology certainly could make democracy a more interactive or distributed proposition, with wider participation. Present systems of governance place such great responsibility in the hands of a limited few that nobody could be expected to fully understand the situation. It is therefore to be expected that in most parts of the world leaders dissemble and deceive in order to stay in power. Is it time that the critically important contribution of the very large majority of human beings be recognized and, indeed, be encouraged? After all, the quality of society is completely dependent on the quality of its members.

EF4. Individual human beings are small, ignorant, weak and dependent.

This is still an almost universal sentiment and fits in very well with the designs of our ‘great’ leaders. The more people are willing to subject themselves to authority the better for the status quo (e.g. the powerful will arrogate more power). Ignored usually is the fact that each genetically, structurally and functionally unique human being represents the most advanced computing system known. Inherent in the great and small person theory is supposedly great differences in abilities and accomplishments. The reality is that we are very different, not necessarily better or worse, from each other at the margins, but in our cores we are probably very similar, possibly identical. This is a fascinating question with more evidentiary information forthcoming. This interplay between our differences and commonalities is at the center of our culture and our struggles. More people are intuitively onto this shell-game and progress in a more enlightened direction could become a reality. It may even be that greater acceptance of diversity is the mark of a more advanced culture. Sociological studies of individualism and cultural complexity seem to suggest this already. Complex societies are wealthier, but there is still much work to do, especially on the egalitarian front.

Investing resources in a global project of research and learning should be surprisingly cost-effective. Improvements in efficiency should far outweigh the costs involved.