Archives for category: Uncategorized

U.S. Election Results Show The Real Divide In America Is Economic $DIA

Intuition is a major driver of our lives. It is the gorilla in the room that philosophers have chosen to ignore since ancient times.

Human beings uniquely gather and share information via narrative. This is what makes our culture. The best stories are told by the ‘smartest’ story tellers. Top guns might even coin an -ism or two. However, I want to sound an alarm: the differences between the best and the brightest and the rest of us are not really that great – it may be more about superficialities or vanities. Some people do have amazing talents, but so do most of the rest. There are many thousands of fields of knowledge each with experts. Frequently there will be outright hostility to other ideas. The stage is often set for conflict rather than learning. A sorely needed new and improved understanding and appreciation of information exchange and learning now seems possible.

If we assume, as I think we should, that the observable universe is a vast interacting complex system of information exchange (when a photon strikes the retina, information is transmitted), then evolution can also be viewed as organisms’ attempts to control and exploit more of this fundamental resource*. The winners, all the ones left thriving today, are the ones able to most effectively use information in its particular niche. It also implies that learning does have a purpose, even as we are now not sure what that purpose is.

[Brute survival, for its own sake, obviously does not seem very interesting to most of us and that is clearly not what we seem to think we should be doing. Perhaps we survive because we are the most efficient at processing information and learning. We understand and control the most information resources. Any purpose to which we should apply ourselves has remained exceedingly contentious.]

This is what every human tries to do when faced with a serious problem and has the luxury of time: define the problem and identify its components; make a theory and gather more data; evaluate the severities, quantities and their interactions; consult with others; finally choose a course of action based on INTUITION. These processes are informal applications of what ‘experts’ classify as PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS. This is the classic theory of decision making. While the intuition part is not paid much attention too, it actually appears to be the most fundamental part of the process. In urgent or emergency situations, intuition is in charge of almost the entire process.

If there is anything everyone can agree upon it’s that clear thinking is much better than muddled thinking. After a rare bout of clear thinking one can feel a sense of accomplishment. Something has been learned: a new perspective. Sometimes this new insight may be accompanied by a strong EMOTION: “It is beautiful, it is lovely.”

The ultimate question is “Which stories are true?” Until very recently, and especially since Descartes, it was generally accepted that clear and distinct thinking, careful and controlled observation, and rigorous logic (i.e. PHILOSOPHY, SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS) would be a reliable strategy to acquire ‘justified true beliefs’. That initial hope has become frustrated. We are more dogged by uncertainty, incompleteness and disagreement than ever. Clear and distinct thinking turns out to be riven by illusions, as amply demonstrated by science – yes, contra Descartes, reality can be deceptive in every imaginable way. Voluminous new information now outstrip our abilities to understand, maths notwithstanding. Integrating it all is impossible. Vast numbers of people live frustrated or cynical lives, or with misdirected goals – at least that is how it seems to others.

PHILOSOPHY is a conversation about any and all important or major issues as they relate to human existence and understanding – subjective values such as meaning and purpose, morality, knowledge; essentially anything deemed worthwhile. Informal or conversational language is the medium in which philosophy operates almost entirely; sometimes professionals in the field will attempt to use more formal technical analysis and terminology, but their findings need to be transposed into common language in order to be evaluated and have societal relevance. The general goal is to understand oneself, others and aspects of reality, and how to deal with these factors in our lives. The style probably reflects the personality and interests of the thinker or talker. The more critically one thinks, the more detail can be brought to the conversation; more formal words are used to define imagined ‘truths’, ‘realities’, ‘structures’, ‘functions’ or ‘relations’ in consciousness and culture, thus increasing the potential for learning and understanding. Language is the mode and the means, the substrate is the subjective, more abstract thought content of consciousness. Cultural and psychological sciences certainly could inform philosophical analysis. The substrate is thus mostly internal and subjective; largely personal. Keywords: critical introspection, rational analysis, conceptualization and communication . Ultimate, largely unstated goal: Order society through persuasion, appealling to a superior formulation in the eyes of the participants through logic, allegory, metaphor, reason and emotion. Role in society: construct a platform of discussion and understanding that enables large groups to participate. There are endless cycles of agreement and disagreement; construction, deconstruction and reconstruction. Limitation: philosophy changes as language changes, and so an endpoint is impossible. Language is not a constant, rather it is the quicksand upon which our culture is built. Furthermore, one may master the rules but the content has grown beyond the abilities of anyone to master.

