John G. Messerly's Blog, page 144

Wondering

This is the view tonight of the Seattle skyline from my kitchen window.

Like many scenes, it elicits thought. Of the long journey that brought me to this hill, on this night. A journey full of randomness and choices, of sorrow and joy, and of questions arising. Why here? Why now? Why anything at all? As Wittgenstein said: “Not how the world is, but that it is, is the mystery.” We will not solve this mystery in our lifetimes. It will take an eternal cosmos to do that.

But perhaps the cosmos is immortal and we, as a part of it, are too. After all, we know little of cosmic destiny. So who is to say what is possible in the vastness of cosmic space and time?

 

Share

An Overview of Clement Vidal’s, The Beginning and the End-Chapters 5-10

I would now like to conclude my discussion of this important work.

Chapters 5 and 6 continue to investigate the question of the origin of the cosmos. Perhaps the most important result for the average reader is that  the argument for a fine-tuned universe is inconclusive. The discussion in chapters 4-6 leads to the question of the future of the cosmos in Chapters 7 and 8; the question of whether we are alone in the cosmos in Chapter 9; and Chapter 10 the possibility of a cosmological ethics..  There are simply so many profound and novel ideas in these chapters that I’ll leave them to the readers of the book to explore.

The crescendo of the work appears in the last section’s discussion of immortality, where Vidal distinguishes five kinds of immortality:

1) Spiritual – The belief in a supernatural realm where a non-physical soul “goes” after death. This belief is widespread and appealing, but anathema to the rationalistic mind.

2) Individual – The belief that we can be biologically or digitally immortal. Vidal suggests that motivation for individual immortality arises primarily because we are cultural creatures. Our genes survive to a large extent but “most of the information we gather during our lifetime is cultural and gets lost at the time of death. And this is pure waste.” (Vidal, 298) The way out of this problem is biological or digital immortality or some combination of the two.  Critics question whether cybernetic immortality is possible without embodiment, whether it’s worth it to live in a simulation, whether its cost will be prohibitive, whether death is good because it motivates us, etc. But Vidal suggests that immortality will force us to worry about things like climate change, the death of our sun and the universe since we will live into the far future.  Still we don’t need to be immortal to have transpersonal concerns–we can care about others who will live after we have died. And the same with our projects, concerns and goals. If they take many generations to achieve then our deaths do not undermine those projects.  Such considerations lead us to consider transpersonal immortality in three different varieties. 

3) Creative – The belief that immortality can be achieved by leaving a cultural legacy. The main problem here is that even the achievements of an Aristotle, Shakespeare or Darwin may be forgotten in thousands or millions of years.

4) Evolutionary – The belief that immortality can be achieved by leaving a biological legacy. For example we are almost immortal at the level of the genes and are potentially immortal as part of a global brain. But even this is not enough if there are cosmological constraints on the immortality of the universe.

5) Cosmological – The belief that true immortality can only be achieved by a connection between ourselves and the immortality of the cosmos. But can the universe continue indefinitely? Perhaps universes could reproduce other universes ad infinitum, or our descendants will become smart enough to determine the fate of the cosmos. Vidal believes that we can be concerned with the issue of cosmological immortality, we can see the immortality of the cosmos as our ultimate goal.

Let me conclude by stating my belief that only with cosmic immortality can complete meaning in life be found. And I agree with Vidal that this is our ultimate goal–the creation and continuation of a good, meaningful, immortal cosmos.

Finally let me reiterate what I said about this work previously. It is a carefully and conscientiously crafted work of immense scope and daring imagination, one of the most important and timely books of the last few decades. Vidal is aware of the speculative nature of his work, but he reminds us that speculation plays a large part in the scientific and philosophical enterprises. He knows his speculations could turn out to be wrong, but given the choice between careful speculation or silence, Vidal chooses the former. And we are glad he did. For his assiduous scholarship reveals the possibility that a scientific cosmology can provide a narrative which gives life meaning. A narrative so desperately needed as the old mythological ones become increasingly passé. And we are privileged to journey along with his well-ordered and visionary mind as it contemplates perhaps the most important question of our time–how do we find meaning in the cosmos revealed by modern science.

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the book.

