Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘philosophy’ Category

There’s a good piece in the New York Times today by David Brooks. He’s discussing the issue of genetics and pointing out very clearly and sensibly that the early claims about the possibilities which genetic discoveries might bring to understanding human behaviour were way off. As he says, first of all, we’ve seen there is no simple single mapping of particular genes to particular behaviours. There is no aggression gene for example. Instead behaviours seem to be related to multiples of genes, with there being literally trillions of possible combinations of interaction between the genes within the gene sets. Secondly, he points out that it’s now clear that genes only express their potential in the presence of particular environmental factors. And thirdly there is a total lack of clarity about the terms we use to describe our inner experiences. How do you know that what you can anxiety is what I’d call anxiety?

In conclusion, I think that what he highlights is that reality is messy and complex and those who are still enmeshed in the old logical positivist scientism just haven’t caught up!

Our lives are not determined by uniform processes. Instead, human behavior is complex, nonlinear and unpredictable. The Brave New World is far away. Novels and history can still produce insights into human behavior that science can’t match.

We can strive to eliminate that multivariate thing we call poverty. We can take people out of environments that (somehow) produce bad outcomes and try to immerse them into environments that (somehow) produce better ones. But we’re not close to understanding how A leads to B, and probably never will be.

This age of tremendous scientific achievement has underlined an ancient philosophic truth — that there are severe limits to what we know and can know

Read Full Post »

When in France I enjoy picking up a magazine or two in the local newsagents. You just get a different kind of magazine in France from what is available in Scotland. One I like is “Philosophie”
philosophie
You’ll see I read it with my huge Francais-Anglais Dictionnaire to hand!
This issue has an interesting lead feature about the passage of time. Referring to philosophers past and present they consider time from three “dimensions” (with the seasonal focus being on how we experience the passage of time while we are on holiday).
They discuss “le temps de la nature”, “le temps de la conscience” and “le temps collectif”.
The first is Nature’s time dimension, which is, of course, immense compared to the short period of time experienced in a single human life. They point out that we “temporalise” Nature’s time by our use of clocks, watches and other “timepieces” to “measure” time, but this, actually, is just a human invention. Time is not measurable. Our particular units of measurement are culturally determined. They are what they are just because we’ve agreed to use them. Nature knows nothing of minutes and hours. Holidays allow us to step out of these culturally determined rhythms – the nine to five of working life for example – and get in touch with a different experience of the passage of time, related to the weather, to the cycles of the moon, the growth, blossoming and seeding of the plants around us, to the presence of certain birdsongs as migrating birds move through the part of the world where we are.
The second is time as we experience it subjectively, with our eyes closed. As we drift on the pool, or under the bright sun, the past, the present and the future all intermingle in our consciousness. It’s in our own heads where we can experience time not as a simple line passing before us in single file. We can hold the past and the future together in our minds in the same instant as the present. Contemplative practice allows us to disengage from the world for a while and step out of the constant flow of time to see things from quite other perspectives.
The third dimension to consider is shared time, social, societal time. In this issue, the authors consider this from the perspective of collective rituals, festivals, celebrations and routines. In France, for example, the first weekend of August is known as “Le Grand Depart” – the great departure – because most people start their holidays that weekend. In Scotland the cities have their own version of that. Today, in fact, is the start of the “Glasgow Fair”, otherwise known as “Fair Fortnight”, when, traditionally, all the industries would close down for two weeks and the workers would have their annual holiday. Despite de-industrialisation, the “Glasgow Fair” continues. Today is a Glasgow Public Holiday. Last monday was “Bastille Day” in France and there was a Public Holiday, dances, parties and fireworks. (here’s the mobile phone video I took of the fireworks at Carcassonne Castle last year!) These societal and communal rituals and celebrations mark the passage of time in a uniquely shared way.

So, there you have it. Three ways to think about the passage of time. Think I’ll go and have a lie down!

