Year: 2017

Teleology Without a God

Discounting the intellectual snobbery that this is about Dan Brown, as indeed the reviewer himself suggests, it is worth a read. The headline is:

“Dan Brown’s New Novel Pushes Atheism and Endorses Intelligent Design … Wait …What?“

I’ve not digested the whole yet (and there are secondary references to follow-up) but my own position is pretty close to:

There is no (need for a) supernatural god,
because purposeful intelligent design is part of nature.

[Post Note: my most complete review is here.]

Pretty sure that’s a summary of Dan Dennett’s position too. Dennett is one of the sources referenced. Rehabilitating perfectly serviceable words that have been hijacked for supernatural purposes is something he recommends. As is his warning against an objective determinism based on too-greedy reductionism. If we had a perfect physical model of the world in every detail, then you could make a case that causation literally followed every link in that model from original fundamentals to the objects and events of here and now, though even then you’d maybe need plenty of short-cuts to get any actual work done. Looks like “a (temporary) god of the gaps“, except ….

The fact is, however, that plenty of objects and causal laws in that stack are only our current best-guess and they’re still only a model of reality, not reality itself. In practice the things that need revising and better defining are not simply gaps or beyond the bottom-end of our sub-quantum physics foundation, but through and across multiple levels within it. “Hold off on your definition!” says Dennett. All models have a purpose and our model(s) has(have) our purpose(s). One of science’s purposes is “natural” to deny any supernatural god and another is “objectivity” to deny any special human position in it, as a matter of policy. It’s a kind of Catch-22.

The problem with that denial, is not that it’s not fundamentally true, but that it makes us blind to errors in the model at the myriad of “something’s not quite right” levels within it. One of the more pervasive areas of error is the appearance of causation itself, and the assumption of causal laws rather than the results of evolving meta-laws. It makes us blind to solutions that look too mysterious right now to be justified based on the physics we do currently hold authoritatively. It’s a hostage to all-or-nothing fortune. Because there’s no god, because there’s nothing privileged or designed for humans, let’s shoot ourselves in the foot.

Anyway, hat tip to Rick Ryals for spotting the significance of the article and who, beyond Dennett, has been most influential to me in seeing the anthropic blind-spot in physics as well as natural purpose and intelligence beyond random entropy in the cosmos.  (More later after a detailed read and review.)

=====

[Post Notes: Previously on Psybertron ….

It’s all about the (Shannon) information, dummy, information being the root of evolution and the complement of entropy.

Carlo Rovelli’s Fresh Spin (Nov 2016) – Quantum Loop Gravity with Fundamental (Integrated) Information.

Unger & Smolin (Feb 2015) – back to basics and the evolution of laws according to meta-laws.

The Physics of Consciousness (Jun 2017) quick round-up including Integrated Information Theory (IIT) references.

The Edge survey of Hidden Concepts (Aug 2017) – the usuals suspects with some encouraging convergences – ergodicity being the novelty.

How the Light Gets In (Jun 2016) – including some interaction with Chiara Marletto on Constructor Theory.

Deutsch & Marletto (May 2014) on Constructor Theory meta-laws (hat-tip Rick Ryals, the plot thickens)

And, away from physics, let’s not forget Dan Dennett on the evolution of consciousness (Oct 2017).

Science and Psychology Bookmarks (Oct 2017) Another round-up of relevant links.

In the light of these – still to read the Dan Brown piece above!

Now having read it, I see Brown’s work is relying on Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer, also reference by Jonathan McLatchie, particularly using the specific complexity of information arguments for intelligent purpose. These are entropy vs information arguments I buy – in principle – but (a) it’s a big step to apply it to particular complex biological evolution example design-spaces, big as in lots of work and lots of expertise needed to do and to argue and/or verify, the point I made last time I referenced McLatchie, and (b) the design intelligence doesn’t have to be supernatural, a god, as I say above. But interesting these ideas are making mainstream ripples.]

BBC R4 Today Presenters’ Views of TFTD

Most of what’s wrong with Today could be fixed by retiring Humphrys IMHO but as an atheist, humanist, rationalist I happen to like Thought for the Day. Ironically it is Humphrys’ view that is closest to mine:

“Sometimes it’s good … an interesting thought in a provocative way [but] inappropriate that Today should broadcast nearly three minutes of uninterrupted religion.”

Says it all. Justin’s remark is surprisingly sneering and misrepresenting as Giles Fraser suggests:

A 2 or 3 minute reflective slot in the middle of the 3 hour flagship daily news and current affairs program is a great tradition. The real innovation needed is to ensure it includes a fair balance of non-religious spiritual / philosophical reflection. Again to be fair, despite currently being 100% religious, my impression is that few of the speakers let their particular religion or god dominate their message – more often than not the speaker’s underlying agenda is in fact more overtly political than religious (Giles?).

