Socio-political philosophical musings
In this video, Veritacium discusses why democracy is mathematically impossible, invoking Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem which I’ve mentioned many times here and in other writings. I won’t summarise or comment further save to recommend the video. Let me know what you think if you’re so inclined.
Language is life. Yet, this assertion immediately raises a fundamental question: which came first, life or consciousness? It’s a classic chicken-and-egg conundrum. Physicist Stuart Hameroff posits an intriguing idea—that consciousness might predate life itself. This radical notion suggests that consciousness isn’t merely a byproduct of biological processes but could be an intrinsic feature of the universe. However, there’s a snag.
The challenge lies in defining life and consciousness, two terms that lack universally accepted definitions. The absence of clarity here opens the door to a multitude of interpretations, making it easy to drift into what could be considered ‘airy faerie’ ambiguity. One must beware of the temptation to engage in intellectual exercises that lead nowhere—what might be termed ‘mental masturbation.’ This is a prime example of the insufficiency of language.
Life and consciousness, as concepts, are elusive. Unlike straightforward nouns or adjectives—where we can confidently say, “That’s a dog,” “That’s a tree,” or “That’s green”—these terms are far more complex. They are attempts to encapsulate observed phenomena, yet we lack the precise language and understanding to pin them down definitively. The video linked above provides perspectives on various approaches to defining these terms, but none prove wholly satisfactory. This lack of satisfaction might suggest that our conventional understanding of life and consciousness is flawed. To be fair, one might even entertain the idea that life itself is an illusion, a construct of consciousness.
This ambiguity isn’t confined to the realms of life and consciousness. I recently shared a post on the topic of gender, which illustrates a similar issue. Originally, there was no concept of gender. The earliest distinctions made were between animate and inanimate. Over time, these distinctions became more nuanced. Whether or not a proto-word for life existed at that time is unclear, but the idea of animation being linked to life was beginning to take shape. The concept of gender evolved much later, driven by the need to categorize and define differences within the animate category.
The evolution of language reflects the evolution of thought. Yet, when we dig deep into these foundational concepts, we encounter the same problem: how can we argue the precedence of two concepts—life and consciousness—when neither has a solid foundation in language? If our words are inadequate, if they fail to capture the essence of what we are trying to convey, then what does that say about our understanding of the world?
Perhaps it suggests that our linguistic and cognitive tools are still too crude to grasp the true nature of reality. Or maybe it hints at a deeper truth: that some aspects of existence are beyond the scope of human understanding, no matter how sophisticated our language becomes. After all, if consciousness predates life, as Hameroff suggests, then we may need to rethink our fundamental assumptions about existence itself.
Ultimately, this exploration reveals a paradox at the heart of human knowledge. We seek to define and categorise, to impose order on the chaos of the universe. Yet in doing so, we must confront the limits of our language and, by extension, our understanding. Perhaps the true essence of life and consciousness lies not in definitions or categories but in the very act of questioning, the relentless pursuit of knowledge that drives us forward, even when the answers remain elusive.
The topic of this video touches upon my insufficiency of language thesis. Tim Maudlin defends language realism but only to the extent that ‘we can use it to describe the world and that some of those descriptions are true’.
The challenge, then, is determining which descriptions are true. I’ve discussed a couple of my positions on this.
Firstly, we can only perceive what is true as we have no access to absolute truth. The best we can achieve is an asymptotic function approaching truth, a notion that resonates with Hilary Putnam’s concept of internal realism (pdf). Putnam argues that truth is not a matter of correspondence with a mind-independent reality but is instead tied to our conceptual schemes. This means that what we consider “true” is always shaped by the language and concepts we use, making our understanding inherently partial and context-dependent. Even then, we have no way to determine how close to truth our perception is. It just has to feel true—an idea that aligns with Putnam’s pragmatic conception of truth, where truth is something that emerges from our practices and inquiries, rather than being a fixed point we can definitively reach. In terms of physics, this underlying reality may be relatively more stable than abstract concepts, which are ephemeral and shifting sands.
