Psybertron Asks

By a strange coincidence, after the facebook exchanges yesterday, on the anti-Copernican indications of the Cosmic Microwave Background being mysteriously air-brushed from the record (*1), I find myself reading Arthur Koestler’s “The Sleepwalkers“. Coincidence because I just happened to pick it up randomly off the ex-library second-hand book cart at Conway Hall last night. I’d heard of Koestler obviously, but didn’t know the book or much about his work.

[Great read so far, by the way, but more later.]

Imagine my surprise:

“That the progress of science as a clean rational advance, [has in fact been] … more bewildering than the evolution of political thought. The history of cosmic theories may, without exaggeration, be called a history of collective obsessions and schizophrenias … a sleepwalker’s performance.”

“I shall not be sorry if [this] inquiry helps counteract the legend that the scientist is a more level-headed and dispassionate type, and should therefore be given a leading part in world affairs (*2), or that he is able to provide a rational substitute for ethical insights derived from other sources.”

“[Aristarchus’ (3rd C BCE)] correct [heliocentric] hypothesis was rejected in favour of a monstrous system … an affront to human intelligence, which reigned for 1500 years … one of the most astonishing examples of the devious, nay crooked, ways of the progress of science.

Way to go!

=====

[(*1) The post was about anti-science campaigns in Wikipedia editing, against which “pro-science” campaigns were also cited. To be clear these counter indications should not suggest that the solar system is earth-centred (Doh!), what they should suggest, from our earthbound viewpoint, is that our cosmic model must therefore be flawed. The problem is the political attachment to mythology of Copernicus & Gallileo and a dogmatic aversion to all things anthropic, is seriously clouding the judgement and interpretation of those who would claim to be scientific. (As Brandon Carter predicted, and Rick Ryals has championed). The point being science is as dogmatic a political campaign as any other.]

[(*2) This was written in 1959 – in the post Hiroshima & Nagasaki cold-war climate.]

[Post Note : Ha, and as Sabine tweets – to avoid having to erase counter-indications, you know what, just don’t even mention them in the first place?]

[Post Note : Oh, and also today “Krauss, smarter than Einstein” apparently. You couldn’t make it up.]

[Post Note : Also need to join up that “scientist as the level-headed & dispassionate type” above with the piece by Karen O’Donnell on “emotional” women in science.]

[Post Note : Physics of perspective, or is that perception.]

[Post Note : Is science rotten or just hard?]

[Post Note : And of course it was the Koestler bequest that funded the Koestler Parapsychology Unit at Edinburgh Uni. Two associated speakers at the 2015 BHA Conference this year. Interestingly Koestler was controversial for many reasons, but his biography of Kepler that became The Sleepwalkers doesn’t appear to have been controversial at the time. Controversy in scientific connections arose from views on evolution and the paranormal (from Wikipedia):

In his 1971 book The Case of the Midwife Toad he defended the biologist Paul Kammerer, who claimed to find experimental support for Lamarckian inheritance. According to Koestler, Kammerer’s experiments on the midwife toad may have been tampered with by a Nazi sympathizer at the University of Vienna. In the book he came to the conclusion that a kind of modified ‘Mini-Lamarckism’ may occur as an explanation for some limited and rare evolutionary phenomena.

Koestler had criticised neo-Darwinism in a number of his books but he was not anti-evolution. Biology professor Harry Gershenowitz described Koestler as a “popularizer” of science despite his views not being accepted by the “orthodox academic community.” According to an article in the Skeptical Inquirer Koestler was an “advocate of Lamarckian evolution �” and a critic of Darwinian natural selection as well as a believer in psychic phenomena.”

Mysticism and a fascination with the paranormal imbued much of his later work. Koestler was known for endorsing a number of paranormal subjects such as extrasensory perception, psychokinesis and telepathy. His book The Roots of Coincidence (1974) claims the answer to such paranormal phenomena may be found in theoretical physics. The book mentions yet another line of unconventional research by Paul Kammerer, the theory of coincidence or synchronicity. He also presents critically the related writings of Carl Jung. More controversial were Koestler’s levitation and telepathy studies and experiments.

Interesting. He shows interest in alternative explanations, but becomes branded as anti. His idea that some psychological traits are inherited by Lamarckian mechanisms is no longer contentious. His debunking of Copernicus (the topic of the Kepler book here) seems to be widely shared.]

Tremendously powerful piece from Katrin Bennhold in the NYT. (Hat tip to tweet from Samira Shackle.) Already tweeted a few comments – but a must read, with messages worth taking seriously, however misguided the full reasoning.

