Category: Uncategorized

McGilchrist at Embercombe

Missed this conversation last night, so watching the recording today.

Just VERY rough notes for conversation.

What is the matter?
Doesn’t actually answer – but talks around that we all seem to see the plight of western humanity.
Then a long summary of TMWT (inc repeat of TMAHE HH content)

Attention – a moral act
Perception
Judgement – a moral act
Intelligence – cognitive as well as emotional / affective.
Attention as honest encounter – neither PoMo (all is constructed) nor naive reductive (it’s all objectively out there).

Summary of HH
Right – comprehension
Left – apprehension
Map & Terrain as usual

Epistemology
Reason / rationality and Intuition / creativity / imagination

(Negative re “algorithms” X again. ie new science understanding involves creative intuition.)

Tosh about
Arty / Hippie Right
vs
Boring / Sensible / Reliable Accountant Left
In fact left is much more unreliable.

The problem … decline of civilisations losing their L/R balance – the decline can be rapid (years), but new recovery can be very long (centuries).

Can’t be solved by an algorithm X (again).

The problem of social-media chat rooms … left-brain dominates
But we can all begin from the life we lead – tend our own garden, etc.
Prefer “nature” to “environment”.

Human as a computer X again.

Whole synthesis / integration of brain hemispheres.
Seat of consciousness in mid-brain structures? (See Solms)
Endocrine system very much part of brain behaviour, not just neurons. McGilchrist needs to read Solms.

Goethe / Steiner
Jung / Nietzsche
Dionysian / Apollonian

Charlie Rykken (Where does our sense of unity come from – .) – IMcG – Fractal rather than modular – bits that do know about other bits and their relations as a whole – Systematic (holistic) whole. – CR – Relationship between mental – causality (local) & communication – panentheism and panpsychism. Yes!

Joel’s question – language and definitions hemming us in – yes. Especially English / European languages. (I think it’s more to do with what the symbols / words symbolise than the fact we need to have them – allow us to reference shared experience – so more about the kinds of experience (other than things).

Much on Sacred and Divine ?- again – from the  chair.
Scheler pyramid of values – (must check directly).

Theists vs atheists most thoughtful about existenece of divine means?
A subject that cannot be captured in words, so could argue better NOT to have written about it. Agnosticism – Active receptivity – using Rayner’s language again.

Change coming about the sacred – as with modern panpsychist movement.(My position – sacred is real and important, but it’s not supernatural – it’s the RH view.)

Most primitive view – God as engineer  – setting the world machine in motion – X – again, gotta get all the language “dissing” machines out of the way.

(Complexity of real genetic evolution … not his topic … Zombie ants / rats etc. – become a meme – zzzz.)

Hope vs Despair
Urgency of the young – hmmm. (Double-edged)
Trust & Question (ie not cynical – we do need trust – but thoughtful)
Compassion – common in all spiritual / religious traditions.

God Talk and McGilchrist

The small Matter of the Sacred

In a “Discord” discussion-group side-branch off from “Channel McGilchrist” we’ve been having some discussions about the sacred – the most important additional topic in “The Matter With Things” (TMWT) that is not already in his earlier “The Master and His Emissary” (TMAHE).

“The Sense of the Sacred” forms the final Chapter 28 of his ~1600 page TMWT. The sacred gets us close to the divine if not to God, and therefore if we expect the rationalist / free-thought / atheist / would-be-science-led / secular world to take any of this seriously we need to be pretty careful what we mean by the sacred and by theology / atheism / agnosticism etc when it comes to God talk.

[Also, as per the TMWT summary linked above, before reading TMWT and getting to this knotty stage in McGilchrist’s position, it is very important that new readers at least familiarise themselves with the underlying “hemispheric hypothesis” of his original work TMAHE via the 12 minute summary of that in the RSA Animation. His magnum opus TMWT massively elaborates on this and leads to the sacred conclusion, but in doing so, the simplicity of the original problem statement is easily lost by those who do not already have it in mind.]

A Big Conversation

In this UnBelievable Big Conversation entitled “Is there a Master Behind our Mind?” hosted by Justin Brierley with Iain McGilchrist and Sharon Dirckx, the “Master” implied is clearly “God” (ie Not the right-brain master of McGilchrist’s earlier work – though as noted elsewhere, the Master<>Emissary metaphor has it’s own misleading limitations in terms of “balance” in the hemispheric hypothesis.) In fact the UnBelievable Big Conversation channel is explicitly about “exploring religious faith” with believers and unbelievers.

I watched it and made notes a couple of days ago, but have struggled to write-up here until now thanks to a lot of extraneous and unnecessarily contentious content about which I have strong views and disagreements. I’ve put these meta-aspects aside in end-notes below, to focus initially on the core God topic, but the end-note distractions are very important caveats.

The Meat in the Sandwich

After some introductory background to the people and aspects of McGilchrist’s hemispheric hypothesis (and to the unnecessary contentious distractions I noted above and recorded below), the conversation arrives at McGilchrist’s God position after the commercial break at around ~36mins.

The meat of the conversation runs from there to the end at just over the hour mark. (As I type this I’ve not listened to the additional 30 minutes Q&A which forms a separate package of content.)

Brierley introduces the God topic explicitly, acknowledging it as the important new content on which this conversation is to focus.

McGilchrist admits – as he has in many dialogues since publication – to having his own doubts, as well as respected colleagues’ dissuasions, about whether to include Chapter 28 “The Sense of the Sacred”, given that the whole of the rest of the book stands as thoroughly “objective” research across the range of topics from neuroscience and psychology, to ancient history and mythology in literature. But clearly the sacred is the important new conclusion of that research and had to be included. (As well as already being a massive book – 3 parts, 2 volumes, 1600 pages – it is also a superbly produced masterpiece in terms of layout and referencing, and in this conversation we also get from him how much that was down to his own efforts.)

McGilchrist’s position is Panentheist – God in all things / all things in God.  Many a theologian, many an orthodox Christian church, even Buddhists actually hold this position. It’s a position where God is the ground of all being, existence itself – why anything exists rather than not existing.

There are several corollaries.

Such a God may be Omnipresent and Immanent, but is not Omniscient. It has no causal agent powers beyond nature. It’s beyond-being rather than being a super-natural being. It also means – like so much of the rest of Iain’s worldview – that it must be relational, must “withdraw”, make space to stand in relation to that which exists. Being the ground of all existence, it doesn’t itself exist in the world.