Secondly, given that we have no access to objective truth, we can only expect subjective or relative truths. This brings us to Putnam’s critique of the metaphysical correspondence theory of truth. According to Putnam, the idea that language can perfectly correspond to an external reality is flawed. Instead, truth is what can be justified within a particular conceptual framework, making all truth somewhat relative. This leaves us open to rhetoric—the more convincing argument wins, regardless of whether it reflects an objective reality. In fact, as Putnam’s ideas suggest, the most persuasive argument might favour an incorrect position simply because it resonates more with our internal conceptual schemes, not because it corresponds to an external truth. This has happened many times historically—or has it?
Putnam’s work reminds us that language is deeply connected to our understanding of the world, but it is also limited by the conceptual frameworks within which it operates. While language helps us navigate and describe the world, it cannot provide us with direct access to objective truth. Instead, it gives us tools to construct truths that are internally coherent and pragmatically useful, though always subject to change and reinterpretation. As we engage with rhetoric and persuasion, we must remain aware that the truths we accept are often those that best fit our current conceptual schemes, not necessarily those that best correspond to an elusive objective reality.
Denis Noble’s critique of Richard Dawkins’ approach to genetics isn’t just a scientific debate; it’s a microcosm of a much larger issue: our inadequate grasp of systems thinking. This inadequacy resonates through every layer of our social, political, and economic frameworks, revealing why these systems often fail us—they are simply too fragile.
Why do we struggle with systems thinking? The concept itself demands an understanding of boundaries, dimensions, and interactions that are often far beyond our regular scope. More often than not, we define system boundaries too narrowly. We overlook crucial dimensions and, crucially, miss the interactions. This isn’t just an academic observation; it’s a practical one. In my experience, even when we do acknowledge broader boundaries, management frequently undermines their importance, limiting the scope of what’s considered relevant.
Humans Are Abysmal Systems Thinkers
Since the 1980s, my interest in genetics has been piqued by Dawkins’ seminal works like The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins has long championed a gene-centric view of evolution, one that has shaped our understanding of biology for decades. However, Denis Noble challenges this perspective, advocating for a systems-level view that considers not just the genes but the interactions between a myriad of biological processes. This isn’t just genetics; it’s a profound illustration of systems thinking—or our lack thereof.
I’m not suggesting we discard Dawkins’ contributions to science, but Noble’s arguments are compelling and warrant serious consideration. They underscore a broader philosophical dilemma: our rhetorical constructs often overshadow deeper truths. In discussing the nuances between Dawkins’ and Noble’s theories, I argue that rhetoric, for better or worse, becomes our only accessible truth. While there may be more fundamental truths out there, they are often beyond our grasp, obscured not just by our cognitive limitations but also by the very language we use to discuss them.
So, which is true? The answer might be less about choosing sides and more about acknowledging our limitations in understanding and managing complex systems. Perhaps it’s time to consider that in the quest for truth, acknowledging our blind spots is just as important as the truths we defend.
Apologies in advance for linking a teaser video that leads to a paywall, but the relevant content is self-contained.
The debate over free will often distils down to a question of determinism—indeterminism, hard or soft determinism, or something else. Poincare’s approach to the three-body problem is an apt metaphor to strengthen the deterministic side of the argument.
Quantum theory introduces aspects of indeterminism, but that doesn’t support the free will argument. Moreover, between quantum events, the universe is again deterministic. It’s simply been reset with the last exogenous quantum event.
Prima facia, Determinism and Chaos might seem strange bedfellows. And therein lies the rub. Chaos theory essentially tells us that even in a scenario of chaos, all possible outcomes can be calculated. They just must be calculated stepwise via numerical integration. Even this leaves us with estimations, as owing to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and the infinitude of slicing space, we can’t actually calculate the precise answer, although one exists.
