I've been reading "The Uninhabitable Earth" by David Wallace Wells. What is even more shocking/disturbing than the book is the fact that it was written in 2017, and all we have been able to do as a species is accelerate the path toward a mass extinction event. We in the age of the last generations. Mike and I made the decision not to reproduce, and I hope others join us. Voluntary abstinence from reproduction might be able to do what international accords cannot. It sounds extreme, I know, but we have pushed the planet beyond its limit to support life within the boundaries that the global population requires. So many smart people I speak to are engaging in magical thinking — that AI or a Chinese nuclear program will somehow make up for our individual abdication of responsibility. In the meantime, they continue to talk about the children or grandchildren they are looking forward to rearing. Good actors/bad actors -- it all becomes irrelevant as the global average of CO2 continues to climb. Our lives are too comfortable to change. Right now the question, I think, is how quickly the effects of climate change can destabilize society enough to promote severe and drastic change in emissions versus how much damage we will do to the atmosphere before that happens.
Thanks for this additional comment. Every human being has to live in the subjective reality she or he creates. Focusing on our civilization’s current wholesale destruction of life sustaining habitat is certainly a reasonable position.
My own view is that in the near-term civilization can survive the consequences of the environmental damage it is inflicting. The onslaught of this damage is now underway and will inevitably escalate. But if our current semblance of world governance can hold together, civilization can survive, even if millions of us perish in the process.
What civilization can’t survive, in my opinion, is, in the age of nuclear weapons, autocracy becoming the dominate form of government. The reason I think this has to do with my view of the inherent properties of the human psyche. Granted, we currently have only sketchy evidence that this is so, but enough, I think, to give immediate priority to addressing this threat over our environmental crisis.
The two crises are intertwined. If the environmental crisis continues unabated, autocracy will become the dominate form of governance around the world.[1] My current assessment is that in the next two decades major democracies may revert to autocracies, and given the current environmental destruction, the autocracies will then hold sway until we really do ourselves in with nuclear weapons.
“So many smart people I speak to are engaging in magical thinking — that AI or a Chinese nuclear program will somehow make up for our individual abdication of responsibility.”
Certainly, individual responsibility is important, but more powerful forces are at play. The way in which this civilization is currently constructed makes environmental damage inevitable. It seems to me that very few “smart people” realize the extent of our systemic crises. Except for a few perceptive people, everyone is just going about business as usual and expecting that eventually the ship will right itself and all will be well.
“how quickly the effects of climate change can destabilize society enough to promote severe and drastic change in emissions”
Climate change is only one of the factors destabilizing our civilization. Certainly, if millions die and infrastructure collapses, emissions will drop. If that happens democracies will also die, and eventually a mad autocrat will use nuclear weapons
Note
[1] Again, I base this assertion on my understanding of the human psyche.
why do you think its axiomatic that the origin of consciousness is physical, when science has traced the origin of consciousness back to microtubules in the brain that interact with quantum fluxuations on the brain (let's remember the quantum fluxuations have been almost completely proven to be nondeterministic, eg not the result of the physical universe only). Isn't that in essence a circular reasoning fallacy where you're assuming consciousness has a physical origin in order to prove that it has one?
Hi Garett. Thanks for the comment. It seems to me that there is no way anyone can keep up with the new scientific propositions that now pour in daily. I fed your assertion about the origin of consciousness to ChatGPT-3.5. Here’s its reply:
The statement you've mentioned is often associated with a hypothesis known as "orchestrated objective reduction" (Orch-OR), proposed by physicist Sir Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. According to this hypothesis, consciousness arises from quantum processes occurring within microtubules, which are structural components of cells found in the brain. These quantum processes are thought to interact with fluctuations in spacetime geometry.
However, it's important to note that the Orch-OR hypothesis is quite controversial within the scientific community. While it's true that quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory that governs the behavior of particles at the smallest scales, applying quantum effects to explain complex phenomena like consciousness remains an open and debated question. The majority of neuroscientists and physicists lean towards more conventional explanations for the origins of consciousness that involve neural networks and brain activity.
The Orch-OR hypothesis lacks robust empirical evidence and faces several challenges, including maintaining quantum coherence in biological systems at the necessary scales and temperatures, as well as the potential role of decoherence in preventing quantum effects from significantly impacting macroscopic phenomena.
As of my last update in September 2021, there hasn't been any definitive experimental evidence to support the Orch-OR hypothesis. Most research on consciousness is focused on understanding the relationship between brain activity, neural networks, and subjective experiences without necessarily relying on quantum effects.
If there have been any new developments or studies since my last update, I recommend searching for peer-reviewed articles and academic publications to get the most up-to-date and accurate information on this topic.
However, it’s my amateur opinion that when and if science can construct a convincing model of how physical processes create our subjective experience, quantum mechanics will play a leading role. [Quantum mechanics is not about physical reality?]
What I said about the origin of consciousness: “My position is that both of these [thoughts and feelings] are also emanations of physical activity in a person’s brain” leaves open the possibility that the Orch-OR hypothesis is correct. I think we need to be careful about attributing a high degree of certainty to early “scientific” hypotheses.
My axiom here is not about consciousness, rather it asserts a philosophical position: that there is a single “out-there” reality. Various philosophers have argued other positions. Hence, I don’t see a circular reasoning fallacy. Am I missing something?
Orch-OR is a hypothesis, but I actually have an a priori argument that explains that A) we have a metaphysical spirit and that B) the spirits way of impacting the brain is most likely through those microtubules, based on the latest research available. This actually explains consciousness in a way nobody can today, which also resonates with our intuition about having a sense of self. You should probably focus on my essay on free will to better understand that argument. I forget exactly which assertion you're referring to, but it likely at least includes my own and possibly some references to Orch-OR, or chatGPT just thought what I wrote most closely aligns with what they came up with. Most likely the latter.
I'm basing my opinions on my own arguments more than I am on Orch-OR, it just happens that Orch-OR happens to completement my own arguments in a way that conveniently explains how consciousness operates from spirit to action in a way that isn't understood by scientists today, so I refer to Orch-OR because it hangs together nicely with my own hypothesis. I do recognize I may be wrong, and they may be wrong, but no lives will be lost if that's the case. For now I believe what I have the most evidence to believe, which is that I (and they) are right. If new evidence or logic is presented showing otherwise, I'll just change my opinion and be right about the new perspective. I have no ego about being right, I just want to seek the truth and share what I think I know with others in the mutual pursuit of truth.
If your assertion is that there's one objective reality out there, I'd agree with that and I agree with you many philosophers aren't on the same page as us.
You said though: "What I said about the origin of consciousness: “My position is that both of these [thoughts and feelings] are also emanations of physical activity in a person’s brain” leaves open the possibility that the Orch-OR hypothesis is correct" This seems to be a separate assertion, which is that the origin of consciousness can be explained deterministically by physical activity in the brain. My understanding as I've written in the essay on determinism is that quantum fluxuations can't be explained deterministically unless superdeterminism is the correct model - which would mean that the physical activity in the brain can't be what's causing the quantum fluxuations in Orch-OR, since they are within the distance of engangled particles. That's what I tried to explain in the essay on determinism using Bell's inequality.
If there's some way that you think Orch-OR can be accurate plus consciousness's origin is deterministically determined from the physical properties of the brain, can you explain how that can be possible given what I explained about Bell's inequality in the essay? It may be worth talking by voice about this sometime, I feel like its a bit unwieldy via email. Are you on the discord server? If so what's your name? I can call you when I have time to chat to discuss.
Thanks for responding and for taking the time to read my essay on determinism. Both are much appreciated.
“I forgot exactly which assertion you’re referring to”
Your assertion (paraphrased): the origin of consciousness is the microtubules in the brain.”
My comment: apparently, the general scientific consensus is that this as yet unproven.
“(A) we have a metaphysical spirit and that
(B) the spirits way of impacting the brain is most likely through those microtubules”
For me, a metaphysical entity would be one that is outside of physical reality so it cannot be observed/measured in any way. It is just hypothesized to exist with certain properties. Such an approach can be useful in that it can lead to making observations that otherwise might not be considered. In the end, however, I think that it is preferable to be able to have models that do not rest on metaphysical assumptions.
You seem to be saying that quantum fluctuations are not part of physical reality because they are not well explained deterministically. This appears to me to be different from the mainstream science view that accepts quantum mechanics as a legitimate explanation of physical phenomena.
Thanks for your comments. I’ll have to study what you say about Bell’s inequality before I make any further replies.
Reducing the human population, ideally through reproductive choice, is probably the most important single thing we can do to at least ameliorate the climate catastrophe and related (plastics, pharmaceuticals, you name it) environmental collapse.
Optimistically, population reduction along with sustainable development could over the next 50 years or so help us climb out of the hole we've dug. At least we wouldn't be digging it deeper.
Perhaps there is a historical precedent: some believe that the prevalent Native American regard for sustainable living (I know I'm treading the reductionist line for the hundreds of Tribes that once populated North America) was a response to the massive loss of megafauna -- elephants, horses, giant sloths, etc -- that populated Pleistocene N America but that were (probably) hunted to extinction by the human newcomers 20,000 or so years ago.
I'm interested in how language and experience alter and create conciousness/perception. I don't think the Sapir-Whorff hypothesis is absolute, but I do believe and have experienced ways in which learning new words and concepts gives rise to new forms of conciousness and perception. For example, as a young person I read the Ehrlichs' book on human population growth and it changed how I thought about and perceived people and cultures that had more or fewer children. As one trained in Western science and technology, I do seek empirical confirmation for words and concepts.
For lack of something better, I assume other readers won’t know much more than I, so I use ChatGPT-3.5 to shed a little light on references that I draw a blank on:
Rspns: The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, also known as linguistic relativity, is a theory that suggests that the structure of a language can shape and influence the way its speakers perceive and think about the world. The hypothesis is named after its proponents, linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf. It comes in two forms: strong and weak linguistic relativity.