[As the Reverend Sam has added in one of the comments below – this is mainstream Christianity anyway, and quotes Denys Turner “in the sense in which atheists … say God ‘does not exist’, the atheist has merely arrived at the theological starting point. Theologians of the classical traditions … simply agree about the disposing of idolatries, and then proceed with the proper business of doing theology.”]

Also, like Buddhism and other seemingly non-theistic mindful spiritual or religious practices, prayer is about listening to – attending to – the world in mental silence, not about active pleading.

Faith necessarily entails doubt. It’s a choice or a disposition to believe despite doubt. Unlike other grounded forms of knowledge, where we will nevertheless have contingencies, these are statements of what is known. None of us can be literally certain of anything, whether we’re talking God or Science – ie it adds nothing to say we’re not certain.

(So I would say both faith and knowledge are essentially pragmatic matters of what it makes sense to believe and declaring (testifying) on what basis, what kinds of evidence and experience. And as far as the wider God vs Science war caricatures are concerned this is essentially an atheistic position, whether we hold it agnostically or explicitly a-theist. I have clarified a long time ago what I mean as a “non-theist”.)

Iain goes on to imply his own agnosticism, that he is open to experience of the supernatural or miraculous. Technically open to experiencing the existence of God – ie technically agnostic – but I would say, atheistic for all practical purposes in both mythical / metaphorical and literal truth of the world. As noted above the idea of the existence of God in this world is meaningless in Panentheism. (See separate dialogue on the Big Bang and the sense of anything existing outside this universe.)

More importantly for the left-right hemisphere hypothesis, he / we are happy to accept the mythical & metaphorical as well as (even ahead of) literal truth. All symbolic / linguistic truths – even scientific ones – are metaphorical at root, it’s just that the metaphors eventually die when the language becomes embedded in use in everyday life. Iain refers to this “death” of the metaphor in terms of the “collapse” of a potential to the actual – (which will prove useful to mind-physical distinctions too?)

The Caveat End-Notes

Generally – I have a downer on people who feel the need to “diss” or counter other peoples views as part of promoting their own – as if it’s an essential part of critical thinking. In fact this “R.E.S.P.E.C.T” principle forms the basis of my own rules of rhetorical discourse. Discourse that disrespects such common courtesy makes me bristle. Unless someone agrees to be told where they’re wrong – eg in formal debate or critique – all discourse can better build from positions of finding & respecting closer agreement, discovering error in the process of dialogue.

Specifically Brierley makes – entirely erroneous and unhelpful – suggestions about Dan Dennett’s position in the earlier sections about consciousness generally. (God knows why?)

Dennett sees nothing but the material? Sees consciousness as entirely emergent from the physical? No he doesn’t! He’s open to informational pan-proto-psychism (eg in dialogue with Goff et al.) and in my own readings. It’s over 30 years since he first wrote “Consciousness (Not) Explained“. Evolution happens. Get used to it.

Dennett says consciousness is an illusion? No he doesn’t! No-one has spent more of their long life in philosophy trying to explain the reality of consciousness than he. Some aspects of consciousness are like illusions, models of reality, maps of the terrain, but not the terrain itself. Some of the intuitions we hold about what our consciousness is are illusory, but consciousness itself is as real as anything.

There is indeed “something more” than the materialist reductive view. Dennett is the biggest proponent of that thought.

People forget Dennett spends most of his life trying to talk sense into materialist / physicalist scientists, so spends a lot of time using their language, finding metaphors they can relate to. Ditto talking qualia with philosophers like Chalmers and his entirely misleading distraction of the “hard (non-)problem”. Evolving the language through that process is his quest. His brief sojurn into the God vs Science wars as one of the four horsemen was him lending a helping hand in the literal-biblical / evangelical US religious context, not to mention wider Islamic Jihadist terrorism, with his “Religion as a Natural Phenomenon“.

Talking of which, early in the Big Conversation above before we’ve got to “God”, Brierley suggests the word religion itself may be an impediment to progress? Well yes, in the sense that we have to get secular rationalist scientific types into the conversation, religious-talk, like god-talk, will be a turn-off. In practice, I have no problem with religion if we’re clear what we mean. Obviously non-ideological, non-authoritarian, non-supernatural, secular forms. Religion as a set of values that we agree bind our common ground as fallible humans sharing the one planet – the Popperian falsifiability of science(?) the form and value of evidence(?) the UN declaration(s) of human rights(?) – we hold these truths to be self-evident(?), whatever. Even having agreed them, it takes concerted efforts to maintain and defend them, even whilst being open to improving them, collectively, democratically or any of the least worst alternatives. Real life is a messy business.

Secular, natural, “religion by any other name” (after Rabbi Sacks).

Sacred Naturalism or Natural Theology, I might say, indeed have said in multiple contexts.

Anyway – let’s stick to the meat in the sandwich above. A recommended listen/watch. (Whether we agree or disagree about the Dennett-critical aside is irrelevant, so why even raise it.)

And let’s all make our own theistic / agnostic / atheistic positions clear.

And I really must get back to my writing project 🙂

===== End =====

[Post Note: and on the topic of “dissing” things whilst in the process of telling your own story – like dissing Dennett above – one thing Iain in particular has a downer on is anything mechanistic / computing / machine / algorithmic – eg several negative asides in this more recent piece that I’ve not written-up yet. As Iain is so keen to point out, restoring RH balance still demands a healthy LH – we’re not dissing objective rationality here. There is still a compelling story in the left-brain model of how brains and minds work, all of it, including the the RH processes and interactions. We like active process models too, don’t we, after Whitehead? I’m here to bury Systems Thinking not to praise Algorithmic Processes. No-one is being so crass as to suggest the brain/mind is “a” computer with “a” pre-programmed algorithm or two. Complexity benefits from many-layered systems thinking. Keep an open mind, please! I remain baffled what is gained by the negative asides.]

Gaps in the Grammar of the Universe?

Not sure where I picked-up this link, and the spoken version is tedious, but the list of observations include some interest:

9. As algebra is to physics, algorithms are to life— recipes for richer response rules, an open generative language of if-then-else step-by-step logic for choosing.

10. Science presumes intelligible patterns. But its default algebraic language can privilege physics-like pattern types. Game theory (= choosology) paints reliable patterns that can’t be solved for algebraically — they must be played out, algorithmically. Simple, fixed choosing rules can generate un-physics-like seemingly chaotic patterns.

