Rayner’s Natural Inclusion

Alan Rayner’s “Inclusionality” restated as “Natural Inclusion”.

This piece illustrating an integrative and redistributive selection notion of evolution of extended self, as opposed to an eliminative selection of discrete selves, using a mycelium fungus example migrating its center of operations to food … and beyond.

This piece elliciting a succinct communication of Alan’s inclusional objectives.

And this piece illustrating the integrative rather than divisive dualist take on boundaries of identity – “We are bewitched by bipolar craziness, and if we really want to restore the dance we need some sellotape” – some integrating glue.

All pieces captured by Jack Whitehead and linked by William Pryor on his very new “Unhooked Thinking” blog following this year’s “Unhooked thinking” conference. William Pryor has his own only slightly less recent personal blog too.

Dawkins vs God – Round XXIV

The debate trundles on.

Struan Hellier’s father Graham Hellier is a Presbyterian minister and has written this “Christian Response” to Dawkins. I responded with these comments. My position is already pretty clear – Dawkins is as extreme as any religious extremist and unfortunately he cannot separate his (correct) arguments about the memetic success of religious (faith and authority-based) beliefs and reasoning, from his incorrect assertion that “scientific” reasoning can be totally objective and faith-free, or that if it is, it cannot be practically applicable to the whole of life.

Related is this news story about growing concern about the distinction between spiritual “contemplative” activities and religious “faithful” activities, and the worry about the inroads of the latter into US political life. Dawkins unfortunately seems devoid of contemplative spiritual values, so would not see the distinction and be locked in ancient faith vs reason battles – tilting at windmills.

Quantum Consciousness, Whitehead and Pirsig

Mark Germine posted a link on MoQ-Discuss to his paper “The Holographic Principle Theory of Mind” on the Dynamical Psychology philosophy journal site edited by Ben Goertzel. (I have Ben linked in my side-bar blogroll). Mark’s summary is

The Holographic Principle holds the information in any region of space and time exists on the surface of that region.  Layers of the holographic, universal “now” go from the inception of the universe to the present.  Universal Consciousness is the timeless source of actuality and mentality. Information is experience, and the expansion of the “now” leads to higher and higher orders of experience in the Universe, with various levels of consciousness emerging from experience.  The brain consists of a nested hierarchy of surfaces which range from the most elementary field through the neuron, neural group, and the whole brain.  Evidence from the evolution and structure of the brain shows that optimal surface areas in a variety of structures are conserved with respect to underlying surfaces.  Microgenesis, the becoming of the mental state through a process of recapitulation of development and evolution, is in full accord with the Holographic Principle. Evidence from a wide variety of contexts indicates the capacity of the mind for total recall of past life events and for access to universal information, indicating connection with the holographic surfaces of prior “nows” and with the Universal holographic boundary.  In summation, the Holographic Principle can help us explain the unity and mechanisms of perception, experience, memory, and consciousness.

KEYWORDS: Holographic Principle, consciousness, evolution, time, mind, brain, memory, microgenesis, quantum physics, conceptual synthesis.)

This is just a holding post to collect all the linkage.

The paper itself, and Mark’s post on MoQ-Discuss, link this quantum view to Whitehead’s “Process” metaphysics, and suggests the parallel with Pirsig, discussed by Sneddon (on Ant’s site).

David Morey previously pointed out the parallels between the Whitehead process metaphysics and quantum theory, as discussed by Shimon Malin’s “Nature Loves to Hide”. (Which I read and enjoyed, posted thoughts on MoQ-Discuss – but it seems I didn’t blog about Malin, or Whitehead for that matter, who I’ve also read since reading Malin ?)

The holographic principle (holochory) is a fundamental aspect of quantum information theory, being posited by the BCS Cybernetics group as a the most fundamental view of the whole of reality, including consciousness.

Mark cites Stapp, and it was Stapp and Josephson that first gave me that link between fundamental physics and eastern (Zen) philosophy, after I had passed over Talbot’s “Mysticism and the New Physics” as merely metaphorical.