“In this world counterculture is conservative, religion is punk rock, headscarves are liberation and beards are sexy.”

“They spoke of leaving behind an immoral society to search for virtue and meaning”

“Counterculture is conservative” is an interesting message in itself. Being anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment is such established de-rigeur culture (fashion) – amongst the baying mobs on social media – that the value of a little authoritative conservatism is lost to all but a small few. Coincidentally the point and comment earlier today on this science-related Facebook post from Sabine.

QUOTE

The Winnower – We need to improve our culture.
This is too real. http://socialbat.org/…/goals-of-science-vs-goals-of-scient…/

•   Ian Glendinning

• Only disagreement (proposed modification) :
  Challenge authority. Make friends
  vs
  Cite authority. Make different friends.
  (ie the difference is all to do with friends’ attitude to authority,
  sadly, nothing to do with how relevant to understanding the content.)

  Like · Reply · 2 · 3 hrs

UNQUOTE

‘We need to improve how to be “good” in our culture.’

All women, notice. Vive la difference.

====

[Post Note : This from BBC / Frank Gardner.]

[Post Note : And the opposite case.]

Alom Shaha @alomshaha tweeted – Claude Lévi-Strauss wrote “Le Scientifique n’est pas une personne qui donne les bonnes réponses, mais celui qui pose les bonnes questions.”

Nicolas Fanget @nfanget tweeted translation as “Scientists aren’t people who give the right answers, but ask the right questions.”

Reminded me of Einstein / Nietzsche / MacGilchrist / MacIntyre – We are worshiping the slave / servant / emissary (objective rationality) but have forgotten the master, (the gift of intuitive knowledge). Science is about the rational process of testing and checking (asking questions about) what we know, but not primarily what we know.

Linking coincidentally – but nicely – to the dots joined-up the immediate preceding post.

This post primarily about Al MacIntyre (and its comment thread) have been important several times, in joining up to both philosophy of consciousness and neuroscience topics. A re-read to day, thanks to a recorded hit means I notice some additional dots to join up. The philosophical collections on consciousness in the previous post but one, and of course the rationality as servant to the intuitive put me in mind of McGilchrist’s Master and Emissary, and a lot more.

Hat tip to DVB and ShutUp&Write for tweeting this Sam Wineburg piece on scholars and writing.

Reminded me of the psychiatrist who advised Pirsig to “just write something”. There but for grace …

Philosophical Theories of Consciousness in the 20th Century (draft)

(All Tim Crane’s on-line papers here. and an additional David Bengtsson essay on same topic.)

Riff on Urgent vs Important.

Most recently arising from the Paul Mason piece – with the nagging doubt that “urgent” was not really the right term, probably because there isn’t a single term for the underlying issue. Achievable quickly is as important as priority of need, however it contributes to an aim – however gamed / opportunistic / opportunity-&-motivation-creating the relation to actual aim. Urgent because it is valuable and achievable in the short-term – not simply because it is high-value positively or counter-negatively if achieved immediately. Circular. Think Tactical vs Strategic.

But also Peripheral / Incidental vs Core / Fundamental. Detail (empirical, specific) vs Concept (theoretical / hypothetical / generic). Small / Individual (achievable) vs Large / Complicated / Complex (difficult to do, predict, manage, control). [I feel a 2×2 BCG grid coming on, predictably one closer to Dave Snowden’s Cynefin conception now I think of it.]

Complication and complexity being different one predictable (in principle, with effort and resources) the other (potentially) chaotic. The immediate reason for the riff arising, this paper on Chaos. (Hat tip to Sabine).

Chaos was never about the concept of butterflies in rain-forests. That was always a hypothetical thought experiment as far removed from reality as it could be, and therefore an excellent conception of chaos (after Einstein on “general intellect”, as quoted by Paul Mason). It was NEVER an actual definition or explanation of chaos in reality. Phys.Org typically naff as a source of scientific knowledge. As naff as 2×2 grids. [No opinion here about whether the actual subject of the news item is worthwhile as a “new definition of chaos” based on entropy.] Chaos has always been about predictability and always been about entropy, since entropy has always been about order and hence predictability.  And yes, it’s about expanding entropy in systems, but not maximum entropy. Maximum entropy is as predictable and boring as zero entropy. White noise is not “chaos”.

The interesting stuff are the cusps in the changing patterns of entropy as it expands generally, but reverses locally. I’m thinking Hofstadter here. I’m thinking life arising in an expanding universe.

