Reality

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 – 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 – 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.

Appearance, Reality & Science, or Illusion, Delusion & DNA.

Johannes Lubbe Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , ,

An Introduction.

Things and events are not always what they appear to be and it seems that humanity often forgets that lesson. In the early 1500’s, in the so-called early modern period, Copernicus confirmed that the observable facts were inconsistent with the doctrine that earth was at the center of the universe, thus ending Ptolemy’s illusory system of cycles and epicycles. A few decades later, in 1624, William Harvey demonstrated that the delusional dogmas of Galen were also wrong: no, blood did not originate in the liver and pass directly to the left side of the heart where it would mix with air! Fourteen centuries of settled science thus quickly came to an end. Ptolemy and Galen had been second century contemporaries and it is remarkable that their mistaken ideas had survived for so long. The vast majority of humanity ‘blindly’ went along, and the entrenched powers could be jealous, wrathful and lethal. Giordano Bruno died at the stake in Rome in 1600 for his inspired speculations about many suns and multiple inhabited worlds! Even in our modern times punishments for similar ‘crimes of the mind’ still occur, sometimes on a vast scale in convulsions of ‘mass psychosis’. Erroneous ideas are stubborn and will endure unless searched for, confronted and corrected. Harvey was very clear, “I profess to learn and teach anatomy not from books but from dissections, not from the tenets of Philosophers but from the fabric of Nature.” There is power, and danger, in independent curiosity and discovery.

* * * *

Nowadays the search and discovery of new knowledge is prolific and discussions about it can be downright chaotic, even nasty! Stephen Hawking recently said that philosophy was dead because it had not kept up with modern developments. Indeed, developments are so rapid that nobody can keep up, even within their own fields of study. However, philosophy also has its internal problems. Noam Chomsky recently observed that statements of Slavoj Zizek were gibberish and went on “If there are such theories, I am happy to see them. I don’t find them when I read Paris Post-Modernist talk. What I see is intellectuals interacting with one another in ways which are incomprehensible to the public and, to be frank, incomprehensible to me.” Even great intellects can get confused.

Could it be that these deep thinkers have been so immersed in deep thoughts that they themselves might not have kept up with some important developments in the mundane world of human sciences? They probably think such ‘soft’ sciences can not have relevance to fundamental questions regarding truth, reality and the cosmic universe. Despite the Socratic injunction to “first know thyself”, these philosophers and physicists blindly forge ahead without regard to fundamental aspects of human beings, aspects that could explain their and our universal difficulties with communication, and with the nature of knowledge itself.

We must first know ourselves, and here are some very basic facts to start with.

We are unable to detect the outside world without our sense organs, all of which connect electronically to the brain. For example, the pleasant conscious experience of a great meal with friends is mediated entirely through our meager senses and is wholly constructed in the brain with lavish care, most (!) of the details added from within us. Food interacts with chemical receptors in mouth and nose. Sounds of talk and music are picked up by mechanical receptors in the inner ear. At the same time, an almost real time video of the activities is captured by a system that is activated when photons of electromagnetic radiation hit cone cells in the retina. Vast numbers of sensors are also arrayed in and under the skin. Imagine snuggling with a loved one next to a warm fire. Even a life changing experience, such as reading a book, listening to a lecture or seeing a performance, begins as electrochemical signals first incited by sensory structures and then spread throughout the nervous system, where circa hundred billion neurons and trillions of synapses play their part. Our subjective conscious experiences, created by this vast symphony of electricity and chemistry, sometimes propel our infinite imaginations far beyond the surly bonds of this earth.

Consciousness is a great mystery. Functional MRI can highlight active centers of the brain engaged in a particular task. Still, we cannot measure or interpret the billions of little electrical nerve impulses as they continuously run up and down the nervous system, all the while releasing tiny bits of neurotransmitters at synapses. This vast and constant flow of potential differences and outpouring of chemicals is the basis of consciousness. This is too much for many philosophers to accept, bringing them to imagine spirits or other ill-defined forces. If such ill-defined forces are ever found, they will soon become defined forces. Such is the nature of progress.