If nothing else “choosology” is a nice neologism for Game Theory. Patterns that can be “solved” only by being played-out, ie lived. (Pretty close to my own conception of life, anyway.)

Rough Notes on Sheldrake’s “Trinity”

Mentioned Sheldrake’s “trinity” in passing at HTLGI last week. He did actually name the three, but I failed to capture … and I’m digging for earlier references.

“Is the Sun Conscious” is the same angle he used last week. Talk part-way down this page from 2015 – as a Christian theist / lay preacher he does of course use Trinitarian concepts in the Christian religious sense in other talks too – looking for the specific formulation he intended here. (When it comes to dualism vs monism – same joke – prefer 3 to 2 or 1. But no detail again. My own metaphysics is “3-aspect” monism. Even a dual-aspect monism can be seen as a trinity? I really don’t care what we call it, all that matters is how it works.)

Pan-psychist turn from materialist philosophers and neuro-scientists in the last decade. Strawson, Nagel & Koch notably … Whitehead was the most interesting early example – philosophy of organism “Science and the Modern World VI” (1925) self-organising systems with their own goals and purposes (unlike “machines”) -> process reality (1927/28) … see also Peter Sjöstedt-Hughes unexpected but promising. (And lots more from him on Panpsychism – as well as “popular” Kastrup and Goff.)

Future, conscious “possibility” vs past / “existing” bodily reality distinction. (This will prove a good first bifurcation – consciousness being about modelling and evaluating “possibility” is a strong thread of mine too – counterfactuals vs factuals etc).

As an atheist I struggle with his personal-being “god” talk, but no matter, lots of his speculations (like Newton’s) are interesting. (And I’m not atheist for bloody-minded reasons – my metaphysics just doesn’t see the need for any intentional “supernatural” agent – beyond those evolved in nature, with powers to go beyond the natural laws of nature. (Happy to use the word god in a Spinozan pantheist way – but not as a causal entity to “believe in”. Though as Rabbi Sacks pointed out any set of values we agree on collectively – eg UN Human Rights et al – is a religion by any other name. That which binds us as humans. No problem with that kind of religion, either – what we hold sacred / sacred-naturalism / natural-theology – just not a supernatural agent of a god.)

Electromagnetic patterns of activity – Hmmm? Don’t buy this physical mechanism. Cosmic objects … earth – moon – star – galaxy – universe. His caricature of the problems with science of cosmology entertaining as ever. Fred Hoyle’s “Black Cloud” as a parable.

Some variation on:

The Word <> The Spirit <> The Mind (of God)

But that’s not how he put it …. damn!

Knowing Ruth Chang

It’s a sign I really need to stop reading and listening to new inputs, and focus on synthesising all the writing I’ve started (but never finished) in the 22 years of blogging.

I noted seeing Ruth Chang “for the first time” last week whilst missing her main talk on making choices, despite being “central to my own agenda”.

Well, I picked-up on Ruth Chang 8 years ago on the very same topic, and had obviously forgotten all bout it.

 

And of course, I watched it again straight through and got exactly the same impression (see previous notes). It is indeed very simple, for the first 7 of the 15 minutes, but whilst still very simply presented the crescendo from there to the end is palpable. It is a mistake to treat choices as scientifically objective, they’re about choosing where to put our subjective agency, the harder and more complex the choice the bigger the opportunity. Could almost be one of the motivational “commencement speech” genre.

(And strangely I only noticed the old link because I was searching for an unrelated image that is central to the premise of a current piece of writing. Still not found that image either … ho hum.)

(And re-reading that summary note about about “choosing where to put our subjective agency” I realise I had “forgotten” Chang because I had effectively internalised her “lesson” already. Great stuff.)

Causation and Existence

I naively branded causation (even just time as the basis of correlation) as “weird” when I first started this philosophical quest over 20 years ago. Paging Bishop Berkeley anyone?

And of course the more we unpick layers of determinism and emergence, upward and downward causation, the weirder it gets. Some things never change. Time and causation are seriously weird.

I noted in my brief review of How the Light Gets In 2022 just last week, how many debates, whatever the explicit “real world” political or scientific topic, degenerated into the inevitably inconclusive – “Ah, well, what do you mean by exist, anyway?”

Weirdly, our whole conversation in the pub last night was around that observation – that and “my” informational-ontology / computational-epistemology / process-metaphysics – something important beyond orthodox science. What I didn’t notice until this morning was that around the same time on Twitter, Kevin Mitchell was posting a string of thoughts arising from his reading of a new paper from the “IIT” team – Tononi et al. – part of “my” metaphysics for some time:

I like Kevin’s style – like my own when blogging my own reading and “reviewing” – is simply posting thoughts in the same order as the reading. It’s really good for sharing – exposing – the thought processes. (ie NOT one of those infuriating threads that are basically, “here’s an essay I’ve written, broken into Tweet-sized chunks”. Post a link to your essay, already!)

Anyway, suffice to say, I hope Kevin preserves his threads, because I liked, retweeted and/or reacted to several of the individual tweets in the context of the whole. One of these was:


To which I responded:

I agree that “truly” – my “really” – is a sure sign of stumbling over something ill-defined. (Although being “well-defined” kills, so definitions need careful handling.)

And, that “ontological commitment” in the original IIT Tweet also a recurring topic – even in last night’s pub conversation. Something I learned from Rebecca Goldstein and Spinoza. Whatever the “science” it needs to be “explanatory” – not just formally captured in theoretical formulae – and explanatory in a sense that allows you to say – “I’m saying this is what actually exists, how things really work, not just a metaphor”. (Ultimately all meaning is metaphorical at root – Hofstadter, and Lakoff / Johnson –  but at some point the metaphor must die, and you need to be committed to saying – “yes I really mean it when I say atoms behave like billiard balls” – if that’s your bag.)

Actually, really, truly, weirdly, madly, deepity 🙂

Time for me to read the actual paper, with Kevin’s helpful notes at hand.

Rayner’s Natural Inclusion in “Occurrity”

There are many many points where my own two decade research and blogging journey has crossed paths since 2006 with naturalist / mycologist Alan Rayner’s conception of Natural Inclusion, specific references to his books, art & poetry, and dialogues related to these.

