Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Venki

Hi,

True, science is not a perfect method, no reasonable person would claim it to be, and there would surely be advances in epistemology. I have an appreciation for metaphysics, but there is something deeply unsettling about it.

First of all, metaphysical philosophy, sounds very good in theory. But it suffers from the apparent flaw that many of its concepts are neither demonstrable nor even properly definable. That inevitably leads to a tangled mess of confusion. It is always easy to say something when (a) you/others do not know what the terms mean and (b) no one can verify your/others assertions.

Second, taken as a tool for practical knowledge, I am sorry to say that metaphysics has been a failure. Metaphysical thought in India, for example, is several millenia old, yet India had to wait for modern science to bring in its benefits. Despite lofty ideals, metaphysics cannot deliver the simple things that result in man`s control over the nature around him.

Third, what of the incredible variety of metaphysical thought? Are they all consistent, are they all valid or can there be only one? If they are all valid, then unfortunately their information content is zero (since two mutually contradictory ones could be valid). If only a few are valid, then metaphysical reasoning is not error free.

Let me take your example. In your eyes, by definition, I would be a simpleton to try to apply crude ``dualistic`` methods to something subtle. My intention is only to try to understand what you are saying, and to try to understand it more than by mere words. So here it goes:

You talk of the progression of the understanding of the observer -body, mind, intellect and soul. While one cannot deny the existence of something that one has not seen, it would be instructive to explain why one needs to postulate the existence of a soul, what would be the properties of the soul and indeed how would one go about verifying that it is indeed so. It seems to me also that a teleological universe is bound to emerge from any hypothesis that pre-supposes a soul, since it is built into the definition of the soul.

Now what of the relation of the four aspects? An entity has a body which gives rise to its mind which defines its intellect which must underlie its soul. In the physical world, including simple aspects of life, the body-mind and mind-intellect connection is known to some degree. It is a causal connection that is explainable by physical laws. Wherein does the mind-soul connection arise from? And is it absolutely necessary that it should not be explainable by some physical laws and hence lie in the domain of metaphysics? If not, then it is not beyond the ken of a crude method like science. It may take some time, but it will inevitably get there.

I will await your response before going further.

regards,
Wasiq

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Godot

I am sorry if my lengthy reply was not clear. I intended to present a comparative view on the issue, which is relevant.

Also, I think, that the only logical reason for Weinberg to make that statement would have to be in a context of teleology. Otherwise it does not make sense. To nitpick: ``the more we understand the universe, the more pointless it seems`` -- I think this means that it appears pointless, not that it is demonstrated to be. There`s a difference.

(About some background to his statement c.f Reply 8, ``There have been many scientific discoveries ...``)

You write: ``The fundamental question is Does Divinity exist in its own right, or it exists out of necessity?``

I think no one will never know the answer. And does it really matter when it comes to why people believe in a Divinity? Think about it.

You conclude: ``If the answer is the latter, then it is pointless.``

That I do not agree with. We endow purpose to things as much as we endow meaning. But then that is my view.

best regards,
Wasiq

p.s About ``The End of Science``, or should I call it ``The End of Horgan`` ... I think that his whole argument is utter nonsense. Remember Lord Kelvin`s statement to the Royal Society in the latter decade of 1890`s, that all that could be known about the physical world had been discovered, and nothing else remained to be learnt. One year later the electron was discovered, four years later radioactivity, within a decade special relativity, within two quantum mechanics. Things have never been the same.

Horgan`s fate will be worse, it already is.

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Godot

Since I have never heard this quotation from Weinberg, I do not know the context in which he said that. However, I suspect, that he must be referring to the various teleological arguments regarding the existence of the universe. These arguments take these different forms as far I know. Also, since I am not a philosopher, I do not know how philo will categorize.

1) The argument about the necessity of a Divinity to endow the universe and hence humanity with a purpose. There are many flavors of this argument also, broadly speaking some that are strongly anthropocentric than others (Hitherto I will refer to them as strong anth or weak anth): (a) Man as the reason for creation (b) Man as the observer/player (c) Man as an observer/player (d) Man as an entity at par with others.