1. Strong Linguistic Relativity: This version posits that the structure of a language determines and constrains the thoughts and perceptions of its speakers. In other words, different languages might lead to fundamentally different cognitive processes and worldviews.
2. Weak Linguistic Relativity: This version acknowledges that language can influence thought and perception, but it doesn't go as far as claiming that language determines these aspects entirely. Instead, it suggests that language can shape the way people think to some degree.
…
In summary, while the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has generated intriguing ideas about the relationship between language and thought, its strong version has faced challenges in terms of empirical evidence and its ability to account for the complexities of cognitive processes across different languages and cultures. The weak version of the hypothesis, which posits that language can influence thought to some extent, is generally more tenable. However, the interaction between language and thought is likely bidirectional and shaped by a multitude of factors beyond just language structure.
Apparently, there’s not much support for the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. But the weak form appears to be true. ChatGPT had another apropos comment:
Language and Thought Interaction: While language may influence thought, the relationship is likely more dynamic and interactive than deterministic. Language can influence the salience of certain concepts, but thought processes can also shape language use.
It seems to me that if we look at how cultures get created and transmitted it’s obvious that words and concepts give rise to forms of consciousness and perception. I’m thinking especially of our current book club book, “Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes”, by Daniel Everett.
For me, the point you bring up emphasizes the importance of early education. I believe that some fundamental changes in early education are essential if civilization is to survive.
It is true that each of us have our own umwelt and the difference between the human umwelt and that of different species that co-inhabit the planet with us is even greater. I'm really enjoying Ed Yong's book "An Immense World." https://www.amazon.com/Immense-World-Animal-Senses-Reveal/dp/0593133234.
My question: aside from the fact that the writer and readers are human, is there any reason why human civilization should survive? We've contributed to the extinction of other species and are currently threatening about 1 million plant and animal species (citation below) We wantonly pollute our environment and recklessly consume the lion's share of shared resources that are necessarily for the survival of all species and future generations.
Even as a person who is conscious of the actions I take every day that contribute to the obscenity that is ordinary human existence – every plastic container I open and use, every unnecessary electric light and appliance, every toxic cleaning or medical product or medical product I use is a big fuck you not only to my fellow humans but to all other species, I do not change. Yes, I make small adjustments that prevent me from living in total cognitive dissonance, but these do not add up to responsible stewardship.
If I were reading a science fiction story about a relatively intelligent and conscious species that evolved into an apex predator on its home plant despite being physically inferior in some way to almost all other species, I would root for the intelligent and conscious species up until the point that it assumed control and began destroying everything in its path. At that point I would only want to continue reading if there was a glimmer of hope that a new savior species would emerge.
Other citizen philosophers can probably come up with rational arguments. I can’t. My emotional attachment to the survival and ongoing advancement of human civilization is strictly chauvinistic. I’m a home team fan.
The way I see it, the universe in its myriad unconscious processes has brought forth life, and then humans on this apparently rare planet. Yeah, we’ve definitely made a mess of some things, but on the whole, we’ve done reasonably well with our haphazardly evolved brain-minds. Some of us rail against our shortcomings, but what should we compare ourselves to? We’ve been searching for decades, but we’ve yet to find any other life-forms as weird as ours.
Your angst speaks to why I think there’s a good possibility that we’ll murder civilization in the next seventy years. I’m curating this blog as my feeble contribution for a wake-up call. It probably won’t make any difference, but making this attempt matters to me.
My guess is that the chances that a “new savior species” will emerge are quantumly close to zero. But there are other possibilities. See “We’re About to Meet Other Intelligent Beings. We’re Going to Create Them” at the Facebook site “A Frank Ackerman”.
Following biological and ecological forces that the universe put into play, humans have in just twelve millennia created a toxic world. But soon they will have machines that not only can make sense out of the tangled mountain range of data that semi-describes what they done, but, in contrast to their creators, can be counted on to rationally develop strategies that can move civilization to firmer, and hopefully more humane ground. Meanwhile, there’s a lot of stuff that as both individuals and groups we can do to buy time.
It seems to me that you are angry about how human civilization is treating the ecosphere that is the life blood of all of Earth’s life-forms. This is good. Evolution has balanced our ability to reason with neural mechanisms that mandate action. But this can also be bad in that it can impede your ability to see some of the aspects of objective reality that are crucial to forming effective policies and taking effective action.
The way I see it is that humanity’s present precarious state has, by and large, been driven by salutary desires to live more comfortable, more creative, lives. Yes, there are bad actors that are doing their all to capitalize on our predicament to aggrandize themselves, but they too are driven by natural forces. They are not aware that they, or theirs, will also perish in the alternate reality they are attempting to create.
Hi Pat, thanks for your comments. I hope you are inclined to occasionally comment on the discussions here.
For me (8/20/23) ChatGPT-3.5 summarize Sebeok’s umwelt and innenwelt thus:
Umwelt: The term "umwelt" refers to the unique, subjective world of perception and experience that an individual organism possesses. Sebeok emphasized that different species perceive and interpret their surroundings differently, creating distinct umwelten. This concept highlights the idea that each organism's perception of the world is shaped by its sensory apparatus, cognitive abilities, and evolutionary history. Sebeok expanded upon Uexküll's work, exploring how various species engage with their environment through signs and symbols.
Innenwelt: Sebeok introduced the complementary concept of "innenwelt," which translates to "inner world." This term encompasses an organism's mental and cognitive processes that contribute to its perception and interpretation of its environment. Innenwelt involves the internal mental representations, meanings, and interpretations that shape an organism's interaction with its umwelt. It is the realm of an individual's consciousness and the cognitive processes that guide its behavior and responses to external stimuli.
From these two comments, I wasn’t clear about Sebeok’s distinction between umwelt and innenwelt, so I asked: Can you say more about how Sebeok differentiates between umwelt and innenwelt?. ChatGPT replied:
Umwelt (Outer World):
• Umwelt refers to the external world as perceived and experienced by an individual organism. It encompasses the sensory inputs and interactions an organism has with its environment.
• Sebeok, building upon Jakob von Uexküll's work, emphasizes that different species possess unique sensory apparatuses and cognitive abilities, leading to different perceptual experiences of the same environment.
• Each species has its own umwelt, shaped by factors such as sensory modalities (e.g., vision, hearing, touch), ecological niche, and evolutionary history.
• The umwelt is the world of signs and signals that organisms use to interpret and respond to their surroundings. It involves the semiotic interactions between organisms and their environment.
Innenwelt (Inner World):
• Innenwelt refers to the internal cognitive processes, mental representations, and meanings that contribute to an organism's perception and interpretation of its umwelt.
• It encompasses an individual's consciousness, thoughts, beliefs, memories, and emotions. Innenwelt is the cognitive realm that influences how an organism processes and responds to the stimuli from its umwelt.
• Innenwelt is the source of meaning-making and interpretation. It involves the semiotic processes that occur within an organism's mind, as it assigns significance and constructs mental representations of its external experiences.
• Sebeok's exploration of innenwelt delves into how these internal cognitive processes are integral to an organism's ability to navigate its umwelt effectively and adapt to changing environmental conditions.
I’m still not clear. From objective evidence it appears that from electrochemical signals created by our sense organs in response to various stimuli, we experience sight and other senses. From ChatGPT’s exegesis I take it that just this much constitutes a being’s umwelt. Further, humans (and apparently some other animals) invent words, symbols, and other stuff as part of their cognitive processing of these sense experiences, these are the being’s innerwelt.
I’m having trouble with the whole “axiomatic” axiom. Not sure how one is to engage honestly when the rules are set this way. I would start with questioning what “consciousness” is in the first place. As Bergson pointed out, one would be foolish to think that an organism didn’t have consciousness because it lacked a brain, just as foolish to think that an organism could not digest food without a stomach. The idea of shared consciousness is not outlandish, but that lies outside the axioms in play here. What happens when we listen to or play music as a group? There are many group phenomena that suggest a broader consciousness than the subjective. Who says the substance of types and myths isn’t objective? Why would so many cultures share them if they weren’t? And doesn’t the notion that “the dynamic complexity of our brains exceeds anything else in the known universe” strike you as a little megalomaniacal? What about the dynamic complexity of a solar system or a galaxy or a galaxy cluster? What about basic electricity and its relationship to magnetism and light?
I don’t claim that my axiomatic assumptions are completely or forever true. They are just fundamental to my current thinking, which I fully realize is incomplete. But I have to start someplace and then proceed as best I can until my understanding improves.
I’m pretty confident that I know what MY consciousness is, but until there is a breakthrough in decoding neural processes, what the word “consciousness” denotes is not all that clear.
For a variety of reasons many people think that all humans are conscious. From personal observation many people think their pet cats and dogs are conscious.
For some people awareness is a necessary attribute of consciousness. Sea anemones have very simple nervous systems.[1] These systems direct their bodies to respond to various changes in their immediate environment. The mechanisms for doing this have been studied at the cellular and molecular level. Estimates for the number of neurons in some species of sea anemone are for a few thousand spread around the animal’s body. Enough neurons to support the creature’s being aware of such movement? Human bodies contain around 80 billion neurons, more than a million times as many as some sea anemone. Also, what purpose would such awareness have for a sea anemone? I don’t mean this to be a put-down on other life forms. The current scientific view is that all life has evolved to occupy some ecological niche in some way.
For me, one of the ultimate purposes of improving and expanding my understanding of what-is is to be able to propose policies and actions that (1) have some potential for warding off the possible extinction of civilization, and (2) have some potential for bending the arc of history toward what I imagine would be a better world. I take it as axiomatic that for any human action to be even partially successful, it must be compatible with objective reality. Hence my focus is on propositions that can be supported by objective evidence. I realize that this is a narrow view. Man does not live by bread alone. My hope is that others with different views will offer their views, and dialogue about them so that I and other readers can at least have a mental understanding of other ways of viewing the world.
