Philosophy discussion
The Mind
>
The Longing to Know
date
newest »
newest »
Elena, you raised a very important question. It is to me, personally, THE question. It was a great idea to raise it. I personally think that our "longing to know" is something that defines our humanity at its most fundamental level - and at a more general level some may even say that this is one of the distinguishing features of consciousness.
A materialistic/reductionist perspective I have previously and frequently come across explains our "longing to know" purely in terms of evolutionary drive/species survival terms: it is the sort of natural/instinctual curiosity that has driven homo sapiens towards exploring, understanding and therefore controlling its environment in order to improve its survival chances as individuals and as a species.
I have a scientific background, however I never found this explanation fully satisfactory, as it leaves, in my opinion, important issues unexplained: just as an example, we as a species have been provided with intellectual capabilities that are way above and beyond what would have been strictly necessary for humankind to survive/succeed as a species. It is very problematic to explain in purely evolutionary terms our incredible capability to conceptualise and abstract/identify patterns; it is very difficult to explain why we needed, in order to survive, to have the capability and urge to develop higher mathematics, deeper philosophical thought and sophisticated aesthetics.
And I am wary of reductionist approaches that ignore the extreme complexity of our human nature: just one brain's connections and capacities far outnumber and outpace those of all the existing world's computers. The human brain is by far the most complex (in term of information processing capability) known object in the Universe, with trillions of potential neural connections. And this makes the question of the origin of brains that much more difficult for purely evolutionary explanations.
So, WHY do we have this longing to know ? And why do we have the corresponding intellectual capability ?
Another approach to an answer would be a theological explanation, which has been pursued/expanded/discussed in other places/venues, so I will not try to further elaborate this particular option.
MY own personal feeling is that we, with our consciousness and intelligence, have the "urge" to know because we are fundamental part of the "project" of the Universe to understand itself.
We should not forget that we are as much OF the Universe as anything else - we're made of the SAME type of atoms as everything else; we all came from a supernova somewhere in the Universe, as clearly proven scientifically.
And, after all, what is life itself ? A "simple" way for aggregates of such atoms to stick together into ever more complex structures, evolve towards higher level of consciousness and reproduce ad infinitum.
Just note that I am not "personifying the Universe", all I am saying is that it is difficult not to identify a teleological element in the evolution of the Universe towards consciousness as actualised in human intelligence: there is this amazing tendency in the Universe for aggregation into increasing level of complexity (life, and ultimately conscious life) wherever the conditions allow for it.
Of course many will disagree with me, the majority opinion probably being that we are just an accident, that consciousness and intelligence are an accident (or purely explainable in reductionist terms) and even that the Universe itself is an accident.
Finally, you asked what the "ultimate aim" is in what seems to be an inexhaustibly complex and probably unknowable universe, and you asked whether there could there ever be an end to it.
Well, I think that we are ultimately limited by our intellectual and perceptual apparatus (and by the resources/laws of Nature), so I am afraid that there will come a point where (barring future scientific breakthroughs that might in the future improve/change/augment our intellectual capabilities) the progress of human knowledge will asymptotically reach a plateau. And this probably is when humanity will start to die intellectually - there is never "enough" knowledge (to answer one of your questions): our very nature is such that, without a constant pursuit of further knowledge, we "die".
This plateau point is, in my opinion, still far in the future (fortunately); there is still lots of room/potential for further progress in the pursue of knowledge, and we have demonstrated (with modern scientific inquiry, for example, in areas such as quantum mechanics and relativity) that we can transcend some important human limitations (for example, our instinctual/naïve conception of classical time, space and causality that were perceived, up to relatively recent times, as insurmountable); we demonstrated we could transcend these limitations by rigorously adopting the scientific method and mathematics as the language of nature.
But there are things (such as the phenomenon of consciousness, or the origin of the Universe at the start or "before" the Big Bang) which for their very nature are either so extremely complex or simply not amenable to a mathematical characterisation, and that as such are probably not "knowable" by the human mind ("knowable" by means of formal scientific enquiry - some people may actually claim that there are things, in the realm of what might be called "metaphysics", that can be "known" by other means.. but this is another discussion...).
Fortunr, I agree with a lot of what you said. From a fundamental biological perspective, we ARE hardwired to try to know things. It is evolutionary, survival-oriented. In terms of curiosity, that is, trying to know about things we don't actually NEED to know to survive, that becomes a different question. In terms of fellow primates and a few other intelligent animals, they exhibit a certain amount of curiosity, but really only, at best, reach a learning level of say a 7-yr-old human.Taken one level further, our brains are different in ways that have allowed us to grasp abstractions, and develop more and more sophisticated tools. And these increase in complexity as we are able to hand them off to the next generation to make their starting point a bit higher than our own.
But, like you, Fortunr, I don't think we can leave it at that. It still leaves us a bit mechanical, if far more complex and sophisticated.
Just as a digression, I don't think we always want to "know". Sometimes knowing is unsettling or painful. I think the instinctual part of ourselves still often only wants to know what we need to survive, not just biologically, but in the social milieu.
But, back at the ranch...What you said Fortunr about consciousness and intelligence being a goal of life itself longing to know itself. In one sense I agree, but (Elena said wacky was okay) I somewhat flip that on its head. I think (this is my current idea, always subject to revision) that the fundamental core of the universe is consciousness. Life is a manifestation of consciousness, and the more complex the lifeform becomes, the more it is able to touch that core of the universe. The more complex, the more one becomes aware of what can be known. I think it's a snowballing effect in terms of new awareness creating the need to know even more.
So, I guess I'm saying that I see it as a multilevel effect -- the instinctive biological, all the way to the very abstract idea of consciousness.
I don't see us running out of things we want to know any time soon. The more we learn, the more we see there is to learn. I'm not sure knowing is finite. Maybe not even quantifiable. Our brains are finite, but we overcome that to some degree as a species by passing on knowledge. We're fairly young as a species, and in another 10K years, what will we know we couldn't even conceive of today? Quantum theory, string theory, all that may seem quaint ideas by then, and new mysteries will be the focus.
Will we reach the end of our abilities to know, as a species? In other words, will we reach a point like primates or some other species where, no matter what, we simply don't have the capacity to enlarge our knowing? That's not something answerable today.
Thank you for your interesting comment, Libyrinths.
Jackie said: what were our most pressing problems ten thousand years ago?Flintknapping, wooly mammoths, not getting eaten by bears or lions. Seriously, though, you raise an interesting point. One thing we may have been wanting to understand at that time was how to successfully hunt animals. The cave paintings suggest (by the most reasonable hypothesis I've read) that they were done by shamans. So shamanistic rituals in an attempt to understand the spirits of the animals, or make connection with the spirits of the animals, thereby ensuring good kills and therefore enough food and the auxilliary supplies which came from a kill.
Which was longing to understand, even with a practical purpose. For a lion it's enough to smell, hear prey; use its excellent hunting skills and instincts in order to bring it down. Even with tools, experience and knowledge, humans didn't seem to settle for that alone. KNowing how doesn't seem to be enough for us.