More generally, recognising contextually predictable cases amidst the generally chaotic whole is the key.

Just a thinking-out-loud “riff” – some convergence of ideas, but no conclusions here.

Attended a discussion last night between representatives of the Christadelphian church and the London Active Atheists. Not without some trepidation, since the old-LAAG’s are perversely proud of their disrespect and intolerance, their general snarky dismissiveness of anything non-objective in fact. I have an ongoing problem with that anyway, but doubly problematic initially, since due to booking mix-ups, the Christadelphians admitted they hadn’t brought their A-team, and we also had one of those embarrassing pauses where the host hasn’t checked if their guest’s presentation works before we start. Ho hum.

Two of the team largely relied on testifying their faith and love of god, and describing the good works of their ministry – can’t really argue with that – but one was able, and had the patience in the circumstances, to attempt to describe the theology behind their world view. As an objective debate, the atheists – especially those who’d done their homework on the history of the bible, the archaeology of its stories, not to mention fact and myth in attributing words and action to someone called Jesus – with their standards of objective evidence and weight of numbers, won the day. But I have to say these considerations miss the point for me.

No-one, not the Christadelphians, is saying the bible is perfect on any dimension, still less the histories of church actions purported to be based on it. More to the point, what it says (in the words) and what it says Jesus said (in words) is not the point. Yes they adhere to a “literal” reading of the bible, the bible in its most original (but imperfect) versions where possible. But that’s a literal reading of that whole bible. And, on the moral compass dimension, that’s a reading of action, not a reading of some academic record of the written rules and instructions. Reading the whole bible, means not getting focussed on one set of rules (of their time and culture – more later) in the ten commandments, but the the living of life according to the qualities of the prophet – the beatitudes, and more parables and the like.

This takes us into interpretation (and hermeneutics). Sadly, too much of the discussion of interpretation was between literal and metaphorical, and being subjectively selective in which interpretations to make of which bits. Seemingly arbitrary and random and, as the scholars in the audience pointed out, indicative of pre-developed moral preferences in the individual rather than the “literal word of god” in the bible. But again, it’s not literally “the words”. It’s the logos.

In fact at the level of the words, the counter to being literal is not being metaphorical, but being rhetorical in context, which isn’t to say some of the rhetoric isn’t also metaphorical, but it’s the context and the rhetorical purposes that require a more holistic reading. So, in the example used (I’m sure someone could quote book and verse) where Jesus says bring me your family and I’ll put them to the sword in front of you, interpretation is no mystery (and I’d never heard that passage before last night). Reading the whole, you know Jesus (even a 100% mythical Jesus) is about love in action.

Clearly when Jesus says something that gruesome – but doesn’t enact it, notice nor suggest anyone else should (as was noted to the contrary in the earlier example of his rebuke to his angry disciples) – he’s making a rhetorical point to his current audience in context. (I don’t even need to know what that was, in order to know that’s true.) Of course, needing to have context for the historicity of the recorded rhetoric is one reason Christadelphians prefer to stick close to the most “original” versions of the bible.

As a rationalist, atheist, humanist I have no problem with any prophet preaching love in action towards fellow man and the cosmos. Clearly the good books of the Abrahamic religions have checquered histories and variable quality in their content. One reason they can only ever make sense holistically, in the round, and why interpretation by individuals passage by passage can only ever lead to doubt, confusion and conflict. You either need the authority of a scholar in the hierarchy of your church and its good book(s) or individuals who understands that “holistic” caveat in how to read it. Christadelphians clearly comprise the latter kind of individuals. And, in their case, the whole bible includes the old testament, albeit read through the filter of the new covenant.

Nothing above says the bible is exclusive in originating and capturing such values; being imperfect, how could it be. Recognising the imperfection and non-exclusive interpretation, neither does it make sense to proselytise or attempt any conversion, so they don’t. Note also, little if any of the above refers to any God or the trinity – that’s two different metaphysical debates for another day.

Some useful stuff, though I fear not many were open to it.

I’ve been reading Paul Mason’s latest pretty thoroughly over several days. Already blogged several positive comments, relating his thesis to my own agenda here; [Appropriate Marxist Theory] [Atomisation of Markets & Labour] [Postcapitalist Preview]. So no secret he covers lots of material I’ve already absorbed over the years, and it’s therefore been intriguing to finally get to his conclusions and recommendations.