Read Full Post »

Chris Anderson of Wired magazine has published an interesting and provocative article about how “more is different”. It’s difficult to even visualise huge amounts of data, let alone analyze enormous data sets, but emerging technologies are giving us the tools to be able to interact with bigger and bigger datasets. A petabyte is 2 to the power of 50 (ie 1,125,899,906,842,624). This can be approximated to 10 to the power of 15 (1,000,000,000,000,000). Whilst this is truly a mind-bogglingly large number, Google servers process this much information every 72 minutes! But wait, it gets even more amazing! There are bigger numbers. An “exabyte” for example is 1,024 petabytes, and a “zetabyte” is 1,024 exabytes. Let’s not even go there yet! We can process such vast amounts of information by using large networks of computers and algorithms which handle the datasets as “clouds”. I like the “cloud” idea. You might already be familiar with it through the tool known as “tag clouds“. However, let’s get back to Chris Anderson’s article.

Anderson says that science has proceeded until now by making models then testing to see how well the models fit the data -“hypothesize, model, test”. This enables scientists to uncover the links between events which show us how those events come about (causation) and then make predictions about the future. This is a powerful method and has greatly increased human understanding. However,

There is now a better way. Petabytes allow us to say: “Correlation is enough.” We can stop looking for models. We can analyze the data without hypotheses about what it might show. We can throw the numbers into the biggest computing clusters the world has ever seen and let statistical algorithms find patterns where science cannot.

In other words, the ability to handle such vast amounts of information directly, allows us to uncover the correlations which exist and thereby to see patterns emerge right out of the data without pre-selecting the data with a hypothesis and a model.

Anderson has pushed this idea provocatively to claim this means the end of science as we know it and a lot of commentators have reacted to this with strong disagreement. The points made both by Anderson in his original article and by the commentators are stimulating and thought provoking.

George Dyson says

The massively-distributed collective associative memory that constitutes the “Overmind” (or Kevin’s OneComputer) is already forming associations, recognizing patterns, and making predictions—though this does not mean thinking the way we do, or on any scale that we can comprehend. The sudden flood of large data sets and the opening of entirely new scientific territory promises a return to the excitement at the birth of (modern) Science in the 17th century, when, as Newton, Boyle, Hooke, Petty, and the rest of them saw it, it was “the Business of Natural Philosophy” to find things out. What Chris Anderson is hinting at is that Science will increasingly belong to a new generation of Natural Philosophers who are not only reading Nature directly, but are beginning to read the Overmind.

This feels right to me. These new methods are not the death of science but are the beginning of scientific methods which will change the way we understand the world. Kevin Kelly says more along this line of thought

My guess is that this emerging method will be one additional tool in the evolution of the scientific method. It will not replace any current methods (sorry, no end of science!) but will compliment established theory-driven science. Let’s call this data intensive approach to problem solving Correlative Analytics. I think Chris squander a unique opportunity by titling his thesis “The End of Theory” because this is a negation, the absence of something. Rather it is the beginning of something, and this is when you have a chance to accelerate that birth by giving it a positive name. A non-negative name will also help clarify the thesis. I am suggesting Correlative Analytics rather than No Theory because I am not entirely sure that these correlative systems are model-free. I think there is an emergent, unconscious, implicit model embedded in the system that generates answers.

Maybe the contribution I’ve enjoyed most, however, is that made by Bruce Sterling, which begins this way –

I’m as impressed by the prefixes “peta” and “exa” as the next guy. I’m also inclined to think that search engines are a bigger, better deal that Artificial Intelligence (even if Artificial Intelligence had ever managed to exist outside science fiction). I also love the idea of large, cloudy, yet deep relationships between seemingly unrelated phenomena—in literature, we call those gizmos “metaphors. ” They’re great!

As is so often the case, Bruce Sterling puts his finger right on what’s interesting. He highlights the relationship between this way of viewing data sets and the way we use language. Metaphors are incredibly powerful tools. They can feel like a kind of magic, producing sudden, potentially profound insights, literally in moments. It’s exciting to think that the “petabyte age” will bring us similar tools to engage with a wide range of phenomena.