Share

An Overview of Clement Vidal’s, The Beginning and the End-Chapter 4

In Chapter 4 Vidal turns to issue of the beginning of the universe. Answers to these questions are no doubt found in the realm of  science. “Modern science can successfully connect physical and chemical evolution with biological and cultural evolution … Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that science is an effective method to understand cosmic evolution.” (Vidal, 59) But the multiple challenges for any ultimate explanations include:

a) epistemological - What are the epistemological characteristics of an ultimate theory? Are all ultimate theories either circular or infinite regresses?

b) metaphysical – Why not nothing? Why is there something rather than nothing?

c) thermodynamic - Where does the energy of the universe comes from, and how will it end? Can something come from nothing?

d) causal - What was the causal origin of the universe? Was it self-caused? Is its causal chain infinite?

e) infinities - Is the universe spatially finite or infinite? Is it temporally finite or infinite?

Vidal begins by discussing a foundational starting point for the universe–a cause which does not need another cause. Examples of points include a god or the big bang. By invoking a creator god one avoids an infinite regress (the idea that the chain of causation goes back infinitely) but one can still ask  questions like: “Where did god come from?” “What was god doing before he created the universe?” Theologians often answer that god is self-caused. Of course one could say the Big Bang was a self-caused starting point too.

To avoid these issues we might assume the origin of the universe has no foundation–that ultimate explanations are cyclical. Cyclical thinking is found in various disciplines: recursive proofs in mathematics and computer science; networks of meaning in linguistics; and feedback loops in systems theory. (Jean Piaget thought that all of the sciences ground each other in a “circle of the sciences.) Might cyclic cosmologies like those of the Stoics and Hindus better explain the origins of the universe? The problem with cyclic theories are many. Cycles appear to have no endpoint, and thus don’t supply an ultimate explanation. Cycles also imply an eternal return–an endless repetitive cycle.

To fully engage these deep issues Vidal encourages us to take current cosmological theories seriously. “It is crucial to take seriously our best theories to answer our questions about origins. Major physical theories like quantum mechanics or general relativity can have counterintuitive consequences, which nevertheless we must take into account. Such theories are more reliable than intuitions coming from our brains, which are mere products of biological evolution. The brain is well adapted to recognize cycles in natural environments, or to recognize starting points in human actions, but not to guess what happened in the Big Bang era.”(Vidal, 75)

Vidal concludes that building scientific models involves the interaction of the external system and an observer who constructs models of that system. And understanding how observers models the world gives us the best chance to avoid the cognitive biases that lead us astray.

Note – For a readable, in-depth discussion of the important topics introduced in this chapter see:  Jim Holt, Why Does the World Exist?: An Existential Detective Story, (New York : Liveright Pub. Corp., 2012)

 

 

 

Share

An Overview of Clement Vidal’s, The Beginning and the End-Chapter 3

Continuing our discussion from yesterday’s post we move to Chapter 3.

3.1 Religious Worldviews -  Vidal is now invokes his criteria to test various worldviews. To demonstrate how the process works he compares intelligent design (ID) with flying spaghetti monsterism (FSM).  They are both objectively consistent and equally unscientific, although ID is larger in scope. ID does better in terms of subjective consistency,  since the designer of ID is amorphous, while FSM has a very specific designer. ID is also more useful and emotionally satisfying, as it is disgusting to think that a monster designed the world. FSM is more intersubjectively consistent since it has not killed millions, but ID is collectively more useful. ID’s narratives are more developed than those of FSM.  From this analysis we can conclude that ID is a better worldview than FSM. (Of course it may be a much worse worldview than others.)

Now that we have a sense of how these comparisons work we can consider religious worldviews in general. Religions usually excel in personal and collective utility, emotionality and narrativity. “… a religious worldview gives meaning, provides answers to fundamental questions, and has a pragmatic value in terms of both psychological benefits and social cohesion.” (Vidal, 43) Yet religions have few rational methods to resolve conflict–hence the ubiquity of religious conflict–and they are generally low on objective criteria, their tenets often contradict known scientific truths. They typically respond by invoking a god of the gaps, using god to explain current gaps in scientific knowledge. (This strategy is notoriously weak, as the gaps are continually closed causing religion to continually retreat.) In short religions are generally much better with subjective and intersubjective criteria than with objective criteria.

3.2 Scientific Worldviews - The strength of science is apparent–it constructs our best models of what is, where it came from, and where its going. It is strong in precisely those areas religion is weak. (I would say this is because science is the only cognitive authority in the world today.) But science often ignores integrating its models with questions of value, actions, knowledge, and meaning. Essentially, science is strong regarding objective criteria but less so regarding the subjective and intersubjective.