I have not read any of Bergson’s work, but from cursory web queries it appears that it is reasonable to claim that he was more of a philosopher than a scientist. It does not appear that there is any scientific evidence for the assertion that “one would be foolish to think that an organism didn’t have consciousness because it lacked a brain”. Of course, this does not make his assertion false. It might be true, but apparently current evidence doesn’t support it.
I take it that there is strong evidence for the existence, in some sense, of an entity that can be considered “group consciousness.” I’ll touch on this concept in a later post.
I’m not alone in my assertion about the complexity of our brain. At the moment it appears to be true. As far as we know, all phenomena associated with the solar system can be explained by classical physics enriched with the concepts of relativity. The same seems to be the case for galaxies and galaxy clusters[2]. My understanding is that at present this cannot be said of our brains. Consciousness appears to be closely associated with observable brain activity, but just how is still a mystery after decades of research.[3]
Can’t any run-of-the-mill physicist give a cogent explanation of the relationship electricity and magnetism and light?
Note
[1] On this site I’ll be citing what as nearly as I can tell are currently considered by the global scientific community to be fact. These citations are just the best I, as an ordinary citizen, in the context of kicking off and participating in Citizen Philosopher dialogues. I make these citations as part of my focus on understanding objective reality. Such citations may, or may not, be germane to the worldview of other Citizen Philosophers.
Hi Frank. Thanks for taking the time to lay all this out. But I'm afraid we're thinking at cross purposes. You are an orthodox believer in The Science. And therefore, I don't see any room for dialogue. One of the most profound and obvious issues here is that you believe that science is the preeminent activity in the cosmos. You also believe that science is required for our salvation. And you seem to believe that "scientific facts" somehow mirror literal reality. Typical of orthodox scientism, you are dismissive of all other frames, and cast aside philosophy as somehow inferior or secondary to The Science. None of these positions are rational. You can't just cast out Bergson (or whomever) with a cursory internet read. If your metaphysics is shaky, none of your science has any real purchase beyond being able, in some cases, to result in a technology. Your orthodoxy is anchored in what is currently accepted as scientific fact. But doesn't that change and develop often enough to be unreliable? The age of the universe just doubled the other day. So what exactly are we working with? I can recommend my own writing if you're interested. Or you might start with Mary Midgley. But I suspect you'd like to have a sort of Church of Science group. Personally, I don't think science has any business making claims about reality, never mind in "bending the arc of history." That's not its purpose, nor does it have to be. What science needs desperately today is some humility and an acknowledgment that it doesn't have the language or the tools to explain everything. Science is one among many human activities, and it is far from the most important. I honestly don't see how giving me comparative neuron counts is going to explain consciousness. And I don't see how science can define consciousness. What constitutes an organism? Where do we stop delineating? How do you know the whole cosmos isn't conscious? Do you really believe that animals aren't conscious? What sort of narrow definition will you impose to make that a fact? And this is what science all too often does: imposes models and spins "facts" from those impositions. I hope none of this is insulting. I believe these things need to be pointed out. But I also know from experience that orthodox science folk get upset at the idea that they might in fact be religious. Not sure what else to call folks who essentially take "scientific facts" on authority... exactly what the scientific ethos originally pushed back against. The history of how this came about is fascinating... and sad.
In the interest of dialogue, I’d like to try to address a few of your assertions and questions:
“You also believe that science is required for our salvation. And you seem to believe that “scientific facts” somehow mirror literal reality.”
I’ll pass on any discussion of “salvation”. My understanding is that “scientific facts” are assertions about objective reality that are backed up by careful, repeated observation, and are compatible with current models. I’m not sure what you mean by “literal reality”. I’ll take it to be similar to my “objective reality”.
Scientific assertions have various degrees of certitude. Most of us are now quite certain that we live on a planet the revolves around a sun. Very few of us are that certain that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, although using the methods of science that is today’s consensus, or was yesterday.
From the scientific perspective of human perception and thought it follows that we can never be 100% absolutely sure of any assertion about objective reality. But who are the post seventeenth century thinkers who argue that scientific facts do not in ANY way mirror physical reality?
“I don’t think science has any business making claims about reality.”
It seems to me that the truth or falsity of this statement rests on one’s conception of “reality.” I can only work from what I can be conscious of. For me, there are only two sorts of entities in my consciousness: (1) those that arise from the interaction of my senses with an outer world, and (2) those that my mind creates. My view is that the reality in which human civilization will live or die is the objective reality that is the focus of science, although certainly this concern is not the only one of great importance to humankind.
“science … doesn’t have the language or tools to explain everything.”
I wholeheartedly agree. Further, I believe that science will eventually find that its limitations arise from the nature of the reality it is attempting to understand. Just as mathematics has found inherent limitations to its understanding of its own creations.
Ah! Consciousness! In the context of our present dialogue, isn’t the most salient characteristic of consciousness its complete subjectivity? I KNOW I’m conscious. How do I know you are conscious? Or if anything else is conscious. The human mind creates questions and then demands answers.
“I don’t see how science can define consciousness.”
If we can’t define a word, how can we have a rational conversation? Are you saying that science can never produce useful explanations of consciousness? Every model of objective reality constructed by science is perforce limited. While such models can be logically complete in themselves, we can never be certain that they provide a complete view of what’s-out-there. To continue to live, the actions of any life form must be compatible with what is. Science aims to make this so for human beings.
How would contemporary philosophers describe the main thrust of my thinking? Google says that under ‘philosophy’ Oxford Languages defines “materialism” as the “doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications”. Well and good, but what does Oxford mean by “exists”? If it is referring just to physical reality, then certainly. In other realities I can take materialism to mean that everything other than what science models as “matter and its movements and modifications” emanates from “matter and its movements and modifications” Isn’t this 2nd sort of existence quite different from the first?
As a materialist I’m focused on the observed relationships between human behaviors and other observations closely associated in time and space with these behaviors. These observations appear to indicate that what we take as markers of consciousness seem to be associated with observed physical conditions in a brain. We also observe that the complexity of the behavior of an organism relates to the extent of its nervous system. A rock does not appear to have any self-directed behavior, so logically from this perspective I can say a rock does not have consciousness.
Humans create language to communicate among themselves. Any human language imposes mental models of what’s-out-there. Science just attempts to make such model building more explicit, comprehensive, and amenable to logic, which is also a human invention. The stories science creates don’t distort reality; they just paint a different picture than other stories.
The ultimate focus of this blog is on what humankind needs to DO vis-sa-vis objective reality in order to increase the odds that we will still have human civilization on this planet a few centuries hence. I take it as fundamental that human action affects objective reality, so if our goal is for human civilization to endure, our actions must be commensurate with objective reality. This is a narrow focus. A lot is left out. It is only in my desire to hew to this focus that I won’t be paying that much attention to other human endeavors.
I must admit that I don’t understand some of your remarks well enough to comment on them. I hope our dialogue can continue. I will look at some of your writing and try to learn more about Bergson’s philosophy. I suspect our different perspectives are exemplary of fundamental differences in our worldwide culture. To survive, I believe civilization must successfully navigate these differences.
You close by saying that today’s propensity to take the assertions of scientific authorities as absolutely certain fact is somewhat recent and has a fascinating history. Might you care to say a bit more?
Kind of you to end on a query, Frank. Just a couple of things since my time is very limited these days. No doubt our disagreements have a lot to do with differences in worldview, though not so much in culture. One must begin with fundamental assumptions, which are the metaphysics by which we proceed. I challenged your metaphysic because philosophy must begin there. If there's no dialogue on that subject, the field narrows rapidly. You say, for instance, that you wont touch "salvation" but keep returning to this idea of "survival" depending on science. So you dismiss the issue and then reassert it later.
You say that science doesn't distort reality but it does. For instance, the idea that science has been a linear progression is a tale told by science textbooks for pedagogical purposes. (See Kuhn.) That's a distortion. Any time a model is imposed on phenomena, we get distortions. It is common these days, for example, to visit a doctor who never looks at the human (phenomenon) in front of him, and instead looks only at the computer. You've had a knee surgery and haven't been able to walk since, but the doc says you're perfectly fine and the surgery was a success. That's a distortion. Another example: I have spent some time examining the trouble of willy nilly applications of probability math to explain just about everything. That engenders many distortions. Am I a statistic or an individual? Is information truly a mathematical calculation of a process of the reduction of uncertainty? Or is this a very narrow definition of information productive to computing, but perhaps misapplied elsewhere like, say, in poetry? When we say of the weather that it's "supposed to" or "not supposed to" rain, that's a distorted relationship to the phenomena. The list goes on.
To give a brief response to your final question: my last example points toward the issue. Until the rantings of Galileo, the idea of "saving the appearances" or accounting for the phenomena, was a common understanding that our models were models that helped us (were productive), but were not in themselves the phenomena. This understanding was lost sometime after Newton and really took hold in the nineteenth century as folks like Thomas Huxley began making claims for science as authority in a fight against reigning authorities of the time, when science had not yet ascended to its present apotheosis as the final word of authority on all matters.
These are tips of icebergs that are plentiful. I should mention before signing off that science isn't one thing and it isn't one method. One example: there is a split between lab science and historical science. The former proceeds by empiricism, the latter by various forms of reasoning including induction and deduction. You seem focused on the former (empiricism), which is a common misconception. Big bang, black holes, dark matter and energy, evolution and many other sciences are not empirical. It is essential that we study the experiments and the logic by which we arrive at our conclusions. As it happens, many experiments are not as conclusive as we might have hoped. And a final point: it is believed by many that the phenomena have now been broadly accounted for and all that remains is that we fill in the details. This attitude has been in play for over a hundred years and has been proven false time and again. In a way, it is this sort of barbarism that I am aiming to disabuse folks of and what motivates my arguments here.
Asa, thank you for your comments, but whew, I’m not sure how to respond. My “About” entry for this blog begins with a brief description of where I position humankind in the universe. Looking at it now in the light of your comments I’ve changed the first word from “Humankind” to “Science”, for indeed, what I describe is science’s understanding, which is but one of the ways individuals and groups presently understand where they are in the cosmos.