Anticipating disappointment, the kind of philosopher’s conclusion I’m used to these days, that there is no silver bullet or even a right answer, we simply have to keep the dialogue going, accept the messy reality of our imperfect democratic freedoms and institutions, and allow evolution to take its course. Well, nothing could be further from the actual experience.

Mason pulls no punches, and states his clear recipe for a brighter future. Obviously there are detailed holes to be picked and disagreed with, and Mason invites us to tear his thesis apart if we can do better, but the point here is to plan the shape of the world we want to inhabit, to focus on priorities that can be managed appropriately by state rules and incentives, and to do it wholeheartedly and coherently. The devil will of course be in the details, and the details will need to take care of themselves, so no point “centrally planning” economic activity a la Stalin. Even with supercomputers, perfect real-time information and automation approaching AI, we couldn’t ever get that right. We could nevertheless use such resources as part of our simulation and decision-making. How dumb would we have to be not to do so?

In order to do any of that there needs to be a we, or a coherent set of we’s, sets we identify with. Nation states, unions, associations, federations, regional assemblies, you name it. It can’t simply be business organisations with state institutions whose role is to get out of the way and leave the market as free and level a playing field as possible. Fetishising “the free market” is the problem, especially as we approach a state where valued info-tech products in the market are either positive externalities or at near-free marginal labour cost. “Technology Eats Markets” he says. We need economic processes that accept cost-free and collaborative arrangements, high automation and low employment.

Of course, some have called Mason’s recipe Utopian, but really it’s not. There is no opposing fetish, to ban competition and markets, to fail to reward innovation and entrepreneurship. Again, how dumb would we have to be? No, this is about accepting reality and taking actions we can, whilst we can. (We, again, notice.) Actions that recognise economic arrangements in transition, not some idealised end-state. Mason quite rightly doesn’t attempt to define that, rather simply identifying those processes and arrangements that would move us in the right direction, reflecting and accommodating the reality we find.

And, not without cause, some will accuse Mason’s “Project Zero” plan of being Marxist. Imagine getting a hearing in the corridors of power of the developed world with that tag? Well, damn it, look at the actual content of the particular ideas of Marx being proposed. We’re not talking Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto here. We’re talking about state interventions only in as far as they represent the socialised “we”. In fact it in doing so “the state probably gets less powerful” as the population continues to get ever more networked.

Mason is also at pains to ensure his economic theory and evidence are not pre-loaded with the critical non-economic drivers we currently face. Eventually – after properly addressing capital, debt, technology, markets, resources and goods, he does of course bring in those other issues. Population, and demographies and movements within the whole. The inexorably rising multiplier of all other issues. Global warming and energy consumption & dependencies the main issue being multiplied by the former.

Can he be serious? Well, the penultimate page of his final chapter asks “Is this for real?” He is. It is. Not only can we engineer our way out of this mess:

We lie at a moment of possibility:
of a controlled transition
beyond the free market,
beyond carbon,
beyond compulsory work.

There may be elements of romance in the vision, the belief that we really can do better, but I’d say Mason’s thesis is pretty thoroughly grounded. Far from Utopian, what’s wrong with a little vision, a large dose of vision in this case. An engineer myself, as Mason correctly predicts, I’m still focussing on addressing “root causes”. In my case that remains our flawed model of what we know about our world, the politically correct fetish of objectivism. And sure, there are points of interpretation of existing realities I actually disagree with. But hey, I’m in. Where do I sign-up for Project Zero?

I can already see specific chapters of Postcapitalism addressing specific ongoing debates with colleagues out there. Standby to have Paul Mason added to your recommended reading list. Consider it done.

=====

[Post Note – fascinated to find the published Greek translation of Post Capitalism is Meta-Capitalism. Meta is the word., The Greeks have it. It’s about the way of the thing, not the thing.]

[Post Note : Also some criticism that Mason’s Project Zero plan is not only Utopian but basically impractical. Impractical in the sense that several of the proposals are counter-intuitive and anathema to anyone wearing a traditional business hat. That’s the point, it goes without saying – the proposals are radical, “try selling that” I suggested above given the inevitable “Marxist” and interventionist tags – but nothing proposed is impractical in any practical sense. Nothing that couldn’t be tried, given the will to do so, and nothing here is all or nothing. Inaction is simply denial. Also, as well as recognising value in conceptual vision, despite its unclear details, there is also recognition of the distinction between urgent and important. One is tactical, the other is strategic.]

[Post Note : And Finland moves to basic income not linked to productive labour.]