Ben Goertzel also runs the “Artificial General Intelligence” research institute wiki, and is a member of the organising committee for the AGI-08 conference, where Cliff Joslyn and Doug Lenat are also on the programme committee. Ben is the editor of “Dynamical Psychology”, Mark Germine is an associate editor, and Fred (Bluberry Brain) Abraham is on the editorial board.

Take it or leave it.

After some stressful hectic weeks – company annual conference, and a “learning experience” in US temporary-resident house-buying – Sylvia and I decided we’d have a quiet holiday weekend after work on Saturday. After checking the boys were surviving OK with end of year exam progress – just one of them has one to go – we went to Barnes & Noble and sought out a few books to read quietly, at some of our favourite local locations.

I picked-up my first Kurt Vonnegut (see previous post) and my first Daniel Quinn – the first of the “Ishmael” trilogy originally written in 1977 – and Naslund’s “Ahab’s Wife” – both the latter on my reading list for quite some time, since blogging references some years ago.

Anyway, having read Cat’s Cradle right though, practically in one sitting pausing only to sleep, I started Ishmael this morning, and I’m now through that too.

Very interesting. All bar one scene so far, there are just the two characters in conversation, Ishmael (the 1000 pound gorilla in the room) and the author – in a philosophical journey similar to Sophie and her tutor / correspondent, though like Pirsig’s ZMM and Lila, it is infinitely better than Sophie’s World because it contains it’s own philosophical speculations, rather than just a potted history of the accepted philosophy of our culture.

I was expecting something pretty new-agey and cultish – there is after all a www.ishmael.com and a “Friends of Ishmael” out there – but I’m pleasantly surprised and impressed. The writer, as opposed to the unavoidable dryness of Ishmael himself, is the professional journalistic writer in his own story, with plenty of opportunity for wit.

Like Pirsig the point is that our “western” culture – the “Mother Culture” in Quinn – has become wedded to a misunderstanding – the correct view of life the universe and everything having an evolutionary explanation, but a failure to appreciate that what passes for correct “intellectually” is simply mythology and not some god-given absolute truth or reason.

Ishmael’s metaphor is the Takers and Leavers. The “Takers” being those tillers of the land – with the mark of Cain – who believe right supports their might to dominate the “Leavers”, the hunter-gatherers and nomadic herders of Abel. Our metaphors – the fall of Adam eating from the tree of (true) knowledge – are according to Quinn really the myths of the Leavers created to explain why the Takers thought they might be right. The real message is “diversity is key” to successful long term evolution. No one culture can assume it is right in a any absolute sense over others. There need to be many cultures, with boundaries and interdependencies, just as there needs to be bio-diversity in the gene pool.

Memetic diversity. Like Pirsig, there is a tendency to progress through layers of evolution, we just happen to be the most evolved intellects we know about so far, but we may not necessarily be the ancestors of the most evolved intelligencies in future – let those dolphins through. The only thing special about humans is that we may be the first to learn this fact and ensure we don’t get in the way of progress, and pass this message on to future cultures, rather than mistakenly assume we can take over as managers of the cosmos, whilst leading it to our certain extinction along with the terrestrial corner of the cosmos we feel we have control over. Influence yes, control no.

Also like Pirsig, much is made of the anthropology of plains Indian culture and of the (then recent) failure of hippies to make a go of alternative culture – a reminder that this is nothing to do with a nostalgia for noble savagery – simply that the “leaver” culture naturally accepts that it is one of many interacting cultures doing what works best for them, rather than “the” culture with the best riposte to all other cultures. Freedom and competition yes, but with pragmatic limits. This knowledge Quinn calls “wisdom”.