I make no apologies for my personal views., The nearly infinite world wide web can accommodate all views. The web also enables a new version of the Agora where Socrates held his dialogues. Only a few are taking advantage of this, but it is now possible for the majority of the Earth’s population to engage in near-real-time dialogue with any group on the planet, and thereby begin, I hope, to understand our common passenger status on spaceship Earth.
One of my personal bedrock positions is that no one fully understands where we are, or how we should live. Or even that we should continue to live. My understanding of our reality is that our continued existence is not guaranteed, nor is there a single path to a human future. My position is that unless an individual chooses to forgo all personal thought and agency, he or she must engage in dialogue with other individuals to determine a viable path forward.
To be fruitful, a dialogue must be based on shared assumptions, values, or goals. In some situations where this condition does not exist the result is either isolation or strife. Here on the web we can just look elsewhere. So, it may be that you and I have no common ground on which to base dialogue. If that is so, then this may be our last interaction.
Of course, I don’t know exactly what you mean by “science”, but since I’ll be using it, I want to try to describe what, for me, “science” denotes. According to the Science Council in England science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. According to a personal ChatGPT-3.5 request, one of the earliest scientists was Thales of Miletus who lived around 624 BCE to 546 BCE in the region that is now modern-day Turkey. He was a philosopher, mathematician, and astronomer. “Thales sought to understand the natural world and its phenomena through observation, reason, and systematic thinking rather than relying on supernatural explanations.”[1] After Thales the process of “understand the natural world and its phenomena through observation, reason, and systematic thinking” expanded into many different areas of inquiry using a variety of different processes. A large body of knowledge has been built-up with many institutions dedicated to preserving and extending this knowledge.
Human creativity takes many forms. Science is one of these forms. In the long march of human culture, one might consider it to be the most recent form. By binding it’s creations to observations of objective reality science provides humankind with semi-solid ground for interacting with objective reality to meet its real and imagined needs. Lore does the same. The difference is that science attempts to systematize it’s observations and constructions. Where possible, it uses the fruits of mathematics, another relatively recent area of human knowledge.
The mental capacity of every human being is limited. Our most brilliant polymaths can comprehend only pieces of humankind’s growing store of knowledge. Only via self-effacing and truly cooperative dialogue can humankind continue civilization. As a result of my genes, and my total life experiences, the essential girders of my thought are grounded in science. It is only from this perspective that I can contribute. I must depend on others to introduce other essential perspectives. Further, a major motivation of mine in creating this blog is to address what I see as an existential crisis [3] for human civilization. In this quest I have to use the mental concepts that I have, and hope that others can provide other perspectives.
Notes:
[1] A western view, certainly. But using this definition ChatGPT gives the Han Dynasty - 206-220 BCE as an early start for science in the non-western world.[2]
[2] For some time the results of a web search have been used as a references. The databases of current AI chat bots are drawn largely from the web. While this is only a weak reference, I believe it is better than none.
[3]”Existential” is currently being flagrantly overused I use it only to refer to the possible complete destruction of something.
Hi Frank. Thanks for taking some time to respond, though I didn't expect a response. That said, I'm not sure why I'm receiving a lecture on the origins of science here from ChatGPT. Your handle is "Citizen Philosophers"--but you seem to be troubled by philosophy and prefer some idea of science that isn't exactly science as practiced in the sociological sense, but as ideal. My trouble with the original statements had a lot to do with what you took as "axiomatic"--and I pointed out that this was coming across as dogmatic and as a conversation stopper, which ran counter to your desire for a dialogue, especially a philosophical one. Now you're claiming that we can't really have a dialogue if we don't agree, so I'm not really sure what this is all about anymore. If you want to chin wag with folks who already agree with you, then perhaps change the title of your blog?? Science for science fans? or something. My intent in challenging your metaphysical assumptions has been to alert you to the fact that there is much more out there and that a more open-minded approach sans axioms might prove far more fruitful, especially to a dialogue that hopes to be philosophical. But it's your space in the end and you are more than welcome of course to curate the sort of conversation you want to pursue.
Hello Asa, I hope you will excuse this two-month delay in replying to you. For me the format here at Substack supports non-real-time conversations.
Am I troubled by philosophy? I hope not, although my education in philosophy is nearly non-existent. I barely survived a course in Greek philosophy by Richard Mckeon. For me philosophy is about addressing foundational questions that are not addressed elsewhere.
My understanding is that philosophical thought about the nature of physical reality preceded scientific thought. Koestler, which I’ve started to read as a result of reading and commenting on your “Copernicus & Galileo” piece, seems to be saying this. When I speak philosophically of science, I’m speaking of a particular way of constructing mental models about what is, for me the sociology of science is another matter.
All human action has an effect on physical reality. To be effective such action must align with what is. Science will never have complete and perfect models of physical reality, but at any given moment it provides the best guidance we have on aligning our actions with physical reality. Of course, achieving this alignment is only one objective. To achieve these other objectives, we look to all the other sources of knowledge and inspiration we have managed to create and hold on to across the centuries.
I’m having trouble with your concern about “axiomatic”. I don’t understand how one can reason about anything without beginning with propositions that one takes as true. Perhaps we’re each attaching meanings to “axiomatic”.
I probably over-spoke when I wrote “It is only when there is some semblance of common ground that it is possible to dialogue to improve one’s understanding of what’s-out-there.” Even if we start from opposing positions, we can still have productive dialogue. As nearly as I can tell, your understanding of the world, and your mental processes for creating understanding, are different from mine. Since it is true for me that my understanding will always be limited, I can only expand it through interaction with other minds.
It is also axiomatic for me that all modes of understanding are limited. As an elder now just coasting to the finish line, one of my primary concerns is the near-term future of civilization. I believe that in the course of their existence humans have expanded their group consciousness in many wonderful ways. I want them to continue to do so, and it appears to me that such a future is presently in jeopardy. I look to well-meaning citizen dialogue as a way to thwart such a disaster, hence, Citizen Philosophers.
Hi Frank. Good to hear from you. My concern with material philosophy is the same as that with spiritual philosophy: administrative lockdown. Hence my trouble with the term "axiomatic": it locks in a proposition which ought to be tentative.
You say that "To be effective such action must align with what is," but if anything, the history of science shows us that this need not be the case. Seems like we're able to have effective action when our models barely intersect with realities. And often enough, we take actions that don't align with what is, but instead take it as axiomatic that things are a certain way and then behave as though it were true. This is craziness. So my scepticism comes from these observations, and I caution far more humility than we're seeing out there today.
As to how one might reason without settling on any one thing, that's the domain of the right brain, as McGilchrist frames it. While the left brain requires certainty and needs to be right, the right brain can hold opposing and alternative views without settling on one or another. This is the direction I'm suggesting.
Many thanks for your comments! Thoughtful, on target dialogue with others is, for me, essential energy in my quest for truth-leaning models. I term some assertions ‘axiomatic’ because for me they are mental anchors on which I’m currently hanging what I hope are rational observations. I heartedly welcome all comments that cast doubt on the objective truth of any axiom. Also welcome are other ‘anchors’; either as comments, guest posts, or published elsewhere.
I’ll address at least some of the issues you raise either as subsequent comments or a separate post.
Thanks again for your comments on this ‘kick-off’ post.
Since you have declared your Kantian split into objective-subjective as axiomatic, it would seem inevitable that I won't sway you on this model. But I should like to add a pinch of doubt all the same!
The nature of the split into many-subjective, one-objective would not be problematic but for the attempts to elevate certain of the examples in the subjective set into having stronger claim to the objective one. If we could avoid this problem, I would have few concerns with this approach. But alas, it is abundantly clear that we have been unable to escape it.
I view this problem as rooted in the way the objective-and-subjective split has descended from Kant, and in so doing departed from his thinking, for Kant was extremely prudent about establish what *could not* be said about his 'noumena' (the objective realm). We have lost this caution, and with it come severe dangers.
My own sense is that our species' tendency to seek certainty is what makes the many-one split dangerous to work with. I believe it can work - it worked for Kant, it clearly works well for you - but I feel that exploring different fundamental frameworks for understanding how all this fits together has become an urgent task. More on this on Stranger Worlds in September.
I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on Citizen Philosophers!
Always a pleasure to read your comments. There’s enough overlap in our worldviews that your perspective encourages me to enlarge mine; especially toward seeing the cracks in our New Normal that threaten the edifice of our global civilization.
With a hint from ChatGPT, I think I have a rough idea of your concerns. I take it that one of the places your concern surfaces is in our tendency to take the assertions made in the name of science as a certain truth. The root cause of this, it seems to me, is that our minds are not yet well equipped to handle conceptual uncertainty. Emotionally, we crave certainly, but intellectually we don’t yet have a good handle on choosing the most appropriate action in the face of inherent uncertainty. I wholeheartedly agree “that exploring different fundamental frameworks for understanding how all this fits together has become an urgent task.”
Thank you for this thoughtful response, Frank - and you are absolutely accurate in your assessment. This gap between our emotional desire for certainty, and the lack of intellectual tools to handle ambiguity is for me one of the fundamental problems we are facing. In this regard, your prudence and humility are admirable - you are always open to new perspectives. This, I feel, is what is painfully absent in so much contemporary discourse.
Congratulations on this debut essay, which seems to have attracted lively conversation! I wish you 'bon voyage' (in the sense of 'a good voyage', rather than 'farewell') here on your Substack.