What could be the most remarkable aspect of consciousness is its substrate. It is based on relatively simple electrical pulses, originating from all over the body, that do not contain any information per se about the initial cause of the pulse, be it radiation, chemical or mechanical. The only information associated with a nerve impulse is its frequency and the exact location of its origin. The brain then constructs in sumptuous detail a surreal representation of the external universe out of non-specific nerve impulses arising from receptor cells. When we intensely listen to a lecture or admire a beautiful scene in nature, the entire experience is recreated in the brain from non-descript electrical impulses arriving from our ears or eyes and interacting with memories of past bodily experiences. Obviously, our lifelong memory bank of sounds, images and tastes was also thus created from sensory electrical signals, and their recall combined with real time inputs generate a new set of conscious signals. The complexity of this is cosmic.

Our entire awareness of the external world, ‘real’ or imagined or both, in its infinite variety, present and past, has been synthesized in our lonely brain from ‘simple’ electrical signals originating from our genetically determined sensors. This does not mean that our awareness is a straightforward calculation based on current inputs from the senses. Far from it. All the subjective experiences of color, shape, smell, taste, heat, cold, pain or pleasure, so-called qualia, are not features of the outside world. Rather, they are created in the brain in  response to relatively ‘simple’ stimuli. But there is so much more: our physical and emotional state, our past experiences in life, our education and culture. All these, and probably more, have prepared us for the present moment and an anticipated future. Consciousness is a dynamic state in continuous flux.

This now appears to be a central and universal fact about us: we are all locked in by our sensory systems – and are utterly dependent on them for information on the outside world! Our hundreds of millions of external receptor cells provide us with our only contact but, unfortunately, they also prevent us from directly knowing anything that can not enter through their portals. We are totally dependent on and constrained by our genetically determined receptors. Through them we have experienced, learned, have been taught and, yes, have been indoctrinated. We have learned skills through observation. We have seen ourselves reflected in a mirror. In short, all of our knowledge of the external universe has come to us via our personal set of external receptors. We can either experience the universe personally, or receive communications about it from others, or gain information via experimentation. However, all that we know of becomes known by first being processed in the nervous system via a mixture of generic chemical and electrical intermediaries.

The color of burgundy, the smell of honeysuckle, the hum of bumblebees, the taste of sugar and the pain of a wasp’s sting are all artifacts of consciousness. These familiar sensations do not represent direct properties of their causes but are specific artifacts created by the brain that are then recognized in consciousness, talked about and recalled from memory. To see the sky as blue is an ‘illusion’ that most of us experience and agree on. To believe that the sky is actually blue is a ‘delusion’. Clearly, the natural world we inhabit is filled with these normal ‘illusions’ and ‘delusions’. (These should, however, not be confused with hallucinations which are their pathological counterparts.)

Our sensations are the building blocks of a vast and unique personal library that automatically provides us with the appropriate references from moment to moment. Every person obviously will have a private set of experiences, different from everyone else, sometimes markedly so,. This helps somewhat to explain the difficulties humans have in communication and coming to a common understanding on any subject. Most ideas have their supporters and detractors because, as they say, the Devil is in the details. Just as problematic is the fact that during a lifetime everyone is limited to sampling only a minute fraction of all the available information, no matter the scope of their curiosity. Hence, each of us pretty much has their own set of experiences, facts, confusions, suspicions, illusions, delusions and prejudices. Therefore, one should, at the very least, be very careful, even skeptical, when one thinks one has a full understanding of anything or anyone, especially oneself. Even simple rules of logic are interpreted with subtle differences by different individuals. Each person is enclosed in the bubble of their own ‘reality’ and is privy to what is ‘really’ going on only in their private bubble universe. No one knows what is really going on in a neighbor’s universe.