3.3 Philosophical Worldviews – In order to correct the flaws in their various worldviews theologians try to develop theologies more consistent with science, while scientists may expand their worldviews to include values, emotions, and meanings. Building a naturalistic worldview entails starting with objective, scientific principles, and extending them to include the subjective and intersubjective. For Vidal this is the essence of a philosophical worldview.

Vidal now examines three analogies to help us grasp how to build comprehensive and coherent worldviews. First consider worldview questions as an axiomatic system where worldview answers are structures satisfying the axioms. Many philosophies and religions use axioms such as god, immortality, or freedom as postulates in their systems. In general scientific worldviews are coherent but incomplete; religious worldviews are relatively complete but incoherent. Second consider worldview questions as a system of equations. In this model solving philosophical questions about worldviews compares to solving intricate sets of equations.  Third consider worldview questions as problems to solve. In this case we might employ problem solving techniques to resolve these problems.

Now that we have some idea of what it entails to develop a philosophical worldview, Vidal’s next task is to reformulate worldview questions in light of modern science.

(Note to the reader. I am summarizing this book in some detail because it is an important work that deserves to be read slowly. I also want to make sure its arguments are clear in my own mind. At the end of the summaries I will do a more traditional review which includes my own thoughts and reflections. Also my own occasional comments on the text interspersed in the summaries are noted by parenthetical expressions. )

Share

An Overview of Clement Vidal’s, The Beginning and the End-Chapter 2

Chapter 1 conducted a broad study of the philosophical method whose major aim is to construct worldviews–comprehensive and coherent answers to big questions like: where do we come from? Where are we going? What should we do? What does it all mean? Chapter 2 develops criteria to test the strengths and weaknesses of these worldviews.

In order to derive criteria to evaluate worldviews, Vidal takes three perspectives into account. The 1) objective or scientific; 2) subjective, existential, or phenomenological; and 3) intersubjective, social or cultural. These perspectives mirror the concerns of Kant’s three critiques, Popper’s three worlds, and Weber’s cultural spheres of value. The three perspectives distinguish between the objects of knowledge, the subjects who assimilate knowledge, and the communication process to transmit knowledge among subjects. “… the criteria can be seen as tools for philosophers to describe the history of philosophy, to work out their own philosophical position, or to clarify disagreements.” (Vidal, 18) Vidal draws heavily on Nicholas Rescher’s standards for evaluating philosophical theories to derive the criteria:

Objective criteria

Objective consistency  - The worldview exhibits internal and systemic consistency.

Scientificity – The worldview is compatible with science.

Scope – The worldview addresses a broad range of issues and levels,

in breadth and in depth.

Subjective criteria

Subjective consistency - The worldview fits knowledge and experiences individuals already have.

Personal utility – The worldview promotes a personally rewarding outlook on life.

Emotionality  - The worldview evokes emotions, so that it is more likely to be

assimilated and applied.

Intersubjective criteria

Intersubjective consistency - The worldview reduces conflicts between individuals.

Collective utility  - The worldview encourages an outlook on life and mobilizes

for what is socially beneficial.

Narrativity – The worldview presents its messages in the form of stories.(Vidal, 20)

Vidal’s subsequent discussion points out the strengths and weaknesses of each criteria. For instance: objective consistency informs a good worldview but overemphasizing it leads to a formalism that limits creativity; we must take modern science into account, yet dismissing non-scientific domains of knowledge leads to scientism; if the scope of a worldview is too narrow the resulting worldview becomes overspecialized, but as the scope expands synthetic integration becomes more difficult. Similarly the breadth or depth of the worldview can be too narrow or too broad.

When discussing the subjective and intersubjective criteria, Vidal also highlights how each component is an important part of a worldview, but that no criteria is sufficient by itself. He concludes by arguing that these criteria allow us to judge some worldviews as better than others. For instance continental philosophy generally ignores objective criteria while analytic philosophy often ignores subjective criteria.