Like so many of us trying to improve on the reductive, deterministic (deadening) objectivity of orthodox science, it’s as much about finding a language to express and share a better world view as it is about anything so lifeless as redefinition in terms of distinct things. Believe me I’ve tried, as have countless others ancient and modern. If I were to pick one name from the canon of philosophy, Whitehead’s “Process Reality” probably comes closest to trying to tackle the same underlying issue and certainly forms a cornerstone of my own work.

The “flow geometry of place-time” and the “natural inclusion of flow-forms” are just two of many formulations that capture the nature of Alan’s thinking. I’ll add below some specific previous links of mine to Alan’s work, especially his poetry which, when trying to find language that escapes the yoke of orthodox expectation, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised proves a very effective means of communicating shareable understanding. His art too manages to be, at one and the same time, both precisely representational (of nature) as well as clearly metaphorical (of transcendent realities). (Notice that even physicist Sean Carroll embraces a “Poetic Naturalism” as science tries to join up new “ways of talking” with a commitment to reality.)

With two new collaborators – David Peleshok and Candace Bowers – Alan has established the new “Occurrity” web-site, as a showcase for his existing work and a platform for expanding the dialogue.

THE ART & SCIENCE OF NATURAL INCLUSION

NATURAL INCLUSION IS THE MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE, CO-CREATIVE, RECEPTIVE-RESPONSIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTANGIBLE SPATIAL STILLNESS AND ENERGETIC MOTION IN THE BEING, BECOMING AND EVOLUTIONARY DIVERSIFICATION OF ALL MATERIAL BODIES, INCLUDING OUR OWN.

Sign-up for updates at the links above.

=====

[Alan Rayner Previously on Psybertron] that’s 4 pages of links to previous references (!) will highlight important links.]

That Paul Mason Discussion

I’m blocked by OJ, so I’m recording reaction to this retweeted tweet here:

    1. Paul is right on “beergate” and Keir will resign if he’s wrong.
    2. Smirking style from Owen and Michael – makes me question their divisive motives concerning serious complex topics. The whole “I’m not a lawyer but Jolyon Maugham is” is a red-herring from any moral equivalence in principle. (That screenshot above, entirely random, not selected.)
    3. Paul is also right on Sue Gray / Met Police angle with Boris et al.
    4. The (repeated) hype from Owen on “Keir being the most dishonest ever” (and the anti-Blair rhetoric) – laughable, slogan, mantra, scam politics.
    5. Anyway, OK, so here we go, the meat:
      – “kicking-out the left-wing MP’s” his hidden “new labour” project …
    6. Paul is agreeing with some errors of handling the left, too much use of discipline. I’d agree – but hands get forced – by the actions of others.
    7. The sheer stupidity of the anti-Nato petition … set themselves up – “they were asking for it”
    8. Agree the anti-Nato (directly blaming) petition at the time of the Putin invasion – publicly unhelpful / divisive timing (whatever the validity – even “element of truth”- of their free opinion). Truth is one thing, what you do with it is quite another.
    9. Saudi support? Systematic violation of rights – ongoing long-term “Middle-East Problem” – is quite different to resisting an immediate aggressive invasion on our own borders. Neither is acceptable, but we have to choose our response – policy involves tactics as well as strategy – by definition, tactics will conflict with policy. The conflation of Israel / Palestine / Yemen / Arab – racist / antisemitic / antizionist issues – is despicable rhetoric. I agree with Paul – it’s not about what, it’s about how and when.
    10. Laughing whilst accusing people of Imperialism and Saudi Apologism –  not a clue, the “naive” left.

=====

[Post Notes: I’m seeing this stuff on my timeline because I followed Novara’s founder Aaron Bastani after meeting him a HTLGI22 last week. Michael and OJ are effectively Novara “journalists”. The 10 days experience since thoroughly confirms my view of these mean-spirited naive (young) lefter-than-thou-leftists. It’s all about who they hate. They place no value in an establishment that judges its membership based on their actions – including public statements in relation to itself. Yet they are perfectly happy to publicly slate and mock individuals that disagree with them. Not sure how many odd or even levels of irony that makes it, but man they need to grow up and experience some wisdom. (Sadly promising young philosopher Philip Goff is lost down the same rabbit-hole – for a decade or two I expect.) Paul Mason ain’t perfect but he can tell his Marx from his Bogdanov from his Trotsky. Looks like they got to the local labour group ahead of Paul’s selection process. “One man one vote” is the worst of the least-worst democratic options.]

HTLGI2022@Hay – Mostly Meta

Just a quick diary of my 4 days at the IAI “How the Light Gets In” festival in Hay-on-Wye 2 to 5 June 2022, from a logistical & meta perspective first, before I get down to any people and significant content.

Being also the Jubilee holiday, the main car-park in Hay was free so I took advantage of driving in and out each day from a hotel 8 miles away. Events were entirely on the riverside site on the English side of the border this year (the opposite end of town from the McMillan book festival also in Hay) with none in the Globe or Globe Field, nearer the bridge.

Thursday, Friday and Saturday were mostly dry and bright -properly warm June sunshine most of the time – just a bit cool and breezy on the Saturday morning. Saturday night, Sunday morning however came le deluge. Having been torrential overnight – run-off debris all over the roads – in the morning leaving the hotel the rain had stopped so I drove into Hay as planned. Unfortunately as I arrived in the car park the rain had started again and continued to teem as I sat and waited before maybe getting the wet weather gear out of the boot. After about 40 mins it looked set-in so, cowardly, I gave-up and bailed-out. (The main regret being my missing the pro-trans-activist “debate” with Peter Tatchell and “BobbityP” – the significance of which will become clear in the light of “DocStockK”s participation at the event.)

Out of the 250 sessions on offer, I properly attended 19 and part-witnessed / eavesdropped a handful more. (I will add the IAI.tv video recordings when published.)

Couple of meta-comments for the organisers:

      • Re-arranging talks, timings & locations is inevitable, but need better way of notifying these, both from the reception desk and at the tent venues.
      • Inner Circle / Salon tent needs better sound and wind screening from the rest of the site. (And Ferris Wheel engine too close to the Circle tent.)
      • Great standard of well-serviced toilets for a festival event, but noticeable how much the women had to queue – probably twice as many needed?