MATHEMATICS is touted as another subjective means by which some of us can come to a deep understanding of reality and phenomena. Unlike philosophy, it uses a formal, symbolic language of measurements, defined symbols and precise operations. Nothing is guessed at, except perhaps its axioms. It started out quite innocently from normal human activity: counting sheep perhaps, dividing the spoils of the day, or carefully measuring distances and angles. Even today there are apparently still isolated languages that do not count beyond two indicating that maths has been learned and developed through social and cultural interaction leading to the creation of a symbolic language. In fact, ‘primitive’ mathematical procedures are performed by other animals. Primates and infants use the same cortical areas for processing quantities intuitively. Advanced maths have apparently been built upon these ‘primitive’ biological bases over the past 5000 years by utilizing the unique human ability to communicate abstract concepts. Goal: On the one hand, maths is pursued by a small group who have a deep interest in all the quantitative relationships of various axioms because of the deep pleasure involved. Similarities to the appreciation of music has been noted. On the other hand, the virtual insights of pure maths find an almost miraculous application in the correlation and explication of natural phenomena and empirical data, sometimes with great predictive power. Limitation: advanced maths has only peripheral relevance to our quest of understanding the existential challenges that we face personally, with others and in our culture. Maths may have an uncanny ability to describe physical reality, but it has demonstrated no ability to clarify the content of human subjectivity.

SCIENCE has a focus that is fundamentally different from philosophy and maths: in science the problem or subject of interest, the substrate, can be directly or indirectly observed by the community – it is objective or independent of the observer. The source of a scientific problem exists independently of the researcher’s mind, it is a ‘real’ problem, rather than a problem of understanding or imagination per se. In all cases (some mathematicians and philosophers disagree), new observation under different conditions is the ultimate source of improved understanding. Goal: understand any and all parts of the world, including our fellow creatures. By extension this would assist in our understanding of our individual selves, a pursuit which should cross over in to all other human quests, including philosophy: first know thyself! Limitation: scientific knowledge is so spotty and incomplete that it is extremely difficult to apply to our existential issues. Furthermore, the fields of science far outstrip those of philosophy in complexity and number. A few scientists might be authoritative in one or two fields, but most can only master the area of their interest which may be extremely narrow and specialized. A coherent, inclusive overview of all scientific knowledge is not possible**. HOWEVER, science has been the most powerful instigator of change over the millennia, progress is just so frustratingly slow, and difficult. This might be the reason behind why some philosophers suggest that science is not very relevant to progress in human understanding!!

In summary, the major knowledge disciplines have systemic deficiencies that prevent them, even in combination, from being definitive in the answer of any of our difficult questions. It appears that a better understanding of our enormous decision making skills awaits an appreciation of the role of INTUITIONS and FEELINGS in our thinking. We have been aware of their role for millennia, but it has been assumed that our other faculties were so powerful that these ‘primitive’ animal systems could be ignored. Even more difficult are wholly unconscious INNATE processes that affect our thinking without us knowing about it.

*This is an area in which there is fundamental disagreement. Many (Wittgensteinians et al?) believe that only intact human beings are capable of ‘information processing’. Information must be intelligible by a human. The alternative view is that dogs, cats, earthworms, bacteria and viruses process information, even clouds and snowflakes – just at very different levels of complexity.

**I have, nevertheless, given a summary of my understanding at my other site with a Scientistic Perspective on Everything.

In a way it seems that scientists have replaced the priests of old: learned ones appearing out of their mysterious labs explaining findings in a language that only (they and) god can understand fully. Those who do not understand the jargon have a choice: believe or reject. This explains how perfectly reasonable ideas such as evolution are rejected out of hand by many, often religious fundamentalists of various traditions. It actually boils down to a very basic human ‘instinct’ – trust! (There probably is a set of genes for that.) The latest science versus the traditions of our forebears? As a committed scientist, I am very ambivalent toward trust of any kind. Skepticism, on the other hand, does not seem to be a very effective heuristic in the game of survival.

When it comes to scientific communication with the lay community it is of the utmost importance that the highest standards of transparency be applied. Scientists should always disclose their personal agendas in such a manner that the incompleteness of their assessments is always front and center. This almost never happens. Huge errors have occurred that could have been averted by more scientific honesty.

At least, the priests of old were very upfront about their main agenda; their religious theory of everything. It is a lot more difficult to know what the ultimate goal of science is today. It has already been agreed, more or less, that a formal (mathematical) theory of everything is not possible. Thank goodness! The idea of a Bible Mathematical is truly frightening!

Beyond technology, medicine and engineering, science contributes information on every aspect of existence. Psychologically humans have an innate sense of right or wrong that, according to the latest scientific studies, remains essentially the same across all cultures studied. This innate sense must be guided by a unique internal sense of a theory of everything, IMHO. Humans do have opinions on everything, it therefore stands to reason that there are underlying theories of everything.

Are there academic departments that study everything and try to integrate the various disciplines? I think not, but we are now in a place where the extreme excess of information requires some attempt at an holistic approach. In stead, we have a splintering of innumerable disciplines – the famous ivory tower of academia has become a modern day Tower of Babel.

Scientia Salon

fruitflyby John McLaughlin

In both popular culture and the technical literature in biology, the word “genetic” is ubiquitous. Despite its common usage and universal recognition, discussions centered around this concept usually leave its meaning taken for granted. We have the vague sense that it relates to DNA, genes, heredity, and inheritance, but what does it mean precisely to describe a process, trait, disease, or property as “genetic?” Since the completion of the Human Genome Project, a latent hope seems to linger among the general public that genetic causes will be uncovered for the vast majority of human ailments. This hope has been fueled by the often confusing use of biological terminology in the popular media, especially when reporting (often in a sensational manner) on a new study or development in the biomedical sciences [1].

Playing such a central role in modern biology, I believe the concept deserves a thorough and…

View original post 1,944 more words

All of us need to be reminded that while race may not be real, race and racism absolutely exist! Getting it right in our heads is therefore very important. This article by Audrey Smedley provides a wonderful historical perspective on the problem:


This is one of a NPR series under the heading “RACE – The Power of an Illusion”. Understanding the distinction of what is real and what exists would assist greatly when trying to resolve complex cultural issues. My co-worker, Johannes Lubbe, has done a lot of work on this issue.

Latest Headline: DISCOVERY!! Black People are Humans!

The notion that black people are humans is a relatively new discovery in the modern West. The idea of black equality in beauty, culture, and intellectual capacity remains problematic and controversial within prestigious halls of learning and sophisticated intellectual circles. The Afro-American encounter with the modern world has been shaped first and foremost by the doctrine of white supremacy, …”

– Cornel West.

West’s main thesis:

…“I shall argue that the initial structure of modern discourse in the West “secretes” the idea of white supremacy…” It is “a particular logical consequence of the quest for truth and knowledge in the West. To put it crudely, my argument is that the authority of science, undergirded by a modern philosophical discourse guided by Greek ocular metaphors and Cartesian notions, promotes and encourages the activities of observing, comparing, measuring, and ordering the physical characteristics of human bodies.”

In conclusion:

… “The idea of white supremacy is a major bowel unleashed by the structure of modern discourse, a significant secretion generated from the creative fusion of scientific investigation, Cartesian philosophy, and classical aesthetic and cultural norms. Needless to say, the odor of this bowel and the fumes of this secretion continue to pollute the air of our post-modern times.”

– A Genealogy of Modern Racism. Race Critical Theories. Blackwell

Actually, the body of the chapter is a clear, entertaining, even brilliant, survey, from a postmodernist perspective, of a very small part of the cultural events of the enlightenment, from the 17th to early 19th centuries. The ignorance of the Europeans regarding the differences amongst members of Homo sapiens sapiens was almost total, in retrospect, but the consequences have been, and still are, tragic – a true holocaust. My question is, could the outcome have been different? Would it be reasonable to expect now that the Europeans should have, or could have, known better then? West blames the European (white?) interest in knowledge and truth which seems like a complete contradiction. Due to the successes of science we now know and partially understand our similarities and differences down to the level of molecules. The concept of ‘race’ may, in fact, be a fiction, not real! We should rather be talking about ethnic and cultural differences.

Of course, the whole point of Critical Theory, is to understand the world fully in order to change it. With regard to change, it seems that West’s only strategy is to make inflammatory and provocative statements. There is no unifying theory, but, in fairness to West, hidden amongst all the intellectual and rhetorical flourishes, are carefully crafted disclaimers: his genealogical approach “does not purport to be an explanation of the rise of modern racism, but rather a theoretical inquiry into a particular neglected variable, i.e. the discursive factor, within a larger explanatory model.” West, after all, is a public intellectual, i.e. a politician.

But West is correct, we are now living in a ‘post-modernist era’ – in fact, we will always be in a post-yesterday era. We always deal with problems as they exist in the present, whether we want to or not. So, his inquiry into the past does suggest a few clues. But they must be heeded with great caution since it may be even more difficult to make sense of the past than of the present. At least we have a fairly direct view of the here and now, albeit a minute slice. We have no choice, we must consult history and each other, but judiciously!

My small charitable contribution to the conversation on ethnic and cultural differences is to say that there is hope. I am sure we are learning to trust each other, to listen and to disagree, respectfully and peacefully. Angry voices will be heard, ‘non-discursively’ in the street – it is their desperate way of demanding rightful attention. Most importantly, we should try to accelerate the evolutionary changes that are needed. This is probably where I have a philosophic disagreement with Prof. West: a revolutionary way of modeling the problem would be self-destructive. Evolution unaided might be too slow a process, especially since large numbers of Americans still do not even believe that evolution is real.

“You can’t talk about wealth and inequality, you can’t talk about education, you can’t talk about massive unemployment and under employment and you can’t talk about drones being dropped on people in other parts of the world without talking about white supremacy and its ways in which it operates. It doesn’t have to be overt. The president is right about that.

But too many black people are niggerized. I would say the first black president has become the first niggerized black president…. afraid and scared and intimidated when it comes to putting a spotlight on white supremacy and fighting against white supremacy.

… Thank God for Ferguson. Thank God for the young folk of all colors. Thank God for Staten Island and fighting there. Thank God in Baltimore, now the precious folk in Charleston.”

– Cornel West, Professor of Philosophy, Union Theological Seminary and highly visible spokesman equating white supremacy and racism with most of the social evils of this world.

In the days when words had a fairly specific meaning we would have concluded that Cornel West is saying that racist supremacist ideologies of caucasians were directly responsible for our social, moral, spiritual and emotional ills.

Of course, anyone espousing such supremacist views are nowadays dismissed as kooky, but, according to Cornel, this white racist ideology of supremacism is now operating subliminally having been incorporated and institutionalized throughout history, in Western language and behavior. We are surrounded and suffused by institutional evil.

This sounds vaguely reasonable and fits in with the utterly modern fad of talking in circles: postmodernism and posthumanism. Narrative and history is dead; the only reason to study these is to identify and then reject the tenets of their source, the enlightenment. Unfortunately, like all revolutionary movements, there is rarely a clear idea of what the future will bring. Destruction of the present order (of injustice, inequality, oppression, exploitation or immorality) is the one unifying goal, what to do after will be figured out later.

Cornel West’s attempt at being politically relevant highlights the problem. The personal insights of one man, no matter how deeply felt, are just that – even if religiously inspired. One man’s opinion, by necessity, will be profoundly incomplete and, therefore, inevitably flawed. Invoking white racism ignores the fact that racism is universal. The real ‘problem’ is the perception of ‘white’ power, but that seems to be waning as democracy haltingly spreads around the globe. Victimhood is a far more interesting political story.

There very clearly is a serious demarcation problem when it comes to our ability to understand reality and existential matters. Nature itself has no such difficulties. Reality, life and culture is a seamless functional unit, albeit quite chaotic most of the time. Our challenge is to deal with the various mysteries

Science, and related strategies, already informs all aspects of human existence – including such unlikely matters as love, beauty, truth and reason. We can, of course debate this ad infinitum, but a human feature that is completely beyond scientific clarification has not been and will not be established, IMHO. However, controlled research has never provided a complete description of anything either. There will always be scientific and/or metaphysical questions remaining after examining a stone or the simplest gizmo.

There are some who believe that physics could explain everything but it seems, in my experience, that they are usually mistaken or ignorant of the complexities. Michio Kaku might be an example. However, their probably futile efforts will surely teach us much.

It is the interface between physics and metaphysics that has repeatedly been focused on at Scientia Salon. These are certainly exciting times for all concerned. The operation, structure and demarcation of that interface is still essentially unknown, but we are now beginning to realize that the volumes of data being handled are truly ineffable.

Even religious thoughts and feelings would be understandable, given the challenges.

Scientia Salon

6a00e554e8195d883301a73d8ae293970dby Paul So

Sam Harris is known for many things, from being one of the leading figures of the New Atheist movement to a controversial critic of Islam. he is also known for arguing that science can provide answers to questions regarding morality [1]. For him, morality is within the domain of science.

How is this possible, exactly? After all, science deals with facts, not values. Harris proposes that the term science is far more inclusive than we normally understand. There is no fundamental distinction, for instance, between a scientist working in a laboratory and a plumber identifying problems in a plumbing system. The distinction between them is merely conventional, because what really counts is that doing science means using reason and observation. As long as a given domain can be the subject of reasoned inquiry and observation, it belongs to the broader domain of science.

Here is how Harris…

View original post 1,585 more words