Here are some things the three basic criteria illuminate. “… we humans are involved in three kinds of conflicts: against nature (objective), against ourselves (subjective), and against others (intersubjective) … objective criteria require that the worldview not be in friction with the outside world; subjective criteria require that the worldview not be in friction with an individual’s common knowledge and actions; and intersubjective criteria require that the worldview minimizes friction between individuals … A worldview that fits well in the three worlds has more chances to be accepted, appealing, and useful. Ideally, it would give rise to the following benefits: A consistent conception of the world (objective benefit); a lifeworld providing a meaning for life, useful for living a good life (subjective benefit); and a worldview whose foundations are fit for a well-organized society, where few conflicts arise arise (intersubjective benefit). Most importantly, those three worlds would be synthesized as far as possible in a coherent and comprehensive framework, thus forming a synthetic worldview. If we sum up the use of the three-perspectives criteria, we come to the goal of minimizing friction: a good worldview has a minimum of friction within and between objective, subjective, and intersubjective worlds.” (Vidal, 36-37)

With an understanding of the criteria a good worldview will satisfy, Vidal will turn in Chapter 3 to assessing various religious, scientific and philosophical worldviews.

Share

An Overview of Clement Vidal’s, The Beginning and the End-Chapter 1

Yesterday’s post briefly discussed a forthcoming book: The Beginning and the End: The Meaning of Life in a Cosmological Perspective. The author is Dr. Clement Vidal, a member of the Evolution, Complexity and Cognition Group at the Free University in Brussels, Belgium. Vidal investigates a most important question–whether modern scientific cosmology can provide insight and perhaps even answer the question of life’s meaning. It is a carefully and conscientiously crafted work of immense scope and daring imagination, one of the most important and timely books of the last few decades. Today I would like to discuss the work in more detail.

Chapter 1 – Vidal begins by arguing “that having a coherent and comprehensive worldview is the central aim of philosophy.” (Vidal, 2) This contrasts sharply with (Continental) philosophy’s investigation of subjectivity, or (British) philosophy’s logical analysis. To better understand his synthetic philosophy Vidal introduces six dimensions of philosophy. Those dimensions are the:

1) Descriptive – What exists? Where did it come from? Where is it going? Describing or modeling reality depends on our current scientific understanding.

2) Normative – What should we do? What is good and what is evil? How do we live well? What is a good society? What is the purpose and meaning of life?

3) Practical – How do we act in accord with our values to solve practical problems?What is our theory of action?

4) Critical (epistemological) - What is true and false? What is the nature and limits of knowledge?

5) Dialectical - How do we answer the previous question? By engaging in a debate or dialogue with opposing positions–a dialectic.

6) Synthetic – This final dimension of philosophy provides the comprehensive and coherent synthetic worldview–a synthesis.

Following the Belgian philosopher Leo Apostel, Vidal argues that a complete worldview will comprise these six elements. And it is crucial to have a worldview because they sustain us and give meaning to our lives. Individuals lacking worldviews suffer psychologically, and without rational worldviews irrational ones will arise to fill the need. Yet it is so difficult to express a rational worldview that many philosophers have been content to reject them all–skeptics–or accept them all–syncretists. Nonetheless Vidal will try to articulate a synthetic worldviews.

 

 

 

 

Share

An Overview of Clement Vidal’s, The Beginning and the End

I have recently previewed a forthcoming book, The Beginning and the End: The Meaning of Life in a Cosmological Perspective. The author is Dr. Clement Vidal, a young scholar and member of the Evolution, Complexity and Cognition Group at the Free University in Brussels, Belgium. Vidal investigates a most important question–whether modern scientific cosmology can satisfy our search for meaning in life. The book is a carefully and conscientiously crafted work of immense scope and daring imagination, one of the most important and timely books of the last few decades.

A briefest overview is as follows. Chapter 1 conducts a broad study of the philosophical method whose major aim, Vidal concludes, is to construct worldviews–comprehensive and coherent answers to big questions. Where do we come from? Where are we going? What should we do? What does it all mean? Chapter 2 develops criteria to test the strengths and weaknesses of these worldviews; Chapter 3 applies these criteria to various religious, philosophical and scientific worldviews; Chapters 4-6 investigate the question of the origin of the cosmos; chapters 7-8 study the question of the future of the cosmos; chapter 9 the question of whether we are alone in the cosmos; and Chapter 10 the possibility of a cosmological ethics.