Finally, Oliver Norton brilliantly manages to make these mind-bogglingly large computations suddenly seem not so overwhelming at all by saying –

And I guess my other point is “petabytes—phwaah”. Sure, a petabyte is a big thing—but the number of ways one can ask questions far bigger. I’m no mathematician, and will happily take correction on this, but as I see it one way of understanding a kilobit is as a resource that can be exhausted—or maybe a space that can be collapsed—with 10 yes or no questions: that’s what 2 [10] is. For a kilobyte raise the number to 13. For a petabyte raise it to 53. Now in many cases 53 is a lot of questions. But in networks of thousands of genes, really not so much.

The complexities of life can seem overwhelming but I feel pretty excited by our human capacity to perceive patterns using all kinds of tools from “clouds” to “metaphors”. The drive to make sense of life, to find meaning and purpose, is a core human quality. Science, its new methods and its old ones, is one way of responding to this drive.

Read Full Post »

art and life

Art imitating life. You’ve heard that before. Well, this photo doesn’t exactly show the same scene in the painting as I was witnessing across the other side of the Cours Mirabeau in Aix, but it strikes me as close enough to make me wonder…….

How do we see the world? Is it like painting? Do we construct an image of reality in our brains? And if we do, how “real” is that image? In many ways, the brain works a lot more like a painter creating a representation of what he or she sees, than it does like a camera, converting the light rays into a fixed image on film or disc. I like that. I like that the way we perceive the world involves creativity. Day by day, minute by minute, we create the reality we perceive.

Read Full Post »

16 in 1

I’ve just embarked upon a study of the Abhidamma – it’s a Buddhist text which is referred to as THE main text on Buddhist psychology. Buddhist psychology is becoming more prominent in recent times because those who write about neuroscientific approaches to the Mind, researchers and philosophers interested in phenomena like consciousness and perception are discovering that many of the Buddhist insights help them with their more biomedical approaches.

This concept suddenly stopped me in my tracks – we tend to perceive reality as being like a series of events. We divide time into the past, the present and the future, and the present is the time period which is the hardest to pin down because as soon as you think about it, it’s slipped into the past! One way of modelling this concept of reality is the movie. We know that a movie is made up from a long series of still photos. When we run the film past our eyes quickly we don’t actually see any of the single frames. Instead, we see movement. So maybe the way to understand reality is to break down the flow of experience into events….like the individual frames of the movie. I’ve wondered about this a few times but the author of the text I’m reading suddenly turned it on its head and that’s what stopped me in my tracks.

He said, what if we think about it in quite the opposite way? What if reality is the flow, and the individual frames, or events are artificial? In other words, there are no events, there is only flow. Slicing the flow into pieces is artificial and gives us the impression that we can understand reality by considering disconnected small segments of it.

This is exactly the problem we have with materialistic, reductionist science. We are told that science can describe complete phenomena as entities, things, or “facts”. But that’s artificial. Reality is flow, is connection and process and cannot be reduced to fixed units. Fortunately, the new developments in science have taken this on board. The new ways include thinking about complexity, chaos, networks and systems. They have a dynamic focus, not a fixed one.

Oh, what’s that photo above? My camera has a function called “16 shot” – you press the shutter release and it takes 16 photos in rapid succession and shows you the results as a single image. This is a photo of a wave. Not only does the phenomenon of a wave act as an interesting example of how see “entitities”, of things, by slicing up the flow of reality, but it reminds us of the impermanence of everything and of the constancy of change.

Read Full Post »

The life force

The concept of a “life force” fascinates me. What is it that enlivens a creature? What changes in that moment between life and death? I vividly remember the first time I had to certify that someone had died. That person was an old man who had died peacefully in a geriatric ward in the middle of the night. As a young doctor this was a diagnosis I absolutely wanted to get right. I took my time and completely convinced myself that this old man had indeed passed away. Perhaps because I spent so long over this, I found myself thinking long and hard about that borderline between living and dying. What changes in a moment? As I sat next to this man’s lifeless body, what had gone? How exactly do we die? Of course, as a doctor I’d learned about the stopping of the heart, about the ceasing of the lungs and about “brain death”, but the closer I looked the harder it seemed to me to discern the exact moment of death. Life and death seem two such absolute states. There isn’t really a transitional zone that is neither life nor death. Even “half-dead” is still life! All these years later I’m no closer to understanding exactly how to pin down the moment of death or to understand what disappears or dissipates at the end of life.

