Interior Dialogue

This post is meant as a completion of the “virtus dormitiva” post. In fact there are two ways to look at explanation, and the previous post only discussed one of them, what will be described below as the “bottom up” view. In this post I point out that there is also a “top down” view. However, the basic conclusion remains the same.

Let us start from the beginning: explanation is a form of communication between intelligent beings and therefore makes use of mental tools available to them. What are these tools?

In an article available on this site (but well hidden, because it requires cleanup…) I suggest, in the context of a discussion of memetics, that intelligence basically consists of building internal, mental models of the external world. First, mental objects are created (instinctively and automatically) in correspondence with certain perception dataset features, or patterns. Non-intelligent beings are capable of this as well. Then, secondary mental objects are created (consciously), by either composing or decomposing objects from the first (primary, or instinctive) group. This is something specific to intelligent beings.

When an object is decomposed, what is needed is a capacity for abstraction, while when objects are combined to create composite objects, what is needed is a capacity for imagination. From this perspective one may say that intelligence is the mental equivalent of opposable thumbs: allowing their owner to easily take apart and put together objects in arbitrary new ways.

Let me give some examples to make it clear what I mean.

A blue sweater is a textile object, which is blue, and which is used to keep warm. From the real, physical object one obtains a mental object, the idea of a blue sweater, which can be broken down into a series of other mental objects among which are the ideas of “textile material”, “blueness” and “warmth”. All three of these ideas are clearly abstract ideas, derived from the real, physical object, the sweater on my shelf (actually, and strictly speaking, derived from the sensory dataset pattern corresponding to the sweater).

An example of imagination is putting together the ideas of pigs and of wings to create the mental object “flying pigs”. The resulting object does not correspond to something in the real world, but other objects which were imagined at one time, later became realities. Very roughly bus+wings=airplane, internal combustion engine+wheels=car, etc. Clearly much (but not all) imaginative activity goes on independently of the real world.

These two basic intellectual processes are in close correspondence with the two types of explanation mentioned above. When an intelligent being communicates an act of abstraction to another intelligent being, that is a top down explanation, because the agent explains how to take apart a composite object. When it communicates an act of imagination, that is a bottom up explanation, because the agent explains how a given object fits into a larger composite object. The argument of the Virtus Dormitiva post relies on the latter conception of explanation. The conclusion, however, remains the same: : explanation is a relational enterprise, and only makes logical sense in a process centered mental universe (as opposed to a substance centered mental universe). A substance centered ontology only makes sense to the extent that time, or the inevitability of change, is ignored. In physics language, it is an approximation valid on sufficiently short time scales.

Note: interestingly, the etymology of the word “explanation” belongs to the abstract tradition: it refers to unfolding something, laying flat a convoluted object. Thanks to Catherine Nicolas for pointing this out to me, and motivating this post.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Alexandru Ioan Căbuz 2010.

Conflictul politic binecunoscut între domnii Patriciu și Băsescu are un caracter cu totul unic pe scena politică românească. Dintre diferitele astfel de ciocniri, mai mult sau mai puțin mediatizate, aceasta se apropie cel mai mult de un “conflict de idei” în sensul nobil al expresiei.

În acest eseu încerc să atrag atenția asupra unei complementarități extrem de interesante, și potențial extrem de utile și constructive, între ideologia și principiile care ghidează cele două personalități. Unul vizibil, celălalt în umbră, unul libertarian, celălalt étatist, unul pragmatic, celălalt moralist.

Dacă în acest mandat, domnul Băsescu și grupul din jurul domnului Patriciu vor ști să transforme războiul palatelor într-un dans al palatelor, toți românii vor avea numai de câștigat. Mai precis, domnul Patriciu ar trebui să accepte importanța și utilitatea Statului, iar domnul Băsescu ar trebui să preia o parte din pragmatismul non-moralizant al omului de afaceri. Cum spunea Deng Xiao Ping, nu contează dacă pisica e albă sau neagră, atâta timp cât prinde șoareci.

In modern popular science writings which discuss the search for the most general and fundamental laws of nature, two different notions are being confused: unification and the “Theory of Everything” or TOE. It is often assumed that once a theory is achieved which unifies all forces in nature in the same framework, then that theory will be a TOE. However, it is easy to see that unification is necessary but not sufficient for a TOE, because a true TOE cannot be testable. One consequence of this is that a TOE, if it exists, must be tautologous, it must be a TOE-tology.

