Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Why did that happen?

Causality is why.  

Causality goes back to at least Aristotle around 350BC. So we humans have been grappling with the question of ‘why?’ for near 2500 years.  Along the way everyone has had a go, think of any philosopher you can name, it is nigh certain they had a go at the problem.  Einstein spent heaps of efforts on the problem of causality; partly due he was never satisfied with the probabilistic interpretation of modern quantum physics. The quote God does not play dice is not accurate, but it is well known… it depends if he intended it as a real serious comment or he made a throw away like ‘Damn it, Niels (Bohr that is) God doesn’t play dice’…which does place a different slant on the issue. 

Then along came David Hume, around 1750AD, who showed conclusively that because the sun rose yesterday and the day before etc, it is no reason to state conclusively it will rise tomorrow. He showed us we need to separate ‘cause’ from ‘causal expectation’.  We have heaps of causal expectation, but seldom if ever is it cause, which is why we get astounded when our teenager acts with poise and respect.  It is so unexpected, where on earth did that come from we think. 

Actually the problem is vastly easier than one thinks, well, like all things it is when you have the answer. Let’s stick with the issue of the sun rising and setting.  No doubt at one time it was a function of the gods, but we are a bit beyond that. We know about gravity, we have various rules and theories that tell us quite exactly what is happening in the solar system. So, we have mathematics and models and theories that predict with great accuracy the events in time sequence, in short we know the ‘mechanisms’.  And because we know these mechanisms, and how these mechanisms[1] work and interact etc, then we can predict with great accuracy not only that the sun will rise but exactly at what time it will rise and at any given point on earth. There is one proviso, namely that there is nothing that will interfere with the operation of the mechanism.

What exactly have we done to come to this obvious and quite simple revelation that 2500 years of philosophers have grappled with?

Think of a box; now place the solar system in total in the box. The sun rising and setting is then an output from the box. We can now say that it is the mechanism inside the box that results in the outputs of the box.  Presto, cause in a box. 

Let’s get bit more technical. Let’s now call our box a ‘system’, and let’s make it a closed system, so that nothing from outside the box can impact what happens in the box. Let’s think of a TV, they are definitely black boxes to me, I tweak knobs and presto, I get pictures and sound etc. why? Well, the pictures and sound etc are outputs derived totally from the workings of the mechanisms inside the box. I tweak knobs, and the quality and volume, intensity etc, change and I adjust things to suit me.  Remember this is a black box, I do not have a clue what is happening inside the box, and nor do I need to.  I discuss this in much more detail here[2].

To get fully technical, the outputs of any system depend on the mechanisms internal to that system. Once we understand those mechanisms we can then predict the outputs given the system is closed, and nothing from outside will alter the functioning of the mechanism.  

The universe is a closed system; we don’t actually think there is anything outside it so we are reasonably confident that everything that happens within the universe depends on the mechanisms within the universe. The effort of trying to work out what those mechanisms are and how they work we call science. 

Is this cause? Good question. 

No, it is not.  It is the mechanisms… not cause. That sort of does not take us further ahead. So let’s drill deeper.  Imagine we have a black box; say for me a TV set. I know I can do all sorts of things and get different results by twiddling the knobs. Now let us say I did not know it was a TV set, I did not know what it was, only that by twiddling knobs or their equivalent I get different results.  But I also know that all outputs of the box are generated by the internal mechanism of the box. Do I know cause? No, I know about mechanisms, they exist in the box; they are unknown to me since by definition we made it a black box. The mechanisms work according to their own internal forces, under their own steam, and given no external interference result in the outputs of the box.

Someone then gets sharp, and takes the lid off the box and begins to explore aspects of the mechanisms in the box, and slowly is unraveled the miracles of the box, through careful scientific endeavor we learn the mechanisms and can write them down. 

So what do we have now? We have in the Reality[3], the mechanism, which we have conceptualized into formal sequence, perhaps mathematical, or electronic diagram or details of how a seed germinates. We now have something in Reality, some mechanism, and our conceptualization of that mechanism. And if the conceptualization is sufficiently precise[4], then we can indeed manipulate it to produce outputs more to our preference, what ever that may be. 