[Post Note : WEF / Davos reference. Completely misses Mason’s point. He’s not predicting what is likely to happen given existing forces and players, he is recommending what we should do to make the best of things happen. There will always be capital based aspects of the economy, just no reason why it should all be so, why all life depends on labour-based income.]

[Post Note : Rusty Rockets reference.]

[Post Note : a counter review, although same conclusion “Realistically, the future will be hybrid … with the gift economy expanding over time.” The point being that agreeing the expanding “gift” economy isn’t capitalism is not a matter of Marxist opinion. But I did say, as Mason himself more than hints, the Marxist tag will give the project a hard time amongst “conservatives” in authority.]

[Post Note: Feb 2018 – Andy Becket in the Guardian with no reference to Mason or Marx or Maslow – different history same conclusions? Hat tip Samira Shackle.]

I left my review of Paul Mason at his revelation that Karl Marx is to be our saviour.

Not a bombshell that Mason has serious left leanings. Even as a journalist he’s always worn his heart on his sleeve supporting the financially underpowered – most recently in doggedly sticking up for the Greeks against the EU, ECB and IMF.

Interesting then that the Marx he recommends is not the Marx of Das Kapital.

Marx ‘s outline draft papers, Der Grundrisse, contain his Fragment on Machines. In this he saw fundamentally that knowledge was the valuable aspect of production – the how-to of labour inputs – even as the physical aspects of work became automated, increasingly supervised by the labour. And echoing Mason’s earlier reference to universal knowledge in the info-tech wave – not so much polymathic as genuinely generic and conceptual understanding – Marx gave us The General Intellect. The ability to know how; the understanding of how things work independent of the specific economic production or technology context. Mason gives us real examples from pre and early info-tech days (telegraph operators) and the fact that knowledge involves understanding the psychology of the fellow humans in the wider system, not just the immediate technology involved.

After showing how this view fits with the labour-theory of capitalism, it brings us to an interesting question of why does a pseudoscience like economics need a theory? What’s wrong with actual documented effects, pure empirical evidence?

After a reminder of the time-axis in labour-theory, data points not being static, but representing different stages in different process instances, so they can’t simply be manipulated arithmetically, we get an Einsteinism that encapsulates the focus on conceptual “general intellect”. Labour-theory, or any worthwhile economic theory …

… belongs to a class of ideas that Einstein described as “principle theories”: theories whose aim is to capture the essence of reality in a simple proposition, which may be removed from everyday experience. Einstein wrote that the aim of science is to capture the connection between “all experiential data in their totality” – and to do this “by use of a minimum of primary concepts and relations”.

The more clear and logically unified these primary concepts were, the more divorced they would be from data. The truth of a theory is, for certain, borne out by whether it successfully predicts experience, but the relationship between the theory and the experience can only be grasped intuitively.

Mainstream economics evolved into a pseudo-science that can only allow for statements obtained through crunching the data. The result is a neat set of textbooks, which are internally coherent but which continually fail to predict and describe reality.

Fascinating. My whole agenda in there. Autistic economics for sure, but also the weirdness of causation in general. The myth of empirical objectivity, when it comes to static data and predictive theory. In the quest to appear “scientific” – a word that monopolises credibility – any socio-politico-economic theory misses what science itself fails to notice. Reality is not scientific.

This much is given. But there are a couple of more contentious points.

Information IS immaterial, as Wiener (and Dennett) say. But Landauer (IBM) was right, it’s physical representation is always physical, whether in silicon or in synapses. It’s these physical representations that may tend to zero marginal cost. The information content remains independent of its physical embodiment however.

Secondly, information is NOT knowledge. Data and information may be freely networked – without any intrinsic hierarchy – but know-how and wisdom do come in layers. Mason himself is using the universal-knowledge / general-intellect ideas. These are free to the human that has them, and whilst their distribution is not controlled by any pricing model and their information content can be “shared” democratically, marginal possession of intellectual capability to understand varies hierarchically.

He’s right about one thing however. Once such increased knowledge can be embodied in machine processes, it can be standardised in all machines. Standards (my life for the last two decades) are information products that can be freely distributed. Generic intellect is always ahead of this game – unless machines can also think. Appropriately, AI is Mason’s next topic.

Unfortunately, he doesn’t pursue this beyond increased automation, whereby not only the labour inputs, but the machines themselves – real or virtual – also tend to becoming free through “repeated applications of info-tech”. It’s the repeated algorithmic application of information patterns upon information patterns. There’s no AI; no machine thinking. But if both labour and machines (capital) lose any marginal (financial) value, effectively becoming free, what is capitalism left with?