I argue that tautology is nothing to be ashamed of, the best illustration being the fact that mathematics has gotten by just fine for millenia. In the context of empirical science, however, tautology has remained beyond the pale, except for a relatively recent development: the emergence approach.

In the article available here, I argue that the radical emergent view, which holds that all phenomena are emergent, is equivalent to the statement that a TOE exists.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Alexandru Ioan Căbuz 2009.

I argue that computation and prediction have always been the engine behind scientific progress. The computational tools available in various epochs have therefore played a central role in shaping our view of reality. Since we are currently witnessing a shift from the pen/paper/calculus computational toolbox to the computer-aided computational toolbox, I argue that it is an appropriate time to reevaluate the received wisdom about scientific reality. It is time to shift away from the differential equation mind-set which has prevailed since Newton, and towards a numerical computation mind-set, for reasons of both pragmatism and principle.

The complete post is available in pdf format by clicking here.

In the spirit of “a picture is worth a thousand words”, the whole pdf linked above may be considered as nothing more than an extensive caption for Fig. 1 of the following article by Enzo Tonti:

E. Tonti, Finite formulation of the electromagnetic field, PIER vol. 32, pp. 1-44.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Alexandru Ioan Căbuz 2009.

David Brooks’s March 16 column in the New York Times is titled “The commercial republic” and it is a classic piece of American mythology. To be fair, however, it is not just Americans who indulge in it, but also a far from negiligible portion of the educated people of the world.

David Brooks made the classic argument of the intrinsic, fundamental and enduring vitality of Americans. He explains it by the fact that the quest for wealth through commerce is an intrinsic feature of American history and culture. He has a point, since, indeed, not many nations on Earth have the phrase “pursuit of happiness” in their founding document.

But this view is superficial because it relies on another intrinsic, fundamental and enduring feature, this time of human nature in general: its nearsightedness. Change always seems to take us humans by surprise. But perhaps that is not fair, since that is more or less the definition of change.  If it wasn’t surprising it wouldn’t be called change.

Still, even the most cursory glance through human history will bring up countless examples of powerful leaders, cultures and civilizations that eventually either collapsed, disappeared, or otherwise changed into something less prosperous. Moreover, some of the ones that burned brightest, burned shortest, for instance the Macedonian empire, the Mongol empire and the French empire. In 1985 few in the West or in the East would have dared dream that communism in Europe would be dead and buried in less than 5 years.

When it is the powerful who are doing the “not dreaming” there is a name for it. It’s called hubris.

There are many things that could change in a heartbeat, and that could severely change the rules of the game. A simple example is the flow of immigration. Immigrants (whether voluntary or involuntary – slaves) have been the steroids of the American economy for centuries, and the majority of them have been European. That flow has slowed down in recent years however, with the exception of the Mexican inflow. Is the addiction to immigration strong enough to cause serious withdrawal? Maybe so, maybe not.

Another example is a sudden drop in Chinese and Arab confidence in the American economy. It is Chinese and Arab dollars that are financing American deficits and debt. A point may come (for a whole variety of possible reasons) where the mind boggling debt that America has and will continue to accumulate will make them reluctant to throw even more money into what they will perceive as a black hole. Besides, why should some of the poorest people of the world endlessly subsidize some of the richest? Because the question has not occurred to them yet, but it will…

Yet another example is that a major environmental disaster on a global scale (only a matter of time now) may turn the cultural and economic assets to which David Brooks sings praises into liabilities.

To put it shortly, America has become addicted not only to cheap oil, but to a whole slew of other economic candy: immigration, blank-check financing of its debt, a currency used as a world currency, non-existent environmental regulation, the willingness of a billion and a half people to work for “iou”s instead of money.

Like any addiction, you feel like the king of the world for a while, and then you suddenly feel like the rug has been pulled out from under you.  It’s called being a victim of one’s own success.

Mr. Brooks, there is nothing intrinsic, fundamental or enduring about being the king of the world.

“Meme” is a term coined by Richard Dawkins in his book “The Selfish Gene.” He used it to refer to those ideas that humans communicate and that can therefore become viral. The analogy he drew between the way some living things spread and thrive, and the way some ideas and concepts spread and thrive has become common place in recent years, for instance, in relation to articles or you-tube videos that “go viral.”