I received this comment in email from Elise Cox:
I've been reading "The Uninhabitable Earth" by David Wallace Wells. What is even more shocking/disturbing than the book is the fact that it was written in 2017, and all we have been able to do as a species is accelerate the path toward a mass extinction event. We in the age of the last generations. Mike and I made the decision not to reproduce, and I hope others join us. Voluntary abstinence from reproduction might be able to do what international accords cannot. It sounds extreme, I know, but we have pushed the planet beyond its limit to support life within the boundaries that the global population requires. So many smart people I speak to are engaging in magical thinking — that AI or a Chinese nuclear program will somehow make up for our individual abdication of responsibility. In the meantime, they continue to talk about the children or grandchildren they are looking forward to rearing. Good actors/bad actors -- it all becomes irrelevant as the global average of CO2 continues to climb. Our lives are too comfortable to change. Right now the question, I think, is how quickly the effects of climate change can destabilize society enough to promote severe and drastic change in emissions versus how much damage we will do to the atmosphere before that happens.
Hi Elise
Thanks for this additional comment. Every human being has to live in the subjective reality she or he creates. Focusing on our civilization’s current wholesale destruction of life sustaining habitat is certainly a reasonable position.
My own view is that in the near-term civilization can survive the consequences of the environmental damage it is inflicting. The onslaught of this damage is now underway and will inevitably escalate. But if our current semblance of world governance can hold together, civilization can survive, even if millions of us perish in the process.
What civilization can’t survive, in my opinion, is, in the age of nuclear weapons, autocracy becoming the dominate form of government. The reason I think this has to do with my view of the inherent properties of the human psyche. Granted, we currently have only sketchy evidence that this is so, but enough, I think, to give immediate priority to addressing this threat over our environmental crisis.
The two crises are intertwined. If the environmental crisis continues unabated, autocracy will become the dominate form of governance around the world.[1] My current assessment is that in the next two decades major democracies may revert to autocracies, and given the current environmental destruction, the autocracies will then hold sway until we really do ourselves in with nuclear weapons.
“So many smart people I speak to are engaging in magical thinking — that AI or a Chinese nuclear program will somehow make up for our individual abdication of responsibility.”
Certainly, individual responsibility is important, but more powerful forces are at play. The way in which this civilization is currently constructed makes environmental damage inevitable. It seems to me that very few “smart people” realize the extent of our systemic crises. Except for a few perceptive people, everyone is just going about business as usual and expecting that eventually the ship will right itself and all will be well.
“how quickly the effects of climate change can destabilize society enough to promote severe and drastic change in emissions”
Climate change is only one of the factors destabilizing our civilization. Certainly, if millions die and infrastructure collapses, emissions will drop. If that happens democracies will also die, and eventually a mad autocrat will use nuclear weapons
Note
[1] Again, I base this assertion on my understanding of the human psyche.
I received this comment in email:
why do you think its axiomatic that the origin of consciousness is physical, when science has traced the origin of consciousness back to microtubules in the brain that interact with quantum fluxuations on the brain (let's remember the quantum fluxuations have been almost completely proven to be nondeterministic, eg not the result of the physical universe only). Isn't that in essence a circular reasoning fallacy where you're assuming consciousness has a physical origin in order to prove that it has one?
Garrett Lang
Hi Garett. Thanks for the comment. It seems to me that there is no way anyone can keep up with the new scientific propositions that now pour in daily. I fed your assertion about the origin of consciousness to ChatGPT-3.5. Here’s its reply:
The statement you've mentioned is often associated with a hypothesis known as "orchestrated objective reduction" (Orch-OR), proposed by physicist Sir Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. According to this hypothesis, consciousness arises from quantum processes occurring within microtubules, which are structural components of cells found in the brain. These quantum processes are thought to interact with fluctuations in spacetime geometry.
However, it's important to note that the Orch-OR hypothesis is quite controversial within the scientific community. While it's true that quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory that governs the behavior of particles at the smallest scales, applying quantum effects to explain complex phenomena like consciousness remains an open and debated question. The majority of neuroscientists and physicists lean towards more conventional explanations for the origins of consciousness that involve neural networks and brain activity.
The Orch-OR hypothesis lacks robust empirical evidence and faces several challenges, including maintaining quantum coherence in biological systems at the necessary scales and temperatures, as well as the potential role of decoherence in preventing quantum effects from significantly impacting macroscopic phenomena.
As of my last update in September 2021, there hasn't been any definitive experimental evidence to support the Orch-OR hypothesis. Most research on consciousness is focused on understanding the relationship between brain activity, neural networks, and subjective experiences without necessarily relying on quantum effects.
If there have been any new developments or studies since my last update, I recommend searching for peer-reviewed articles and academic publications to get the most up-to-date and accurate information on this topic.
However, it’s my amateur opinion that when and if science can construct a convincing model of how physical processes create our subjective experience, quantum mechanics will play a leading role. [Quantum mechanics is not about physical reality?]
What I said about the origin of consciousness: “My position is that both of these [thoughts and feelings] are also emanations of physical activity in a person’s brain” leaves open the possibility that the Orch-OR hypothesis is correct. I think we need to be careful about attributing a high degree of certainty to early “scientific” hypotheses.
My axiom here is not about consciousness, rather it asserts a philosophical position: that there is a single “out-there” reality. Various philosophers have argued other positions. Hence, I don’t see a circular reasoning fallacy. Am I missing something?
I received this comment in email:
Hi Frank,
Orch-OR is a hypothesis, but I actually have an a priori argument that explains that A) we have a metaphysical spirit and that B) the spirits way of impacting the brain is most likely through those microtubules, based on the latest research available. This actually explains consciousness in a way nobody can today, which also resonates with our intuition about having a sense of self. You should probably focus on my essay on free will to better understand that argument. I forget exactly which assertion you're referring to, but it likely at least includes my own and possibly some references to Orch-OR, or chatGPT just thought what I wrote most closely aligns with what they came up with. Most likely the latter.
I'm basing my opinions on my own arguments more than I am on Orch-OR, it just happens that Orch-OR happens to completement my own arguments in a way that conveniently explains how consciousness operates from spirit to action in a way that isn't understood by scientists today, so I refer to Orch-OR because it hangs together nicely with my own hypothesis. I do recognize I may be wrong, and they may be wrong, but no lives will be lost if that's the case. For now I believe what I have the most evidence to believe, which is that I (and they) are right. If new evidence or logic is presented showing otherwise, I'll just change my opinion and be right about the new perspective. I have no ego about being right, I just want to seek the truth and share what I think I know with others in the mutual pursuit of truth.
If your assertion is that there's one objective reality out there, I'd agree with that and I agree with you many philosophers aren't on the same page as us.
You said though: "What I said about the origin of consciousness: “My position is that both of these [thoughts and feelings] are also emanations of physical activity in a person’s brain” leaves open the possibility that the Orch-OR hypothesis is correct" This seems to be a separate assertion, which is that the origin of consciousness can be explained deterministically by physical activity in the brain. My understanding as I've written in the essay on determinism is that quantum fluxuations can't be explained deterministically unless superdeterminism is the correct model - which would mean that the physical activity in the brain can't be what's causing the quantum fluxuations in Orch-OR, since they are within the distance of engangled particles. That's what I tried to explain in the essay on determinism using Bell's inequality.
If there's some way that you think Orch-OR can be accurate plus consciousness's origin is deterministically determined from the physical properties of the brain, can you explain how that can be possible given what I explained about Bell's inequality in the essay? It may be worth talking by voice about this sometime, I feel like its a bit unwieldy via email. Are you on the discord server? If so what's your name? I can call you when I have time to chat to discuss.
Thanks for responding and for taking the time to read my essay on determinism. Both are much appreciated.
Kind regards from a fellow citizen philosopher,
Garrett
“I forgot exactly which assertion you’re referring to”
Your assertion (paraphrased): the origin of consciousness is the microtubules in the brain.”
My comment: apparently, the general scientific consensus is that this as yet unproven.
“(A) we have a metaphysical spirit and that
(B) the spirits way of impacting the brain is most likely through those microtubules”
For me, a metaphysical entity would be one that is outside of physical reality so it cannot be observed/measured in any way. It is just hypothesized to exist with certain properties. Such an approach can be useful in that it can lead to making observations that otherwise might not be considered. In the end, however, I think that it is preferable to be able to have models that do not rest on metaphysical assumptions.
You seem to be saying that quantum fluctuations are not part of physical reality because they are not well explained deterministically. This appears to me to be different from the mainstream science view that accepts quantum mechanics as a legitimate explanation of physical phenomena.
Thanks for your comments. I’ll have to study what you say about Bell’s inequality before I make any further replies.
Reducing the human population, ideally through reproductive choice, is probably the most important single thing we can do to at least ameliorate the climate catastrophe and related (plastics, pharmaceuticals, you name it) environmental collapse.
Optimistically, population reduction along with sustainable development could over the next 50 years or so help us climb out of the hole we've dug. At least we wouldn't be digging it deeper.
Perhaps there is a historical precedent: some believe that the prevalent Native American regard for sustainable living (I know I'm treading the reductionist line for the hundreds of Tribes that once populated North America) was a response to the massive loss of megafauna -- elephants, horses, giant sloths, etc -- that populated Pleistocene N America but that were (probably) hunted to extinction by the human newcomers 20,000 or so years ago.
I'm interested in how language and experience alter and create conciousness/perception. I don't think the Sapir-Whorff hypothesis is absolute, but I do believe and have experienced ways in which learning new words and concepts gives rise to new forms of conciousness and perception. For example, as a young person I read the Ehrlichs' book on human population growth and it changed how I thought about and perceived people and cultures that had more or fewer children. As one trained in Western science and technology, I do seek empirical confirmation for words and concepts.
Hi Pat,
For lack of something better, I assume other readers won’t know much more than I, so I use ChatGPT-3.5 to shed a little light on references that I draw a blank on:
Rspns: The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, also known as linguistic relativity, is a theory that suggests that the structure of a language can shape and influence the way its speakers perceive and think about the world. The hypothesis is named after its proponents, linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf. It comes in two forms: strong and weak linguistic relativity.
1. Strong Linguistic Relativity: This version posits that the structure of a language determines and constrains the thoughts and perceptions of its speakers. In other words, different languages might lead to fundamentally different cognitive processes and worldviews.