TFTD would however definitely be improved by a fair balance of speakers from secular philosophical perspectives, topical but reflective of the deeper or more transcending human issues. As for Justin’s sneering suggestion that the message is usually simply that people should be nicer to each other, my usual response is:

“What’s so funny ’bout peace, love and understanding?”

There are worse premises to start from.

=====

[Post Note: Clearly the quality of the slot is very dependent on the skills and qualities (and agenda, everybody has one) of the individual presenter. Like Nick Robinson I would single out a few excellent contributors. His example, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks would be one of mine too (I’ve praised Sacks before, reassuringly topical to today’s debate!). The problem to solve if moving in a secular / disestablished direction is who – which institutions – individuals represent and resist promoting with their agenda. But other think-pieces like A Point of View and Something Understood seem to reasonably solve this.]

[Round#2 – Ironic that TFTD the following morning 31st Oct, majored on the story of Luther, followed by an interview with Rowan Williams, followed by a longer piece on Luther. A good deal more than 3 minutes of “religion”. No-one mentioned the RT opinions expressed above.

And …

Sarah correctly points out that the Luther story got “legs” thanks to Gutenberg and the printing press. The solution to the question what to do with secularisation and disestablishment of TFTD, BBC and society general is very clear but the additional problem we have to deal with in the 21st century is social media – “the printing press on steroids”.

And more on Luther half an hour later. It goes on.]

=====

[Post Note: Elizabeth Oldfield’s Twitter thread on this:

“In case anyone is interested, here are my thoughts on #TFTD, as someone who has both worked in bbc radio from the inside , and delivered it. When I was offered it I almost said no. I wasn’t a big fan. I want faith *out* of the dusty legacy slot and where it belongs , in dynamic hurly burly of life and death and NOW. Lived religion is strange and visceral and joyful and rich and unsettling, not dull.

TFTD has v stringent editorial constraints. Standard BBC defences (presenter challenged,other guest balanced) don’t apply so paranoia reigns. Topical, offensive to no one, not even slightly political and an interesting three mins of radio? It is therefore almost impossible to do well. It’s not bc religious people have nothing interesting to say, it’s that the slot prevents them. I don’t think I’ve ever really nailed it.

BUT When it’s good, it’s very good. It lingers like nothing else in the prog. It creates space for meaning& reflection which we dearly need. So I think it should stay, but be improved. It needs releasing from being “topical” (this is often forced). The editorial constraints need relaxing, because saying *anything* about fundamental values will cause offence to someone. And some voices from thoughtful non- relig trads should probably be included in the mix, as long as relig voices not slowly pushed out. Religions have a huge amount of wisdom to offer on how we live honestly, lovingly, healthily together & my theology tells me so will others.”

Spot on Elizabeth. This has little to do with non-secular theistic religion, and everything to with reflective wisdom and values that are “meta-topical” to the onward rush of current affairs. (The artificial drive to be “topical” and non-contentious values-wise is almost certainly driven by the need to justify its ongoing inclusion “objectively”.) The flagship daily news programme is exactly the place for this slot and it really must be improved by removing exclusively religious constraints, in good faith.

The Humanists UK response, whilst quoting the negative comments from (some of) the presenters also concludes:

“We want Thought for the Day to include humanist perspectives.”

Progress.]

Laland’s Unfinished Opus

I’ve already made two somewhat dismissive references to Kevin Laland’s “Darwin’s Unfinished Symphony – How Culture Made the Human Mind”(1). This is a review on completion of that read.

[Post Note: I see Massimo Pigliucci’s book club review of Darwin’s Unfinished Symphony came out a few days before I posted this. I need to read that and comment. Uniquely unique?]

I like it  in the sense that it does support the idea that the human mind is a qualitatively distinct and uniquely different kind in a world of many sentient species. It’s not exceptionalism in the sense that it couldn’t have been otherwise, that humans were in any sense necessarily predestined to be that species. But let’s face up to facts and responsibilities. Here we are.

I also like it in the sense that it compiles three or four decades of empirical scientific research into the evolution of intelligent life-hacks by which sentient beings copied and more generally learned individually, socially and by teaching one another. Rats, sticklebacks and corvids may indeed be highly intelligent in solving and communicating solutions to particular kinds of problems and the primates may indeed have evolved more general intelligence, but the runaway success of humanity (humanins) is inescapable (2). That has been the result of co-evolution of brain and culture – the many shared languages (3) by which knowledge and meta-knowledge are communicated and recorded beyond the minds and bodies of living individuals. For any other species to repeat or beat that, including any artificial non-biological species, they’d need to find a pretty comprehensive planet-sized niche in which to evolve free of the limitations of existing human occupation. Human lives are not a repeatable experiment so we ain’t gonna let that happen.