The original idea was picked up and taken further, among other people, by Susan Blackmore in her book “The Meme Machine.” In a more recent talk given at TED she contributed a new term: “temes,” i.e. physical objects, in particular technological objects that can also “go viral.” Instances of viral gadgets are the iPod or the internal combustion engine.

It would be interesting to try extending this view to all objects with which humans interact, especially the man-made ones. In this case one may see humans living in symbiosis with the various ideas, technologies and gadgets they make; the world economy would then correspond to the subset of the biosphere directly dependent on human activity.

Admittedly, many might at first feel uncomfortable with a conception of “living thing” so radically general as to include, in addition to humans, chickens and cows, microchips, oil refineries, books and every other object humans produce for their own use. They may object that this definition is so broad as to be useless.

I believe the analogy goes sufficiently deep to warrant further consideration, and that the relationship between humans and their houses, for instance, is very similar to the relationship between trees and the monkeys feeding on their fruit, particularly when the monkeys are totally dependent on the trees for their existence (in the same way that houses are totally dependent on humans for theirs). In both cases the relationship is one of symbiosis (a biological term). Living things replicate, and none is completely independent from the rest; some feed on other replicators directly, some depend on other replicators only indirectly. Many plants, for instance, depend indirectly on the fungi, and various microorganisms and worms without whom there would be no soil. In the same way, we need clothes and houses to survive, to replicate ourselves, while clothes and houses need us to replicate themselves.

There is no suitable term to describe this situation. “Reproduction” is already used in the life sciences and has a relatively precise, and narrow definition. The same is true for “symbiosis”. “Interdependence” is too broad. So I propose “reciproduction“. In my view, there is no fundamental distinction between the natural, the artificial and the memetic replicators. They all reciproduce, or reproduce interdependently.

The biosphere  includes natural replicators such as trees and cats, as well as artificial replicators such as clothes, cars and houses. However, the amount of energy and other resources is limited, so some replicators spread at the expense of others.

When memetic replicators disappear we call that a paradigm shift. When artificial replicators disappear, we call that an economic crisis. When they spread at the expense of “natural” replicators we call that an environmental disaster. When natural replicators disappear we call that an extinction. In general, when the equilibrium between natural and artificial replicators shifts, we call that an environmental disaster.

I am not saying that environmental disasters are in some sense “natural” and that we should therefore not worry about them. On the contrary. We should worry about them very much, because we humans, our memes, our food, clothes, and homes are all part of the same ecosystem, and if we keep upsetting the equilibrium, the next thing that goes extinct may be us.

From a more academic point of view, an interesting consequence of this view is that an economic crisis may be understood by analogy to waves of extinctions in biology, except it’s not species that disappear, but temes: goods, factories or even industries. This analogy may  open the way to a synergy between our understanding of evolutionary biology on one hand and economic theory on the other (largely, I suspect, to the benefit of the latter).

I believe that this is only one of the many benefits and insights that may be gained by adopting the unified “reciproductive” ontology described above.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Alexandru Ioan Căbuz 2009.

The election of Barack Obama as president of the United States is the most significant geo-political event since the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin wall. And it’s not because of the color of his skin, which, in the long run, will probably turn out to have little more than symbolic significance. Neither is it because of its signaling some deep shift in American society: Obama won the election not because the American people have seen the “error of their ways” of the last 8 years, but because he ran a brilliant campaign, while the republican campaign may be described as a kind of dismal populist traveling circus. Republicans could have easily won against Obama, had they run a decent campaign.

Rather, some of the reasons why Pres. Obama is well placed to exert an influence on American politics, economy and society for decades to come, are similar to why FDR did. FDR’s New Deal was responsible for laying down the basic physical and human infrastructure (via the GI bill among others) which made possible the economic miracle of the after-war years. We are in a similar crisis today, and Obama is a man who is in the right place at the right time.

Today it is a fact which is accepted across the political spectrum, that both the physical and human infrastructure are crumbling. The supply-side (or trickle-down) policies of the last 3 decades do not seem to have reversed that process, but rather to have accelerated it. Supply-side economics is an economic theory which starts from the assumption that the upper class is the engine of an economy. However, history has shown repeatedly, and in many different times and places, that an upper class, while necessary, is not sufficient. It is the middle class that is the real engine of an economy. America has neglected its middle class at its own peril.