The “life force” (or the “vital force”) is an old concept to try and capture what it is that enlivens us, what it is that is present when we are alive, but gone when we are dead. In fact, for a long time the life force was believed to be an entity, but when the anatomists dissected human bodies and couldn’t find any such entity, the concept lost a lot of ground. Science, it seemed, had shown that no such entity existed and materialistic understandings of the human being became much more accepted than “vitalist” one.

It’s fascinating, therefore, to see the re-emergence of the life force in a totally new guise. Modern systems theory, and complexity science, both show that complex systems have certain characteristics which are remarkably like the old “life force”.

  1. Self-organisation. Complex systems (specifically, complex adaptive systems) have the ability to self-organise. They are made of many, many components, connections and systems, which co-ordinate with each other to maintain overall defence, to adapt and maintain homeostasis of the inner environment, and to be self-repairing.
  2. Autopoiesis. Living systems have the unique characteristic of “self-making capacity”. This is a term coined by Maturana and Varela. Autopoietic organisms can make and maintain themselves.
  3. Emergence. This is a fairly new term which captures that characteristic of being able to produce new, previously unwitnessed, behaviours.
  4. Consciousness. Finally, let me add the phenomenon of consciousness. Not every living creature has consciousness. However, consciousness is a phenomenon which, like the old “life force”, is actually not an entity but a behaviour, or an experience. OK, I know, this is way too simplistic a description of consciousness and clearly it isn’t the same as the life force (think of persistent vegetative states for example). But it strikes me that the life force is a similar kind of phenomenon.

I am repeatedly impressed with the strength of the life force in the patients I see. It seems to me that it’s the basis of their ability to cope, to grow, and to shine. It’s the basis of the fight to overcome disease and to say to Death, “not yet”. Without it, there is, indeed no life at all.

I’m reading Antoine Sainte-Exupery’s “Citadelle” at the moment. Here’s the line I read today which set me off thinking about this post –

The tree is more than first a seed, then a stem, then a living trunk, and then a dead timber. The tree is a slow, enduring force straining to win the sky.

That captures it for me. Aren’t we all the slow, enduring force of life straining to win the sky? The life force flows through us, maintains us, repairs us, and drives our growth. Amazing, isn’t it?

Read Full Post »

I’m sure you are very familiar with this phrase. You’ve either said it or thought it, and if you haven’t, then, at least, you’ve sure heard it said.

Sometimes somebody expresses a view, or behaves in a way, that is so different to how we would view or do something that it can feel as if they don’t actually live in the same world as we do.

Saint-Exupery, in “The Little Prince”, has this theme running right through his brilliant, thought-provoking little story. The philosopher, Ravoux, says that the main theme of “Le Petit Prince” is the difficulty we find in making connections. We all experience the world from the first person perspective, and we have no way of experiencing the world from another person’s perspective. Not wholly. Not fully. We use language and fashion stories to try to convey our views and our experiences to others. We use imagination and empathy to try and put ourselves in others’ shoes, but it’s not easy.

The Little Prince visits six, very small, planets. In fact, the planets he visits are so small (really they are asteroids) that only one person can live on each of them. Saint-Exupery uses the common device of pushing each example to an extreme to make it more clear (Deleuze favours this technique, stating that we should push something to its extreme point to reveal its true character).

On the first planet lives a king. He needs to be in control of everything. But he isn’t stupid. He knows his limitations and has rationalised his experience to fit with his need. He only commands to happen what he knows will happen. The Little Prince sees that this is what the king does and finds it absurd, but lots of people are like this. The important issue of them is of feeling in control of everything. The need for control lies deep within us all. When it becomes all-consuming it becomes the standard against which everything is experienced.

