Month: August 2018

Broken links are a standard feature of long-standing web-pages, like mine. The internet evolves even if nothing changes with the organisation and addressing of your own site. And in fact I have a major house-keep in progress.

One feature of WordPress I covet is a search and replace algorithm that would permit human-mediated bulk-edit of changed links. Seems fixing links is still an entirely manual exercise.

This Google feature helps find broken links, but fixing is one long manual chore, I’ve done sporadically in the past, but impossible to complete.

Simply organising found broken links even by simple alpha-numeric order would allow batch selection for a “replace” string. Come on guys.

Wouldn’t normally share personal gossip, not even concerning people whose professional work I have little respect for, but I felt it necessary to add a footnote to some remarks I had already made in a post from 2014 concerning the recent 2018 news about Larry Krauss.

Was prompted to revisit a couple of older posts on Abraham Maslow after someone asked me to explain a reference this morning.

The one I shared was this one: “Motivation 3.0 – Pink Does Maslow“.

Then I noticed one of my earliest Maslow posts was way back in 2002 “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs” and that I had already added up-front links to two better later posts, the one above from 2013 and also “The Meme of Maslow’s Mojo” from 2011.

Strangely, the reason Maslow was in my mind was another query in recent days – was it Bruce or Eddo? – asking if I’d noticed parallel’s between Maslow and Robert Pirsig’s evolutionary levels. Of course I had, plenty of times, but only noticed this morning that I’d made that explicit in the 2002 post above.

“I’ve [already] made made countless references to Maslow ever since I noticed that Pirsig’s levels of “value” (absolute quality or goodness) appeared to mirror [Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.]” (2002)

If that’s not fascinating enough, imagine my surprise at this:

“Pirsig and Foucault seem to say [Maslow’s levels] represent something pretty fundamental about human social organisation and values.” (2002)

Pirsig, Maslow and Foucault already in 2002. I spent quite a bit of this last year joining up some Foucault dots in some other new correspondence on Pirsig. I’ll need to go back to see where I made the original Pirsig-Foucault levels connection. (And here it is, reading Foucault’s “Les Mots et Les Choses” in Aug / Sept 2002.) (Plus panrelationalism, threes / triads / triples / onion-skins, Wheeler on semantics underlying physics … it’s all in there on Foucault.)

I need to stop reading and start writing!

=====

[Post Note: Ikigai – Similar set of concerns from the individual looking out rather than what interaction with the world gives to the individual – another representation of the content of Maslow:

Strictly only 3-way – anyone on a mission to love stuff the world doesn’t need is surely a twisted psychopath? (Except with a narrow utilitarian idea of “need”.) Or if you prefer, what the world needs …. is love.]

A pet hate of mine is “rational” people who see the point of a rational argument as being to change someone’s mind, to convince someone of something.

A bonkers idea at any time, not to mention a complete waste of time if you think the person you are trying to convince isn’t being rational anyway. It’s a bonkers idea in general because only you can change your mind, and that’s true of anyone else. You can’t change my mind.

The point of dialogue is to learn. And to be “rational”, the dialogue can be any mix of the objectively logical and subjectively rhetorical as long as it is directed in good faith. The point is to understand better what you understand and believe. And that’s true of anyone else. When it’s not, you and/or they are not actually engaging in the dialogue, you’re not even at first-base yet. All bets are off.

Once that dialogue is engaged, minds evolve. That’s how minds change. They’re not changed by someone else.

There are only two situations where point-scoring critical debates that win and lose, making and refuting points, have any place.

Where both parties are already – in good faith – inside a control volume where it is the objective and mathematical logic that is being validated. Even in what look like academic scientific arguments, neither party will  remain confined to that control volume throughout. Everyone has an agenda and interests. Their skin may be in a different games.

Where the belief or opinion makes sense to be treated as a genuinely democratic choice. When the decision is properly going to be some kind of popular vote. Though again democracy is never perfect, and the debate will invariably be a mix of the objective and subjective.

Anywhere else it’s only dialogue that evolves minds. Even the Socratic questioning kind can only go so far in good faith if it expects to involve undermining the other party or reducing a case to absurdity. Any actual mind changing will depend on defensive responses at the time and reflective activity after the event. It is possible to protest too much. It might indicate loss of good faith and skin in different games.

It is the reflection – the internal experience – that might evolve your mind.

=====

[Post Note: Ha, this very morning from Jon Haidt, tweeted by @PoeBrianL:

Illustrates the other point I often make, that the “reasoning” aspect of the mind-changing – or even simple decision-making – is almost invariably a post-rationalisation (“post-hoc reasoning” here), reducing the outcome to some logical objective relations and causes, which is rarely what has actually happened psychologically.

And as it says, whilst I say it is the private reflection that actually changes the mind, it is a rare event compared to all of the other explicit stages of dialogue.

And of course, having thoroughly read and enjoyed The Righteous Mind some years ago, I’ve clearly absorbed Haidt’s thinking into my own. Nothing is invented by one person in isolation. Knowledge and understanding co-evolve.]