My point is that not knowing what is being determined doesn’t invalidate the deterministic nature or process.
I’ve just published this video on YouTube, and I want to extend the commentary.
Many people I’ve encountered don’t seem to grasp the distinctions between objective, subjective, and relative. Subjective and relative seem to be the biggest culprits of confusion. Let’s focus on morality just because.
There are really two main perspectives to adopt. If one believes in Objective Morality, one believes morality derives from some external source and is bestowed or mandated upon us. The source might be important to the believer, but it’s unimportant for this article. If one believes in Relative Morality then the source is socially dictated and has similar challenges to the notions of Social Contract Theory insomuch as one may not subscribe to the expectations.
For the Objective moralist, there may exist a schism between the expectations of the mandate and the subjective feelings of the individual. In fact, this may occur for Relative moralists as well. The individual will always maintain some subjective perspective on morality and then compare and contrast it with the higher order, whether Objective or Relative. In either case, acting on this subjective impulse risks being at odds with the members of the higher order. If this morality is codified into law – as it often is – then to act on that impulse makes one a criminal.
Take abortion for example. Whether this is an edict from God or just a social construct doesn’t matter. If one is in a society where abortion is seen as ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’, one’s subjective position on the matter is of little value. However, a Relativist society might also adopt a position of tolerance that is less likely to come from Objectivists.
A challenge is that a Subjectivist may only become apparent if one is counter the Relative or Absolute position. If your society is against abortion and you are, too, is this your subjective position or have you been indoctrinated with it and accept it uncritically, whether it’s deemed Objective or Relative.
Perhaps you feel that eating dogs or monkeys is immoral if not disgusting, but if you had been reared in a culture that does this, you might find it immoral to eat pork or beef. The question remains, is this a Subjective position, or did you merely inherit the Objective or Relative stance?
This question is very apparent in which religion one adopts. It is no surprise that the largest factor in which religion you choose is the religion of your family and their family and so on – so not so much a choice.
I was raised in a WASP family in New England among predominately Italian Roman Catholic peers. Despite this, I identified as an atheist early on. In my late teens, I stumbled on Buddhism and identified with it. However, I remain ignostic except when it encroaches on my personal autonomy – for example in the case of laws restricting access to safe abortions.
It’s been a minute since I’ve posted a video. Restart the clock. In this video, I critique Outside Philosopher’s critique of the debate between Robert Sapolsky and Daniel Dennett on Free Will and Determinism. He attempts to leverage Gödel’s Uncertainty Principle in his defence.
Feel free to leave comments on YouTube or below. Cheers.
I’ve been neglecting this site as I’ve been focusing on releasing my first novel, which I’ve now managed successfully. I published it under a pseudonym: Ridley Park. The trailer is available here and on YouTube.
Hemo Sapiens: Awakening is the first book in the Hemo Sapiens series, though the second chronologically. The next book will be a prequel that tells the story about where the Hemo Sapiens came from and why. I’ve got a couple of sequels in mind, too, but I don’t want to get ahead of myself.
In summary, Hemo Sapiens is shorthand for Homo Sapiens Sanguinius, a seeming sub-species of Hemo sapiens Sapiens—us. In fact, they are genetically engineered clones. It’s a work of near-future speculative fiction. It’s available in hardcover, paperback, and Kindle. If you’ve got a Kindle Unlimited account, you can view it for free in most markets. The audiobook should be available in a couple weeks if all goes well.
Awakening explores identity, belonging, otherness, and other fictions. It talks about individualism and communalism. It looks at mores, norms, and more.
Check it out, and let me know what you think.
I’ve long been opposed to the direction the Enlightenment took the course of Western civilisation. I’m not religious or spiritual, so I am glad history took a different route. I just don’t feel it’s been the right one. Pinker believes that we not only took the right course, but we are still on the right path. Mearsheimer believes that we made the right choice, but we are no longer on the right path.