The conceptualization is knowledge; precisely it is conceptualization of the mechanisms.  We know the mechanisms drive all the outputs, so we know that the mechanisms are the necessity of the system which operates according via the mechanisms, which in themselves have their own internal necessity.  So, ‘mechanism’ equals ‘necessity’ in Reality, in fact the two terms are quite interchangeable, since ‘necessity’ refers to the ‘mechanisms’ of a system that result in the outputs of that system, hence mechanisms implies the necessary operation of the system resulting in outputs[5]. Things happen due their own inherent mechanisms with or without our understanding.
In my paper I also show how ‘there is always a mechanism’, and gave detailed definition to this proposition I called the ‘universal mechanistic postulate[6]’.
We know nothing that is not knowledge. If we have no knowledge of something we do not know it, we can have senses and feelings about something, but this is strictly knowledge of how we feel and is not knowledge on the object we feel about. 

Therefore what we know of cause must and can only be knowledge. So we can never know necessity, we can only know our model and approximation to the mechanism, and this approximation to the mechanism I call cause. 

The conceptualization of the mechanism is our knowledge of necessity which I define as the cause. 
The mechanism just is … cause is our understanding of the mechanism. So we can say with precision we know the cause of the sun rising and setting, and given our knowledge of the immediate vicinity of the solar system, so we know there is nothing to interfere with the causal analysis, we predict with great certainty exactly when the sun will rise over Karikari Bay and Rangiputa[7].  

Closed system are great and easy, so we understand mechanism, and conceptualization of mechanism, that there always is a mechanism… it all ticks over just fine provided there are no external circumstances that will interfere with the workings of the mechanism. Let’s make it a bit more complicated, let’s make it that the internal workings inside the box depend on the circumstance of the box. 

So, our teenager acted with poise and respect because an old friend was visiting and our daughter really fancied our friend’s son who came visiting with his mother, unwillingly, but they were from out of town and he could nothing else. And clearly during the visit he fancied our daughter, which we and our friend had really hoped for.  

It can never pay to assume that the mechanism of any black box is not influenced by the situation of the box. It is perilous to assume that the outputs of any box are independent of the environment.  All a bit esoteric one may think who would make that assumption. Well, a theoretical physicist does, it is assumed in quantum theory that photons are point objects with no internal mechanism, so by definition cannot be linked to the environment. 

We put some such particle into a two slit environment, then single slit environment etc, and then we wonder why we get different and contradictory results, it would seem. Waves and particles, which is it? … Why does it have to be either, maybe it is just the assumptions we are making about the lack of internal structure, and that the internal structure is actually linked to the environment. 

What if our friend’s young man was nerdy and really awkward… would our daughter have acted the same way? Not that there is anything wrong with nerds, Bill Gates has told us to be nice to them, likely we will end up working for one. But we know our daughter does not enjoy them …

It may seem a stretch to move from people to elementary particles, but from a scientific stand point that is wrong, both are merely systems, with mechanism dictating their outputs.

The real comparison is that we can assess both people and elementary particles using the same intellectual tools. From that conceptual stand point both are just systems… and we can apply the conceptualization tools to both systems, in exactly the same way. It is wrong to mix science up with other beliefs, it is wrong to argue and claim that in some manner social science is different in principle from physical science: It is not.
There is just one intellectual process that for now can use two clearly defined tools, one is mathematics, and other are the tools of ultimate and immediate effects of W Ross Ashby coupled with his process of primary operations. Both tools lead the key intellectual process, which is precisely the conceptualization of the mechanisms so that we build causal models of systems. That is what science is about; at least that is what it is about under the model of knowledge sketched here. There is no physical and social science, just science, same intellectual tools, same goal. 

Once we have a causal model we can then of course use our understanding to tweak system toward our preferences, just like tuning the TV.  

There are many questions, such has what happens when we apply the tools of conceptualization to the system a person in their environment, and what exactly are these tools of conceptualization, can anyone learn them, and how do we know when the tools have been applied rigorously, and what is being offered is good versus what is being offered is just some person seeking their moment of fame…?

These questions and many others must await further blogs.


[1] See the paper Little, A model of knowledge and tools for theory creation http://www.grlphilosophy.co.nz/paper3.htm

[2] Little,  Perception and a general theory of knowledge, http://www.grlphilosophy.co.nz/paper2.htm

[3] Use of term Reality to specify that which exists beyond our perception, in this discussion then we can say that Reality is the name we apply to mechanism that we may or may not understand, but that are always present.

[4] It is not a topic here, but this position makes absolute nonsense of any suggestion that science is cultural bound or dependent in any way on the point of view of the observer. 

