‘Into
Me See’ series of essays
By
Graham Little
These essays summarise and extend the conclusions from the intellectual
position in the book The Origin of Consciousness. Excluding this work, there is no general theory of
psychology, no general theory of knowledge integrated with a general theory of
psychology, no general theory of cause. This means that all historical lines of
thinking have failed. Our options are to seek to revise what has been
previously offered, or find a new start point. Near forty years ago my research
lead me to conclude that everything able to be said had been said, every
wrinkle possible had been explored. I
judged further re-treading the historical lines of thinking would prove fruitless.
We need a new start point if we are to fully understand
who we are, where we came from, what is religion, what moves us, is there a
God, do we have a spirit, what is science, what is truth, do ideas exist, and
the other ‘big’ questions. I began by building a new social science methodology,
applied it to the system
‘person in their environment’ then interpreted the resulting theory.
I do not have opinions on intellectual issues, what is offered is not
‘opinion’ but conclusions. I believe that truth and verisimilitude are not
found in opinion or belief, but in methodology and argument. Where I do apply a
judgement unsupported by method or argument, making it an ‘opinion’ or a
‘belief’, I aim to make that clear.
After reading these essays I hope you will then read the book The Origin of Consciousness to fully understand yourself and
others, why you are here, why you are as you are, and how to find spiritual
fulfilment. Titles of the
essays are listed in the menu to the right. The print copy of the book is here,
print.
“I would not give a fig for simplicity this
side of complexity, but would give my right arm for simplicity the other side
of complexity”. Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.
In his book on the
Mbuti Pygmy, Wayward Servants: The world of the African Pygmy, Colin Townsend
described standing on a hill top with a Pygmy taking in the view. The Pygmy
asked what the insects were. It took
Colin some minutes to work out the Pygmy was referring to the cattle grazing in
a paddock several miles away. The Pygmy had limited experience outside the rain
forest where visibility was measured in feet, not miles, and in his mind
anything that small had to be insects.
I have previously discussed ‘buy and burgle’, where
people saw very different aspects of a house depending on their intention of
buying or burgling it. We can understand this process by imagining a box of
power point slides just behind our forehead. When we think ‘buy’ up pops that
filter and we ‘see’ according to the filter, and we do not see things not
consistent with the filter. For the Pygmy, his filter was ‘small things’, and
his experience was that anything that small had to be insects, distance as a
factor in seeing small things did not feature in his understanding. Although he
quickly worked it out.
The box of power
point frames is the structure of our psychology. What is on each frame is our reality, our
point of view in regard to the object in Reality we are observing. We have no
choice as to the structure of how we perceive.
We do have a choice as to what is on each frame. We can refer to what is
on a frame as our personal theory. Unlike in science, frequently our personal
theories are not well researched, nor chosen with any real precision. We accept
our personal theories as they are presented to us by our culture – by peers,
parents, our siblings, schooling, and what swirls about us in our social
circumstance. Tielhard de Chardin referred to the thought swirling about us as
the nousphere, the sphere of (global) thought. We then develop and live within
our culture, a particular part of the nousphere. I have previously questioned
the casual way we assume our personal theories. I will explore this more fully
later in the essay. For now leave you to reflect that if we reshape our personal
attitudes how will that impact the nousphere within which our children are
immersed? Can we deliberately reshape our cultural nousphere? And if we do,
will that redirect humanity’s destiny?
But for now, back to the search for truth.
Any scientific
theory is merely thoughts we use to look at some objects. The theory is constructed
by reasonably tight rules. It is intended to be socially shared among other
scientists. When many scientists share some particular point of view, a
particularly theory, then it is referred to as the current paradigm. We can regard a paradigm as a specific part
of the nousphere within which the scientists live and work. So we can
understand scientists as immersed in two aspects of the nousphere, their
personal culture, and their scientific work culture which includes the
paradigms on how they think about various aspects of Reality (quantum physics, for
example, orientating minds to sub-atomic phenomena).
Personal theory is
psychologically equivalent to scientific theory. Both are ideas on a frame.
Both are part of the person’s reality. Both orientate the person to their
Reality. Also, and this is very important, both can become associated with
emotion. Scientific theory is prone to the same failings as personal theory.
Science can become as dogmatic as the views of a suicide bomber.
Which leads to the
question addressed in this essay, how to decide which theory is the best, which
is truer, which has greater verisimilitude.
The answer to the
question is in three parts. First, how do we decide which scientific theory is
truer? Second, why is the theory in Origin the best theory available on us?
Finally, I will draw some conclusions on how we, personally, can and perhaps
should be more aware and take more care with the thoughts we allow to shape our
spirit.
In Origin I offer the following summary factors for judging which theory is the
verisimilar theory, the truer theory.
No one factor provides an unassailable guide
to truth.
Verification, falsification, debate and
argument all have their place in deciding.
But eventually we must decide.
One list of factors is as follows.
1. Verification, does it fit
the facts?
2. Falsification, can any of
it be disproved? Remembering the point by Karl Popper that we can never prove
the hypothesis all swans are white, but can disprove it by sighting one black
swan.
3. Accuracy, does it get the
right answer?
4. Practicality, does it work?
Is it useful?
5. Method, is it built by
tools known to build congruence?
6. ‘First things first’, is
the reality well-grounded with prior issues resolved?
7. Rule of relations, has
imagination been used to test reality and distinguish Reality?
8. Multiple opinions, do
others agree? But note, because it is a majority judgment does not mean it is
‘right’ it is possible for 50,000 even 50,000,000 people to be wrong.
9. Instinct, does it feel
right? Using all our brain, instinct more than the conscious thought in mind.
10. Insightful, is there a
sense of insightfulness? Does it go where others have not gone before?
11. Conservatism, does it
integrate prior thought. Are old ideas retained merely due prejudices arising
from borrowed knowledge built from prior experience?
12. Challenge, are any of the
thoughts emotionally unsettling as to cause rejection?
I repeat the opening, it bears repeating: There is no one factor that provides an unassailable guide to truth.
The point to stress is these are not techniques we apply that will tell
us which is true and which not. They are tools to aid judgment. Truth cannot be
found in applying a technique, it is only found in sound psychological process
that enables accurate judgment (see the essay The structure of truth). The list
above is merely a list of points of view for us to consider. From the blending
of our insights we make our call.
Method as spelled out in Origin is crucial. First things first is striving to ensure any theory brings to account
underlying issues that could influence the theory or decision about the theory.
A simple example is a business plan on the launch of a new product. The plan considers
opposition products, pricing and market acceptance. The plan considers first
things first, and is said to be ethically constructed, hence has intellectual integrity,
bearing the appropriate relationship with the underlying issues. Seems
remarkable that any such plan would be offered without considering those
things.
In academic/intellectual endeavour the lack of first things first ethics
is endemic. Further discussion of this point moves us beyond the scope of this
essay. I refer you to chapter 3 in particular in Origin.
Applying first things first is a means of quality control of intellectual
outputs that would radically reduce the volume of academic output. Ensure that produced
was worthy of reading and reflection.
Applying first things first is a
method of quality control intrinsic to knowledge hence is independent of peer
review which is known to have flaws.
There is argument that peer review offers statistical control that is by
having peer review, percentage wise we are better off than doing nothing. Peer
review as inadequate quality control. It will result in the proliferation of
journals. The emergence of what is little more than vanity publishing where
academics pay to have their paper published in what is claimed as a peer
reviewed journal is merely another example of the fundamentally corrupt
structure of peer review driven by the philosophy of ‘publish or perish’ (see
also the appendix in Origin
‘Toward a better standard of judgment than peer review’).
The second point is the quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. Taking
complexity, resolving it, creating simplicity on the other side.
A good question: What is simplicity?
Simplicity of a theory is relative to the complexity it resolves. But there is also a universal standard, not
easy to define, rather like minimalism in décor. A quality, we know when it is
there, and know when it is not. Also, most people know their intellectual
boundaries, but can still ‘see’ simplicity in some intellectual field, even if
they do not quite understand it.
Simplicity is not parsimony. We can have an extraordinarily complex
theory then have bits pruned off it making it more parsimonious, applying
Ockham’s razor, without making the theory simpler. By analogy, in a recent
‘nearly lost’ rugby game the All Black coach, Steve Hansen noted he got the
build-up to the test a bit wrong. He made it too complex, the minds of the
players too cluttered. He said he needed to make it clearer and simpler. Not
just a matter of pruning a few moves by applying parsimony. He needed bring it
back to the simple form, so the structure in mind was direct, simple. The All
Blacks at their best play a very simple game of rugby with immense skill and at
enormous pace. Currently, globally, at their best there is no-one close to the
All Blacks. Simplicity personified.
Assume we have a ‘complexity’. What does this mean? I suggest it means
that when we think about it we cannot quite get our mind around it. When we
think about it there are bits of it we miss, and when we organise those bits,
then we lose sight of other bits. And if we come up with an idea on dealing
with some part of the complexity, the idea does not explain other parts. In
short, it is untidy in our mind, it lacks order and structure.
What then is the opposite of this? What is it to have simplicity? It may
not mean we find it ‘simple’. We have a coherent conceptual structure. All the
pieces of the complexity are fully bought to account within the structure. We
can ‘see’ the complexity in the structure, and see how the structure gives rise
to the complexity we started with. The structure orientates us in our reality,
it fits, and we can see how and where other parts of our overall world view
relate to and are integrated with the structure. We can deduce action from the
structure knowing that all the elements of the complexity have been bought to
account. In short, while the structure may demand we learn new ways of thinking
and reasoning, when we do, we find we do have a clearer and more effective
theory that does ‘make sense’ of the complexity.
Consider quantum physics. It gets excellent numerical results. Does it
resolve understanding of the complexity of sub-atomic phenomena? No. Because it
is mathematical we have to ‘interpret’ what the mathematics mean in Reality,
since the theory is reality. There was a Solvay conference of the world’s
leading physicists in Copenhagen in 1927 at which the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’
was established and the world adopted probability. Not everyone agreed, notably
Einstein. It was the result of his resistance to the interpretation that Einstein
is afforded the quote ‘God does not play dice’.
Probability is okay in reality, but to apply it to Reality...? It does
not simplify things in Reality, it makes it more complex. It is harder than
ever to get one’s mind about it. Newtonian ‘marbles’ are much easier to
understand unfortunately while easier to conceptualize, they do not get a good answer.
Where does this leave quantum mechanics? In Origin I propose two overriding factors in our search for congruence between
reality and Reality. First, getting the right answer. Second, an apt
conceptualisation of the mechanisms giving definite insight into what is
happening. With quantum mechanics we have the first, but I question the second.
In Origin I suggested a thought experiment to establish how probability
formulations circumvent mechanistic understanding and enable correct answer but
offer no insight into what is happening. By implication, to ‘interpret’ what is
happening from the equations is stretching the mathematics too far.
Then what do we need to do to seek ‘truer’ theory?
The process of judging what is truer can only be psychological. Making
best use of all we know on anything demands we look at it from many points of
view. We marshal all we know by attentively working through the twelve factors
above, carefully weighing the theory in regard each factor in turn.
When done, then go to the beach, or to whatever place makes you relaxed
and peaceful. Forget it! Actively forget it. Then, a few days or weeks later review
your analysis. Then forget it again! Then come back to it gently, take it in
slowly and allow it to just rest in mind, and ask: Does it feel right? What
overall is it telling me? By reflecting on it by different points of view you
have ordered your knowledge, prepared your brain. Search for instinct, since
instinct is your brain speaking to you about what you know that you did not
know you knew. Insight only comes to the prepared brain.
The easy decisions are those where instincts, the sense of something, is
aligned with intellect. If they are not aligned, if there remains that queasy
feeling that something not quite right, then if you are experienced go with
your gut. If you judge yourself not experienced, then work it through again. This
time using an experienced sounding board, someone supportive but objective,
friendly but detached, gentle but tough.
In the end you must decide what you think is correct. Your judgment! Accepting
the current viewpoint or paradigm is not your judgment, it is accepting the
judgment of someone else.
What happens when
the process above is applied to the theory in Origin? The worksheet is below, and I have scored each factor on a scale of
1-10, 10 high. I have also scored Freudian theory for a comparison. I do not
imply Freudian theory be taken seriously, merely use it to illustrate the
process.
|
Factor
|
Rating
|
Freud
|
|
|
1. Verification, does it fit the facts?
|
It accounts for all aspects of human psychology and output in sensible
priority order.
|
7
|
1
|
|
2. Is it falsifiable?
|
Fully. But there are as yet no issues that disprove the theory.
|
10
|
2
|
|
3. Accuracy, does it get the right answer?
|
It fits the facts as best understood. It also resolves issues not
addressed by any other theory.
|
7
|
4
|
|
4. Practicality, does it work? Is it useful?
|
It is easy to understand and use, although different from all that has
gone before.
|
7
|
4
|
|
5. Method, is it built by tools known to build congruence?
|
Yes. It offers a conceptual diagram of the mechanism in the system
person in their environment.
|
10
|
1
|
|
6. ‘First things first’, is the reality well-grounded with prior issues
resolved?
|
Yes, the theory is ethically constructed. Contains theories of
knowledge and cause, and is fully reflexive.
|
10
|
1
|
|
7. Rule of relations, has imagination been used to test reality and
distinguish Reality?
|
Yes. It makes extensive, appropriate use of thought experiment.
|
10
|
1
|
|
8. Multiple opinions, do others agree?
|
Minimal as yet... but people are beginning to pay regard.
|
3
|
8
|
|
9. Instinct, does it feel right?
|
Yes, it is intuitive.
|
8
|
2
|
|
10. Insightful, is there a sense of insightfulness? Does it go where
others have not gone before?
|
Yes. Examples: A theory of mental health and the judgment of mental
illness as an erosion of mental health. Accounts for the evolution of
consciousness, development of the neurological capacity to create ideas, and
the application of ideas in survival so accounting for human dominance in
this eco-system.
|
9
|
2
|
|
11.
Conservatism, does it
integrate prior thought.
|
Yes. Historical theory has been built on valid insights it people,
successfully accounts for historical insights and integrates them.
|
10
|
2
|
|
12.
Challenge, are any of the
thoughts emotionally unsettling as to cause rejection?
|
No. In fact it extends psychology into areas not previously accessible
to psychology theory, such as the nature of science, the validity of quantum
physics, and the nature of time. It
|
7
|
7
|
The theory scores
98 out of 120, 82%. Freudian theory (33%) loses out in that it does not
integrate prior thinking, it fails to account for knowledge or cause, or for
its own existence, and it seriously loses out as regards the weak methodology
used to create it.
Does this make the
theory in Origin right? No, but it makes it the best we have right now! The theory in Origin is the verisimilar theory.
A great lack in the
world is we do not have a balanced, reasoned theory of us, who we are, where we
came from, how we work, etc. Too much and too often questions of reason ...such
as have we evolved, and if so how... are confused with question of faith. We
will never integrate reason, one of our primary qualities, with faith another
of our primary qualities unless we separate the two. Both reason and faith are
crucial qualities defining what it is to be human. We will not advance as
humans without successfully separating the two, and then integrating the two
into the fullness of our existence.
So much for
science.
What of our
personal theories? Do we need determine truth? Do we need invest effort in
determining the ideas we allow to shape what we do and feel, that end up
defining who we? If determining the verisimilar reality in science requires
such effort should we invest similar effort determining our own Reality? If so
where do we start?
This is where our
values come into play. I will not assume values for you, so I will offer the questions
in the first person, with the response on the right. I will not try and identify
all possible questions, and my questions may not be the same as yours...I
merely offer some of mine to illustrate the process.
|
How do I want to be perceived?
|
Assertive, intelligent, reflective, personable, self-contained.
|
|
How do I want to treat people?
|
With consideration and respect.
|
|
How do I want to see people treated?
|
With consideration and respect.
|
|
Do I seek my spiritual fulfilment?
|
Yes. I want my life to add up to something.
|
|
Will I allow everyone else to seek their spiritual fulfilment?
|
Yes, and in seeking my fulfilment I must not restrict others in their
search for theirs.
|
|
Do I think the environment important?
|
Yes, but not at the expense of people.
We need find balance.
|
|
Do I think everyone is equal?
|
Yes, no-one socially above me no-one below.
|
|
Do I think we should all have the same amount of money?
|
No. I do not believe in forced financial equality, but do think modern
inequality is too much to be sustainable. I believe effort should be
rewarded.
|
|
Do I think people have a right to their own views?
|
Yes, but people need challenged when their position is unreasoned. If
people unreasoned and unwilling to reflect, I will walk away and not bother
with them. If not soulful for me, I decline to do it.
|
I think the above
illustrates the nature and tenor of the analysis.
So what is the
point?
In science there is
a clear and definite target. Congruence of reality and Reality. Hence any
process of judgment of the truthfulness of any theory, any reality or idea, has
criteria against which we measure it. Reality. When it comes to our personal
theories, personal ideas we will allow influence us, the measure of their
success is our values.
Every idea I select
and allow to influence me is judged against the values I hold important to me.
For every idea the question is: Does this idea enable thought and feeling
consistent with my values? If not I discard it, if so, I consolidate it but also
ensuring it is consistent with ideas I may hold on other topics. That is I seek
balance and integration of my thinking across my whole world view. It would
also be quite simple to add ratings to this approach that is rating how any
idea enabled the values to which I aspire, then rate any actual behaviour as to
the extent we live out the ideas. I define integrity as the congruence of what
we say we believe, our values, with what we do. Thus rating what we do against
our values is rating our integrity.
Having made my
decision about some ideas, I then allow them to shape my responses. I manage my
integrity by accepting feedback on how others see me and then reassessing the
ideas that enabled that conduct. Occasionally, I will review my values that is
the set of principles I accept as the foundation of my existence.
I and I alone have
access to my mind. Only via my mind do I access my spirit. I can alter the
ideas I use with self-discipline and by paying attention to my mind and what
pops into it. I can also assess the ideas by how I feel when particular
circumstances occur which in turn trigger responses and habits. If some habit
is inconsistent with my values, I will think about it and aim to moderate it.
But any habit will always remain as a potential response. I can depower the
response by actively reducing the emotions associated with the idea, so
reducing the force of the response.
The theory in Origin states clearly that what we think, our world view, or thought, is a
primary driver of both mood and conduct. Second, if we choose we can alter what
we think, learn new ways of thinking and enable them to shape us.
The crucial issue
is not what we are looking at, but the ideas we choose to ‘look’. The
responsibility for what we use to look is ours and ours alone.
Humanity’s future
lies in the choices we make today. We need begin by holding ourselves to
account against the standard of our own values.
Not politics, nor
religion, but personal commitment of people to the integrity between what we
say we believe and what we do. All backed by polite, gracious, but determined
intolerance for those who do not follow the lead.-§-