[Post Note: Interesting seeming counter-example from James Willis on how we are all however susceptible to persuasion. In the context of this post, I point out that this is persuasion to act. Nothing in this story changed anything about what James “believed”.]

[Post Note:

You are more likely to change your mind from a bad argument from someone on your initial side than a good argument from someone on the other side.

— Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) August 12, 2018

Interesting and  believable from a many who knows statistical probabilities.]

I have a lot of time for Massimo (Pigliucci) and have found Bernardo (Kastrup) at least interesting and provocative recently in his speculative output. A fascinating “flame-war” broken out on Twitter since Massimo published a “scathing” criticism of a recent Bernardo paper. A paper with an amazingly click-baity “question” for a headline it has to be said.

Sadly, the latter is playing his objection to the criticism to the gallery, including Deepak Chopra, so hard to sort out content from the flak. Anyway the topic is (or isn’t) pan-psychism, so with my interest in pan-proto-psychism – the same fundamental information underlying both mind-stuff and physical stuff – I thought I’d capture paper, critique & rebuttal for later archaeology.

Paper: The Universe is Consciousness.
(And the SciAm article with the click-baity question headline.)

Critique: Does the Universe Suffer from Multiple Personality Disorder?

Rebuttal: The Remarkable Criticism of Massimo Pigliucci.

Denying that his thesis is panpsychism gets off to a bad start in the executive summary of Bernardo’s original paper:

“there is only cosmic consciousness”

That looks the epitome of pan-psychism to me, even if not “bottom-up” whatever that means (presumably pan-proto-consciousness?)

And, I’m guessing from Massimo’s choice of headline we’re dealing with some analogy too far in multiple universe’s as multiple “conscious personalities”. Certainly “multiple personality disorder” doesn’t appear in Bernardo’s summary but is introduced by the SciAm headline writer.

Oh well, time to read.

=====

[Post Note: The dialogue continues:]

Here are my comments on @mpigliucci‘s remarkable criticisms of my position. And a public challenge.https://t.co/3r1VpK2yKg @Philip_Goff @neiltheise @DeepakChopra @RudyTanzi @mckafatos @subhashkak1

— Bernardo Kastrup (@BernardoKastrup) August 5, 2018

I would be happy to moderate a debate between @BernardoKastrup and @mpigliucci on this topic.

— Steve Patterson (@steveinpursuit) August 5, 2018

Yes, well said. I stand corrected.

— Bernardo Kastrup (@BernardoKastrup) August 6, 2018

=====

[Post Note: And more “attack and defence”:
Susan Schneider disses panpsychism (after Chalmers) in SciAm.
And Bernardo needs to defend it. Beginning to see this whole thing as just another broad vs narrow definitional argument – the same perennial philosophy runs through all sides. People who overclaim universal consciousness are “woo” and those who are “meh, that’s just how it is” are ignored – meantime professional critics stoke differences over “mysteries” and “unproven” arguments as click-bait. Yawn.]

Rarely was a program so well named. Exemplary dialogue handled by Evan Davis on BBC R4 Sweet Reason on “Offense”.

The thesis being discussed was implicitly:
Weaponised Offense Taking
as part of
Identity by Victimhood.

Contentious topic on PC-Ness of free expression. With Jordan Peterson (white-male) and Dr Clare Chambers and Shaista Aziz (non-male / non-white) what a recipe.

And yes, couple of points where mutual buttons were pressed. The philosopher valiantly wanting to keep an objective handle on the “but who / in what position of power” aspect of the context for potentially offensive expression. The “White men …” response from Aziz … classic stuff …

Particularly liked the Rod Liddell example – the “I think we can call 40,000 Romanian immigrants a swarm” one-liner – demonstrating that the context (including the social role of the person) matters. In satirical journalism, the Court Jester role is recognised.

And yet … near perfect summary from Davis … JBP (the white man, naturally!) felt the need to insert his dangers of weaponisation point into the summary … but no actual dissent. And, as Davis noted at a couple of points, mostly violent agreement.

Exemplary on several levels.

Explicit – The topic and the content of the discourse leading to progressive agreement.

Context – JBP is probably red rag to many otherwise intelligent bulls in the current climate, so exemplary in not shrinking from any degree of difficulty.

Meta – The handling of proper dialogue. Balance of differing inputs, but with enforced listening, summarising between the parties, ad-hominems and adversarials suppressed.

Well done Evan Davis. Well done BBCR4 – with more of this there would be no need for any intellectual dark web.

‘Cept maybe marketing and book sales 😉

=====

[Post Note: Also heard the @StephenSackur BBC World / News TV “HardTalk” interview with JBP (h/t @JacobKishere). Sackur clear pushes the critical side on each of 5 or 6 agenda – source as much from critics as his own reading – points, but gives JBP opportunity for clear responses. Good responses, good source of JBP thought in fact? Sackur doing journalist job with no lingering / hidden agenda apparent? Contrast with the (UK) original @CathyNewman i/v where despite the “you got me” ray of light, Cathy still harboured her leftist / feminist agenda, maintained it in the following weeks’ debate in fact.]