2) The same argument without necessarily invoking the existence of a Divinity or a necessary being. Again different levels of emphasis on the human centeredness.

An example, the Anthropic universe -the view that a way to understand the processes of biochemistry, biology, cosmology, geology, is to assume that the universe was with the potential conditions and with physical laws which would necessitate the emergence of life and intelligent beings. Strong Anthropic universe specifies the emergence of humans (b)/(c). Weak anthropic (d) of intelligent life.

* * * * * * *

Within these divisions there is also the division along the lines of REALISTIC (LOCKE, man standing ``outside`` of the physical world that he observes), IDEALIST (KANT, the world exists only in being an object of human thought) and DIALECTICAL (the relation between man and nature is regarded as an integral part to the dynamic whole of which it is a part).

Among many proponents in (1): ARISTOTLE, everything in nature striving for its place (weak anth). IBNE-SINA, necessity for a divinity (strong anth). GHAZZALI, direct intervention of divinity (strong anth). DESCARTES, mechanistic view of the universe, except for the mind which follows its own rules (weak anth). KANT, moral dimension of humans and hence elevation to something above simply mechanistic. Also his emphasis on purpose for the existence of life (strong anth).

For (2) that the form, nature, or essence of man or of any other kind of being was taken to be a principle present in the thing, determining its kind by producing in it an innate tendency to strive to develop into a perfect example of itself--to fulfill its nature and to realize its full potential as a thing of a given kind. This gave rise to the teleological view of the natural world in which developments were explained by reference to the goal toward which each natural thing, by its nature, strives.

There have been many scientific discoveries that do not support a teleological view, and I think that Weinberg is talking about this from that point of view.

(a) The possible physical explanation of the presence of the universe and its evolution; a mathematical model starting from a quantum fluctuation, inflation and subsequent cooling of the universe, tends to explain many of the observed features of the universe.

(b) Developments in biology led to a refutation of most of the arguments of Kant. The genetic structure present in each cell is now invoked to explain the subsequent development of an organism in a ``mechanistic`` and nonpurposive way, in which development is shown to be dependent upon and determined by preexisting structures and conditions.

Also in evolutionary biological theory species are not stable; natural kinds do not have the fixed, immutable forms or essences characteristic of biology before the advent of evolutionary theory. This goes against the initial presuppositino of Aristotle about the presence of an innate essence of every entity, and its ordering in the known universe.

(c) The issue pf intelligence and rationality. Not only is the relative ranking of one race or sex with respect to others problematic, advances in the animal psychology indicate a presence of abilities in animals that were previously only considered to be human domain. Examples include language (gorillas, chimps, whales), counting (chimps, birds), problem solving (chimps, squid, dolphins), tool using (primates, dolphins), complex social structures and altruism.

(d) The success of the mechanistic view point that does not separate the human being and living matter from non-living matter, and provides a determined rule for explaining the rise of one from the other.

(e) The discovery of the scale of the universe, and given (d) the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe.

It appears then that Weinberg is echoing the sentiments of Herder. Herder denied the existence of any absolute and universally recognized goals. From this point of view, he has an interesting counterpart. Abdus Salam, in his essay, science and religion, (to which there is a link to in this essay), talks about these issues briefly also, and presents his own point of view. (Including his interpretation of creation).

I personally have the following view given my present level of ignorance: The classical arguments for a teleological universe do not hold. That includes both arguments involving Divinity and not involving it. Simpler explanations involving a ``mechnistic`` point of view do answer a lot, but not everything. Therein lies the ever present possibility for an expansion in our current scientific models. One can argue that a more sophisticated scientific answer of tomorrow will be closer to truth than what we have today (a la the comparison between yesterday and today`s models). However still, no metaphysical elements will be involved, and the explanation would be completely ``mechanistic``.

March on! Fellow Robots and Cyborgs! Re: Shahbaz

Everyone has a right to their own opinion. However, I was caught by your comment:

(``Then I give the judgment that the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children be taken captives.`` the pedophile referring to the tribe banu qurayza) to executions of ``hypocrites`` etc. bears testimony to the violent, blood stained hands of the prophet.

If you REALLY have read the reference that this comes from, then you would not have quoted this in the first place.