That ought to be enough to recommend Laland’s work as a read for anyone who doesn’t feel they already know this, or is actively in need scientific evidence to support that knowledge.

My problems are two-fold.

What did I learn? How much is actually new? I learned why as a child I never managed to catch a fifteen-spined stickleback despite catching many three-spined critters. Genuinely fascinating, and totally plausible with hindsight, given an understanding of how evolution works. I never knew that! But beyond that it felt mostly like statements of what already seemed obvious. What I’ve already read or otherwise considered as reality, Laland is expressing surprise at discovering. Is that me just virtue-signalling what I consider to be my own knowledge? I don’t think so, and this is why:

Laland gives plenty of generous credit to his own collaborators and students, but seems rather pointedly to ignore or dismiss those in parallel, or even competing, streams of research and thought. It seems tribal rather than genuinely collaborative to dismiss Dennett and Memes, particular since these feature in the popular best-seller lists of science and philosophy and this is Laland’s magnum foray into that space. My only “interest” in Dennett is to credit him as the writer from whom I feel I’ve already learned most of this stuff – with many of the same empirical examples, supported by several other writers. The real difference is that in talking about the copying and sharing of cultural information (and mental tools; meta-information, also culturally shared) Dennett and I use the language of memetics.

Frankly what’s in a word? If you’re telling the same – true – story, who cares? I agree with them both. It’s the same story. There is really only one exception, and for me it’s the reason why dismissing memes misses an important aspect of the ongoing story.

History is one thing. If we agree, only a pedant would be picky about the particular words. There are in fact plenty of other bio-cultural co-evolution and group-level selection ideas that will keep others concerned with the details of which empirical findings really do support which aspects of the story. As a good scientist, Laland himself leaves a few pointers to contentious points of detail. Plenty for the EES crowd to get their teeth into for many a year to come, biologically, psychologically and philosophically. For me the concern is how we get to the future from here and now.

Like many a public scientist, Laland is good with awe – “awe without wonder” in his case – in describing the greatest story ever told. It is indeed awesome, but no-one should be wondering how it came to be in any general sense. We know (4). “Many talented scientists have chipped away at this wonder”, before now, he says. Laland’s final chapter re-iterates the marvel that is this unique species we know as human mind. What he doesn’t appear to suggest – if he does I missed it – is any doubt that the direction of this awesome progress is in the direction of continued success. To my eyes, this is because he doesn’t make enough distinction between the many examples and mechanisms of human success in cultural co-evolution and the behaviour of the patterns of information involved in these – the memes – that take on a life of their own. The selfish meme anyone?

It’s probably a reflection of the time period summarised in the majority of Laland’s narrative. Decades ago few of us were actively concerned with fake-news and the spread of misinformation, or half-baked simplistic information taking hold of public consciousness. Within science, reduction to simple repeatable elements is the name of the game. Real life, human cultural evolution, including science as a sub-set of that, is more complicated. We are going to need a word for – a handle on – the contents of ideas (and their properties) being shared that is distinct from their embodiment in the brains and media exchanging them. Markets can go down – quantitatively and qualitatively – as well as up.

=====

(1) I resisted reading Laland’s work due to some of the preview / publicity in relation to some of my prejudices on the topic. I prefer to make my prejudices explicit upfront, rather than pretend they don’t exist. [Here] [and Here]. I gave in when I discovered “Darwin’s Unfinished Symphony” was to be Massimo Pigliucci‘s next review in the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis context, and I wanted to be forearmed in that dialogue. [Post Note: Was actually published 23rd Oct.]

(2) Success is more than headcount or % of the cosmos populated, because …

(3) Remember we’re considering the whole of human culture here, language is any natural, formal, narrative or artistic form symbolised in any medium.

(4) There is a bit of a fetish, reinforced by the ubiquity of media communications, that somehow we all have to know every detail of everything we care about and therefore everything must be transparent to everyone. This is a physical impossibility for a finite processor of information, and at some point we all have to accept trust in authority at some level. It doesn’t remove our right to question and dig a little deeper when appropriate; complementary to the positive fetish for information overload is the fashionably negative fetish against authority.

Marriage Mess

I’ve expressed concern that the Humanists UK campaign on “equal marriage” is misguided – addressing a real issue on secular freedoms, but proposing change that may have unintended consequences. Dropped my foot in it yesterday by questioning that in a conversation that @AndrewCopson was already having with @MoJGovUK on Twitter.