The second planet is inhabited by a man who needs to be told that he is the most handsome, most admired man in the world. When The Little Prince points out that there is nobody else on this man’s planet, the man dismisses the point, saying “admire me anyway”. In our present time the cult of celebrity runs very, very strong. It doesn’t matter what you’re famous for, as long as you’re famous. Admire me! Admire me! Notice me!

The third planet is the world of a drunkard. He tells The Little Prince he is ashamed because he drinks so much and he drinks to forget. Forget what? Forget that I am ashamed! Alcohol and drugs as a way of life? You sure know people like this.

The fourth planet is inhabited by “the businessman” who sits at his desk, counting his possessions and ordering them. He claims he owns all the stars in the universe, and when challenged about how this can be so, he shows the pieces of paper which represent his ownership. It’s not the actual stars which matter, it’s the owning them! The Little Prince finds this idea equally absurd.

The fifth planet is where a lamplighter lives. His planet is so small that day and night are only a minute long each, so the poor man is trapped in a constant cycle of lighting and extinguishing the lamps. The Little Prince points out that if he walked slowly round his planet following the light, he could have a break from the continuous cycle of his work, but the man can’t do that. He says it’s important to follow the rules and that’s what he is doing. He is following the rules. Lots of people only feel safe when they strictly follow the rules.

The sixth and final planet is the one where The Little Prince finds a geographer. This man sits at a desk writing down all the reports which people bring him to create the complete knowledge of the planet. However, he never leaves the desk to go and experience the planet for himself. The Little Prince finds it strange that someone can think they can know everything about a place without experiencing it.

We are all different and we are all unique. I can never know if what I experience as “red” when looking at a red rose, is what you experience as “red”. But we can both agree to give our experiences the same name.

Cemetry rose

Owen Flanagan explores this issue with his idea of “spaces of meaning” where he makes it clear that we each have different ways of making sense of the world. Mary Midgley argues the same point with her analogy of the aquarium which we can only see into through the small windows which are personally available to us.

So, if we really all are on our own planets, with our own sets of values and ways of making sense of things, each of us with our individual world views, then how can we connect? How can relate to other people in their other worlds? Well we need to hear their stories because only they can tell us what they have experienced. And we need to hear their stories using something fundamental and special, Saint-Exupery tells us, and that is LOVE.

It’s LOVE that allows us to connect, to see, hear and understand each others’ worldviews, and it takes LOVE to break down the barriers of isolation and loneliness.

Read Full Post »

I came across a great post entitled “Why it may be worth becoming more like a child” on the slow leadership blog. The main reasons to become more child-like laid out in this post were – being more imaginative, being encouraged to learn, forgiven for mistakes and becoming more creative. Carmine Coyote, the post’s author, asks what would work be like if people started to be a bit less adult? She argues it could be more exploratory, experimental, exciting and passionate. I like this post, and agree with it too. But let me tell you a little story, because this post fits in with one of those strange, synchronicity moments for me.

I regularly spend time in France. My French language skill isn’t great. I get by, understanding most of what I hear, but I’m not good at expressing myself in French. I love to read French however and I’m not too bad at that. I take my time and consult a dictionary when I need to. I never let a visit to France pass without a good browse in the bookshop. French language books are SO different from the English language ones I find in the UK. It’s really like a whole other world for me. Last month, as I browsed in one of my favourite bookshops, “Vents du Sud“, up past the market in Aix-en-Provence, I picked up an interesting-looking book, entitled “Donner un sens a l’existence” by Jean-Philippe Ravoux. I guess you could translate that as “Making sense of existence”, but “donner” means to give, so it’s more “Giving sense to existence”. I am convinced that one of the essential characteristics of human beings is that we are meaning-seeking/meaning-creating animals. A closer look revealed that this book is by an Aix-based philosophe and is an exposition of the work of Antoine Saint-Exupery – in particular, “Le Petit Prince” (The Little Prince) and “Citadelle” (Wisdom of the Sands). “Le Petit Prince” is THE top selling book in the world, second only to the Bible. I bought it, and I’ve been reading, underlining and annotating it since. I SO enjoyed it! I also decided it was time to refresh my memory of “Le Petit Prince” so re-read that too (first in French, then I bought myself a new English language copy and read that too, in case I didn’t understand anything in the French version). Well, I finished it during a train journey yesterday, and I’ve already gone back to the beginning to re-read the parts I’ve marked up for myself. I’m intending to write a few posts about the main themes over the coming days. But here’s the connection and the strange part –