Thursday I actually only managed to attend one philosophy session, I didn’t arrive until ~4:15 pm after a lunchtime meet-up with Sam and checking into the hotel beforehand. Sadly by the time I arrived two of the events I’d earmarked for Thursday pm had been re-arranged. I missed “Nature, Friend or Foe” with Yuval Harari and Slavoj Zizek, (and missed “The AI Hoax” with Mazviita Chirimuuta) but I did get to see:

“The Status of Things” with Paul Dolan, Mary-Ann Ochota and Steve Taylor hosted by Gunes Taylor. I’d expected a bit more of a metaphysical take on the significance (or not) of objective Things, but it was mostly about human-level consumerism, resource-consumption and stuff-possession. No real surprises.

Live music with the Cable Street Collective – regulars at Hay.
Driven by excellent bass and synth-drum riffs with guitar and horn highlights and – so important to the reggae / Afro-beats groove – fronted by the tremendously engaging Fiona Jane. You will dance along.

“The Demons of Thermodynamics (Entropy)” with Katie Robertson.
I may write-up more of my many notes on this one, but suffice to say excellent from a Leverhulme prize-winning early career philosopher of physics I’d not come across before. Significant for me, all her model examples – the usual gas-molecules in boxes, ice-cubes in glasses of water, and combustion engines – she naturally called “systems”. Telling I thought. All the way through the laws of thermodynamics from the minus-first and zero-eth up to the 2nd Law, and local entropy reversals … stopping just short of “Free Energy Principles” and “Systems Thinking” in the evolving life of conscious organisms. Part of her current research she responded when asked. (Also saw her in the Fundamental Stuff debate later.) A keeper methinks. One to watch.

“The Crisis of Ageing” with Aaron Bastani. With he and his Novara Media being the enfant terrible of division in UK politics of the left, his reputation precedes him, but this was my first face-to-face engagement. Smart and articulate, and provocative when necessary. Ringing alarm bells for the shift already upon us – ageing older-old demographic in a soon-to-be-declining UK (natal) and global population generally. Not news but a reminder not to take our eyes off this ball in ongoing political strategies. (A recurring theme at previous HTLGI’s as well as this one, later …)

“The Ignorance of Experts” with Julian Baggini, Ellen Clarke and Ben Burgis hosted by Gunes Taylor. With a title prompted by Feynman’s famous quip and current content driven by Covid epidemiology experience, this ended up being mostly about epistemic uncertainty and doubt generally. Julian- Plurality. When it comes to experts no one expert is expert in everything. Ellen – Underdetermined – most expert opinion based on theory is underdetermined in terms of matching data to theory. Predictions and recommendations invariably based on values – generally denied and often quite diverse. Ben – Default position must be to trust expert advice. Policy is much more than facts and science. Julian -“Follow-the-Science” is a smokescreen for politicians. Ellen – Transparency of more empirical data and theory to non-experts sounds good, but can just increase confusion and uncertainty when what is needed is clarity. (Will maybe write up more notes on this one).

“What the World is Made Of” with Rupert Sheldrake, Paul Davies and Katie Robertson, hosted by Dallas Campbell. Too many notes to summarise and not much new unfortunately. Ended-up being a conversation around what is even meant by the reality of existence – but covered everything from Democritan atoms of “stuff” to strings, relations and information. Kastrup, Smolin and Whitehead all got positive mentions, sadly Deutsch & Marletto’s counterfactuals did not, although prompted by Katie the distinction between (conceivable) possibility and actuality took up a fair part of the dialogue. Interesting – to maybe damn with faint praise? (Much impressed with Katie on Entropy earlier.)

(Sadly missed Simon Baron-Cohen on “Revolutionising Our Idea of the Brain”. Also missed “Moral Facts and Moral Fantasy” with Zizek, Kavenna and Blackburn with Chang hosting!)

“Gravity: A New Window on the Universe” with Paul Davies. Carrying on from the previous debate I was keen to see the already famous Paul Davies in person again. (Previous students – Jessica Flack and Sara Imari (?) – have impressed me.) Synopsis from Einstein onwards of predictions and developments around Gravitational Waves – up to the planned LISA GW detector. Essentially providing a new non-electromagnetic medium for cosmic observation – including the “ringing” from the big-bang. Mysterious that GW also travel at the speed of light in the “vacuum” of space.

“Truth, Prejudice and the University” with Kathleen Stock, Aaron Bastani and Tommy Curry, hosted by Rana Mitter. “Should we root out intolerance” – obviously focussed on recent Cancel Culture generally.  Tommy – impressive, new to me – Tx A&M (@Austin) and Edinburgh experience, focus on White-Supremacist vs CRT and different style of identity politics / trigger-warnings / colour-blindness between US and UK experience. Aaron – problem is partly groupthink and partly basic risk-averse capitalism of the education “business”. No longer really the intellectual academy. Kathleen – emphatic “Yes” (we should fight it). The education (business) environment is saturated in moralisation, a whole industry focussing on “harms” and “training in diversity” at the expense of exposure to contentious ideas. New @Austin project part of response to this. (See Kathleen Stock on Material Girls later). Again much of the dialogue came down to understanding objective-truth / natural-reality / social-construction. (Eric Kaufmann in the audience to back-up the objective evidence of the culture wars.)

(Clash – missed Simon Baron-Cohen again in “Necessity and Lies” with Rebecca Roache and Hilary Lawson, hosted by Samira Shackle – the latter being editor of New Humanist, one of the collaborating partners at HTLGI this year. Rationalist Association staff on hand distributing free copies of NH. Interest – I’m a member and previous trustee of RA/NH.)

(Skipped 2.5 hour session (!) with Zizek on “Heaven in Disorder” but stuck my head in a couple of times as he was cracking jokes with his academy “classroom”.)

“In Search of a Cleaner World” with Chris Huhne, Lierre Keith (video link) and Mike Berners-Lee, hosted by Elizabeth Hilton. Interesting, but I made few significant notes. Lierre strong on the overlooked externalities of many so-called renewable / sustainable solutions. Chris strongest on existing policy and being positive about progress. Mike on the many calculations and less intuitive dependencies between population and consumption. Agriculture and husbandry a massive element at many levels. Reversal of population growth and demographics again a big factor. Summary – it’s complicated, not always intuitively obvious and what is really needed is genuine sustainability of long-term policy and multi-factor targets and measurements.

(Clash – skipped “Love and Other Drugs” with Anders Sandberg, Ella Whelan and Keith Ward, hosted by Myriam Francois. Strangely, Peter Sjostedt-Hughes not on that panel?)