Fortunr, one of the things I wanted to ask you about your excellent post...I was rereading and at parts I felt that you also presupposed consciousness in the universe, then at other places I thought maybe you meant that consciousness was something peculiar to the human mind. That is, something that doesn't pre-exist life, but develops from it. I realize consciousness is one of those nebulous terms, and we can each define what we mean if you want, before you answer. But, if we seem to mean something similar, I was wondering if you'd clarify for me. I haven't thought about this stuff in a while, and realize that I used to think consciousness is something we develop, sort of an epiphenomenon of the physical brain, but now see it as something more like the fundamental laws of physics or such. Something that's there whether we are or not, but that opens before us. Wondered on rereading your post if either of those (or neither or both) is what you meant.
Hi Libyrinths, many thanks for your post.To answer your question, I personally tend towards the idea that that consciousness is an "emergent" epiphenomenon of any physical structure that achieves a level of complexity comparable to the one achieved by the human brain.
By "emergence" I mean a specific technical term as used in science and in systems theory: a process whereby new patterns and new peculiar characteristics arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves, individually taken, do not exhibit such properties.
Examples of emergence are, for example: entropy in statistical mechanics (where the concept of "disorder" and "order" is not applicable to a single molecule of gas, but to an ensemble of many interacting molecules).
The very phenomenon of life is another example: life, as studied in biology, is regarded as an emergent property of interacting molecules as studied in chemistry. These individual molecules by themselves are not "alive", what is alive is the complex structure of interacting elements that make up a living organism.
It appears, in many such examples of emergence, that "complexity" acts as a catalyst for such emergent phenomena to appear.
So it seems to me that the physical laws governing the evolution of our Universe, inexorably driving as they are towards the realization of ever-increasing level of complexity, naturally drive towards the actualization of the related epiphenomenon of consciousness.
Your statement "I used to think that consciousness is sort of an epiphenomenon of the physical brain, but now see it as something more like the fundamental laws of physics or such", is very intriguing: I personally see that there is a close cause-effect relationship between the currently known fundamental laws of the Universe, and the emergence of ever-increasing level of complexity (including the resulting epiphenomenon of consciousness).
Is consciousness something that is "out there" regardless of whether we conscious beings exist or not? Definitely as a potentiality, in my opinion, and it is difficult not to identify a teleological element in the evolution of the Universe towards consciousness.
Is consciousness part of the fundamental laws of physics, rather than just a consequence or an almost unavoidable result of them ? I have no particular position on this latter question, to be honest, I feel that maybe we are not at the stage in our knowledge of the Universe's laws where we can make hypotheses yet.... sorry if I have not really addressed your inquiry, but answered with doubts and questions to your own question :)
I concur that emergence is the real point here as you will see even time is an example of emergence see https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-...These patterns of emergence are really important as they show us the way to the "know", as we find that even chaos is a transitional stage that always leads to some pattern of emergence.
Fortunr, thank you for your very clear and articulate reply. I too have been fascinated by and biased toward emergence and its many possibilities for explaining things. It's probably my baseline position, really. My idea about consciousness is nowhere near a hypothesis, but an idea I've been toying with for a couple of years. Not testable. I also don't limit the idea of consciousness to humans, feeling all living things exhibit it to some degree or another. So, it becomes, in my mind, something, at the fundamental level, less personal than how we think of our own minds, and something which comes in smaller units, as it were. Not that I'm proposing a force-mediating particle or anything, just describing as best I can an inchoate idea.
Also, please don't get the idea that I'm totally convinced of my idea nor that I'm trying to sell it to anyone. I do enjoy having a chance to bat it around with people from time to time, and appreciate your taking the time to do that. I quite agree with you that we're still waiting to understand and even to discover all the laws of physics, properties of the universe, etc. Just when we think we almost have it nailed -- wham! -- dark matter. Wham!-- dark energy. Lots of fun discoveries to look forward to, many of which may totally change how we see the universe.
Cay, I was unable to access your link, no doubt because it is a secure address (https) which means one has to go to another address and log in to the site. THanks anyway.
Fortunr/Libyrinthsfascinating discussion, guys - you are well ahead of me in this. Just a question, taking this a few steps back (for my own benefit, apologies). I am using a quote from Fortunr's message 2 to set the scene:
Just note that I am not "personifying the Universe", all I am saying is that it is difficult not to identify a teleological element in the evolution of the Universe towards consciousness as actualised in human intelligence: there is this amazing tendency in the Universe for aggregation into increasing level of complexity (life, and ultimately conscious life) wherever the conditions allow for it.
(1) Indeed there seems to be this tendency in the universe. But is this dynamic not strictly local? Does our understanding of thermodynamics not suggest, indeed, formulate as a scientific principle, that entropy in the universe at large will increase until it reaches 100%?
(2) And if this is so, is it not difficult to suggest a teleological principle? Any deeper reason, or purpose of a self-structuring universe would ultimately be lost, so the question would then be why such a purpose should exist.
Unless we bring (1) and (2) together and state that just as complexity must be a local phenomenon, teleology (my expression for non-spiritual purpose) would be a temporary one. But I am still struggling with the concept of a purpose - what function would this purpose serve? Do we need it to model the dynamics?
A work worth checking out with regards to this discussion of the quasi-teleological properties that seem to emerge with increased levels of complexity would be Terrence Deacon's Incomplete Nature. In fact, Deacon argues that such phenomena as mind and life embody a teleological causal dynamic, and therefore cannot be understood without this strange reversal of the usual pattern of causality that characterizes the rest of the material universe. He also explores the way in which such ententional (as he calls them) phenomena are autotelic. He argues for an emergence ontology that yields a fuller anthropology (and biology, and picture of nature) than was accessible via traditional reductionism. These deeper insights into the nature of the knower as biological organism that are becoming possible now certainly make possible new answers to this, what seems to me to be, an age-old question with regards to the meaning and end of our characteristic longing to know.https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Mark wrote: "Fortunr/Libyrinthsfascinating discussion, guys - you are well ahead of me in this. Just a question, taking this a few steps back (for my own benefit, apologies). I am using a quote from Fortunr's..."
Hi Mark, thank you for your post. You raised a very interesting point indeed.
I agree that the second law of thermodynamics states that global entropy is destined to increase, and ultimately reach the maximum.
However, just please note that, according to some, it is not so simple nor automatic to extend the second law to the whole universe so to guarantee the death heat of the Universe, as for example the role played by gravitation has also to be taken into account - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_de....
But my understanding is that the large majority of cosmologists currently support the ultimate heat death of the universe, so I agree with this assumption.
We also have to be particularly careful when dealing with the concept of time, especially at the light of the results of general relativity, where concepts of present time and infinite/finite time are quite different to what we intuitively think, so the concept of an "end" might not be all that meaningful: from an article about spacetime and relativity:
"space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time. This world-line exists as a complete object which may be sliced here and there so that you can see where the particle is located in space at a particular instant. Once you determine the complete world line of a particle from the forces acting upon it, you have 'solved' for its complete history. This world-line does not change with time, but simply exists as a timeless object. Similarly, in general relativity, when you solve equations for the shape of space-time, this shape does not change in time, but exists as a complete timeless object. You can slice it here and there to examine what the geometry of space looks like at a particular instant. Examining consecutive slices in time will let you see whether, for example, the universe is expanding or not."
However my point in general is related to the fact that there is AT ALL this amazing tendency/mechanism to convert, whenever and wherever possible, locally usable energy into increasing level of complexity. That is very remarkable, IMO, regardless of the locality of this phenomena - actually it is even more remarkable in a context of global tendency of entropy increase.
The fact that this universe is destined to die a "heat death" does not detract, IMO, from a possible teleological dimension - I do not see infinity in time as a prerequisite for meaning. I would even add that it is the finite dimension of time that provide meaning to all this, even physically - the only way to create structure and complexity for the Universe was to start its symmetry-breaking events, triggered by decrease in temperature and the consequent start of the entropy increase process. You may say that time and entropy are the price the Universe had to pay in order to achieve complexity and structure.
It is also not a given that this universe is the only one - eternal inflation is a mainstream inflationary universe model (which is itself an outgrowth or extension of the Big Bang theory), which assume that the inflationary phase of the universe's expansion lasts forever in at least some regions of the universe.
Even if we limited ourselves to just this one universe, the points above would conserve their validity, there are also other baffling questions that have been raised by the likes of Penrose and others, such as: why did the universe started in a state of minimum/zero entropy ?
I am not deriving any automated definite conclusions such as "intelligent design": I actually think that, when it comes to these kind of questions, the only realistic position is not to propose definite answers (which I do not have), but just to identify hints and ask questions, and maybe come up with tentative suggestions. And I think that these phenomenon of complexity increase is a question that begs/demands to be asked. This includes especially the highest level of complexity known to man - consciousness and the related longing to know. And the fact that, with intelligence in the form of consciousness, the universe reaches an understanding, as partial as it may be, of itself - which is a statement of fact, regardless of any interpretation of this.
I think that any answer stating that all is purely accidental is an article of faith as much as any answer jumping to a definite conclusion of "teleological dimension" or "intelligent design" (where, by "article of faith" I do not consider something to be perceived necessarily in a negative way - but simply something that goes beyond the purvey of science).
Finally, to answer your last question in relation to "purpose" and if we need it to model the dynamics, my personal view is that dynamics is dynamics - and that concepts such as meaning and purpose have no real room in experimental science - they are outside it, by definition. And they should be - I would not want science to be misguided by unnecessary metaphysical considerations.
But science (and philosophy, as long as it is grounded on science, when applicable) can at least provide some very useful hints/pointers/suggestions and background information, and provide a meaningful context for any attempt to answer, even if very provisionally, these sort of questions.
Elena wrote: "A work worth checking out with regards to this discussion of the quasi-teleological properties that seem to emerge with increased levels of complexity would be Terrence Deacon's Incomplete Nature. ..."Hi Elena, many thanks for the book reference! Really appreciated. It does look very interesting and relevant, and I have added it to my to-read list :).
Response to message 15Many thanks for the comprehensive and thoughtful response, Fortunr. Lots of points to think about, and I rather than post something of similar coherence, may I just chip in with a few comments, taking up some of yours:
First off, I would prefer to leave the discussion free of a "purpose" :-), by which I mean I do not think we are discussing a spiritual purpose here. I am not saying such a discussion would not be fruitful as well, I just feel it is a different topic that we may wish to keep separate. When I use the word "purpose", I am just picking up on the concept, and this concept, to me at least, is entirely unformed as yet and subject to a thought process without prejudice.
So I agree entirely with your statement that any answer stating that all is purely accidental is an article of faith as much as any answer jumping to a definite conclusion of "teleological dimension" or "intelligent design". I have always felt that scientific and scholarly thought needs to remain "honest". We are searching for answers, but as long as we do not have any, it is not our business to posit them. For me, the idea of Occam's razor has always worked well, and hence I believe it is plausible to assume that things happen without an external design (in whichever way this would be defined). This assumption removes non-informative parameters, which I could not test for anyway, even if I tried. This assumption, however, does not stop me from probing the nature of the universe further, to formulate hypotheses and think about ways in which these can be, perhaps, tested.
So, now I progressed to point number 2. I am intrigued by the concept of "purpose" (teleology, say) and must admit, I have never thought about it before. When I asked whether the postulation of teleology helps us in understanding the dynamics, I did not do so to express scepticism - I was just wondering in which way the inclusion of such a concept in the thought process would help to understand the dynamics.
Leaving the end of the universe and its terminal implications for consciousness aside, I think it makes sense to investigate the concept within a strictly local context (as indeed, we seem to be urged to do as order/complexity appears to be a local phenomenon). The first step would be to define clearly what we mean by teleology.
It appears to me that teleology is a sort of "second order consciousness". If I know that I am, I am conscious (a self-referencing statement, the system is self-aware). If I know why I am, I understand the reason for my existence. But "purpose" remains an elusive concept to me, I cannot quite define it. What is the purpose of a plant, for example. It plays a function in a biotope, but it grew into this function, so can we say that this function is its "purpose"? I wonder whether "purpose" could be a formal logical fallacy, or a hypothesis we are urged to make because of the very make-up of our minds, which think in terms of cause and effect. Mind you, I am not suggesting it is any of those things, I am merely saying one ought to explore the extent to which it could be (as devil's advocate) to make sure the line of thought remains productive.
To be continued... These are just musings, Fortunr. I do not have a position on any of this. Just fascinated to explore a line of thought that is new to me. Kindest, Mark
Elena wrote: "A work worth checking out with regards to this discussion of the quasi-teleological properties that seem to emerge with increased levels of complexity would be Terrence Deacon's Incomplete Nature. ..."Many thanks, Elena - I added this to my "to read" list.
First, Elena, that book looks definitely of interest! Thanks!Secondly, Mark, this IS a philosophy board, so I'm sure asking a philosophical question about purpose in, or of, the universe is pertinent here. I have to admit I am with Fortunr on looking at things through a scientific lens, and where we have data and evidence, I go to that first before turning to philosophy.
However, there is a thread of thought in some scientific circles, one I'm not particularly in consonance with, called the anthropic principle. There are a couple of flavors of it, the "weak" anthropic principle basically saying that because we're here (life) that when questions arise for researching certain fundamental principles, one should take into account that the answer must be consonant with the existence of life. The "strong" is more like the hand of God and something I dismiss out of hand, in terms of science.
Personally, I don't find either one particularly acceptable as science, but I do salute the attempt to formulate a new way of looking at things, which can bring a certain amount of new creativity to the endeavor. Likewise, if I understand your question, the idea of looking at things from the viewpoint of purpose or teleology can have a similar effect of turning a question around to look at it differently. Not that modern physics or cosmology is stuck in a rut! But multiple viewpoints can inform one's perspective. And nobody has any final answers on this stuff, as Fortunr pointed out.
I've been sporadically reading a book (History of the Concept of Mind, by Paul S. MacDonald) and encountered Plato's concept of the soul, one aspect of which deals with reason, learning, the longing to know. Aha!, says I, the very thread! The question which crossed my mind is this. By eventually coming to a model whereby the mind is something in and of itself, not an integral part of a whole as in Plato, it has made it perhaps easier to study scientifically, but has it limited the model so much that we can no longer ask the proper questions about what the mind is? Or even, what the person is? Have we pruned so many branches off that it looks more like a stalk than a tree? What would our answers to the question of "longing to know" be if our model were different? Not necessarily Plato's model, but something more inclusive? Just wondering.
Secondly, Mark, this IS a philosophy board, so I'm sure asking a philosophical question about purpose in, or of, the universe is pertinent..."Libyrinths - I never denied that? Of course it is. Sorry can you help me - I do not understand why you point this out. Your comment implies a misunderstanding of something I said, and of course I am to blame for not making things clearer. I merely said that I would like to keep the discussion free of a spititual interpretation of purpose, and from reading your comment I am sure you would agree with this?
Just asking if I can clarify something I said - feel free to ignore :-)
Mark, I suppose I must have misinterpreted or misunderstood some things you said. I don't know what a "spiritual" interpretation of purpose is. But, I also don't think of purpose as something science can establish, at least not in the sense you question it (as in, "what is the purpose of a plant?"). To me, that's a philosophical question. You seemed to state that you only wanted to discuss purpose in terms of science, and since I think of purpose -- in the sense you seemed to mean it -- as something not covered by science, I made the comment I did.The problem may be in the word, purpose. In science, you can ask something like "what's the purpose of the mitochondria?", when, in that sentence, purpose would mean their function in relation to the cell, and even the larger organism, or across all organisms. When you gave the example of "what's the purpose of a plant?", you seemed to dismiss plants' relations to the whole as an explanation (and I may have, again, misinterpreted this) as not sufficient to your meaning in the question. Your question appeared to mean something more than known or testable functions of things.
I didn't mean to upset you by my comment. It's just that some things fall within the realm of science and some within the realm of philosophical speculation and contemplation, and some can be amenable to both without losing the integrity of either discipline.
If I have continued to misunderstand, I hope you will indeed clarify. :-)
Perfect, Libirinths, many thanks. All clear now. I actually feel that at times it would be easier to chat when sitting in the pub face to face...Still, a few comments as indeed, I need to take the blame for not making things clear. I use the word "spiritual" in the definition of "relating to religious belief" and as such see it as different from both, science and philosophy.
If you talk to religious people, sometimes they state the reason for their belief as a sense that there must be some overaching "purpose", a divine grand design in which human beings play a part. I have no issue with religious beliefs, I just do not think that they can lead to "knowledge", or "insights" in the way science or philosophy can. This is not even meant as criticism, it is just simply not the task of religions to create knowledge. This, of course, is a wide field, and perhaps it is best not to open that particular can or worms here. All I wanted to suggest is that we avoid a religious interpretation of purpose in our discussion. The reason I used the expression "spiritual" is because it has a wider remit than "religious" (and hence importantly includes Creationism/Intelligent Design) but essentially they would be interchangeable in my statement.
With that out of the way, I just want to repeat that i have no set opinion on this - Fortunr's thoughts focussed mine on the concept of purpose for the first time, really. So I am feeling my way through this.
You may be right - perhaps we do not need the expression "purpose", as it tends to suggest a quality that transcends "function". Perhaps it is sufficient to ask why the universe displays a tendency to reduce entropy at a local level. What is the function of this dynamic?
So just to be clear - yes, you are correct. To me, the concept of "purpose" is wider than "function", and I struggle to define the extra quality (I am not spiritual/religious, so that extra quality would be the subject of philosophical deliberation). But perhaps the distinction is just semantics, and not conducive to furthering any insights.
Thank you for your response!
Mark, thanks for your clear response. First of all, I don't think we need to go around assigning "blame". Getting more clear on what another is saying, clarifying terms, is just part of the process of conversation. My foggy brain could be equally part of the equation, and I don't choose to take on guilt, tee hee! Thanks for clarifying what you meant by spiritual. A lot of people who are non-religious use the term "spiritual" to mean a certain feeling about things as opposed to adherence to dogma or ritual, while other people do use it in the context of religion, so I wasn't sure what you meant at first.
I agree with your assessment of how the word, purpose, is used in a religious context. I think the word carries more nuances of meaning than "function", so I don't have a problem with the use of the word, purpose, but I have a better idea of what you mean by it. Something more meaningful than function, less meaningful or transcendent than a religious or spiritual use of it.
Perhaps what you're seeking (given your example of differences in entropy, and just guessing) has more to do with understanding the role of a given process, or seeming anomaly, or whatever, in the working of the whole. Does this contribute to a larger process, or make a difference in how the whole works? Would it work differently if this weren't the case? What would be different?
Again, just making a stab at it. Only you can know what's behind your question, or even what your question is (or questions are). I look forward to hearing how your quest goes. And I think it's possible the book Elena suggested may be just the thing to help out on all our questions. I plan to get it soon. Haven't been able to find it locally, so will probably have to do it online. (I'm not a Luddite, I simply prefer the entire experience of going into a bookstore, physically picking up a book, looking through it, going home and having it in my hands.)
And, we can pretend this is the Philosophy Pub. Cheers!
Libyrinths,it is actually not my quest so much - I was inspired to think about it by Fortunr's initial post in message 2: Just note that I am not "personifying the Universe", all I am saying is that it is difficult not to identify a teleological element in the evolution of the Universe
My interpretation of the expression "purpose" is this: "Purpose" equals "function plus X". I do not know what X is, but we can potentially investigate this quantity using philosophical thought, or we can posit it by referencing religious ideas. The latter is non-informative, so is not conducive to generating useable insights. Hence, we would need to turn to philosophy to investigate the X.
I must admit, I never even thought of "purpose" outside a spiritual/religious context before I read Fortunr's post. Fortunr's idea seems to suggest that "purpose" can have a tangible function in the physical evolution of the universe (rather than simply being a lofty spiritual concept) and it is this idea that has started to interest me.
Still, enuff said on this now. I saw Terrence Deacon's book on amazon.com. Not quite the experience of going to a bookshop, but still at least a physical book! Btw I share your love of bookshops. Although they seem to disappear at an alarming rate, we still have a few excellent ones in London. I love browsing at Waterstone's on Piccadilly or Foyles on Charing Cross, sitting in their sofas, getting a latte from the in-store caffs... If you are ever in town, do check these out! Best, Mark.
Mark wrote: "Libyrinths,it is actually not my quest so much - I was inspired to think about it by Fortunr's initial post in message 2: Just note that I am not "personifying the Universe", all I am saying is t..."
Hi guys, very interesting discussion! You both raised very valid points.
Just a couple of points I would like to bring to the discussion:
"I do not know what X is, but we can potentially investigate this quantity using philosophical thought, or we can posit it by referencing religious ideas. The latter is non-informative, so is not conducive to generating useable insights. Hence, we would need to turn to philosophy to investigate the X." - I completely and wholeheartedly concur with this assessment by Mark. I would only add to this that, while philosophy is a perfectly legitimate mode of inquiry and with a scope of action beyond the strict boundaries of science, it should always be grounded and based on the results of scientific inquiry (whenever applicable). This does not mean that philosophy is not important - at THE VERY LEAST philosophy provides a fundamental epistemological framework for science. The concept of "pure" science is, in my opinion, an illusion: science is a human endeavor and as such it is influenced by the human conceptual, perceptual and mental apparatus (and a materialistic, reductionist, mechanistic stance to knowledge expressed by some scientists is as much an ideological position as that of some theologians, IMO). Moreover, science makes extensive use of (or "posits") concepts and categories such as "field" and "causality" that are not strictly empirical-based and that represents general concepts with significant philosophical implications and hidden underlying assumptions.
I recognize that the concept of "purpose" itself can be quite ambiguous or problematic (and I agree with Mark that it raises, by itself, many a question - I also freely admit that I do not have a fully formed such concept), as it is meaning-laden and it often implies the presence of a conscious external agent (a divinity of sorts, if you wish) - I do not necessarily imply nor do I suggest any such further step of explaining purpose through an external agent. Please note that purpose has not always meant external agent: for example, Aristotle rejected the conception of purpose as based on extrinsic causes such as a god as the primary cause for natural things. Instead, he considered NATURE ITSELF as an internal principle of change.
I would also like to highlight that, when talking about teleological aspects, it is critical that this be addressed at universal, whole level, not against a single atomic element like say a plant, a human being, or even the human race in general. Only at that level it probably makes sense to talk about the deep meaning of such concept - this tendency towards complexity/life/consciousness is universe-wise (even if it can sometimes be recognizable in individual phenomena).
I am not excluding, a priori, a theological/religious explanation, but before embarking/jumping on such highly speculative and potentially confusing and limiting explanations (and intellectually un-interesting, to be honest), science and philosophy should be adopted, to the maximum extent possible, as sole methods of inquiry, IMO. But it must also be said that sometimes the border between philosophy and theology is not so clear-cut at all, just think about great philosopher such as Augustine, Aquinas and many other thinkers sitting across the two...
My point though is that there is a BIG question to be asked, and the tendency of the Universe towards increased levels of self-organization and complexity, reaching up to the peak of consciousness and self-understanding, begs (actually, screams) for a question: why do we have this tendency? Why do we have bunches of atoms reaching consciousness ? I would like to invite you to read this poem by Feynman titled "atoms with consciousness, matter with curiosity" (Feynman was a very hard-nosed scientist, who can hardly be accused of mysticism): http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/b....
And I personally think that the "longing to know" that so characterizes the human race can be part of the answer, or at least part of the question.
Yes it may be that the question could be the result of a logical fallacy, but excluding a-priori the legitimacy of such a question is as much an article of faith as assuming its legitimacy, IMO. There are simply questions that can be addressed by science, others that can be discussed within a philosophical context. I would need strong evidence and/or arguments(scientific and/or philosophical) before discounting specific questions out of hand (as metaphysical and far-fetched as they may be).
I also wholeheartedly concur with Libyrinth when he states "eventually coming to a model whereby the mind is something in and of itself, not an integral part of a whole as in Plato, it has made it perhaps easier to study scientifically, but has it limited the model so much that we can no longer ask the proper questions about what the mind is" - this is an extremely important point, and I would like to extend it to the whole of science: by sometimes adopting an extreme form of empiricist, positivist, bottom-up and reductionist stance, science is running the risk of missing many phenomena and patterns that are only visible when things are considered as an integral, organic "whole" rather then aggregates of elementary elements. It is also quite interesting that physical sciences are based on mathematics - and mathematics is deductive, "intuitive", a deeply interconnected "whole" that can hardly be reduced to an inductive, piecemeal, strictly empiricist approach (and the close relationship of mathematics to logic, which after all is but a specific branch of philosophy, can't be discounted).
Oftentimes a reductionist approach has been very convenient and fruitful, but its tactical character and its limitations should not be discounted.
Relatively recent branches of science such as complexity science ("studying systems with many parts that interact to produce global behavior that cannot easily be explained in terms of interactions between the individual constituent elements") is a step in the right direction. Entropy itself, after all, is only a collective, EMERGENT behavior that is not visible at individual subatomic level. And who knows, consciousness itself might be a form of emergent phenomenon allowed by increased complexity, the (ultimate?) step in this process.
PS: Mark, you are so right in lamenting the disappearing of bookshops and of physical books: this is a tragedy to people like me (and I am sure that you guys both share this feeling of mine) who have a fetish for the book - the feeling of touching and even the sniffing of a book, the magic and atmosphere of a dusty antiquarian bookshop, the sheer delight in sharing, turned page by turned page, the intellectual world and mental landscape of the author, the joy of looking at your books in the shelves of your bookcases, the feeling of "being at home" when in a big public library, the feeling of pleasure at getting tons of books at a bookfair.... there is no Kindle that can provide the same mixture of sensual and intellectual pleasure.
Fortunr,last things first - yes, wholeheartedly yes! You expressed my feelings about books perfectly. Libraries are something I have not mentioned - but I love sitting in the BL (British Library), having a coffee in their cafeteria, which is situated next to a modern glass and steel tower housing the "foundation collections" [King's Library etc]. I spent three happy months there doing research for something I was doing, and loved every day of it! And although I love my "tech" (I am streaming music everywhere, I love my apps and videogames etc), I have yet to buy a kindle, or use "i-books".
Some other things next. I do not think I can do justice to all of the excellent points you made in your post. So allow me just a few comments - these are not necessarily responses, they are more thoughts that were inspired by your ideas.
1/ Just to clarify where I stand in the space framed by science, philosophy, and religion. I am not spiritual/religious, but I do not have a problem with religion. Religion appears to address a human desire to live in a "complete" universe, a universe where everything is explained, where there are no loose ends. I personally am perfectly happy to live in a chaotic universe, and I am happy to accept that not everything is yet explained, perhaps even not explainable. That is why I am not a natural buyer of the goods religion is selling. But I am curious to find out how things work, and to think about stuff, and I am happy to "do the work", as Feynman said. That is why I am keen to apply the methods of science and analytical philosophy to questions which I find interesting.
I like the basic scientific method for its conceptual "honesty". First, you posit a guess why something happens in the way it does (a hypothesis). Then, you check this guess against experiment. If experiment shows the guess to be wrong, that's that. If it does not, it's not wrong yet. This, although flippantly formulated, is the essence of a falsifiable statement. It does not express an immutable truth, it just states something as "true" for as long as it has not been shown to be wrong.
This is also what I believe is at the heart of Socrates' idea that "knowledge is a true and justified belief". I personally have always wanted to rephrase this as "knowledge is a true and verified belief", and this to me is the essence of "truth statements" delivered by the scientific method.
2/ Function and purpose. These are just my musings on these concepts. I am trying to get to the quality of the "x" in Purpose = Function + x by the following illustration:
Consider a millstone. It is a device designed to grind grains. That is its function. Now consider a conscious millstone. This one is self-aware. It may think "well I seem to be going round and round a lot. Is that all there is to my existence? What is my purpose?
This, to me, may capture the essence of "purpose". It feels a bit like a "self-aware" version of "function". And so I am wondering whether the concept of purpose may be concomitant to the emergence of consciousness.
Second, "purpose" seems to have a quality that is a bit like "second-order consciousness". If I am self-aware, I know that I am. If I know my purpose, I know why I am.
Third, as the concept of "purpose" may be a by-product of the emergence of consciousness (I think philosophers call this an "epi-phenomenon"), it becomes something that can be manipulated by the consciousness. If the self-aware atom-cluster (I am one of those) regards the absence of purpose to be an issue, it may generate such a purpose (help the terminally ill, eradicate disease, make money).
Hence, the existence of "purpose" may well be a driver towards the next stage of consciousness - a consciousness that understands why it exists. But even if these musings make any sense at all, they still do not address the point why this driver exists in the first place.
So, at this stage my hypotheses are "'Purpose' is a by-product of emergent consciousness" and "The function of 'purpose' is to drive consciousness to the next stage in its evolution". But what is the purpose of "purpose"? Why does the concept exist? Does it afford an evolutionary advantage, as some have argued consciousness does? What is this advantage? How would an entity aware of its "purpose" do better than those unaware of it?
My head hurts. I am going for a run. :-)
Mark wrote: "Fortunr,last things first - yes, wholeheartedly yes! You expressed my feelings about books perfectly. Libraries are something I have not mentioned - but I love sitting in the BL (British Library)..."
Thanks Mark for your reply. London must be a pretty amazing city from a cultural perspective - while I have visited the majority of Europe's capital cities, I must admit that I have never physically visited London - a gap that I must fill sooner or later :)
Mark wrote: "Fortunr,last things first - yes, wholeheartedly yes! You expressed my feelings about books perfectly. Libraries are something I have not mentioned - but I love sitting in the BL (British Library)..."
Mark, Libyrinths, I just came across this article in Scientific American: it deals, from a scientific standpoint, with some of the issues and questions about consciousness that we have been discussing. I thought you might be interested: http://www.scientificamerican.com/art....
G. wrote: "What is possible is probable."Very original statement. And meaningful. Not.
Louisbotha77 wrote: "G. wrote: "What is possible is probable."
Very original statement. And meaningful. Not."
What is meaningful in life is the probable.
Very original statement. And meaningful. Not."
What is meaningful in life is the probable.
Mark, it has been many years since I visited London, and I had little time to myself, so only got to one bookstore, although I can't remember the name of it. I'd love to revisit London some day, and include those bookstores you mentioned (among a myriad of other things)!Fortunr said: I would only add to this that, while philosophy is a perfectly legitimate mode of inquiry and with a scope of action beyond the strict boundaries of science, it should always be grounded and based on the results of scientific inquiry (whenever applicable). This does not mean that philosophy is not important - at THE VERY LEAST philosophy provides a fundamental epistemological framework for science
I both agree, and perhaps disagree, with this. First, if someone is philosophizing about the physical universe, or something within it, if there is strong empirical evidence about what the nature of that something is, I go with the evidence, no matter how lovely and logical the philosophy sounds. In other words, in a battle between empirical evidence and philosophy, for me the empirical wins.
On the other hand, philosophy can both be a guide to exploring all the interstices in which science has yet to find a way to investigate (or may never be able to), as well as a framework for meaning outside of the purely physical viewpoint. Science can tell us the biology and chemistry and physics of a flower. But only philosophy can put it in the context of the whole experience, and only a poet can convey it's beauty.
Fortunr said: Moreover, science makes extensive use of (or "posits") concepts and categories such as "field" and "causality" that are not strictly empirical-based and that represents general concepts with significant philosophical implications and hidden underlying assumptions.
Fortunr, you have hit on one of my questions about current thinking in cosmology. The question is something like this: are the models they (physicists) are coming up with drawn from our subconscious framework for the world? As you say, hidden underlying assumptions, or perhaps cultural archetypes? Yes, I know they do the math -- math I couldn't ever do -- and have at least some empirical evidence (sometimes a lot) -- for proposing a particular model. But could that math and experiemental results lead to another conclusion, given a different perspective?
I suppose I first started asking this when confronted with Schrodinger's cat and the necessity for an observer to collapse the whatever (wave function?) and bring something out of its superposition into one state. (You can tell I'm not a physicist!) I know quantum mechanics folks say they think it's weird too, but that the equations work. But the requirement for an observer means there has had to be an observer all along in order for the universe to be anything but a plasma waiting to be observed. Physics can't test that. Not being an expert, I've never been able to counter it, except on logical grounds, but the interpretation seems to be one of those things which might be limited by the models inside our heads.
Fortunr said: Oftentimes a reductionist approach has been very convenient and fruitful, but its tactical character and its limitations should not be discounted.
Important point!
Mark said: as the concept of "purpose" may be a by-product of the emergence of consciousness
Yes, I think that's true. I'd be more specific and say a certain level of consciousness.
Mark said: Hence, the existence of "purpose" may well be a driver towards the next stage of consciousness - a consciousness that understands why it exists
I like that as well!
I have more thoughts, but my brain is getting fried. No sense posting charred remains of thoughts. I'll wait until they reverse entropy. ;-0
Libyrinths wrote: "Mark, it has been many years since I visited London, and I had little time to myself, so only got to one bookstore, although I can't remember the name of it. I'd love to revisit London some day, an..."Hi Libyrinths, many thanks for your comment. A couple of things:
- "if there is strong empirical evidence about what the nature of that something is, I go with the evidence, no matter how lovely and logical the philosophy sounds. In other words, in a battle between empirical evidence and philosophy, for me the empirical wins." - I completely agree with this statement, Libyrinth, as I think that the epistemological claims of the scientific method are definitely stronger than those of any other inquiry method. Science first (within its realm of application), I fully agree with you.
After all, the real world has the "bad habit" of so frequently debunking our beautiful and neat theories and naive intuitions (see relativity, quantum mechanics, chaos theory etc.). Oftentimes, Nature just won't behave :)
On top of this, probably the most compelling reason for the primacy of science is that IT WORKS - proof of it is that I am now sitting in front of a computer, typing information that is converted into EM waves communicated through the net, shared with you, using technology that without the scientific discoveries of the last 150 years would have been impossible to have.
In more general terms, I tend to see a series of concentric circles, with decreasing degree of epistemological robustness, structured like that:
- logic and mathematics
- scientific method
- analytical philosophy
- other (non-analytical) philosophy
- theology/religion
- art, music, poetry, mysticism
But it seems to me that, unfortunately, this series of concentric circles, starting from the most robust down to the most speculative, is not necessarily so tidy. Think about mathematics, for example, without which science could not exist, and which sits at the very core of this epistemological structure: mathematics is based on some a-priori selection of a set of set-theoretical axioms, which are ultimately based on human intuition. And I am not saying that this makes mathematics (and consequently science) arbitrary (my opinion on this is quite the opposite, actually, being quite close to Godel's), but what I am saying is that we can't exclude the human "intuition" and "perception" (and man's mental and perceptual apparatus) as an agent of this process of knowledge acquisition - Kant comes to mind (Elena, who from what I remember has a very deep knowledge of Kant, might want to comment here). But the real fun starts when our mental apparatus proves inadequate to comprehend physical reality - when we have mathematically consistent theories supported by empirical confirmation, which painfully clash with our "commonsense" mental modelling of things.
And the relationship between science and philosophy is not so linear either, IMO - the same applies to the relationship between mathematics and science. Finally, isn't this thinking about thinking a second-order thinking, which is after all primarily a philosophical endeavor, therefore confirming the overarching and architectural scope of philosophy ? And isn't again all of this driven by what I can only define as a "feeling" - that is our longing to know (which, as I said in my very initial post, it is very problematic to explain purely from an evolutionary perspective) ?
I can tell you that the more I study and think about this, the more confused I get. But at least I can share this confusion of mine :)
- regarding all the other parts of your comment, Libyrinths, I think you raised very valid, important, fundamental questions and points about the concept of "model", which I fully share.
I would almost fully endorse your list of concentric circles, Fortunr. Very interesting way of looking at it. Taking Socrates' idea up again that "knowledge is justified belief" (I said before that I would replace "justified" with "verified"), I see that statements expressable in the first category can be true in the sense that they are proven (or perfectly verified). The statement "square root of 2 is an irrational number" can be proven to be true in a sense that it is no longer a falsifiable statement - but not because it is inherently non-falsifiable (like religious statements), but because it has been shown to be no longer subject to falsifiability. Not all statements that are true can be proven so, as Goedel showed, but this does not take away from the high truth value of mathematical theorems.I do not know where art ranks, I would think it is somewhere down the list (because it may serve as a prompt to think something through, but not deliver the result as an explicit conclusion).
I would leave theology on the list. Certain parts of theology (eg exegesis) would rank with analytical philosophy, others probably with or behind non-analytical philosophy.
Finally, I would remove religion from the list altogether. I do not think religion creates knowledge, it has no epistemological function. In fact, I think this discipline acts as the anti-curiositas, it quells the longing to know and is designed to make it stop: I do not know where the world comes from? Answer: A deity created it. Result: I do not have to think about that one any more. I do not have to "do the work". I have my answer. I do not know what's right or wrong, how do behave ethically? Answer: Read this here list of 10 points. Result: My deity told me what to do. Sounds like my parents? Well it is. It is not by accident that gods are commonly referred to as "father" in many (at least the Abrahamic) religions. In Aramaic, this is even more obvious. The hypothesised original form of the Lord's prayer in the Christian religion starts with the word "aba". This basically means "papa", "daddy". None of this says religions are useless - but they do not create knowledge, and they do not do so by design.
P.S. - my strange coinage "anti-curiositas" is a pun on "curiositas", the human quality postulated by Francis Bacon in Novum Organum as the driver of the human urge to know. Interestingly, the concept defended the "longing to know" from attacks by the Church aiming to portray it as inappropriate intervention into the provenience of God (the Christian deity) and in doing so paved the way for the development of Natural Philosophy, later called "science".
Mark wrote: "I would almost fully endorse your list of concentric circles, Fortunr. Very interesting way of looking at it. Taking Socrates' idea up again that "knowledge is justified belief" (I said before that..."Very interesting point about the difference between theology and religion, Mark. And I agree with it. You are right, religion should be left out of this "epistemological chain" of inquiry methods.
I would however like to take up on this and generalize the criteria that you used to distinguish between the two: sometimes the dogmatism, finality, or resistance to change, as opposed to openness to flexible inquiry and to the spirit characterized by the "longing to know", can actually cut across different methods of inquiry.
There are, for example, instances in history where the scientific community demonstrated an almost dogmatic attachment to the existing "mainstream" opinion and paradigms, as the brilliant philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn demonstrated in his masterpiece "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", where he went beyond the somewhat naive/optimistic conception of verifiability by Popper. Fortunately, the scientific method generally contains within itself natural antibodies making sure that ultimately resistance to change is overcome - but it may take a helluva push to effect a required paradigmatic change.
Another counter-example is the complexity of the relationship between Christianity and Science throughout history: we can see that the same religious underpinnings were used in completely contrasting ways, sometimes to suppress inquiry (Galileo's trial comes to mind), in some other cases to actually promote and even fund it (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi...).
In philosophy, we can also see similar wide range of attitudes, approaches and levels of flexibility. And I must say that it is not always and necessarily the case that so-called "analytical" philosophers have delivered ideas and systems of thought that can be universally deemed as epistemologically "superior" to their "Continental" counterparts, even with all the claims by Analytical philosophy to strive for clarity, precision, and logical rigor.
Beyond this distinction between analytical and not analytical (which I never much liked anyway), and as an example of self-proclaimed "rigorous" philosophy, Marxism comes to mind, with all its pretensions to rigor and even scientific accuracy, but with some features, IMO, closer to those of a secular form of theology or religious creed.
There are however inherent strengths and weaknesses in the different methods, that's why I put them in separate positions within the hierarchy: in "revealed" religions, for example, considerations of ethics and society are predetermined, written down in a text that, yes, may be subject to interpretation, but that is nonetheless "cast in stone" and as such not subject to revision/improvement.
This by itself can be dangerous - where it becomes potentially toxic is when religion is used in such a way as to limit or even prevent free inquiry, to kill this human "longing to know" by pretending to already have all the answers, or even worse when it meddles into subjects (such as cosmology) that should be left to scientific inquiry. There is moreover a pernicious tendency of anti-intellectualism in many religious fundamentalisms, as so evident for example in America.
To conclude my post, I think that art should be part and parcel of this (even if well down the epistemological chain, as I guess you would think too): the way I see it, art can (and has been used) to try and capture the "essence" of things that are "perceived", but which can't be fully expressed by mathematical nor by natural language - as such, art is an expression of our "longing to know" in the same way as other more rigorous forms; it can be seen as a source of insight and awareness that cannot be put into propositional language. And I also think that art does, in fact, convey important insights into the way we order and understand the world.
And art and sense of beauty, after all, are not all that disconnected from science and mathematics, as famously highlighted by Paul Dirac, who openly used mathematical beauty of an important criteria in his search for scientific knowledge (his approach to beauty being shared by many a mathematician and scientist).
I forgot: regarding maths, we are on the same wavelength too (and it could not be differently, considering my strong Godelian and Neo-Platonic tendencies when it comes to philosophy of mathematics. You will hardly find somebody more convinced of the truth value of mathematics :). Contrary to common perception, Godel did not use his own incompleteness theorems to promote a formalist or relativistic view of mathematics: he actually used them to support his Neoplatonic views about mathematics, implying the absolute truth value of mathematical theorems and even the ontological relevance of mathematical objects.
This is all very true, Fortunr. I feel I can only ever take up a small fraction of your points - I am getting myself all stressed out with compiling a "to do" list of points you made I still need to respond to... :-)So many thanks for mentioning this excellent book by Thomas Kuhn. I wish to advertise my ignorance to everybody in this chain and reveal that I have been using concepts such as "scientific paradigms" and "paradigm change" for years, without knowing that they originate from this monograph. It is now on my ever-growing reading list.
I thought your epistemology-tree is an excellent way to think of how various intellectual faculties relate to each other relating to robustness of method. The tree forms a plausible, and valuable, model in this regard.
As you point out in post 38, of course when it comes to practice, these disciplines are all conducted by human beings (including, although its practitioners would of course not agree, religion). It is only natural that scientists will hold on to, and try to conserve, an existing model before admitting that it has been superseded by a better one. Professional reputations are at stake, as are jobs, and livelihoods.
This is also true for those who have appointed themselves to be interpreters of religions and their central texts. Indeed, I believe you introduced a third group that inhabits the spiritual sphere - there is religion, theology, and religious institutions. The first constitutes the essence (faith), the second would include scholarly research (eg bible exegesis), and the third are the wordly administrators of religion. And of course the relationship between the churches and the sciences has always been tense - just another example, if any was still needed, why the separation of church and state is a major achievement of the French Revolution and one of the foundation cornerstones on which any society must be based that wishes to foster freedom of expression, pursuit of knowledge, and the free exercising of personal creeds (ideological or religious).
To conclude, I believe the hierarchy of disciplines would look different if we organised it in accordance with other criteria, eg the potential to engender ethical insights (philosophy), foster spirituality (religion), or provoke/share subjective interpretations (art). Interestingly, most faculties in your list would still be there, it is just their order that would change. This points to the fact that each of the faculties includes many of the qualities (epistemology, spirituality etc), but only one dominates in each. I have had thoughts on this similar to yours, Fortunr, but I expressed it (privately to myself) as a Venn diagram. Each discipline has a dominant quality, but they do overlap.
I hadn't intended to post today, and can't (today) get to the numerous interesting comments made here, which I'd like to have time to do, but a topic was mentioned which makes me start going off running around like a mad person until I get it out of my system. Forgive my rant (or ignore it, if you wish).Fortunr, you mentioned how some scientists can get quite dogmatic and I totally agree with you and your dislike of that.
However, Thomas Kuhn's book is a bit of a deception. Kuhn draws on a few incidents from the 19thC, then proceeds to create a model and then generalize it without cause or proof, to ALL science, today, yesterday, forever. It simply isn't true, and doesn't apply to science in the 20th nor 21stC. It applies to the cases he described, and that's all.
Secondly, science is SUPPOSED to move slowly, to take the time to question, replicate experiments, offer alternative interpretations of data -- in other words, be SKEPTICAL. Science in most of the 19thC was still as much involved in particular worldviews or philosophies as valid ways to interpret data as it was in empiricism. Some people who had made their name in science felt free to dismiss any challenges to their own work, or competing data and interpretations, and the bulk of the general community didn't require them to answer to new findings and results. Some of this was due to the vestiges of an aristocratic system, where almost all people involved in science had the wealth to pursue it, and people with less status -- by age or lack of affluence -- were expected not to contradict them.
None of this has been true in the 20th C, nor in the 21st. The vast majority of scientists, no matter their age, when a case has been proven to their satisfaction -- which takes time! -- will readily accept a new way of looking at things. Scientists frequently do experiments to attempt to prove another wrong when they feel he or she is. A healthy debate ensues in the scientific community, sometimes for decades, and the result is that science moves forward. Nobody has to die off. The results, the interpretations, stand or fall on their own as a result of continued critiques, experimentation, debates.
That doesn't mean there aren't personalities, occasional frauds, agendas, dogmatists, etc. There always will be. But as Fortunr noted, science is self-correcting. It doesn't take a generation dying off for corrections to surface and new ways of seeing things, if proven, to be adopted. All the while, even if adopting, remaining skeptical.
Okay, /rant.
On a different topic, briefly, one Kuhn I DO like, is Robert Lawrence Kuhn, who does a half-hour program seen on PBS World here in the U.S., called "Closer to Truth". He poses some of the interesting or fundamental questions of life, science, philosophy, and then interviews contemporary scientists, philosophers, theologians regarding their views on the topic. I appreciate his multidisciplinary approach and I appreciate his attitude evinced by the title of his program.
Gotta run. :-)
Sanjay, I meant to say hi, and I don't have any intelligible thoughts at the moment about your post, but I'll give it some thought. I've always kind of thought of Spengler as somewhat interesting in a certain way, but not terribly rigorous in his thinking. Not an expert on him, though. Others here may have more apt responses to your post. :-)
Gosh, now it is my turn to beg for time :)There is so much very valuable and very interesting information that you guys (Libyrinths, Sanjay and Mark) have added in your latest posts, that I feel I need some good time to digest it and properly think it through, and to give your posts the attention they deserve.... but thank you very much for your thoughts (and feel free to leave me behind... I will catch up :)!
Fortunr, thanks for that link to the SciAm article. One of the things I liked about it was the expanded definition of consciousness, which is something I agree with. Too often we only think of consciousness is our own, human, self-awareness. I don't posit that earthworms have self-awareness, but any awareness and the ability (even if hardwired) to perceive and react to one's environment is a type of consciousness. Very rudimentary compared to our own, but perhaps closer to some elemental form of consciousness which increasing complexity allows to ramify and eventually become self-aware in the sense we mean it.I also liked their attempt to try to quantify the complexity of consciousness. Who knows? Maybe it will lead somewhere. Anyway, thanks for the article.
Mark said: P.S. - my strange coinage "anti-curiositas" is a pun on "curiositas", the human quality postulated by Francis Bacon in Novum Organum as the driver of the human urge to know. Interestingly, the concept defended the "longing to know" from attacks ...
Mark, I thought this whole thing was a wonderful tapestry of thought you created!
Sanjay said: and man, as 'Faustian' - it is in our nature to yearn for knowledge just as Faust did.
Sanjay, I've been thinking about your post and just can't come up with anything worthwhile. If Spengler is positing that man is Faustian due to his desire for knowledge, it seems to me that Spengler is putting a very negative spin on a natural urge by associating it with a villain, as it were, of Western literature. Also, if it is natural for man to long for knowledge Spengler's logic is backwards: Faust is "man-ian". Man doesn't follow Faust, Faust exhibits human nature -- but distorted to a degree which takes him into the realm of a kind of greed for knowledge, not just normal hunger. And Faust gives in to this greed. He isn't willing to do his daily work to get his food, he wants an entire banquet all the time without the work -- and buys it on credit with usurious and fatal interest rates. Any other aspect of human nature, so distorted, can lead to equally poor results.
If I've misunderstood your post, please let me know. But this is the best I can come up with for a response at the moment. It's been ages since I read Spengler, and as I remember, I never finished the work. So, my memories of anything he said is necessarily foggy.
I interpret this 'longing to know' from the reincarnation perspective. If we would assume for a second that reincarnation is real then we should ask the question what is the point of it? A simple answer would be to gather knowledge and experience from different points of view or even being. With every life lived we accumulate different experiences and learn to become better than we were before. As a student we progress from the first educational stage to the next, from preschool to elementary school and so forth. With incarnation we evolve from simple consciousness inside a bug to a more complex one inside an animal and so forth. Just like a student who progresses from one educational stage to the next so does consciousness.
To answer your question our longing to know is our ingrained instinct to better ourselves, to evolve, to learn. Without it we can not progress to the next stage, see it as something akin to "student mentality".
On another note, is there even such a thing as a fundamental “longing to know“ that acts as a directive for human pursuit, or is this desire reducible to some more fundamental, animal urge such as the drive to survive-and-reproduce (as virtually all post-Darwinian and well as post-Freudian accounts of man suggest)? By “animal,“ it is meant of course “non-human animal,“ ie, an animal that does not exhibit a desire for intellectual pursuit.