Vidal is aware of the speculative nature of his work, but he reminds us that speculation plays a large part in the scientific and philosophical enterprises, it aims to solve scientific or philosophical problems. He knows his speculations could turn out to be wrong, but given the choice between careful speculation or silence, Vidal chooses the former. And we are glad he did. For his assiduous scholarship reveals the possibility that a scientific cosmology can provide a narrative which gives life meaning. A narrative so desperately needed as the old mythological ones become increasingly passé. And we are privileged to journey along with a well-ordered and visionary mind as it contemplates perhaps the most important question of our time–how do we find meaning in the cosmos revealed by modern science.

In tomorrow’s post I will review the book in more detail.

 

Share

Dying from Infections

Last night PBS “Frontline” aired a wonderful documentary entitled: “Hunting the Nightmare Bacteria.” It investigated the rise of deadly drug-resistant bacteria. As the world health organization has recently reported we may be heading for a post-antibiotic world where common infections will again kill.

Almost all of us are aware that a large part of the problem is that most antibiotics are fed to livestock. Everyone knows that we shouldn’t engage in that practice, but the agricultural and pharmaceutical lobbies are just too powerful to defeat on this issue. The clients of those lobbies–private citizens and corporations–are interested in profit not public health.

Perhaps lesser known is that few drug companies are developing new antibiotics. The reason is that it is less profitable to develop antibiotics which are taken occasionally, as opposed to drugs that are taken regularly for conditions like blood pressure, cholesterol, hair loss, or erectile dysfunction. This is a classic example of how the market does not always serve an individual’s best interests. It may give us erections and hair, but we might have to have an infected leg amputated.

How real is the problem? The CDC claims:

Each year in the United States, at least 2 million people become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and at least 23,000 people die each year as a direct result of these infections. Many more people die from other conditions that were complicated by an antibiotic-resistant infection.

Only government research supported by tax dollars is likely to solve such large problems. The purpose of good government is to act in the interest of the common good. This is their raison d’être. Private corporations by comparison answer to their shareholders–profit is their only concern. While tobacco killed millions over decades, the tobacco industry actively covered up the problem–tobacco was a profitable product. But government slowly exposed the problem by placing constraints on the sale of tobacco and publicizing it as a public health hazard. After decades of polluting the air, earth, and water, only the creation of the EPA stemmed the tide, successfully enacting measures to clean up the environment. As global climate change proceeds unabated, fossil fuels companies and their allies again lie and deceive. And why not? It is profitable to burn fossil fuels. Only governmental power is likely to stop the ruination our fragile climate.

From an economic standpoint even larger steps probably need to be taken–including the creation of a new economic system. Politically what is needed is cooperation between countries, or granting an intergovernmental bodies like the IPCC or UN the coercive power to make individuals comply with international law, or a full-fledge global government. Many problems we confront today–including antibiotic resistance–cross international borders.

So thanks PBS for an informative documentary. It wasn’t profitable to investigate this for a small audience, and without adequate public funds you are forced to beg, but last night you performed a great public service. By the way. PBS stands for “the public broadcasting system.”

 

 

Share

An Evolutionary Manifesto

John Stewart is a member of the Evolution, Complexity and Cognition Research Group at The Free University of Brussels and the author of: Evolution’s Arrow: the direction of evolution and the future of humanity. Here is a summary of his piece, “The Evolutionary Manifesto.”

Part 1 – INTENTIONAL EVOLUTION

Stewart begins by claiming that humans are adrift, they lack a cosmic vision to guide them and give their lives meaning. But there is good news.

The emergence of the new evolutionary worldview is beginning to lift us out of the abyss. The new worldview has a unique capacity to reveal who we are and what we should be doing with our lives. It relies solely on scientific knowledge and reason to identify our critical role in future evolution. The evolutionary worldview can unite us in a great common enterprise, and provide meaning and purpose for human existence.

Stewart argues that we will perish if we don’t intentionally direct evolution. However if we learn to properly steer evolution we can make a better world. We can create a “sustainable global society [and we must] free our behavior from the dictates of our biological and cultural past.” This will allow us to adequately deal with urgent problems like global climate change and nuclear obliteration. If we fail we will perish.