[5] This model of knowledge has it that the lowest level of knowledge and understanding are black boxes which encapsulate our ignorance of the internal structure, hence ignorance of the links those black boxes make with the environment or with other black boxes. At this epistemological level the only tool we can use is statistics, and any outputs from any system built at this level will appear random and probabilistic.  It is worthy of note, that the assumption that quantum particles, such as photons are assumed in the theory to be points with no internal structure, with this model of knowledge then it should come as no surprise that the outputs are perceived as probabilistic. 

[6] Little, A model of knowledge and tools for theory creation http://www.grlphilosophy.co.nz/paper3.htm

[7] I am a New Zealander, look it up. Google will do. It is a really beautiful spot by the way; I camped there for six weeks each summer for 20 years, and my children joined me each year. My spirit belongs to this area, and I will have my ashes spread on the beach so for eternity I know I will reside in peace and contentment.  

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

The cycle of birth and rebirth

It is commonly accepted the universe began with a ‘big bang’.

The interesting question is ‘what was before the big bang?’ with the ancillary question ‘where did the singularity come from?’ In this note I address both questions based on largely accepted propositions in science, with the addition of several speculative propositions.

The second law of thermodynamics gives us entropy and the tendency of entropy in closed systems to increase. Entropy is associated with randomness, but more recently described as the tendency of closed systems to seek the lowest energy levels available.

Proposition 1: A closed system moves to the highest level of entropy that is the lowest level of energy available to it.

Proposition 2:The highest levels of entropy in the universe are found in black holes.

The bottom of black holes are the lowest temperatures in the universe with minimal to zero vibration. Approaching the bottom of a black hole from a 'random' point of view, then it is random in the sense of a crushed motor vehicle is random, none of the functioning parts are in appropriate relationship,and the details of the crushing are not predictable, with the parts ending up in random relationship. What can be said to be fully crushed in a motor vehicle is its functionality, that is no part of the vehicle is in an operational relationship with any other part. The same can be said of all that falls into a black hole.

Proposition 3 is that the universe is a closed system.

Therefore energy and matter in the universe will tend toward the bottom of black holes.

Now speculative propositions 4: Space-time depends on matter for support, and in the absence of matter space-time collapses: 5, that a singularity is formed only when space-time collapses in on matter in a black hole: 6, Matter-space-time singularities are unstable and explode at the moment of formation.

At the moment the last support for space-time ceases, the last piece of matter falls into the black hole taking space-time with it, so is formed a singularity which explodes and the cycle is renewed.

Evolution guides everything between consecutive singularities.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

The abuse of science

At a recent conference in New Zealand people used the idea that science is a culturally bound set of prejudices; ‘science’ is just a point of view. There are a number of complex issues behind the idea of culturally bound science.

  • What exactly is the relationship between knowledge and the object of that knowledge?
  • What exactly is happening when we perceive? 
  • What exactly is the structure of ‘science’ as a subset of all knowledge, and how do we define ‘science’ relative to all other knowledge?

A second major consideration is the one empirical event exploring these issues. In 1996 Professor Alan Sokal (then Professor of Theoretical physics at NYU) presented a paper to a prestigious social science ‘cultural’ journal where he argued the link between consciousness and quantum variability. On being published Sokal dismissed his own paper as a hoax suggesting the editors were self-serving publishing ideas they wanted to believe. There was an immediate furor.

Karl Popper established that to disprove the proposition all swans are white one only needs to find a single black swan. Unfortunately a significant section of academics choose to ignore this Popperian proposition. The Sokal result was sweep away in a flood of political posturing. Now a single event in issues this complex is never definitive. But, accepting Popper, a single event is enough to cause one to question.

An overall balance of thinking on science today is that there is an objective world we perceive through multiple points of view (including cultural viewpoints). By rigorously combining points of view we ‘see’ more clearly the objective world (what I call the ‘five blind people and the elephant’ problem).

Now, for people at some local conference to argue against ‘western’ science is silly enough, but to do so without reference to the complexity that lies behind the idea is a complete lack of intellectual integrity that must be condemned.

Unfortunately this pseudo science is done most by groups seeking to serve themselves, using it to support what is usually a weak case in the first place.

We need dismiss this shallow self-serving intellectual nonsense. Then get on with the real task of carving our way in a world that does not give a toss, and building the wealth and hence health of all citizens in our society.