A middle class thrives on freedom: freedom from disease, freedom from fear and freedom from ignorance, of which the latter two may be seen as forms of mental disease. These are the fundamental ingredients which help a middle class, and thereby a modern democracy, prosper.

Neo-conservatives, however, have practically made official policy out of actively feeding the middle class with fear (“terrorism”) and ignorance (the entertainment that passes for “news”, failing pre-university education), while allowing chronic diseases (obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease) to spiral out of control through excessive stress, poor nutrition, and above all, a deeply dysfunctional health “system”.

What makes Obama’s presidency a landmark is his recognition of the three essential ingredients mentioned above, and his insistence on the idea that government can be a force for good. It may seem paradoxical for a country traditionally suspicious of government, but America owes its prosperous present to inspired actions of its government in the past. The great leaps in innovation and technology, leading to increased prosperity and retreating poverty around the world over the last 4 decades, have been overwhelmingly government funded (whether American or not). The communications (satellites), energy (generation, distribution) and transportation (highways, trains, shipping) infrastructure to which America owes its miraculous growth over the last half century would never have existed without government “intervention”. See for example the visionary Vannevar Bush report of July 1945.

Moreover, Pres. Obama also seems to be acutely aware of the looming climate crisis, and seems uniquely determined to do something about it. The whole planet eagerly waits for him to follow his words with actions. America’s leading position as generator of garbage in all its forms (actual trash, pollutants from agriculture, carbon dioxide, nuclear waste) makes it the keystone of any worldwide effort to dodge the oncoming environmental bullet. Without America, any such effort is doomed to crumble, and, eventually, with it, human civilization as we know it. It is deeply misleading to speak of “Saving the planet”. Any biologist knows that the “planet” will do just fine, and indeed, has weathered worse crises in the past; it’s only us humans that might not make it. We need to find a way to avoid becoming victims of our own success.

This is why, in the long run, President Obama’s skin color, though the most talked about issue at the present time, will turn out to be only a historical curiosity, a footnote. What the chapter titles will be, we will have to wait and see, but I am betting on the environment, and on freedom from disease, fear and ignorance.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Alexandru Ioan Căbuz 2008.

The debate is old and tired. Seems unlikely I may contribute anything new to it, but I think a more pragmatic point of view may be useful.

The debate is usually framed in terms of the internal structure, assumptions and claims of the two points of view. But I think that in order to see clearly, or in any case, clearer, one need not delve into that mire. I, for instance think that the most potent (and in the long term the only relevant) argument is the pragmatic one: how useful are the different points of view. Will I have a better life, will myself and my family fare better if I am an evolutionist, or a creationist?

It is interesting that this question does not have as simple an answer as it might seem. At first sight, evolution seems to win hands down. Here’s why this may seem to be the case. Let’s imagine two types of hospitals and pharmacies. The first type contains doctors who believe in evolution, and drugs developed by scientists who believe in evolution, and who think in evolutionary terms. The second type contains doctors who believe in creationism and drugs developed by scientists who believe in creationism, and think in creationist terms. The fact of the matter is that the second type of health care would have very little to offer, if anything.

Consequently, one may argue that life is better as an evolutionist, since without evolutionist care and drugs most of us would live far shorter and more painful lives than we currently do.

But then why is there a persistent creationist minority even in the most highly developed and educated societies? The answer is simple: belief in a Creator brings non-negligible internal reassurance to human psychology. One may use game theory, which is a mathematical theory which does not require or imply evolution or creationism, to show that as long as creationism brings non-negligible psychological benefit to people, then the equilibrium population density of creationists will be non-zero.

None of this means, of course that in the long term one or the other of the two approaches will prevail, even though it seems like in the current context of highly developed industrialized societies evolution theory has the advantage. It is not hard to imagine economic, climatic or military crises which would quite reverse the situation, bringing evolution theory from its dominant place down to a marginal minority, the way it was a century and a half ago.

But for the time being, it seems like the pragmatic, self interested thing to do is to believe in evolution, or at the very least, be willing to trust people who believe in it with one’s life. In any case, most creationists do this every day, and a good thing it is.