“Material Girls” with Kathleen Stock. Obviously related to her book of that title, but based (conveniently) almost entirely on last week’s statement from Warwick Pride as a case-study in cult-like narcissism and closure to dialogue based almost entirely on victim culture. This stuff writes itself without the courage to resist from the academy (see earlier “university” session above). Overtly diverse participants at Hay (apart from obvious self-selecting educated middle-class demographic) plenty of gay, lesbian and assorted ambiguous sex and gender and “furry” presenting individuals amongst the mix of sexes, races, nations and cultures, and yet all bar one question from the floor was sympathetic to Kathleen’s position, about dealing with work and family / parenting consequences of woke / culture-war language and the virality of social media generally spilling over into the physical world. Kathleen keen to point out that the bottom-up resistance to the misguided institutional agenda would not have been possible without Twitter. Not sure whether there was an active boycott of this session by the TRA community or a fear of speaking-up in public but there was no protest or even counter argument. Just a single audience comment suggesting that whilst Kathleen’s position was courageous it was explicitly harmful to Trans, with no specific example or argument. Kathleen’s response was to invite for a discussion over a drink afterwards? (Interestingly the TRA session later, on the Sunday, was set-up with no feminist or LGB “GC” counter-representation … ho hum. See Tatchell on Desire and Tatchell on TRA.)

Round-table Salon / Dinner with Hilary Lawson, Bjorn Ekeberg and Mazviita Chirimuuta. Always interesting for the side conversations with guests as well as the named thinkers. Although advertised to be on “Limits to Science” – disappointingly no strong threads on exactly what those limits are other than Hilary and Bjorn’s existing positions. Hilary strangely on how we should attribute – and continue to encourage – science success given it’s obvious limitations when it comes of actual reality (again). Probably too subtle for the range and level of starting interests around the table. Mazviita was a revelation – acknowledged as a kindred spirit – philosopher of perception and mind-brain science. (If I’d arrived early enough on Thursday, she’d had “The AI Hoax” session of her own – damn! Still did see her again in the Virtual World session later.) A new connection to follow-up.

(Catherine Heymans, Peter Sjostedt-Hughes and Peter Godfrey-Smith on the other table. The dinner conversation and wine was still flowing as I left around 9:45 and skipped all the musical / entertainment options later on the Friday evening.)

Philosophy Breakfast with Anders Sandberg. I’ve experienced and been impressed by Anders before. A futurist technophile embracing the new, his main agenda is about not overthinking and fearing future possibilities but influencing the future we might want by embracing available possibilities now. No argument with that as a strategy. What was interesting was that the “boys toys” techno focus – and repeated use of Elon Musk as his case-study left a strong impression of the autistic left-brain objective-things agenda, overlooking all the social consequences and desiderata amongst the more diverse guest interests. Now, we do know Anders full agenda does indeed recognise the importance of the social angle, and indeed his participatory strategy is precisely to expose and drive these as we work with imperfect technologies now. However, the very real impression created lots of interesting side conversations.

(Those conversations and some session changes meant I missed a few options. Didn’t see Ruth Chang on her “Challenge of Choice” framework – pretty central to my own agenda, so I’m regretting that. I did catch the closing stages of Denis Noble “arguing” with Richard Dawkins about (real) Lamarkian mechanisms ignored by a purely Darwinian genetic mutation and selection view. Ultimately (for me) this is really just a matter of emphasis and it’s a many-times rehearsed argument between old adversaries. I’m regretting that too. Genes are indeed involved at many levels, but there are many levels with many other organelles and proteins involved too. (Kevin Mitchell is particularly good on the balance between processes and genetic “causation”.) Particularly dumb – well disappointing to Dawkins anyway – question from the audience about very basic ape to human evolution that showed that the whole point of genetic / selection evolution had nevertheless passed-by unnoticed. It didn’t make the recording edit above. Oh well …)

“Getting Everything, Losing Everything” with Anders Sandberg, Mazviita Chirimuuta and Massimo Pigliucci hosted by Stephen Pincock. Focussing from the start on virtual reality and Zuckerberg & Clegg’s proprietary “Metaverse” branded version of it. (I despair at Meta’s appropriation of the important word meta, but I digress) Although the value (and downsides) of AI & Tech augmented reality of human experience were much argued over, “Mazviita’s Lobster” became the focus. The “experience” of eating an expensive luxury meal – like a Lobster Thermidor – in a virtual environment. (Or Anders playing a virtual but skilled sport like football) Bodily disconnected and unrisked – the psychological experience may have some value, but the psychological interactions with other participants will be “artificial” and the physical value (like nutrition) will be zero. Even with maximum “smellovision” replication of all sensory experiences, if the technology is ever developed to the point to generate the actual bodily effects – with or without food-poisoning –  can it ever have any benefit over the real thing? Good distinctions made between hedonic vs eudaimonic pleasures vs pure distraction. Also Massimo – people “will do things they shouldn’t” so regulation and moderation become ever more critical – if we thought social media was bad … Technology is NOT neutral either. (Massimo has actually withdrawn from social media other than publicising events and publications – no interactive dialogue.) David Chalmers despite his rock-star status almost entirely wrong on everything he has ever predicted. Anyway, lots of discussion again boiling down to what actually is reality anyway. Anders the optimist. Massimo the sceptic. And again Mazviita impressed on where the subtle detail lay. (First came across Mazviita Chirimuuta the previous evening.)

“The Baby Bust” with Thangam Debbonaire, Aveek Bhattacharya, Tim Palmer, and Mike Berners-Lee, hosted by (Hegarty?)
Another of these topics where the only conclusions are “it’s complicated”. Sure we should recognise the actual and forecast major decline in population globally and locally but also recognise the different timescales and local variations. Even though global population decline appears a wholly good thing from the planet’s resource consumption perspective, some parts of the world will increase consumption as living standards equalise and wealthier demographics will also increase environmental climate load which will partly compensate for total decline. Locally there will be far more problems of ageing demographics – older-old care demands, etc – and increased migrations to compensate for declines in natal working-age populations. Liberal population ethics will demand working on values that denote “a good life” not just as working careers, but for meaningful longer lives. There were both fearful and hopeful considerations. Although most of the downsides to falling-but-ageing populations through falling birth rates are about local adjustments and the benefits global, the local problems will be distributed globally too. Any solutions will be through global agreements on the valuing the well-being of all humans. A stark question from a young “furry” in the audience showed the vicious reinforcement cycle of hopelessness – she and most of her contemporary friends being too fearful – of an unsustainable world in climate crisis – to bring any children into it. Interestingly the remaining time was spent by all four speakers pointing out that this was NOT the message they were intending to give and explicitly pointing out why the best response for thoughtful and caring individuals such as herself was the hopeful one, to create a new thoughtful and caring generation. I sincerely hope she noted that unanimity and will follow-up even if not convinced on the day. (Shows the real dangers of the general doom and gloom messaging.)