Toward a fair society

“All animals are equal but some are more equal than others".George Orwell's brilliant satire focused on the world's oldest political problem:How to create a fair society.

We do not know what to do.

But we do know what not to do. George Orwell showed us in his clear and accurate language.Changing one set of pigs for another does not solve the problem merely perpetuates it from another point of view.We must not allow for more pigs.

Toward those feeling aggrieved who do not understand that making them the pigs will not correct the social problem, we need restraint and patience. Insights take longer in some, but come eventually.Making the current aggrieved the pigs may satisfy their tensions, but will inevitably give rise to other tensions which will eventually have their political expression.

We need to draw a line through today and determine firmly the past is past.

Where grievances are legitimate then reparations are due.

But, we must not codify the pig mentality. To codify inequality in law is not to correct mistakes of the past but to continue them.

All laws must fall equally on all citizens.

Not indigenous rights, but citizen’s rights.

Maori culture is seriously lacking in depth of social and political experience.For example, Thomas Beckett was murdered on the steps of Canterbury Cathedral around 1160 that is before the Maori arrived on these shores. The murder of Thomas Beckett consolidated movement toward separation of church and state, something today we take for granted, and also enabled Henry VIII to move against the Church of Rome with impunity.

The ‘barbarian’ tribes of Europe only offered compliance to Rome and were never subjugated. Their spirit has driven the West for over 2500 years and how we think today is a product of that movement. The fight for freedom and the multi-religious structure created by Henry VIII lead to individual freedom of worship which again, today, we take for granted.

Race in legislation does not work, leads only to the new marginalized taking up arms. We ignore this depth of social and political insight at our peril.

We need understand that our social structure is a liberal, plural democracy within which all have the right to freedom and fulfillment. 

We need understand that within the law we may live as we choose, many cultures expressing our commitment to the right of our neighbor living as they choose despite we do not approve.

For the sake of a better society for our grandchildren and great grand children we need create a legislative platform of equality.

The Maori seats must go.

When science isn't

There is a long history to questions of mind; it could begin perhaps with Socrates, who focused on the spirit as the only real object. Husserl explored intentionality, while Descartes tipped the issues into a cauldron of doubt culminating perhaps with Bishop Berkeley arguing it is all illusion corrected by some wag who said but God is always about so the world always is.

This is just so much imaginative poppy cock.

The rule of strategic thinking in science says that topics must be considered only within the framework of their ground, and only then in relation to the understanding as it exists of the issues of ground and that discussions of any topic if it is to remain intellectually rational must not go beyond the bounds dictated by the available
answers to the issues of ground.

What does that mean for social science, say, phenomenology? That any and all discussions of phenomenology relate to human psychology, and any and all discussion of phenomenology must be related to a general theory of psychology which identifies the causal issues underlying our psychic processes and the sum total of our psychic existence.  Any discussions on our existence not related to a general theory of psychology must be regarded as nothing more than speculation; not science, not even effective rational intellectual effort.

Real intellectual effort must be bounded by what we know and work to the edge of what we do not and need to find out, beyond that it is imaginative fiction.We do need a place to start, it is exactly the same as building a house, without solid foundations…well, I am sure you know the rest. The serious starting questions are as follows.

  1. If we had a complete and thorough general theory of epistemology, what would be its structure and what would it tell of actual knowledge and it relation to the objects of that knowledge?
  2. If we had a complete and thorough general theory of psychology what would be its structure and what would it tell us of causality behind actual mood and conduct in actual situations? 
  3. If we had a complete and thorough general theory of society what would be its structure and what would it tell us of causality behind actual societies in actual situations? If we had a complete and thorough general theory of cause, what would it tell us of causality in all the above situations and theories?
  4. What is the relationship between all answers to the above questions?

The answers to questions 1, 2, 3, and 5 are all at www.grlphilosophy.co.nz. The theory of society is drafted, but not yet available. Taking this platform, I will now offer the summary answers to the above questions of phenomenology.


One of the greatest failings of virtually all social science with phenomenology as the perfect example, is the failure to distinguish between a variable and it values. For example the so called hard and easy problems of consciousness. Consider a pendulum; it is described by time being equal to a constant multiplied by the square root of the length over the gravitational constant (which is not quite constant). Now, what is the period of the pendulum in Timbuktu? Well, you ought to say, how can I know that without going to Timbuktu and measuring the length? Exactly! Length is the variable describing the system, for any actual example the value relative to the situation must be measured and then inserted into the theory to calculate that which the theory is able to describe.