There are several religious and gender issues tangled-up in marriage law in the UK and in the separate English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish legislation. Make that religious, gender and nationalist tangles.

The UK Government advice is here. The Humanists UK position is here:

We have the basic anomaly that there are still legal differences: a “Civil Partnership” is not the same as a “Registry Wedding” irrespective of how the marriage is “celebrated” and for that reason (prohibited) hetero-sex civil partnerships cannot be the same in UK law as as same-sex partnerships. Hetero couples have less freedom than same sex! So far as I can see once the national differences are fixed, these can become synonymous. You have to ask how did we get into this mess?

Obviously we’re in this mess because historically the established CofE resisted changing the particular procreative purpose in weddings traditionally celebrated in the church, however much that has been relaxed between factions of the churches. But this has further consequences.

The underlying issue has been between the marriage recognised in law – in subsequent rights and responsibilities of the participants – and the nature of the wedding celebration. However few attend to support a wedding all marriages involve both elements, so that the witnessing of the oath is public. And whether the couple are biologically capable of conception or not, those rights and responsibilities extend to children, if any. Furthermore, that’s true whether or not one subscribes to the idea that the main purpose of a wedding is procreation, or simply the commitment between two (or more) individuals as a public entity.

The real problem is which “celebrants” carry the same legal status as registrars in accepting the oath legally, and therefore whether both need to be involved in the ceremony / celebration embodied in more than one person. That is the established church and other recognised churches have historically maintained and won that status for their celebrants. HUK seems to be petitioning for the same rights for our celebrants. That seems backwards to me, wanting the same recognition as a church celebrant in law.

There are of course several other anomalies in what can and can’t happen under the different wedding arrangements, but it seems to me that any wedding must meet the secular legal requirements, whether the institution performing the ceremony is a religious one or not. Basic secularism.

The advantage of this arrangement – keeping the legality and celebration separate – is that different institutions and different factions of different institutions(!) are still able to set their own rules for participation in their ceremony. A second advantage is that the default minimum civil ceremony, can itself evolve to include the most widely accepted set of civil values.

Tactically, I can understand an organisation like HUK fighting for the same privileges for its celebrants as an established church, but it’s not what we actually want to achieve is it? It’s not the first time HUK (BHA as was) has been criticised for behaving like a religious church, and that’s a separate argument.

So as I have said before, what am I missing beyond the tactical / strategic consistency?

Memes and Cultural Evolution

I was lucky enough to have a piece published in The New Humanist, ostensibly as a review of Dan Dennett’s “Bacteria to Bach and Back” (B2BnB), but majoring on the memetics of argumentation. The focus is Dennett’s bet that despite no longer spending his time arguing with his critics on their terms, his style of arguing for the reality of evolved consciousness will win the day against reductive denial. A new “species” of argument will evolve. I’ve summarised the following closing para in various retweets.:

Personally, I bought Dennett’s bet many years ago, and even some of his critics share the hunch that he is on the right side of history. The real work is for the rest of us to get to grips with what makes for a good argument, when the object is our understanding of how we argue — with our minds. Our very rationality is at stake.

The New Humanist piece was restricted in length by the book-review template, but I will no doubt elaborate further on that thesis. At the same time, however, I’m about 1/3 of my way through Kevin Laland’s “Darwin’s Unfinished Symphony”.

Very frustrating, but I’m sticking with it. Don’t get me wrong, Laland’s book is full of referenced evidence, not all of which I’ve seen before. If you haven’t, you should read it. For me it feels like a long statement of the obvious, that human minds – and the assortment of mental tools we share individually, socially and culturally – are co-evolved with our culture. It’s not that the ability to copy and share knowledge is distinctly human – just look at the rats and even the sticklebacks(!) – it’s our ability to preserve and maintain culture in media beyond the life of our brains and genes – intentionally, beyond Darwinism. Laland uses the word “wisdom” a little too liberally for culturally shared knowledge – the wisdom of shoals, if you like – even though he acknowledges the gaming element in selective copying of behaviour. For me wisdom is meta to that. Wisdom is understanding that we can choose creatively when to apply rules and acting on that understanding. It’s not simply the fact of choosing as part of nature’s selection processes. (Guidance of the wise, the enslavement of sticklebacks, etc.) But I digress.

The frustration is to ignore Dennett and to reject the word Meme. So far there is very little I couldn’t imagine Dennett writing or having written already, using the language of memetics and Darwinian design spaces. Laland is clearly also using information in the sense disembodied from its immediate physical media. Looks 99% common ground ahead to my eyes.