Speaking of devilish details, our private universes are different for an additional common reason. Recently, i.e. over the last half century or so, we have learned of the existence of surprising variations in how our sense organs are constituted. These gatekeepers to our external world are unpredictably different in function and structure from person to person. No one would be aware that these variations exist, except in the most dramatic cases. Severe color blindness is obvious to most, but more subtle forms are often only picked up on special testing and afflict up to 8% of males. How would I know, if I were so afflicted, that the color blue looks different to me than what it would to another person? Even among ‘normal’ individuals the ratios of the three different color receptor cells (cones) in the retina can vary sixteen fold! Clearly the pattern of signals being sent to the brain from eyes at the opposite ends of the range of cone densities would be very different for a given light source.

Similarly, common inherited genetic variations in our ability to taste certain chemicals are also well documented. About 30% of us are completely unable to taste PTC, the rest being divided between those that are ordinary tasters and ‘supertasters’.

Our brains also appear to be subject to the same kinds of structural and functional variations as our sense organs are. Brain weights are genetically determined for the most part, and range more than 30% from largest to smallest. As the brain matures during the first 20 years of life, it is physically molded by events. Patterns of stimulus and reaction determine the final shape of the brain and of the pathways within it. This plasticity of the brain is so great that non-genetic developmental factors are largely responsible for the size and shape of folds, so-called convolutions, on the surface of the cerebral cortex. So, as the brain grows it appears to be moulded by its environment, apparently in anticipation of similar things to come – similar to a muscle that gets bigger and stronger with work. Finally, in cases of severe sensory deprivation and social neglect in otherwise healthy infants, profound and permanent reduction in brain weight with severe effects on structure and function have been documented. Often these babies grow up to be permanently handicapped, emotionally and intellectually, despite efforts to compensate for their early abuse.

The evidence is very persuasive. Each of us, independently and alone, occupies a real but unique corner of the universe. Everything in our private universe has been acquired and appropriated through our sense organs and brain. Every and each adult represents a different and unique combination of sensors and brain, and is subjected to a unique set of experiences. We can look at a picture together, we can share our thoughts about it, but we cannot directly share our conscious experience of looking at it. My and your realities seem to be absolutely amazing, but private, different and unique.

“What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!”

If only Shakespeare had known what we know now. The amount of information that one mind processes during one lifetime is truly amazing. Yet it still represents only a minute fraction of the immense theoretical total that exists in the whole of human culture. Concepts from atom to cosmos, feelings from depression to exultation, or plans for love or war, all exist entirely and only in brains, one at a time – hence a clear need for everyone to cooperate and do their best.

Biological differences, therefore, amongst us humans appear greater than previously thought with significant internal differences of structure and function. But before we plunge into a downward spiral of despair over loneliness and isolation, as some have, there is another side that must be acknowledged. It is a feature of humans that we are genetically programmed to be social, to interact and care. This force of attraction obviously is much more powerful than any repulsion we might experience due to all of our grave social ills and misunderstandings. However, we are certain to be more effective in our personal interactions by first understanding ourselves better and then learning about the many surprising, even necessary, ways in which other human beings can be different. Differences of opinion and attitude are more likely due to structural and functional variations, rather than stupidity, ignorance, envy, hatefulness, dishonesty or bad faith – but one never knows exactly what is going on in another brain/body. Local cultures are also quite diverse and so the challenge for a world with better understanding and cooperation is really a challenge to each one of us, individually. Entrenched dogmas have been amazingly resistant to change.

What advice would physicians and biologists have for dueling mathematicians, physicists, philosophers and spiritual leaders? Be cautious, cast your net as widely as you can, and seek clarification, precision and accuracy through application of different disciplines. Knowledge will always be incomplete for two reasons; there is too much for any one brain to absorb, and no two brains will ever agree on everything. It is relatively easy to see the errors of others, but our own personal blind spots are a fundamental problem at least as damaging. As suggested, these blind spots could have their origin in our genes, our childhood development and our culture. We cannot know the truth about all of reality unless we accomplish the impossible which is to know everything about everything, AND are not contaminated by error. We will have to be satisfied with partial knowledge and be very careful about even that.

Exploring the black hole at the center of our galaxy might represent something closer to reality for some, but most of us must deal with the shifting faces of reality, every day, along with almost 8 billion other people, all trying to survive and presumably to do the right thing. Even as the dominant players in the biosphere, humans still have to struggle with a million things. Often our difficult struggles are seared with suffering and loss, but most of us are rewarded with moments of ecstasy and joy.