Now imagine a complete and accurate general theory of psychology: what will it tell us of two people conversing in Dubai, Beijing, Mumbai, or Rangiputa? The issue is exactly the same; the theory can only describe and direct attention to the variables that are operational in describing the system under study, in this situation two people conversing, to describe the system it is necessary to go the place to measure values of the variables and insert them in the theory to gain that which the theory is able to describe.

All science is constrained, consisting of only variables and their relationships. Once the values of variables are selected it is no longer science; rather it is descriptive (normative) of actual situations. The easy problem of consciousness is fully solved with a theory of variables and the relations between them that describe the system under study.

The hard problem of consciousness…what is it like to be?...has to do with the values of the variables, not the variables or their relationship. For human kind, the so called hard problem of consciousness is fully resolved in literature, poetry, and song since these literary activities all largely seek to describe living experience: But, this is not science, and should science try to go there it need don the cloak of writer and poet, not scientist.

How ideas exist is the topic of a paper, and I will not review the theory here, merely stress that ideas are shown as existing, and as being causal in the theory of human mood and conduct. That does mean you need review the theory of cause so that the sentence has the precision the theory affords it.

Meaning lies in our world view and the attachment of feelings to ideas in our world view. Any discussion of meaning immediately goes beyond science; it has fully to do with values of variables not the variables themselves or the relationship between those variables. The model has it that ideas exist in mind rather like on a scratch pad, further that we have the ability to know how to move our body, a learned set of skills nested into any action we take.

So, when we see an idea we like, we are largely able to enact it if it is within the scope of what we can do, we are unable to do what we cannot do, as silly and obvious as that sounds, it is important, since it implies judgement of our abilities and skills in any circumstances, and how often have we bitten of more than we could chew?

With that structure we have choice, intent and freewill. Moving much beyond the structural aspects we then become entangled in values of variables that is not science, a classic example here is in political choice, when it is argued that some set of political values are better than some other, and in some way this is sociological cience when it is obviously values of variables and is no more science than Homers Iliad.

Free will, choice, intent and goals are all founded on the ability to select and implement one idea over another. A theory of psychology has to do with how these processes work, not which processes are operative in any person, nor which choices should be or are preferred by any person.

Immediate perception is the interaction between the perceptual structures on an observer and the perceptual field of the environment; it is mediated by neurology and dependent on the environment and results in active structures in our physiology that produce the sensory result. The sensory result is then linked with our psychology that is our views and feelings about the result, our knowledge of it and understanding of it, etc. Interpretation is secondary to the immediacy of the physiological perception. We perceive via events, an event defined as changes in Reality producing changes in the perceptual field, producing changes in our physiology (assuming our physiology is not defective): The object of all this processing stands in our minds in relation to the outside systems that contributed to the object in mind with the key issues of epistemology being the link between the object in mind (reality) and the object of Reality (that existing beyond us).

Note, as well, that objects are defined very precisely in terms of events, and are events with a rate of change slow in relation to the perceiving systems. So in effect, the idea of a static object is rejected in favour of the idea that everything is changing but some of that change is slow in relation to time scales relevant to some observers. Finally note that time is not seen as an aspect of the universe, but is only introduced by consciousness that note the period between events and so uses time to measure that period.

What do I experience when I experience an object?

Depends entirely on the meaning of the events for you (see the general theory of psychology). This immediately extends beyond science and into poetry and literature.

How do I know what is ‘real’?

In a nutshell, you don’t. To verify is to first seek out multiple inputs, such as sight, smell, sound, touch: so if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, smells like a duck, feels like a duck and is where you might sensibly expect to find a duck you got pretty good chance it’s a duck! Modern virtual reality is clear testimony to fact that without other inputs any one perceptual systems can be deceived (even if the technology not very good yet, it will get better!)

How do I know what is true?

Again, in that nutshell, you don’t. The only out is multiple inputs to the decision. Truth is not measured by any rule, but solely arises as an act of judgement. Modern legal systems proceed largely on basis of multiple inputs, each side, any other sound opinion, etc…Verisimilitude as argued by Popper I relate to the extent the topic is explored, and extent there are clearly many facets bought to account and all well argued, researched and reasoned. So physical science in general has high verisimilitude, whereas much social science does not, and modern phenomenology has very little indeed and is largely very confused.