In the past biology and culture proceeded by trial and error. Genetic mutations and environmental selection made the species, while stochastic processes governed scientific and technological advances as well as social and political arrangements. Neither biology nor culture were designed to be successful from an evolutionary perspective but, with the emergence of intelligence, we have the chance to design imaginative and innovate solutions for our problems. We can shift to intentional evolution by becoming “intentional evolutionaries,” individuals who

dedicate their lives to advancing the evolutionary process … they no longer see themselves as isolated, self-concerned individuals who live for a short time, then die irrelevantly in a meaningless universe … They see that they are contributing to the success of processes much larger than themselves that will outlast them and potentially live forever. The allegiance of conscious evolutionaries is not to what is, but to what can be.

To understand how the past has shaped us and how the future is likely to unfold is the goal of intentional evolutionaries.

Stewart argues that “The trajectory of evolution is not produced by an external force, or by some impulse that is intrinsic to the universe, or by an ideal end-point that somehow attracts evolution towards it.” Thus there is no need to resort to mysticism; science will slowly identify the processes and forces responsible for evolution’s directionality.

Part 2 – ADVANCING EVOLUTION BY ORGANIZING A COOPERATIVE GLOBAL SOCIETY

There has been a trend to increasing cooperation in the cosmic past.The universe slowly diversified into galaxies, stars, planets, and lifeless matter, further organizing into molecules, cells, multi-cellular organisms, insects, fish, and mammals. Non-human animals cooperated in hives, troops, and packs; human animals cooperated in bands, tribes, communities, states, and nations. The trend is unmistakable–to survive and flourish we form larger cooperatives. The next step is a global cooperative.

The great potential of the evolutionary process is to eventually produce a unified cooperative organization of living processes that spans and manages the universe as a whole. The matter of the universe would be infused and organized by life. The universe itself would become a living organism pursuing its own goals and objectives, whatever they might be.

What can we learn from our evolutionary past about organized cooperatives?

First and foremost, these cooperatives are all structured so as to minimize destructive conflict between their members, and to facilitate cooperation. Typically, this includes the near eradication of activities such as the inappropriate monopolization of resources by some members, the production of waste products that injure other members, and the withholding from others of the resources they need to realize their potential to contribute to the organization.

This means that a global society needs to eradicate things like war, pollution global warming, starvation, disease, illiteracy and governmental corruption. Naive? Cells and insects overcame millions of years of competition by creating cooperative arrangements using nothing more than trial and error. Human tribes and nations did so by forming collectives like the United States or the European Union. Still there must be a means for dealing with cheaters, those who want the benefits of cooperation without the cost.

The role of governance in thus imperative in organizing cooperation. Traditionally governments have imposed constraints on individuals to deter cheating and thieving. These constraints ensure that the interests of the individual and the society align. “In order to be effective, these systems of constraint need to be more powerful than the members of the organization. If they are not, members will be able to escape their control, and act contrary to the interests of the organization …” Most importantly the social contract will be undermined if powerful minority groups advance their interests at the expense of the entire organization.

For these reasons, much of the history of evolution at all levels of organization has been about what humans describe as exploitation, the abuse of power and class struggle. But past evolution has dealt with these challenges by constraining the interests of the powerful so that they are aligned with the interests of the organization as a whole.

Finally none of this requires a change of human nature.

Past evolution has repeatedly shown how to organize self-interested individuals into cooperatives through the institution of effective governance. A society with a high proportion of wise, compassionate and altruistic citizens would be much easier to govern, but evolution shows that the achievement of a cooperative and sustainable society does not depend upon it.

“The potential of a global society to produce immediate benefits to humanity will assist in driving its initial emergence. Cooperation on a global scale has the potential to increase economic performance, abolish war and famine, and achieve environmental sustainability.” However a global society will be opposed vehemently by those whose interests it does not serve–arms manufacturers, fossil fuel corporations, the monied elite and the like. They will try to buy the support of whoever will further their interests. 

To overcome naked self-interest we must adopt an evolutionary worldview if we are to achieve a global society

The emerging evolutionary worldview has a unique capacity to overwhelm this conflict of interests. An understanding of evolution … will deliver the … support of the increasing numbers of people who are discovering meaning and purpose in advancing the evolutionary process. In accordance with their talents and opportunities they will work … to move humanity towards a unified global society … They know that human civilization cannot continue for long unless we are organized globally … In the absence of global organization, human civilization is likely to be ended eventually by global warming or other environmental problems, nuclear war, conflicts fueled by competition for diminishing resources, or some combination of these.