2. Weak Linguistic Relativity: This version acknowledges that language can influence thought and perception, but it doesn't go as far as claiming that language determines these aspects entirely. Instead, it suggests that language can shape the way people think to some degree.
…
In summary, while the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has generated intriguing ideas about the relationship between language and thought, its strong version has faced challenges in terms of empirical evidence and its ability to account for the complexities of cognitive processes across different languages and cultures. The weak version of the hypothesis, which posits that language can influence thought to some extent, is generally more tenable. However, the interaction between language and thought is likely bidirectional and shaped by a multitude of factors beyond just language structure.
Apparently, there’s not much support for the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. But the weak form appears to be true. ChatGPT had another apropos comment:
Language and Thought Interaction: While language may influence thought, the relationship is likely more dynamic and interactive than deterministic. Language can influence the salience of certain concepts, but thought processes can also shape language use.
It seems to me that if we look at how cultures get created and transmitted it’s obvious that words and concepts give rise to forms of consciousness and perception. I’m thinking especially of our current book club book, “Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes”, by Daniel Everett.
For me, the point you bring up emphasizes the importance of early education. I believe that some fundamental changes in early education are essential if civilization is to survive.
It is true that each of us have our own umwelt and the difference between the human umwelt and that of different species that co-inhabit the planet with us is even greater. I'm really enjoying Ed Yong's book "An Immense World." https://www.amazon.com/Immense-World-Animal-Senses-Reveal/dp/0593133234.
My question: aside from the fact that the writer and readers are human, is there any reason why human civilization should survive? We've contributed to the extinction of other species and are currently threatening about 1 million plant and animal species (citation below) We wantonly pollute our environment and recklessly consume the lion's share of shared resources that are necessarily for the survival of all species and future generations.
(https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/#:~:text=At%20least%20680%20vertebrate%20species,1%2C000%20more%20breeds%20still%20threatened.)
Even as a person who is conscious of the actions I take every day that contribute to the obscenity that is ordinary human existence – every plastic container I open and use, every unnecessary electric light and appliance, every toxic cleaning or medical product or medical product I use is a big fuck you not only to my fellow humans but to all other species, I do not change. Yes, I make small adjustments that prevent me from living in total cognitive dissonance, but these do not add up to responsible stewardship.
If I were reading a science fiction story about a relatively intelligent and conscious species that evolved into an apex predator on its home plant despite being physically inferior in some way to almost all other species, I would root for the intelligent and conscious species up until the point that it assumed control and began destroying everything in its path. At that point I would only want to continue reading if there was a glimmer of hope that a new savior species would emerge.
Re: “Why human civilization should survive”:
Other citizen philosophers can probably come up with rational arguments. I can’t. My emotional attachment to the survival and ongoing advancement of human civilization is strictly chauvinistic. I’m a home team fan.
The way I see it, the universe in its myriad unconscious processes has brought forth life, and then humans on this apparently rare planet. Yeah, we’ve definitely made a mess of some things, but on the whole, we’ve done reasonably well with our haphazardly evolved brain-minds. Some of us rail against our shortcomings, but what should we compare ourselves to? We’ve been searching for decades, but we’ve yet to find any other life-forms as weird as ours.
Your angst speaks to why I think there’s a good possibility that we’ll murder civilization in the next seventy years. I’m curating this blog as my feeble contribution for a wake-up call. It probably won’t make any difference, but making this attempt matters to me.
My guess is that the chances that a “new savior species” will emerge are quantumly close to zero. But there are other possibilities. See “We’re About to Meet Other Intelligent Beings. We’re Going to Create Them” at the Facebook site “A Frank Ackerman”.
Following biological and ecological forces that the universe put into play, humans have in just twelve millennia created a toxic world. But soon they will have machines that not only can make sense out of the tangled mountain range of data that semi-describes what they done, but, in contrast to their creators, can be counted on to rationally develop strategies that can move civilization to firmer, and hopefully more humane ground. Meanwhile, there’s a lot of stuff that as both individuals and groups we can do to buy time.
It seems to me that you are angry about how human civilization is treating the ecosphere that is the life blood of all of Earth’s life-forms. This is good. Evolution has balanced our ability to reason with neural mechanisms that mandate action. But this can also be bad in that it can impede your ability to see some of the aspects of objective reality that are crucial to forming effective policies and taking effective action.
The way I see it is that humanity’s present precarious state has, by and large, been driven by salutary desires to live more comfortable, more creative, lives. Yes, there are bad actors that are doing their all to capitalize on our predicament to aggrandize themselves, but they too are driven by natural forces. They are not aware that they, or theirs, will also perish in the alternate reality they are attempting to create.
Excellent, pointing out the importance of umwelt and innenwelt, as based on Sebeok and other work in semiotics.
Hi Pat, thanks for your comments. I hope you are inclined to occasionally comment on the discussions here.
For me (8/20/23) ChatGPT-3.5 summarize Sebeok’s umwelt and innenwelt thus:
Umwelt: The term "umwelt" refers to the unique, subjective world of perception and experience that an individual organism possesses. Sebeok emphasized that different species perceive and interpret their surroundings differently, creating distinct umwelten. This concept highlights the idea that each organism's perception of the world is shaped by its sensory apparatus, cognitive abilities, and evolutionary history. Sebeok expanded upon Uexküll's work, exploring how various species engage with their environment through signs and symbols.
Innenwelt: Sebeok introduced the complementary concept of "innenwelt," which translates to "inner world." This term encompasses an organism's mental and cognitive processes that contribute to its perception and interpretation of its environment. Innenwelt involves the internal mental representations, meanings, and interpretations that shape an organism's interaction with its umwelt. It is the realm of an individual's consciousness and the cognitive processes that guide its behavior and responses to external stimuli.
From these two comments, I wasn’t clear about Sebeok’s distinction between umwelt and innenwelt, so I asked: Can you say more about how Sebeok differentiates between umwelt and innenwelt?. ChatGPT replied:
Umwelt (Outer World):
• Umwelt refers to the external world as perceived and experienced by an individual organism. It encompasses the sensory inputs and interactions an organism has with its environment.
• Sebeok, building upon Jakob von Uexküll's work, emphasizes that different species possess unique sensory apparatuses and cognitive abilities, leading to different perceptual experiences of the same environment.
• Each species has its own umwelt, shaped by factors such as sensory modalities (e.g., vision, hearing, touch), ecological niche, and evolutionary history.
• The umwelt is the world of signs and signals that organisms use to interpret and respond to their surroundings. It involves the semiotic interactions between organisms and their environment.
Innenwelt (Inner World):
• Innenwelt refers to the internal cognitive processes, mental representations, and meanings that contribute to an organism's perception and interpretation of its umwelt.
• It encompasses an individual's consciousness, thoughts, beliefs, memories, and emotions. Innenwelt is the cognitive realm that influences how an organism processes and responds to the stimuli from its umwelt.
• Innenwelt is the source of meaning-making and interpretation. It involves the semiotic processes that occur within an organism's mind, as it assigns significance and constructs mental representations of its external experiences.
• Sebeok's exploration of innenwelt delves into how these internal cognitive processes are integral to an organism's ability to navigate its umwelt effectively and adapt to changing environmental conditions.
I’m still not clear. From objective evidence it appears that from electrochemical signals created by our sense organs in response to various stimuli, we experience sight and other senses. From ChatGPT’s exegesis I take it that just this much constitutes a being’s umwelt. Further, humans (and apparently some other animals) invent words, symbols, and other stuff as part of their cognitive processing of these sense experiences, these are the being’s innerwelt.
I’m having trouble with the whole “axiomatic” axiom. Not sure how one is to engage honestly when the rules are set this way. I would start with questioning what “consciousness” is in the first place. As Bergson pointed out, one would be foolish to think that an organism didn’t have consciousness because it lacked a brain, just as foolish to think that an organism could not digest food without a stomach. The idea of shared consciousness is not outlandish, but that lies outside the axioms in play here. What happens when we listen to or play music as a group? There are many group phenomena that suggest a broader consciousness than the subjective. Who says the substance of types and myths isn’t objective? Why would so many cultures share them if they weren’t? And doesn’t the notion that “the dynamic complexity of our brains exceeds anything else in the known universe” strike you as a little megalomaniacal? What about the dynamic complexity of a solar system or a galaxy or a galaxy cluster? What about basic electricity and its relationship to magnetism and light?
Hi Asa,
Thanks for the slew of questions.
I don’t claim that my axiomatic assumptions are completely or forever true. They are just fundamental to my current thinking, which I fully realize is incomplete. But I have to start someplace and then proceed as best I can until my understanding improves.
I’m pretty confident that I know what MY consciousness is, but until there is a breakthrough in decoding neural processes, what the word “consciousness” denotes is not all that clear.
For a variety of reasons many people think that all humans are conscious. From personal observation many people think their pet cats and dogs are conscious.
For some people awareness is a necessary attribute of consciousness. Sea anemones have very simple nervous systems.[1] These systems direct their bodies to respond to various changes in their immediate environment. The mechanisms for doing this have been studied at the cellular and molecular level. Estimates for the number of neurons in some species of sea anemone are for a few thousand spread around the animal’s body. Enough neurons to support the creature’s being aware of such movement? Human bodies contain around 80 billion neurons, more than a million times as many as some sea anemone. Also, what purpose would such awareness have for a sea anemone? I don’t mean this to be a put-down on other life forms. The current scientific view is that all life has evolved to occupy some ecological niche in some way.
For me, one of the ultimate purposes of improving and expanding my understanding of what-is is to be able to propose policies and actions that (1) have some potential for warding off the possible extinction of civilization, and (2) have some potential for bending the arc of history toward what I imagine would be a better world. I take it as axiomatic that for any human action to be even partially successful, it must be compatible with objective reality. Hence my focus is on propositions that can be supported by objective evidence. I realize that this is a narrow view. Man does not live by bread alone. My hope is that others with different views will offer their views, and dialogue about them so that I and other readers can at least have a mental understanding of other ways of viewing the world.