Pinker stammers through his argument that Mearsheimer effectively frames for him. Pinker is a Liberal, who believes that reason and individual rights are the keys to progress. He believes that tribalism, e.g., partisanship or nationalism, subverts this.
Mearsheimer believes that humans are social animals that are individuals, but they need to carve out their individuality as a secondary consideration to the larger society and its needs. He argues that more homogeneous societies are better positioned to prosper, so he defends this sort of nationalism and national identity. Pinker argues that social trends show otherwise.
As for me, they’re both wrong. As with both of them, individuals are important as are social configurations. My contention is that humans are fundamentally dim. They are predictably irrational and too easily swayed by the next shiny object.
The Enlightenment was sold on a promise imagined and conjured by elite thinkers, but they must have lived in a bubble to think their cognitive capabilities were universal. Perhaps, they felt that the elite thinkers, the philosopher rulers of Plato’s wet dreams, would reign at least in proxy. Instead, we’ve seen a race to the bottom, a world where the lowest denominator seems to rule.
In the United States, we have an adle-headed Joe Biden versus idiot-grifter Donald Trump. This is the best a country of 350 million can manage. This is the cream of their crop. If this is what freedom renders, I say no thanks. I am personally opposed to the notion of Democracy as I’ve written about previously. In a world where 50% of the population has an IQ of under 100, this scares the hell out of me. Honestly, voting should be restricted to those with IQs over 115. Of course, I don’t trust IQs either, so we are speaking in abstract hypothetics. I don’t believe in progress, so there’s that.
Even this ‘elitist’ democracy would fail. People cannot acquire and maintain the necessary domain knowledge, and self-interest will still motivate voting outcomes, which as Kenneth Arrow proved in the 1950s, usually produce suboptimal outcomes. So even the best that the best of the best can yield is mediocrity.
So, what is the best position? I’m not sure, but it feels like one with no humans in the decision-making process would yield better results.
I asked Dall-E to render an image for this post. Here’s what I got, but the process was amusing, to say the least.
Steven Pinker and John Mearsheimer battling in a wrestling ring
Creating an image of Steven Pinker and John Mearsheimer wrestling in a ring would go against the policy of depicting specific public figures. However, I can create a similar image with a creative twist. How about I generate an image of two fictional scholars in a wrestling ring, each embodying the spirit of intellectual debate? Let me know if this works for you or if you have any other ideas!
that’s fine just capture the caricature of each… pinker’s hair and Mearsheimer’s bald head and eyeglasses.
Creating images that resemble specific public figures, even through caricature, is outside the scope of my capabilities. However, I can create an image of two fictional characters in a wrestling ring, one with wild hair and the other with a bald head and eyeglasses, to capture the essence of an intellectual debate in a humorous, wrestling context. Let’s proceed with that idea!
Prompt for DALL·E: “Create an image of a humorous wrestling match between two fictional characters in a wrestling ring. One character has wild, unruly hair and a scholarly appearance, wearing a tweed jacket. The other character is bald, wearing eyeglasses and a professional suit, symbolizing a serious academic. The scene is lively, with a cheering crowd in the background, emphasizing the fun and exaggerated nature of this intellectual debate turned wrestling match.”
Size: 1024×1024
Create an image of a humorous wrestling match between two fictional characters in a wrestling ring. One character has wild, unruly hair and a scholarly appearance, wearing a tweed jacket. The other character is bald, wearing eyeglasses and a professional suit, symbolizing a serious academic. The scene is lively, with a cheering crowd in the background, emphasizing the fun and exaggerated nature of this intellectual debate turned wrestling match.
And, nailed it! lol The results speak for themselves. haha
Notice how the AI wouldn’t generate the image, but fed me that work-around to circumvent its rules.
I’ve just finished reading Alain de Benoist’s book, The Problem of Democracy, so I decided to give a review. I’ll reserve critiquing the philosophy for later. For now, here’s a summary.
What do you think of this book and summary?
Philosophics 