Part 3 – ADVANCING EVOLUTION BY ENHANCING EVOLVABILITY

“Life has gotten better at evolving. Evolution has become smarter and more creative at finding solutions to adaptive challenges.” In the past organisms produced different offspring and natural selection determined which would survive. Eventually organisms learned during their lifetimes. Yet what these organisms learned died with them. But then mechanisms like imitation and parental instruction overcame this problem, allowing what was learned to be passed on. With the development of language and writing, knowledge survived and accumulated. Mental models began to describe how the world worked, allowing us to see to see the consequences of our actions.

For the first time humans have a powerful, science-based story that explains where they have come from, and their place in the unfolding of the universe. As we have seen, our evolutionary models are revealing where evolution is headed, and what humans must do if we are to advance evolution on this planet. This is paving the way for the transition to intentional evolution.

Thus we need to ourselves from the dictates of our biological and cultural past. This can be done through great effort, by devising means of controlling our innate biological tendencies. “Our use of rationality is mainly limited to devising means to achieve ends that are beyond our conscious control. We use the enormous power of mental modelling to serve the desires and motivations established by our evolutionary past. Our reason is a slave to our passions.”

The dictates of our evolutionary past limit our ability to advance evolution forward, as we only tend to pursue goals consistent with desires and emotions.  This is problematic. “Until humanity frees itself from maladaptive motivations and behaviors, it will be just like a family that endlessly repeats the same arguments until someone learns to stand outside the situation and stop their habitual reactions.” And this cannot be achieved by an intellectual decision, as our desires dominate our behavior. In the remainder of this section Stewart argues that as we become free of our biological and social past, we will evolve:

Once enough members of the global society are self-evolving, the society will become a self evolving being … Through the global organization, life on Earth will transcend it evolutionary past. It will be able to adapt in whatever ways are necessary for life on Earth to make a significant contribution to the successful evolution of life in the universe. No longer will the global organization waste the enormous creativity of consciousness on the pursuit of self-centered desires that were established by past evolution. As Earth life moves out into the solar system, the galaxy and the universe, it will be able to change its adaptive goals and behavior in whatever ways are demanded by the challenges it meets. It will be able to continually recreate itself, to change its nature at will, to repeatedly sacrifice what it is for what it can become, to continually die and be born again.

PART 4: THE UNIQUE CAPACITY OF THE EVOLUTIONARY WORLDVIEW TO PROVIDE DIRECTION AND PURPOSE FOR HUMANITY

Still “merely freeing ourselves from our evolutionary past will not complete the shift to intentional evolution.” Individuals must commit to advancing the evolutionary process in order to find meaning. And unlike mythological and religious worldviews, the evolutionary worldview will supply meaning without being disconcerting to reason. “In the evolutionary worldview humanity finally has a belief system that provides meaning and purpose without having to invent supernatural entities and processes …”

Stewart acknowledges the a philosophical threat to his position–the naturalistic fallacy. We cannot derive ought from is, facts from values, or so it claims. Just because evolution has a trajectory doesn’t imply that the trajectory is good or that we should further it. Stewart responds:

the evolutionary worldview … derives its ‘oughts’ from other ‘oughts’ in combination with relevant facts, not solely from facts.” There is no logical fallacy involved in deriving ‘oughts’ from other ‘oughts’ … The use of relevant factual information in this derivation of new values is also perfectly legitimate … Intentional evolutionaries do not fall into the naturalistic fallacy—they embrace evolutionary goals because the goals are consistent with their most fundamental values.

Stewart say the most fundamental value “is to favor life over death and oblivion.” And unless we intentionally direct evolution we will perish. The implications are profound.

It would mean that everything humanity has experienced until now, the misery, wars, holocausts, triumphs of the spirit, transcendent art, inventions and scientific breakthroughs; all the personal dreams, aspirations, struggles, and strivings; and all the political movements, work, fame, fortunes, families and civilizations would be for nothing. Everything would be as if it never happened. Life on Earth would disappear without trace. The only way we can contribute to something that is not ephemeral is if humanity continues to be successful in evolutionary terms.

As we mature we should gradually see our lives in a larger context. Ultimately an evolutionary consciousness is the results, which can imagine being part of the universe or the multiverse. This provides hope that life is not meaningless for there is always a larger context that may make sense of the smaller context in which we live.

Strategically, it will therefore always make sense for life to continue to build its adaptive capacity, no matter how dark the hour, no matter how pointless existence seems to be within known contexts. Such a strategy will put it in the best position to take advantage of any new possibilities that emerge, including any that arise from larger, more meaningful contexts.

Stewart also believes the evolutionary worldview, in addition to being scientific, can satisfy our emotional needs. This involves an immersion in the profundity of this worldview that fully recognizes that we are part of a cosmic process whose success depends on us driving evolution forward. Such

realizations are exhilarating and energizing and capable of providing a deep sense of meaning and purpose. Increasingly you will cease to experience yourself primarily as an isolated and self-concerned individual. Instead, you will begin to see and experience yourself as a participant in the great evolutionary process on this planet … When you think of yourself, you will tend to see yourself as a-part-of-the-evolutionary process. You will experience yourself as the most recent representative of an unbroken evolutionary lineage that goes back billions of years. Your conscious participation in evolution will increasingly become the source of value and meaning in your life.

Stewart concludes with a stirring exhortation:

Wherever life emerges, living processes will progressively become organized into cooperatives of greater and greater scale; this will be accompanied by a long sequence of improvements in evolvability; eventually organisms will emerge that can build mental models of their environment and themselves; they will use this capacity to develop a comprehensive understanding of the evolutionary processes that have produced them and will determine their future; for the first time they will have a powerful, science-based story that explains where they have come from, and their place in the unfolding of the universe; they will see that evolution is headed somewhere—it is directional; they will begin to see themselves as having reached a particular stage in an on-going and directional evolutionary process; individuals will begin to emerge who see that evolution will progress further only if they commit to working consciously to advance the process; they will realize that this realization is itself an important step in the transition to conscious evolution; as part of this transition they will develop in themselves the capacity to free themselves from the dictates of their evolutionary past, becoming self-evolving beings, able to evolve in whatever directions are necessary to contribute positively to the future evolution of life in the universe; a unified and cooperative organization will emerge that comprises all the living processes that arose with them and all the technology, matter, energy and other resources available to them, eventually developing the capacity to adapt as a whole, transcending the particularities of its evolutionary past, becoming a self-evolving being in its own right, expanding in scale, linking up with other organizations of living processes that arose elsewhere, expanding in scale again and again, moving forever onwards and upwards, without end.

Of course we may not make it; we may destroy ourselves. But one thing is certain, the answer is not in the stars but in ourselves.

 

 

Share

Evolution and the Meaning of Life

John Stewart is a member of the Evolution, Complexity and Cognition Research Group at The Free University of Brussels, and the author of: Evolution’s Arrow: the direction of evolution and the future of humanity. In his essay “The Meaning of Life In A Developing Universe,” he argues that evolution and meaning should be understood together.

Evolution and Meaning

Evolution has produced an organism that has begun to model the history of cosmic evolution as well as the possible future evolution of life. The models reveal that there is a trajectory to evolution, specifically the increasing scales over which living processes evolve into organized cooperatives. For example, molecular processes were organized into cells; cells into organisms; and human organisms into families, bands, tribes, cities, and nations. Evolution favors cooperation because of the advantages bestowed upon organized cooperatives–larger cooperatives have a greater ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Uninterrupted, this should lead to global and interstellar cooperatives, with a concomitant increase in intelligence that would eventually lead to a nearly omnipotent command of matter and energy.

While the trajectory of evolution has moved largely of its own accord, at some point it will probably continue only if we direct or steer it—an act Stewart calls intentional evolution. Intelligent beings such as ourselves must be committed to intentionally directing evolution, driving the development of life and intelligence even though our ultimate destination is unknown. This transition, from passive recipient to active participator must be taken in order to further evolve. “If humanity goes on to complete this great evolutionary transition, we will have embraced a role that provides meaning and purpose for our existence.”[i]

Stewart follows in a line of great thinkers from Julian Huxley to E.O. Wilson who find meaning in human life by accepting our role as protagonists of the evolutionary epic–thereby directing it to new heights. I too am most sympathetic to these claims. Tomorrow I will investigate Stewart’s thought more closely by discussing his “evolutionary manifesto.” Then I plan to delve into some of the most profound thinking I have yet encountered on issues of science and meaning. They are found in Clement Vidal’s forthcoming book: The Beginning And The End: The Meaning of Life in a Cosmological Perspective.

[i] John Stewart, “The Meaning of Life In A Developing Universe,” 14.

Share