(Clash – missed Tommy Curry on “A New Approach to Race” and Lierre Keith on “The Dying Planet and Patriarchy’s Endgame”)

“The Strangeness of the Universe” with Bjorn Ekberg, Sabine Hossenfelder and Rupert Sheldrake, hosted by Johnjoe McFadden. Was looking forward to the prospect of Sabine and Rupert being on the same stage as much as any content. Anyway – the point being the more we (science) claim to know about the world, the more and stranger the mysteries that appear to remain – “Might science and philosophy one day stretch to meet the universe’s strangeness?” Bjorn – Strangeness is a matter of perspective. Much science is stuck in its patterns of thought, so some major shifts in existing scientific thinking are needed. Sabine – yes orthodox science will successfully address issues with the remaining physical stuff, explaining consciousness is probably not going to happen with current methods (well that’s a start at least). Rupert – interesting that panpsychism is fashionable again (eg Kastrup), not just from micro-level physics to brains, but what about cosmic objects themselves being “conscious”. Physicalism needs radical rethink – effectively theology of Aquinas and Descartes pre-materialism. Sabine – for a philosophical view on the science of dark matter, see Dave Merritt. Bjorn – Limits to our current knowledge are not just about gaps in knowledge available but limitations of our existing mental frameworks. Rupert – so much modern science “progress” is by fudging (eg DM) in existing theoretical calcs to match observation – that is not in any way explanatory of reality – (and were back to “and what is reality anyway?”) Q – Reductionism vs emergence? Nature is organised in levels but “emergence” and not just bottom-up determined causation. Q – IF we accept monism, must it be dual aspect monism? Mind and Informational! Better late than never. Trinity better than one or two says Rupert (aaagh – didn’t capture which 3!)

“The Mystery of the Multiverse” with Roger Penrose, Sabine Hossenfelder and Michio Kaku  hosted by Hilary Lawson. This session was really quite hilarious. Not surprisingly Sabine was nodding along to most of what the immensely experienced Nobel-prize-winning Roger had to say, whilst neither could make any sense of what Michio, one of its founding fathers, had to say about string theory. Or why several “testable predictions” of string theory depended on Multiple Universes? Lots wrong with current quantum level science says Roger who wouldn’t be drawn on any specific possibilities, but genuinely baffled why string theory thought it was any kind of answer and Michio couldn’t enlighten him (or us). Whilst essentially dismissing the kinds of multiverse view that suggests infinitely many possibilities / or choice-bifurcations exist in infinite parallel universes some discussion in favour of the multiple big-bangs and fusings between multiple universes in time passing on only boundary conditions (my position) even though lots wrong with current big-bang theories. Essentially multiple cycles of Eons of one universe. Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment was only every intended to demonstrate how absurd multiverse suggestions are, not as a constructively useful way to think about them. Still real need to reconcile QM with Gravitation. QT needs to lose multiple real-universe alternatives, even if multiple phase contributions to multiple terms in a series provide means of calculation. A tendency for people to “game” testable predictions – believing that some specific local testable predictions can verify theoretical calculations claimed to apply to the whole “unified ToE”. Roger and Sabine effectively accusing Michio and string theory of this.

“The Search for Certainty” with Simon Blackburn, Ruth Chang and Hilary Lawson hosted by Maria Balaska. Good to see Ruth Chang at last, even if I’d overdosed on Hilary and even if Simon and Hilary already know each other’s positions so well. Simon instantly reduced the abstract question of whether we could find or should seek certainty in life to every-day examples – of needing (and being able) to know things like a bus timetable with predictable certainty (where’s the problem?), whilst Hilary led with his anti-realist position that all our “closures” give us constructed certainties that are simply not there in any real world – “out there” whatever that meant. Ruth found middle-ground, that simply made me regret even more I’d missed her solo session on her “choice” framework. Homework to be done.

“Desiring and Being Desired” with Catherine Hakim, Katherine Angel and Peter Tatchell, hosted by Myriam Francois. So many levels of irony in this one. Not least (gay) Peter being the only male representative on a panel discussing male-female attraction and desire – and the (ongoing) historical downsides of patriarchal power. The (evidently attractive) Myriam putting the position of women under pressure to meet expectations of attractive presentation in dress, hair and make-up. Catherine pointing out (to the palpable shock of almost everyone else on the panel and a sizeable part of the audience) much objective evidence that women never had it so good in terms of their natural advantage in the stakes of seeking and/or choosing sexual partners (or not) rather than being oppressed victims. Bemoaning the lost arts of flirting, wooing and seduction as natural means of civilised negotiation between desire, expression and/or deciding to act by mutual consent. Fortunately, no-one suggesting women should ape men in asserting sexual dominance or that “incels” had any particular rights other than humanity. Asexuality was always a valid option. Odd that no one questioned why this session stuck to a focus on heterosexual attraction, with only Katherine making passing reference to historical female disadvantage in the orgasm and masturbation stakes now addressed more by lesbian relationships and no references to male homosexuality or any of the more ambiguous variations. (Pity I didn’t make the Peter Tatchell / Bobbi Pickard “TQI+” session the following day, to round things off … no hint in this session or the Sunday session of Peter advocating or justifying paedophilia. Bearing in mind he’s an activist not a thinker I always find him a caring reasonable human.)

So finally – live music with King Charles. Dominated by Charles Costa as the hirsute, white-suited, tall dark and sexy singer-songwriter front man, but actually a very tight funky dance-pop line-up of tunes, rhythms and harmonies around some interesting lyrics. Great fun live with an enthusiastic audience, so much more so than the handful of flatter studio produced video versions of their same songs I’ve checked-out since.

=====

[Post note some suggestion  that Peter Tatchell stated that they failed to get any GC feminist or gay representatives to respond to any request to join the line-up of the all TRA session on the Sunday.

Given the latter was at the event, I’d be surprised if the TRA’s did make any serious effort at dialogue. Kathleen Stock did in fact offer in her own session earlier.]