I have not read any of Bergson’s work, but from cursory web queries it appears that it is reasonable to claim that he was more of a philosopher than a scientist. It does not appear that there is any scientific evidence for the assertion that “one would be foolish to think that an organism didn’t have consciousness because it lacked a brain”. Of course, this does not make his assertion false. It might be true, but apparently current evidence doesn’t support it.
I take it that there is strong evidence for the existence, in some sense, of an entity that can be considered “group consciousness.” I’ll touch on this concept in a later post.
I’m not alone in my assertion about the complexity of our brain. At the moment it appears to be true. As far as we know, all phenomena associated with the solar system can be explained by classical physics enriched with the concepts of relativity. The same seems to be the case for galaxies and galaxy clusters[2]. My understanding is that at present this cannot be said of our brains. Consciousness appears to be closely associated with observable brain activity, but just how is still a mystery after decades of research.[3]
Can’t any run-of-the-mill physicist give a cogent explanation of the relationship electricity and magnetism and light?
Note
[1] On this site I’ll be citing what as nearly as I can tell are currently considered by the global scientific community to be fact. These citations are just the best I, as an ordinary citizen, in the context of kicking off and participating in Citizen Philosopher dialogues. I make these citations as part of my focus on understanding objective reality. Such citations may, or may not, be germane to the worldview of other Citizen Philosophers.
[2] Leaving aside the mystery of dark matter.
[3] Garrett disputes this. See his comments.
Hi Frank. Thanks for taking the time to lay all this out. But I'm afraid we're thinking at cross purposes. You are an orthodox believer in The Science. And therefore, I don't see any room for dialogue. One of the most profound and obvious issues here is that you believe that science is the preeminent activity in the cosmos. You also believe that science is required for our salvation. And you seem to believe that "scientific facts" somehow mirror literal reality. Typical of orthodox scientism, you are dismissive of all other frames, and cast aside philosophy as somehow inferior or secondary to The Science. None of these positions are rational. You can't just cast out Bergson (or whomever) with a cursory internet read. If your metaphysics is shaky, none of your science has any real purchase beyond being able, in some cases, to result in a technology. Your orthodoxy is anchored in what is currently accepted as scientific fact. But doesn't that change and develop often enough to be unreliable? The age of the universe just doubled the other day. So what exactly are we working with? I can recommend my own writing if you're interested. Or you might start with Mary Midgley. But I suspect you'd like to have a sort of Church of Science group. Personally, I don't think science has any business making claims about reality, never mind in "bending the arc of history." That's not its purpose, nor does it have to be. What science needs desperately today is some humility and an acknowledgment that it doesn't have the language or the tools to explain everything. Science is one among many human activities, and it is far from the most important. I honestly don't see how giving me comparative neuron counts is going to explain consciousness. And I don't see how science can define consciousness. What constitutes an organism? Where do we stop delineating? How do you know the whole cosmos isn't conscious? Do you really believe that animals aren't conscious? What sort of narrow definition will you impose to make that a fact? And this is what science all too often does: imposes models and spins "facts" from those impositions. I hope none of this is insulting. I believe these things need to be pointed out. But I also know from experience that orthodox science folk get upset at the idea that they might in fact be religious. Not sure what else to call folks who essentially take "scientific facts" on authority... exactly what the scientific ethos originally pushed back against. The history of how this came about is fascinating... and sad.
Part 2
In the interest of dialogue, I’d like to try to address a few of your assertions and questions:
“You also believe that science is required for our salvation. And you seem to believe that “scientific facts” somehow mirror literal reality.”
I’ll pass on any discussion of “salvation”. My understanding is that “scientific facts” are assertions about objective reality that are backed up by careful, repeated observation, and are compatible with current models. I’m not sure what you mean by “literal reality”. I’ll take it to be similar to my “objective reality”.
Scientific assertions have various degrees of certitude. Most of us are now quite certain that we live on a planet the revolves around a sun. Very few of us are that certain that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, although using the methods of science that is today’s consensus, or was yesterday.
From the scientific perspective of human perception and thought it follows that we can never be 100% absolutely sure of any assertion about objective reality. But who are the post seventeenth century thinkers who argue that scientific facts do not in ANY way mirror physical reality?
“I don’t think science has any business making claims about reality.”
It seems to me that the truth or falsity of this statement rests on one’s conception of “reality.” I can only work from what I can be conscious of. For me, there are only two sorts of entities in my consciousness: (1) those that arise from the interaction of my senses with an outer world, and (2) those that my mind creates. My view is that the reality in which human civilization will live or die is the objective reality that is the focus of science, although certainly this concern is not the only one of great importance to humankind.
“science … doesn’t have the language or tools to explain everything.”
I wholeheartedly agree. Further, I believe that science will eventually find that its limitations arise from the nature of the reality it is attempting to understand. Just as mathematics has found inherent limitations to its understanding of its own creations.
Ah! Consciousness! In the context of our present dialogue, isn’t the most salient characteristic of consciousness its complete subjectivity? I KNOW I’m conscious. How do I know you are conscious? Or if anything else is conscious. The human mind creates questions and then demands answers.
“I don’t see how science can define consciousness.”
If we can’t define a word, how can we have a rational conversation? Are you saying that science can never produce useful explanations of consciousness? Every model of objective reality constructed by science is perforce limited. While such models can be logically complete in themselves, we can never be certain that they provide a complete view of what’s-out-there. To continue to live, the actions of any life form must be compatible with what is. Science aims to make this so for human beings.
How would contemporary philosophers describe the main thrust of my thinking? Google says that under ‘philosophy’ Oxford Languages defines “materialism” as the “doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications”. Well and good, but what does Oxford mean by “exists”? If it is referring just to physical reality, then certainly. In other realities I can take materialism to mean that everything other than what science models as “matter and its movements and modifications” emanates from “matter and its movements and modifications” Isn’t this 2nd sort of existence quite different from the first?
As a materialist I’m focused on the observed relationships between human behaviors and other observations closely associated in time and space with these behaviors. These observations appear to indicate that what we take as markers of consciousness seem to be associated with observed physical conditions in a brain. We also observe that the complexity of the behavior of an organism relates to the extent of its nervous system. A rock does not appear to have any self-directed behavior, so logically from this perspective I can say a rock does not have consciousness.
Humans create language to communicate among themselves. Any human language imposes mental models of what’s-out-there. Science just attempts to make such model building more explicit, comprehensive, and amenable to logic, which is also a human invention. The stories science creates don’t distort reality; they just paint a different picture than other stories.
The ultimate focus of this blog is on what humankind needs to DO vis-sa-vis objective reality in order to increase the odds that we will still have human civilization on this planet a few centuries hence. I take it as fundamental that human action affects objective reality, so if our goal is for human civilization to endure, our actions must be commensurate with objective reality. This is a narrow focus. A lot is left out. It is only in my desire to hew to this focus that I won’t be paying that much attention to other human endeavors.
I must admit that I don’t understand some of your remarks well enough to comment on them. I hope our dialogue can continue. I will look at some of your writing and try to learn more about Bergson’s philosophy. I suspect our different perspectives are exemplary of fundamental differences in our worldwide culture. To survive, I believe civilization must successfully navigate these differences.
You close by saying that today’s propensity to take the assertions of scientific authorities as absolutely certain fact is somewhat recent and has a fascinating history. Might you care to say a bit more?
Kind of you to end on a query, Frank. Just a couple of things since my time is very limited these days. No doubt our disagreements have a lot to do with differences in worldview, though not so much in culture. One must begin with fundamental assumptions, which are the metaphysics by which we proceed. I challenged your metaphysic because philosophy must begin there. If there's no dialogue on that subject, the field narrows rapidly. You say, for instance, that you wont touch "salvation" but keep returning to this idea of "survival" depending on science. So you dismiss the issue and then reassert it later.
You say that science doesn't distort reality but it does. For instance, the idea that science has been a linear progression is a tale told by science textbooks for pedagogical purposes. (See Kuhn.) That's a distortion. Any time a model is imposed on phenomena, we get distortions. It is common these days, for example, to visit a doctor who never looks at the human (phenomenon) in front of him, and instead looks only at the computer. You've had a knee surgery and haven't been able to walk since, but the doc says you're perfectly fine and the surgery was a success. That's a distortion. Another example: I have spent some time examining the trouble of willy nilly applications of probability math to explain just about everything. That engenders many distortions. Am I a statistic or an individual? Is information truly a mathematical calculation of a process of the reduction of uncertainty? Or is this a very narrow definition of information productive to computing, but perhaps misapplied elsewhere like, say, in poetry? When we say of the weather that it's "supposed to" or "not supposed to" rain, that's a distorted relationship to the phenomena. The list goes on.
To give a brief response to your final question: my last example points toward the issue. Until the rantings of Galileo, the idea of "saving the appearances" or accounting for the phenomena, was a common understanding that our models were models that helped us (were productive), but were not in themselves the phenomena. This understanding was lost sometime after Newton and really took hold in the nineteenth century as folks like Thomas Huxley began making claims for science as authority in a fight against reigning authorities of the time, when science had not yet ascended to its present apotheosis as the final word of authority on all matters.
These are tips of icebergs that are plentiful. I should mention before signing off that science isn't one thing and it isn't one method. One example: there is a split between lab science and historical science. The former proceeds by empiricism, the latter by various forms of reasoning including induction and deduction. You seem focused on the former (empiricism), which is a common misconception. Big bang, black holes, dark matter and energy, evolution and many other sciences are not empirical. It is essential that we study the experiments and the logic by which we arrive at our conclusions. As it happens, many experiments are not as conclusive as we might have hoped. And a final point: it is believed by many that the phenomena have now been broadly accounted for and all that remains is that we fill in the details. This attitude has been in play for over a hundred years and has been proven false time and again. In a way, it is this sort of barbarism that I am aiming to disabuse folks of and what motivates my arguments here.