How do we distinguish the ‘truth’ of a mad person over a sane person? Not always easy, take the impact of Hitler on a whole generation in Germany. I do not think Hitler mad, but the point still remains, very bad ideas accepted and acted out by a very large number of people who now look back with horror. Distinguishing bad ideas from good can only come from balance, the multiple inputs including trial and error that lead to a  balanced view and balanced actions. Balance is not easy to maintain, emotions are often not balanced, and an important function of emotional intelligence is maintaining balance.

How do I know the outside world exists?

In that damned nutshell, you don’t. The first issue is perceptual: An act of judgement, is it ‘real’, or is it virtual reality and not real…I introduced the terms ‘Reality’, capital ‘R’, to refer to the Reality beyond the perceptual field (so it could be a virtual reality field generator); and ‘reality’ little ‘r’, to refer to the unique interpretation we each make of circumstances. Big Reality is not psychological, little reality is; science aims to map big Reality.

The second factor is structural and involves the rule of relations which states that for there to be a relation between two objects each object must be independently discernable. Where this rule is not effective, then it is not possible to establish the relationship between the two objects. Imagine some object in mind, in reality, and one in Reality – say a tree or horse -how can you possible separate the object in reality from the one in Reality? You cannot, they interpose to the degree that the rule of relations is broken, hence who is surprised Bishop Berkeley questioned as he did. It is not possible as a matter of principle for an individual to establish the existence of an external world on their own. Modern CAT scans linking events in the brain to events outside the person offer some technology for relating events in reality with events in Reality, however, there is still the issue of meaning which no CAT scan can provide insight into, and the theory states that there never will be any such technology since no two people necessarily have the same neural events linked to the same meaning, and even if so, there is still the issue of the exact nature of the meaning for one person over another, nuance can completely alter meaning, and nuance could involve a small handful of neurons that barely register on a CAT scan.

How do I know me, or self? And what is ‘I’?

The general theory of psychology has considerable amount to say on the underlying structure involved in these issues, and I will not repeat it here. Suffice to say that ‘self’ and ‘I’ are constructed objects and can be fully discussed and accounted for within the framework of the theory. We can come to know ‘I’, ‘self’ and ‘me’ exactly as we can come to know and understand better any part of our psyche we select to conceptualise.

How do I know I exist?

Are you just some disembodied brain locked away in some preserving jar…? I think therefore I am, yes, well, maybe. Same problem as knowing the truth or knowing what is real or knowing the outside world exists? You need multiple inputs to verify and enable judgement that yes, I exist and function as a person, not merely a disembodied brain in a jar, or an energy cell in some machine world Matrix.

What is mind?

Within the theory ‘mind’ is accepted as a useful term to describe operation of the causal model of our psyche, our neurological processes are the mechanism of mind so all neurological processes hold a correspondence with events in mind, because of largely the complexity, plasticity and the variability with which ideas and feelings etc, are generated by our physiology, mind is not simply reducible to underlying neurological events. This insight is able to be deepened, the essential issue is begun with the question 'is knowledge continuous?'.

To make the question concrete we the have a brain, our neurology, and we have our mind, our psychology. If knowledge is continuous then the issue of reduction arises with our mind be 'reducible' to our neural functioning. If knowledge is not continuous and exists in domains, then neurology may be the mechanism of mind, but mind not reducible to neurology.

Consideration of domains of science must involve review of definition of how domains are formed in our knowledge (all these issues considered in depth in the papers at www.grlphilosophy.co.nz). So if mind is a major aspect of the domain of science called psychology, then these general principles of epistemology will bear significantly on the relation between psychology and the mechanisms of psychology namely the domain of science dealing with the brain and nervous system.

The problem of discontinuous knowledge gives rise to many issues, such as what exactly in a domain, how are domains defined, what exactly is the boundary between domain, etc. the question of whether or not knowledge is continuous is the formalization of an issue raised by Niels Bohr, when he formulated the complementarity principle seeking to resolve apparent perceptual and conceptual contradictions in physics.  Discontinuous knowledge with embedded unique and separate domains of science resolves the issues of concern to Bohr.

What is attention, how is it directed and how does it impact us? See the papers on the general theory for full account of these issues. 

Conclusion: Should you care I would be pleased to apply the base platform of models, theory and thought to any variation of these issues or questions. It is the underlying platform that bounds discussion on any topic and affords validity to the answers to the topic, and in the absence of a sound platform all is speculation built on sand; and so far most social science, phenomenology, psychology, organization and management theory, and sociology,  has seen little else than rampant speculation dressed as science.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Understanding what it is like to be ... you, me, he, she or thee

One of the crucial aspects of the philosophy is to follow through on a proposition long known, summed in the paradox of Hui Shih that a white horse is not a horse. What we have is the common problem of applying general terms to specific instances.

In the model of knowledge at www.grlphilosophy.co.nz the general and the specific emerges as a crucial distinction, in that what we experience, what we live are unique and specific ‘instances of’.

Ideas come to be through the process of grouping ‘instances of’ according to their properties.So the white horse is a specific 'instance of' the general idea of 'horse', hence a white horse is not a horse.

The crucial hypothesis underlying this process is that ideas are the creation of species and did not predate the species, in this instance the species being humanity. Thus follows the idea that the framework of human thought as it is today is the result of progressive unfolding and elaboration and creation, beginning at first with the simplest classifications, those being of such things the earliest people’s saw and to which they related. This would of its own postulate that the earliest paintings would be of animals or people, and would likely be quite stylistic and without full depth or perspective, since these are not intrinsic but would represent refinement of skill.

Ideas thus come to be, and they have a social and psychological reality equal to the physical reality of the white horse. Hence when we talk of a horse not being a white horse we do indeed refer to two quite different objects of equal reality and power to effect us. There is no paradox, nor any particularly difficult philosophical problem to be resolved, at least not within the theory of knowledge developed in the papers at www.grlphilosophy.co.nz.


What you can ask, has this got to do with consciousness? Well everything, but first let’s briefly recap the issues. First, the so-called easy problem: this is the solution to the ‘how’ problem of consciousness. That is the problem of mechanism, or the problem of the neural and psychological processes whereby consciousness comes to be at all. It is conceded that in time this will be solved. But once solved, what is it we will have?


The theory of knowledge developed here already has an answer to this question, since the question is about the nature of knowledge not about consciousness. Imagine we had a complete and accurate general theory of consciousness such that we could model with great accuracy the mechanisms whereby consciousness came to be. That we had applied all our faculties and criteria of judgment to the solution and were certain we ‘had it right’. What do we have?

Precisely we will have a set of variables and or systems of variables, we will have the relationship between those variables and systems such that we would know precisely the flow of a perturbation through the system. That is, if we changed one variable, we would know exactly how that change would then flow through the system as a whole. We may not know every underlying mechanism of every relationship, but we would have a full causal explanation of consciousness.

What precisely would this accurate theory tell us of my consciousness or yours right now? It can only tell us the variables to research and how those variables interact. So if I wanted to know or predict or otherwise understand the actual state of my consciousness I would have to gather the information about the relevant variables, put the data into the theory and calculate the result.


The hard problem of consciousness is what it is like to be conscious; it is the experience of consciousness at this or that instant. But wait, if we have a complete and accurate mechanistic model of consciousness, and if we then put in the relevant data, what ‘answer’ do we get? We can and must get the ‘answer’ of what it is like to be consciousness for that person at that moment. The theory is the horse the statement about my consciousness now is the white horse.


If we take a scientific theory, put in the data and calculate the result we have exactly the relationship between the general and instance of. In the case of consciousness the argument goes further, in that since it is the relationship between the general and instances of, then there are two types of instances of, first each example of the species is or has a unique consciousness. To predict otherwise proposes that all the values of all the variables in our model of consciousness are identical at the same time, this simply stretches too far to be credible. How I feel now, is not the same as how you feel now, we are different, therefore the values of the variables that make up the theory of conscious for you right now is different to the values for me right now.

Second, for each person, each unique instance, in this case each event is a unique example of their unique consciousness. There can be as a matter of principle no generalities of any scientific value relating the unique moments of consciousness of one person with those of another.

These ‘instances of’ our existence are called 'qualia'.

What do we know of these ‘instances of’, of qualia? Frankly a great deal, world literature, song, art and poetry are full of what it is like to be alive under such and such circumstances. The study of qualia is not and never can be science, because each example of consciousness and each moment for each example of consciousness are unique. But it gives rise to the beautiful, the soaring, the painful and the passionate that we call art, culture or literature. Beyond the control and understanding offered by science or technology lies all the best of us, expressed by those talented enough to grasp a moment, and put it in a way that relates and makes sense of our own moments.