The main theme of Le Petit Prince is how child-like innocence and wonder can challenge the adult view of reality. The little prince questions everything. He doesn’t just take things for granted. Ravoux claims that Saint-Exupery based this attitude on Descartes‘ “Discours de la Methode” (but more of that in another post!) Through his wonder and questioning, the little prince challenges our rather unthinking ways of living, our attitudes to power, money, belief and so on, and this questioning makes us “wake up” (become heroes not zombies?)

My head is full of these thoughts just now, so what a surprise to stumble this very day upon a post about becoming child-like!

What an amazing and curious world we live in! I love how it continually surprises me!

Read Full Post »

the spider and the flower

I was photographing this lovely yellow flower when suddenly I noticed a bit of it was moving…….then I saw the little spider!

Look at it! See how the yellow of its body so PERFECTLY matches the yellow of the flower! Goodness! How does that happen? Isn’t it astonishing!

One of my favourite philosophers is Deleuze. He emphasises not thinking of discrete objects. He rejects the typical “arboreal” system of thought where we set every organism into a specific branch in a taxonomic tree. Instead he suggests we think in terms of the connections and borders and interactions. He emphasises a “rhizome” model (like grass, which has no single centre, but is, instead more like a vast web). I’ve always found that idea appealing because it rejects labelling and putting things into boxes. Instead it emphasises dynamic change. That’s why I have the byline at the top of my blog – “becoming not being…..”

When you think in terms of becoming, not being, you focus on the interactions, the connections and the development of organisms. After all, can we really understand either this flower or that spider without considering how, together, they make a little functioning unit, a little ecosystem?

Read Full Post »

Things aren’t things.

OK, that doesn’t make sense, does it? What I mean is that we tend to view the world as made up of objects, or entities. We do that by focusing our attention on parts of what we see, separating out the bits we want to collect together and name. This is one of our major ways of both making sense of, and managing, our world. A great model to help us to take a different view is that of a network or web. One of the most interesting books I’ve read in recent months is “Linked“, by Albert-Laszlo Barabasi.

Networks are made up of nodes and links. You can see anything you like that way. Let’s start with an object, like the chair you are probably sitting on right now. It’s made up of a number of materials which have been attached to each other……wood, or metal, or plastic, and maybe cloth, or leather or some other material. Take any one of these elements in your chair, say, one of the legs. It’s most likely made of wood, or metal (but maybe it’s plastic). Whatever substance it is, you’ll have the impression it’s pretty solid. Solid enough to stop you falling on the floor at least! But it’s made up of molecules which are connected to each other. And every single molecule is made from atoms which are connected to each other. And that was as far as we used to go. But since we smashed the atom open, we’ve discovered that even that is made from sub-atomic particles, like protons and electrons which are linked to each other. Does it stop there? Nope, even those tiniest of little particles are now known to be made of even smaller elements (quarks for example), all restlessly connected to each other. It seems no matter how far in we go, solid substance escapes us, and we find more and more networks of particles and links. Every particle being another network of particles and links.

Maybe it’s just my mind, but that’s where my thoughts went when I looked at this –
glorious seedhead

Then, a little further along the same embankment, I came across this –
seeds

Some of the seeds have already blown away and I thought about how each of these plants can’t be understood all by itself. They are all connected to other elements around them, and the wind comes and blows some of the seeds great distances, and the seeds fall on the ground, and if there is enough good soil, and water, and warmth, and sunlight, each seed bursts out through its capsule and becomes another of these plants. Vast, great, intricate ecosystems and biological networks.

But here’s another whole scale of connections too. Along comes me with my camera and I take this shot and I connect my camera up to my mac, and I upload it to flickr and copy the code into my wordpress blog and write these words and along comes YOU and you see it and now that seed has connected us to each other.

You know what? It blows my mind!

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »