Take it or leave it.

After some stressful hectic weeks – company annual conference, and a “learning experience” in US temporary-resident house-buying – Sylvia and I decided we’d have a quiet holiday weekend after work on Saturday. After checking the boys were surviving OK with end of year exam progress – just one of them has one to go – we went to Barnes & Noble and sought out a few books to read quietly, at some of our favourite local locations.

I picked-up my first Kurt Vonnegut (see previous post) and my first Daniel Quinn – the first of the “Ishmael” trilogy originally written in 1977 – and Naslund’s “Ahab’s Wife” – both the latter on my reading list for quite some time, since blogging references some years ago.

Anyway, having read Cat’s Cradle right though, practically in one sitting pausing only to sleep, I started Ishmael this morning, and I’m now through that too.

Very interesting. All bar one scene so far, there are just the two characters in conversation, Ishmael (the 1000 pound gorilla in the room) and the author – in a philosophical journey similar to Sophie and her tutor / correspondent, though like Pirsig’s ZMM and Lila, it is infinitely better than Sophie’s World because it contains it’s own philosophical speculations, rather than just a potted history of the accepted philosophy of our culture.

I was expecting something pretty new-agey and cultish – there is after all a www.ishmael.com and a “Friends of Ishmael” out there – but I’m pleasantly surprised and impressed. The writer, as opposed to the unavoidable dryness of Ishmael himself, is the professional journalistic writer in his own story, with plenty of opportunity for wit.

Like Pirsig the point is that our “western” culture – the “Mother Culture” in Quinn – has become wedded to a misunderstanding – the correct view of life the universe and everything having an evolutionary explanation, but a failure to appreciate that what passes for correct “intellectually” is simply mythology and not some god-given absolute truth or reason.

Ishmael’s metaphor is the Takers and Leavers. The “Takers” being those tillers of the land – with the mark of Cain – who believe right supports their might to dominate the “Leavers”, the hunter-gatherers and nomadic herders of Abel. Our metaphors – the fall of Adam eating from the tree of (true) knowledge – are according to Quinn really the myths of the Leavers created to explain why the Takers thought they might be right. The real message is “diversity is key” to successful long term evolution. No one culture can assume it is right in a any absolute sense over others. There need to be many cultures, with boundaries and interdependencies, just as there needs to be bio-diversity in the gene pool.

Memetic diversity. Like Pirsig, there is a tendency to progress through layers of evolution, we just happen to be the most evolved intellects we know about so far, but we may not necessarily be the ancestors of the most evolved intelligencies in future – let those dolphins through. The only thing special about humans is that we may be the first to learn this fact and ensure we don’t get in the way of progress, and pass this message on to future cultures, rather than mistakenly assume we can take over as managers of the cosmos, whilst leading it to our certain extinction along with the terrestrial corner of the cosmos we feel we have control over. Influence yes, control no.

Also like Pirsig, much is made of the anthropology of plains Indian culture and of the (then recent) failure of hippies to make a go of alternative culture – a reminder that this is nothing to do with a nostalgia for noble savagery – simply that the “leaver” culture naturally accepts that it is one of many interacting cultures doing what works best for them, rather than “the” culture with the best riposte to all other cultures. Freedom and competition yes, but with pragmatic limits. This knowledge Quinn calls “wisdom”.

Probably worth reading “Providence” as well as the others in the Ishmael trilogy – “The Story of B” and “My Ishmael”

Vonnegut

When Kurt Vonnegut died a few weeks ago, there was some traffic about his work on various discussion boards … I realized I knew of him, and a little about his works, but had not actually read any. On MoQ-Discuss several people gave recommendations for favourites and for new readers. I started with the obvious – 1963 “Cat’s Cradle” – with no prior knowledge, I was pleasantly suprised. A witty, satyrical, apocalyptic allegory. The deepest message seems to be in the title – connections are all there is  – a tangle of string – there is nothing else to the world – no cradle – and nothing else in it – no cat. Nothing is what it seems, it’s all sleight of hand.

Put me in mind of Einstein on communication – “except there is no cat”.

Put me in mind of Douglas Adams – the golden slipper and more (?)

Put me in mind of Pirsig – the ice-nine seed crystal.

Put me in mind of Rand – migration from industrial might to (dystopian) Utopia

Mars as Art

Stunning detail in these Nasa images of Mars from 2004; via Rivets.

The Armageddon Flowchart

Dunno why, but I liked this. Fully Ramblomatic, via Rivets.

Photo Gallery Update

Well backdate actually. I’ve just reloaded all the older (scanned) photos linked from the general gallery page above, to some old pages of mainly music subjects, that I had hosted at an expired ISP, now moved over to Dreamhost with the rest of the blog pages.

Anyway all live again, and updated outgoing dead links within these and inbound links from various other psybertron pages.

Lavery on the Web

I updated links with David Lavery’s work recently, but I also just noticed a recent post of his summarizing his various web projects.

As well as the “Descartes – Evil Genius” pages, take a look at the commonplace book “The Imaginative Thinker” which as well as being an extensive collection of quotes, actually includes an enormous bibliography of all the sources.

(Was reminded of this whilst following up my own bibliography project, currently looking at “Library Thing“, something which I’ve seen people as diverse as Geo Hancock and Chris Locke using. Still find Chris infuriating in that whilst his interest is in de-bunking pseudo-scientific new-age++ stuff, I never see anything to replace the inevitable babies he keeps throwing out with the no-brainer bathwater – but I’m repeating myself.)

Alan Rayner’s Inclusional Science

I’ve been communcating with Alan Rayner on and off the Friends of Wisdom e-mail discussion group. I find we have a common understanding on many issues, and Alan is a particularly poetic writer, so a joy to read.

Recently he shared copies of his paper “Inlcusional Science – From Artefact to Natural Creativity” (no link available yet) Here some selected quotes that intersect with my interests here …

My Catch-22 of breaking the “self-fulfilling” objective loop …

Egged on all the more by research funding agencies, assessment exercises and pressures to publish or perish, scientific enquiry becomes ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’. We set out to concoct and test ‘falsifiable’ and thereby axiomatic hypotheses, with minds so closed off from indefinable possibilities that we can and do ignore observations that ‘don’t fit’ with our presuppositions. Meanwhile we pay little or no attention to where and how these hypotheses and presuppositions arise in the first place.

My “definition is death” – “careful with that razor, Occam” theme … and my “give excluded middles a chance” mantra …

In my experience, to call for definitions to be relaxed in a culture that is addicted to definition is to come into close encounter with stony ground, if not something like the fury of a toddler threatened with separation from its favourite toy or security blanket ! … principal among objectivity’s objections to inclusionality is that the razed down simplicity that comes from defining things will ‘get lost’. Personally, I rather wish that it would ! But, seriously, this objection illustrates the addictive, all or none quality of false dichotomy: either we have total definition or no definition. Definition is something we must have if we are not to get totally lost in a sea of troubles. We exclude between two stools the dynamic ‘middle ground’ synthesis of ‘neither entirely one nor the other’ …

My views on the divisive distraction of unneccesarily hyper-objective distinctions …

By excluding that which it defines itself not to be, objective science may not only alienate itself from the public whose appreciation, understanding and money it craves, but may also greatly diminish its own opportunities for creative evolution and correspondence with other human endeavours. Such exclusion is evident in the ‘Two Culture’ split between ‘Art’ and ‘Science’ notoriously brought to light by C.P. Snow (1959, 1963; see also Petroski, 2005), and the increasingly cantankerous collision between Darwinian evolutionary science and religious ‘Creationism’ or ‘Intelligent Design’ theory. In a non-linear inclusional perspective, there is no need for this split and the nastiness it engenders: the split is an artefact of definitive logic.

Pinker’s Mystery of Consciousness

Interesting piece from back in January in Time magazine by Stephen Pinker entitled The Mystery of Consciousness. Thanks to David Chalmers for the link; he’s referred to in the article in connection with the easy / hard problem distinction. Lots of other good articles linked in and alongside the article.

Daniel Wegner’s psychology-based work gets a mention. I side with Dennett in not really seeing the hard problem as a problem, and disagree with this kind of summary by Pinker, thought it is a fair summary of a common view …

Identifying awareness with brain physiology, they say, is a kind of “meat chauvinism” that would dogmatically deny consciousness to Lieut. Commander Data just because he doesn’t have the soft tissue of a human brain. Identifying it with information processing would go too far in the other direction and grant a simple consciousness to thermostats and calculators–a leap that most people find hard to stomach.

For me this is just the simplistic positivist logic – either / or – problem. There is a middle ground interpretation here that says any sufficiently complex computation system (any physical substrate, not just meat) can support the emergence of consciousness, and that simple devices like the thermostat, are simply not sufficiently complex examples of such systems. Bisson’s “Thinking with Meat” essay, illustrates that the chauvinism is just a matter of perspective.

And, the fact that most scientists would support the idea that the explanations for animalian consciousness are already shown to reside in the brain, does not say that science has killed the soul, or anything like it. What it does tell us is something about what the “soul” is, and hopefully reminds many a scientist that simple reductionism is unlikely to yield the best brain / mind explanations.

Anyway, good news, Pinker concludes …

… the biology of consciousness offers a sounder basis for morality than the unprovable dogma of an immortal soul. It’s not just that an understanding of the physiology of consciousness will reduce human suffering through new treatments for pain and depression. That understanding can also force us to recognize the interests of other beings – the core of morality.

That’s my view too. The catch is not to let that get misrepresented as some crass explanatory argument for how morality is “caused” by the physical and biological.

Roger Boscovich 1711 – 1787

Just collecting links for future follow-up. Roger Anderton over on Friends of Wisdom has a special interest in Boscovich’s relativity work pre-dating Einstein, and in Lancelot Whyte a co-worker of Einstein, who also documented Boscovich work. The Wikipedia introduction is as good a summary as any to start with. (Beware confused nationality and consequent variants on his name when searching / following up links.)

The reason for interest is the “Einsteing was right” brigade and the arguments casting doubt on modern mathematical interpretations fundamental physics generally, and the base of any fundamental philosophies of existence and meaning at the quantum level. The specific interest for me is my understanding of Quantum Information theory which depends on mathematical models, post Dirac.

Must link this with “Island” and his anthropic arguments on “science in crisis“. Also picked up earlier reference to Boscovich on the in our time broadcasts on the Jesuits.

Here is the Lancelot Whyte biographical piece on Boscovich.

Another good source of links are Roger Anderton’s own papers posted on the “General Science Journal” (Look in the author list dropdown.)

A Little Book of Plagiarism

Interesting PBS broadcast featuring a discussion on Richard Posner’s “Little Book of Plagiarism” – brought to my attention by Marsha over on MoQ.Discuss.

Not listened thoroughly yet, so captured here for future linking. Picked-up so far, the modern interpretation being closely linked to the business value of the content copied, rather than the morality of the process by which and for which it is “borrowed”. Interesting.