The most degenerate meme we suffer from is the one that says it’s good to prove wrong the guy you disagree with, rather than integrate common knowledge for all our benefit. We need a new species of argument.

The New Normal

We really need to be able to rehabilitate the word “normal” – in contrast to “abnormal” – in general dialogue. It doesn’t need to be normative, or pejorative of the abnormal, but being tolerant of alternatives and minorities, even extreme ones, must involve honesty about their true place in reality. Gender & sexuality, health physical, biological & mental, even cultural outlooks, values & behaviours, you name it. Valuing equality of human respect, rights & opportunities is one thing, but that’s not the same as assigning the same values to all variations in all contexts. That would be to deny value.

Just sayin’. This is probably just a stub for a longer conversation?

The Fate of Evil Genius?

There are so many points at which David Lavery’s sources on thinking and writing touch mine, that I need to remind myself that it might be no coincidence. I suspect I picked-up a lot of references from reading an on-line draft of his “Evil Genius” back in 2004, though I know a lot more about philosophy and the evolution of consciousness from the studies I’ve done since.

Since around 2010, his web-pages have carried this note:

The web version of Evil Genius has been removed from my website as I revise the text for possible publication as a book.

I discovered Lavery had died in 2016 by email from fellow researcher Henry Gurr in January this year, but I had forgotten until reminded by some unexpected David Lavery hits on my blog this week, so I did a little digging.

For most of the 21st Century, Lavery’s focus and success had been popular culture – Buffy, Sopranos, GoT and the like. Since his death, all Lavery’s earlier blog material – anything other than his Mid-Tennessee State Uni content – has gone completely off-line. Henry has a snapshot from earlier this year, and I’ve extracted all – fairly complete – off-line copies of Evil Genius entries I could find in the archive web.

Aside: As well as Robert Pirsig references and a major collection of Owen Barfield writings, Lavery, like Barfield, uses many Rudolf Steiner references. Steiner’s anthroposophy has a bad press in the UK thanks to Steiner schools that use a very prescriptive version of his ideas for their curriculum. It makes any references to Steiner potentially toxic despite any value in his actual thinking. There is nothing in Lavery – or Barfield for that matter – that is dependent on Steiner, he simply informed some of their thinking. In fact there are no Steiner references at all in the body of EG, and as many bibliographic items for Rudolf Steiner as there are for George Steiner – just one each – in that work. Almost all R Steiner references by Lavery are in his Barfield writings “Re-weaving the Rainbow” (which I have as a Kindle copy).

[Barfield is a whole other topic – see also Barfield on Psybertron –
and very influential for C.S.Lewis, J.R.R.Tolkien and the rest of the Oxford Inklings. ]

EG is, as the cover suggests, a fantasy based on Kirkegaard’s heroine going back in time to “prevent” Descartes having his cogito ergo sum thought that might be seen as the root of the modern-day obsession with objectivity as something more fundamental than and distinct from human consciousness. Hence my interest. And a good deal more high-brow than popular culture.

As well as that fantastical plot device, EG was drafted very much as a blog-like project, a series of interlinked contemporary dated diary entries and notes by the various protagonists – in fact very like Pirsig’s early drafts of Zen and the Art compiled as a vast collection of index cards with meta-index linking cards. A blog before web-logging was invented.

I’ve given thought before to how such a work could be meaningfully published in readable form. So the question is, did Lavery take his draft EG any further before his death?

21st Century Economics – not before time?

After PostCapitalism (Paul Mason) [Take#2], numerous local discussions around the so-called Magic Money Tree and reasons to nevertheless control the money supply, and Javid falling into line this weekend on the idea of “supplying” money for public / affordable housing stock …. it’s all happening. We now have:

Preliminary steps toward a universal economic dynamics for monetary and fiscal policy
by Yaneer Bar-Yam, Jean Langlois-Meurinne, Mari Kawakatsu and Rodolfo Garcia
of New England Complex Systems Institute.
(About properly recognising the dynamics of complex systems – has both W Ross Ashby and Thomas Piketty (!) in the reference list. Hat tip to tweeted blog link – and own analysis – from Jaap van Till – The Connectivist. Wonder what Taleb makes of Bar-Yam paper?) (*)

Former minister, Baroness Shriti Vadera, who is now chairwoman of Santander UK, said that ‘the underlying promise of western capitalist economies […] has been broken‘ (Hat tip to Kenan Malik.)

=====

[(*) Post note: Retweeted the following today:

And took a look at @PrecPrinciple. Lo and behold along with Rupert Read, there are Nassim Taleb and Yaneer Bar-Yam. Don’t you just love it when a plan comes together?]