Our human reality now appears to come down to this: we are propelled by DNA which, in its human incarnation, has the ability to perceive itself in action and talk about it, a phenomenon that we call individual human consciousness. Consciousness may or may not be present in all forms of life, but we are the only species that have been able to write about it. Our DNA binds us together in families and communities, creating a world wide culture in the process. In fact, the only form of direct information exchange between humans occurs at fertilization when readable strings of DNA combine to form a new, utterly unique and precise text, a recipe for another person.

* * * *

So, what is ‘real’? There is the noisy, indirect and imprecise realm of daily conscious interaction as practiced via our senses. Or there is the precise, silent imperative of our unique personal DNA that directs chemical reactions, builds complex proteins and intra-cellular structures, forges specialized cells, and through it all coordinates a miraculous human ‘machine’ – what a piece of work is a man! The answer is that all is real, including our innocent illusions, delusions and mysteries, our triumphs and failures, our lies and our corruptions. What a piece of work!

Here are some speculations about us and reality as new science continues to be uncovered:

‘Reality is anthropocentric.’ The center of the physical ‘cosmic universe’ is unknowable, but, for the time being, in a counter-Copernican way, the center of the ‘real universe’ has moved back to earth and, more specifically, into the bodies of each one of us. The single human being at the center of reality is a variable and ill-defined entity. Nevertheless, that single, independent enigmatic individual is at the center of society, reality and culture, and is the only processor of stimuli into consciousness and human information. It might take a village to raise a child, and we might learn an incredible amount from our parents, teachers, mentors and friends (and from reading books!) but individuals are the only players in the game of knowledge. Each of us after birth must reconstitute in our brains our culture anew, blend it with the whole as best as we can, and pass it on to our heirs. We owe it to the children to do our best.

All philosophy will be recognized as incomplete; all past, present and future philosophy as formulated by any one person, no matter how prodigious,. We can also include mathematics and physics under this limitation where there has been much talk of Incompleteness Theorems, Uncertainty Principles, and Multiple Universe Interpretations of quantum mechanics.

The classic ideas inherited from philosophers, both ancient and modern, will need to be revised and reformulated. These old concepts on the whole are now more of a hindrance than a help, although they do represent a very valuable lesson in history. Our predecessors just knew too little, and much of what they thought they knew was plainly wrong. Philosophy in the total abstract, if it exists, is delusional and should not be relied upon. Disembodied thoughts do not exist.

There is no fundamental need to postulate an esoteric, immaterial spiritual element unique to human beings. The more we learn about the human body the more awed and humbled we are by its complexity. One could speculate that we are ultimately unknowable but that should not deter us. If we put our minds to it, there is much that we can and should learn in order to improve our culture.

Culture is the aggregate of all that is said and done at a particular moment in time. The quality of a culture depends on the quality of the active intellects actively contributing to it. Culture can change rapidly from generation to generation, and is very uneven from person to person and community to community. Culture is an abstract concept and only becomes real when it is present in someone’s consciousness. A forgotten text is lost from the culture, unless it is rediscovered and read again. To be transported by a masterpiece of music requires genius, both from the composer and the listener.

There will be a more complex and nuanced understanding of ourselves and our fellow travelers. The marvelous complexity of each individual stands in stark contrast to his or her severe limitations. There will be greater sympathy and greater respect for the human condition. It appears that we are more different one from the other than usually realized, yet also more profoundly alike.

Religious revelation probably occurs when the chemical and electrical configuration of the brain is suddenly realigned because of an unusual intellectual, emotional and constitutional climactic event.

Human knowledge will obviously become more accurate as it is based on better information. New discoveries will continue to surprise us, reaffirming science as our most powerful source of reliable information. However, philosophy should try to keep up because speculation about human nature is too important to leave to scientists, or any other group. It is the duty of everyone to do their best.

Political discourse should not be allowed continue to be largely uninformative and misleading. But perhaps it will be less so with greater appreciation of the important necessity of independent thinking and the critical role of the individual.

Stay tuned.