Innate by Kevin Mitchell – Review

Kevin Mitchell (2018) “Innate
– How the Wiring of Our Brains Shapes Who We Are”

[This repeats and adds to relevant content from an earlier partial review.]

Several of the more important books I’ve read recently have felt mostly like syntheses and restatements of things I already felt I knew one way or another – Solms’ “Hidden Spring“, McGilchrist’s “Matter With Things” and Sigmund’s “Exact Thinking in Demented Times” (say) – and I’ve gone straight into gutting them for content to add to my own theses.

Reading “Innate” however I found several levels of details new to me.  Highly recommended therefore as an educational read – very matter-of-fact / common-sensical style, free of hyperbole, with its only agenda focussed on increasing understanding.

For example, on understanding that pre-wired traits are not hard-wired (the extent to which there’s plasticity) and that genes & DNA really do drive most of the (genetic) process of development of the human individual – traits, propensities, capabilities of brain and mind – without being reductively deterministic.

“Wiring” as the processes – not just the resultant paths– by which neurons and other structures seek and form connections at all stages in the process, that once in a unique development lifetime process of that individual.

From conception / fertilisation to our early 20’s, birth itself is just one point in the complex processes of development in a multi-layered landscape of time and place. So “innate” includes heritable genetic variation from parental DNA and “de novo” mutations specific to the particular gametes, as well as the unique pre-birth experience of the individual. Why sexual reproduction and the enormous starting asymmetries (size, number and lifetimes) between the gametes (egg and sperm) and the sex-specific chromosomes (XX and XY) is so important to our success as “the clever ape”.

No shying away from the facts that as a species, we homo-sapiens are special in many important respects.

Mitchell is also very good on distinguishing between individuals and population distributions – and sub-set distributions – when it comes to human nature(s) and the value in understanding these without being in any way prescriptive or limiting of individuals. Makes it easy and natural to talk about differences – not least for example sex/gender differences (and even sexual preferences), free of “woke” political distraction. A whole chapter on many different sex differences, in both normal cases (eg things vs people) and in the prevalence of atypical conditions (eg autism, schizophrenia, bipolar). For sure there are strong environmental / cultural interactions with these, but great danger in denying and failing to understand the real differences. Difference – differences that make a difference – is a strong theme.

The complexity of the many feed-back and feed-forward loops in the nature of nurture – and the scale of the numbers involved – in neural and mental / behavioural development are endlessly fascinating and yet, as I say, presented in a very readable and digestible style.

The combination of functional and developmental flow descriptions and system / sub-system connectivity diagrams obviously appeals to my original cybernetics systems-thinking perspective. Mitchell’s book is an example of how powerful it is and why it is so important that such thinking is properly rehabilitated in a world of human affairs that rejects the mechanistic impression of our 20th C electro-mechanical computing machines. Original cybernetics was always about human governance, even the word “machine” in the Turing sense is a valuable abstraction before any physical embodiment.

The verb “shape” is so much more architectural than the over-simple determine when it comes to the rich complexity and multiplicity of human traits and capabilities arising from our genes. One feature of the systems-architectural view is that one can properly choose to ignore details which are not relevant to the behaviour of any given sub-system and yet assemble a functional view of the complex whole. Mitchell brings a very particular set of details applicable to the ideas of genetic and/or innate, pre-wired and/or more-or-less hard-wired or plastic when it comes to who we turn out to be.

Many highlights of interest to my own agenda:

An obvious one is that infamous Pinker “Blank Slate” finding, much quoted here since 2002 about the rough ratios of influence in personal traits development (nature vs nurture vs culture – Lewens) between:

    • genetics (~30-40%),
    • parenting & formal teaching (~10-20%) and
    • wider social, environmental & peer-group experience (~50-60%).

Mitchell shows that the “environmental” aspect is so misleading – actually very like the content<>context distinction in knowledge generally. (ie context is just more content, but often in meta-layers removed from the current content). At any point, our existing brain / mind IS the context for our ongoing content development. We are a large part of our own environment. That large mysterious part of our development is mostly indirectly – many layered loops of influence – driven by our own genes and other DNA including those we share with our parents and siblings.

Nurture and culture are natural processes too.

Another, without specific references, very reminiscent of both Solms and Pirsig in terms of “the subjective experience of the environment that matters” – “affective or emotional states that drive initial behavioural responses” – experience in terms of categorical good / bad qualities – “to learn from things … which we know only because they felt good or bad to us, because they were tagged with subjective, affective value.”

And, as with the ubiquitously contentious differences like sex and sexual preference mentioned above, differences like racial groups are also addressed. A passage on why, whilst such mental differences are real, these are “multiple traits affected by the genetic variants in hundreds and thousands of genes which often also affect other traits” – “this will tend to constrain the possibilities for change” and “directional selection (within the species) will fight a losing battle against mutation, which will instead constantly generate diversity within groups. There would need to be an extremely strong – [external, eugenic] – selection force to drive stable group differences”.

And so many more annotations for future reference, not to mention the various graphical summaries.

Kevin Mitchell’s Innate manages to be both broad in scope and detailed in example content, whilst remaining readable and informative. Even without the strong fit with my own cybernetic agenda as the initial reason to pick it up, it was a positively enjoyable read. Highly recommended.

[End]

=====

[Post notes:]

From Kevin Mitchell’s own tweeted “Public Service Announcement” later the same day:

Genetics as a science is not about genes causing traits. It’s about how *variation* in genes causes *variation* in traits.

So, it’s necessarily reductive in its methodology. But that doesn’t mean geneticists think that specific genes produce specific bits of the organism or characters all by themselves

Making an organism requires the whole genome, in the context of a fertilised egg cell, in a permissive environment

But specific variations in DNA sequence can nevertheless cause specific phenotypic differences (all else being equal)

Note that that also does not imply a one-to-one mapping (in either direction) between specific DNA variants and specific traits – most such relationships are highly complex

Developmental biologists try to understand how the whole organism is put together, guided by the information in the genome.

That’s a necessarily holistic exercise, but it can be informed by results from reductive experiments (like knocking out one gene at a time and seeing what happens to development)

The tricky bit is integrating these two perspectives! (And remembering that using reductive methods does not commit us to reductive theories!)

That pesky term “causation” in the first tweet. And reminds me of Dan Dennett’s “greedy reductionism” warning. It’s OK to use reductive methods to understand the parts at any and all levels, but don’t forget to re-assemble the holistic whole – complex system of systems – before claiming causal explanations.