Probably worth reading “Providence” as well as the others in the Ishmael trilogy – “The Story of B” and “My Ishmael”

Vonnegut

When Kurt Vonnegut died a few weeks ago, there was some traffic about his work on various discussion boards … I realized I knew of him, and a little about his works, but had not actually read any. On MoQ-Discuss several people gave recommendations for favourites and for new readers. I started with the obvious – 1963 “Cat’s Cradle” – with no prior knowledge, I was pleasantly suprised. A witty, satyrical, apocalyptic allegory. The deepest message seems to be in the title – connections are all there is  – a tangle of string – there is nothing else to the world – no cradle – and nothing else in it – no cat. Nothing is what it seems, it’s all sleight of hand.

Put me in mind of Einstein on communication – “except there is no cat”.

Put me in mind of Douglas Adams – the golden slipper and more (?)

Put me in mind of Pirsig – the ice-nine seed crystal.

Put me in mind of Rand – migration from industrial might to (dystopian) Utopia

Photo Gallery Update

Well backdate actually. I’ve just reloaded all the older (scanned) photos linked from the general gallery page above, to some old pages of mainly music subjects, that I had hosted at an expired ISP, now moved over to Dreamhost with the rest of the blog pages.

Anyway all live again, and updated outgoing dead links within these and inbound links from various other psybertron pages.

Lavery on the Web

I updated links with David Lavery’s work recently, but I also just noticed a recent post of his summarizing his various web projects.

As well as the “Descartes – Evil Genius” pages, take a look at the commonplace book “The Imaginative Thinker” which as well as being an extensive collection of quotes, actually includes an enormous bibliography of all the sources.

(Was reminded of this whilst following up my own bibliography project, currently looking at “Library Thing“, something which I’ve seen people as diverse as Geo Hancock and Chris Locke using. Still find Chris infuriating in that whilst his interest is in de-bunking pseudo-scientific new-age++ stuff, I never see anything to replace the inevitable babies he keeps throwing out with the no-brainer bathwater – but I’m repeating myself.)

Alan Rayner’s Inclusional Science

I’ve been communcating with Alan Rayner on and off the Friends of Wisdom e-mail discussion group. I find we have a common understanding on many issues, and Alan is a particularly poetic writer, so a joy to read.

Recently he shared copies of his paper “Inlcusional Science – From Artefact to Natural Creativity” (no link available yet) Here some selected quotes that intersect with my interests here …

My Catch-22 of breaking the “self-fulfilling” objective loop …

Egged on all the more by research funding agencies, assessment exercises and pressures to publish or perish, scientific enquiry becomes ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’. We set out to concoct and test ‘falsifiable’ and thereby axiomatic hypotheses, with minds so closed off from indefinable possibilities that we can and do ignore observations that ‘don’t fit’ with our presuppositions. Meanwhile we pay little or no attention to where and how these hypotheses and presuppositions arise in the first place.

My “definition is death” – “careful with that razor, Occam” theme … and my “give excluded middles a chance” mantra …

In my experience, to call for definitions to be relaxed in a culture that is addicted to definition is to come into close encounter with stony ground, if not something like the fury of a toddler threatened with separation from its favourite toy or security blanket ! … principal among objectivity’s objections to inclusionality is that the razed down simplicity that comes from defining things will ‘get lost’. Personally, I rather wish that it would ! But, seriously, this objection illustrates the addictive, all or none quality of false dichotomy: either we have total definition or no definition. Definition is something we must have if we are not to get totally lost in a sea of troubles. We exclude between two stools the dynamic ‘middle ground’ synthesis of ‘neither entirely one nor the other’ …

My views on the divisive distraction of unneccesarily hyper-objective distinctions …

By excluding that which it defines itself not to be, objective science may not only alienate itself from the public whose appreciation, understanding and money it craves, but may also greatly diminish its own opportunities for creative evolution and correspondence with other human endeavours. Such exclusion is evident in the ‘Two Culture’ split between ‘Art’ and ‘Science’ notoriously brought to light by C.P. Snow (1959, 1963; see also Petroski, 2005), and the increasingly cantankerous collision between Darwinian evolutionary science and religious ‘Creationism’ or ‘Intelligent Design’ theory. In a non-linear inclusional perspective, there is no need for this split and the nastiness it engenders: the split is an artefact of definitive logic.