Part 1
Asa, thank you for your comments, but whew, I’m not sure how to respond. My “About” entry for this blog begins with a brief description of where I position humankind in the universe. Looking at it now in the light of your comments I’ve changed the first word from “Humankind” to “Science”, for indeed, what I describe is science’s understanding, which is but one of the ways individuals and groups presently understand where they are in the cosmos.
I make no apologies for my personal views., The nearly infinite world wide web can accommodate all views. The web also enables a new version of the Agora where Socrates held his dialogues. Only a few are taking advantage of this, but it is now possible for the majority of the Earth’s population to engage in near-real-time dialogue with any group on the planet, and thereby begin, I hope, to understand our common passenger status on spaceship Earth.
One of my personal bedrock positions is that no one fully understands where we are, or how we should live. Or even that we should continue to live. My understanding of our reality is that our continued existence is not guaranteed, nor is there a single path to a human future. My position is that unless an individual chooses to forgo all personal thought and agency, he or she must engage in dialogue with other individuals to determine a viable path forward.
To be fruitful, a dialogue must be based on shared assumptions, values, or goals. In some situations where this condition does not exist the result is either isolation or strife. Here on the web we can just look elsewhere. So, it may be that you and I have no common ground on which to base dialogue. If that is so, then this may be our last interaction.
Of course, I don’t know exactly what you mean by “science”, but since I’ll be using it, I want to try to describe what, for me, “science” denotes. According to the Science Council in England science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. According to a personal ChatGPT-3.5 request, one of the earliest scientists was Thales of Miletus who lived around 624 BCE to 546 BCE in the region that is now modern-day Turkey. He was a philosopher, mathematician, and astronomer. “Thales sought to understand the natural world and its phenomena through observation, reason, and systematic thinking rather than relying on supernatural explanations.”[1] After Thales the process of “understand the natural world and its phenomena through observation, reason, and systematic thinking” expanded into many different areas of inquiry using a variety of different processes. A large body of knowledge has been built-up with many institutions dedicated to preserving and extending this knowledge.
Human creativity takes many forms. Science is one of these forms. In the long march of human culture, one might consider it to be the most recent form. By binding it’s creations to observations of objective reality science provides humankind with semi-solid ground for interacting with objective reality to meet its real and imagined needs. Lore does the same. The difference is that science attempts to systematize it’s observations and constructions. Where possible, it uses the fruits of mathematics, another relatively recent area of human knowledge.
The mental capacity of every human being is limited. Our most brilliant polymaths can comprehend only pieces of humankind’s growing store of knowledge. Only via self-effacing and truly cooperative dialogue can humankind continue civilization. As a result of my genes, and my total life experiences, the essential girders of my thought are grounded in science. It is only from this perspective that I can contribute. I must depend on others to introduce other essential perspectives. Further, a major motivation of mine in creating this blog is to address what I see as an existential crisis [3] for human civilization. In this quest I have to use the mental concepts that I have, and hope that others can provide other perspectives.
Notes:
[1] A western view, certainly. But using this definition ChatGPT gives the Han Dynasty - 206-220 BCE as an early start for science in the non-western world.[2]
[2] For some time the results of a web search have been used as a references. The databases of current AI chat bots are drawn largely from the web. While this is only a weak reference, I believe it is better than none.
[3]”Existential” is currently being flagrantly overused I use it only to refer to the possible complete destruction of something.
Hi Frank. Thanks for taking some time to respond, though I didn't expect a response. That said, I'm not sure why I'm receiving a lecture on the origins of science here from ChatGPT. Your handle is "Citizen Philosophers"--but you seem to be troubled by philosophy and prefer some idea of science that isn't exactly science as practiced in the sociological sense, but as ideal. My trouble with the original statements had a lot to do with what you took as "axiomatic"--and I pointed out that this was coming across as dogmatic and as a conversation stopper, which ran counter to your desire for a dialogue, especially a philosophical one. Now you're claiming that we can't really have a dialogue if we don't agree, so I'm not really sure what this is all about anymore. If you want to chin wag with folks who already agree with you, then perhaps change the title of your blog?? Science for science fans? or something. My intent in challenging your metaphysical assumptions has been to alert you to the fact that there is much more out there and that a more open-minded approach sans axioms might prove far more fruitful, especially to a dialogue that hopes to be philosophical. But it's your space in the end and you are more than welcome of course to curate the sort of conversation you want to pursue.
Citizen Philosophers
Whose Reality?
Frank rply Asa Part 1 #2
Hello Asa, I hope you will excuse this two-month delay in replying to you. For me the format here at Substack supports non-real-time conversations.
Am I troubled by philosophy? I hope not, although my education in philosophy is nearly non-existent. I barely survived a course in Greek philosophy by Richard Mckeon. For me philosophy is about addressing foundational questions that are not addressed elsewhere.
My understanding is that philosophical thought about the nature of physical reality preceded scientific thought. Koestler, which I’ve started to read as a result of reading and commenting on your “Copernicus & Galileo” piece, seems to be saying this. When I speak philosophically of science, I’m speaking of a particular way of constructing mental models about what is, for me the sociology of science is another matter.
All human action has an effect on physical reality. To be effective such action must align with what is. Science will never have complete and perfect models of physical reality, but at any given moment it provides the best guidance we have on aligning our actions with physical reality. Of course, achieving this alignment is only one objective. To achieve these other objectives, we look to all the other sources of knowledge and inspiration we have managed to create and hold on to across the centuries.
I’m having trouble with your concern about “axiomatic”. I don’t understand how one can reason about anything without beginning with propositions that one takes as true. Perhaps we’re each attaching meanings to “axiomatic”.
I probably over-spoke when I wrote “It is only when there is some semblance of common ground that it is possible to dialogue to improve one’s understanding of what’s-out-there.” Even if we start from opposing positions, we can still have productive dialogue. As nearly as I can tell, your understanding of the world, and your mental processes for creating understanding, are different from mine. Since it is true for me that my understanding will always be limited, I can only expand it through interaction with other minds.
It is also axiomatic for me that all modes of understanding are limited. As an elder now just coasting to the finish line, one of my primary concerns is the near-term future of civilization. I believe that in the course of their existence humans have expanded their group consciousness in many wonderful ways. I want them to continue to do so, and it appears to me that such a future is presently in jeopardy. I look to well-meaning citizen dialogue as a way to thwart such a disaster, hence, Citizen Philosophers.
Hi Frank. Good to hear from you. My concern with material philosophy is the same as that with spiritual philosophy: administrative lockdown. Hence my trouble with the term "axiomatic": it locks in a proposition which ought to be tentative.
You say that "To be effective such action must align with what is," but if anything, the history of science shows us that this need not be the case. Seems like we're able to have effective action when our models barely intersect with realities. And often enough, we take actions that don't align with what is, but instead take it as axiomatic that things are a certain way and then behave as though it were true. This is craziness. So my scepticism comes from these observations, and I caution far more humility than we're seeing out there today.
As to how one might reason without settling on any one thing, that's the domain of the right brain, as McGilchrist frames it. While the left brain requires certainty and needs to be right, the right brain can hold opposing and alternative views without settling on one or another. This is the direction I'm suggesting.
Thanks for the ongoing dialogue, Frank. Cheers!
Chris, Asa:
Many thanks for your comments! Thoughtful, on target dialogue with others is, for me, essential energy in my quest for truth-leaning models. I term some assertions ‘axiomatic’ because for me they are mental anchors on which I’m currently hanging what I hope are rational observations. I heartedly welcome all comments that cast doubt on the objective truth of any axiom. Also welcome are other ‘anchors’; either as comments, guest posts, or published elsewhere.
I’ll address at least some of the issues you raise either as subsequent comments or a separate post.
Thanks again for your comments on this ‘kick-off’ post.
Hey Frank,
Since you have declared your Kantian split into objective-subjective as axiomatic, it would seem inevitable that I won't sway you on this model. But I should like to add a pinch of doubt all the same!
The nature of the split into many-subjective, one-objective would not be problematic but for the attempts to elevate certain of the examples in the subjective set into having stronger claim to the objective one. If we could avoid this problem, I would have few concerns with this approach. But alas, it is abundantly clear that we have been unable to escape it.
I view this problem as rooted in the way the objective-and-subjective split has descended from Kant, and in so doing departed from his thinking, for Kant was extremely prudent about establish what *could not* be said about his 'noumena' (the objective realm). We have lost this caution, and with it come severe dangers.
My own sense is that our species' tendency to seek certainty is what makes the many-one split dangerous to work with. I believe it can work - it worked for Kant, it clearly works well for you - but I feel that exploring different fundamental frameworks for understanding how all this fits together has become an urgent task. More on this on Stranger Worlds in September.
I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on Citizen Philosophers!
Chris.
Hi Chris,
Always a pleasure to read your comments. There’s enough overlap in our worldviews that your perspective encourages me to enlarge mine; especially toward seeing the cracks in our New Normal that threaten the edifice of our global civilization.
With a hint from ChatGPT, I think I have a rough idea of your concerns. I take it that one of the places your concern surfaces is in our tendency to take the assertions made in the name of science as a certain truth. The root cause of this, it seems to me, is that our minds are not yet well equipped to handle conceptual uncertainty. Emotionally, we crave certainly, but intellectually we don’t yet have a good handle on choosing the most appropriate action in the face of inherent uncertainty. I wholeheartedly agree “that exploring different fundamental frameworks for understanding how all this fits together has become an urgent task.”
Thank you for this thoughtful response, Frank - and you are absolutely accurate in your assessment. This gap between our emotional desire for certainty, and the lack of intellectual tools to handle ambiguity is for me one of the fundamental problems we are facing. In this regard, your prudence and humility are admirable - you are always open to new perspectives. This, I feel, is what is painfully absent in so much contemporary discourse.
Congratulations on this debut essay, which seems to have attracted lively conversation! I wish you 'bon voyage' (in the sense of 'a good voyage', rather than 'farewell') here on your Substack.