Do you know why what you are saying is historically wrong?

While you`re at it, you might as well tell us WHERE you read this from. :)

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Dear Shahbaz,

Can I suggest a book? ``The Structure of Scientific Revolutions`` by Thomas Kuhn. If you`ve read it, I would be curious to know what you think.

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Dear Saad,

Very well said indeed. I am certainly of the persuasion, as yourself, that everything around us is a miracle. I recall Rumi -talking about miracles and their relation to a Divinity, he says: ``If the whole world was barren and desolate and there was nothing in it except for one small flower, I would take it as an incontrovertible evidence for God.`` One might even say that there is nothing external about a miracle. The recognition of a miracle is dependent on the capabilities of the observer itself.

I think that you said it very well, each ``discovery`` necessarily leads us to a new world, and presents us anew with the depths of our ignorance. Feynman, early on in his lectures, summarized it thus: ``We learn science today, so that we can unlearn it tomorrow``. The distinction between modelling and the underlying truth ... therefore, we must try to understand everything around us, and improve the methods by which we arrive at our ``truths``.

Whether or not this process will ever converge, I do not know. But I believe that the universe is inherently knowable, and unlike Kuhn I also believe that we get closer and closer to the underlying truth.

``Bashud undar purdah bazi-hayay pinhan ... gham makhor!`` (Hafez)

On a related note: Do you have an interest in what goes on at (say) The Santa Fe Institute?

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder The other day I was talking to a friend of mine, and somehow the subject gravitated towards ESP and the like. During and after the conversation, I was struck by the fact that we have a tendency to get conditioned even to extraordinary things around us. As a result one is always searching for ``exotic`` stuff. To me, being able to carry on a conversation with another person is far more interesting and miraculous than any fanciful or metaphysical construction.

Imagine this: What we eat becomes a functioning part of our bodies. So if I eat a banana today, then in a little while, its components and derivatives will become a part of my brain, and will contribute towards my consciousness. Inanimate matter becomes animate and then starts to question itself. If that is not a miracle I don`t know what else is.

Re: Anita

True, anyone who cares to think will find the world full of facts that boggle the mind. Here`re some more of my favorites:

(1) The net energy content of the ENTIRE universe may be zero. Then the whole universe sprang from nothing more than a quantum fluctuation.

(2) The human brain weighs in at only a few pounds, consumes small amount of energy and yet is the most powerful and plastic computing device in existence.

(3) That nature employing simple rules at a fundamental level gives rise to such an astonishing amount of complexity.

(4) That mathematics is a suitable language of the natural world. That mathematical concepts present a level of rigor and truth that is not achievable otherwise. That no science is truly a science until it can be formulated in mathematical terms.

(5) That quantum mechanics with all of its mind bending logic has been validated with each and every experiment ever performed. That it is possible for distant particles to be entangled with each other in such a way that one affects the other. That teleportation is actually possible.

(6) That the universe is so unimaginably big that no human myth of infinity even comes close. For all we know the universe we observe (about 12 billion light years across) may only be a tiny fraction of the whole universe.

(7) That small differences in genetic code can lead to immense differences in their phenotypic expression.

(8) That there exists the force of gravity which is a long range attractive force. That it combines with other forces to give us a shining sun, which in its due time dies and spews heavy elements into space, and that we arise from the ashes of the stars.

(9) That most of the universe around us is actually invisible to us. We only see a tiny fraction of what there is to see. That the possibilities of nature remain effectively limitless.

(10) There are a hundred billion stars in our galaxy, and there are perhaps as many as a hundred billion galaxies. And if only one star in a billion produced a thriving civilization, then there would be hundreds in our galaxy alone, and hundreds of billions in all the galaxies in the observable universe. If one star in a million produced life then there would be dozens of civilizations just in our cosmic neighbourhood.

(11) The one that you mentioned is one of these. I remember when I first learned about that seven years ago. The whole transition to an oxygen dominated world, the rise of the membrane and the oxygen metabolizing organisms, and their eventual symbiosis. That other similar ``gateway`` events open the list of possibilities for development. That the Replicator molecule arose. That encoding of genetic information arose. That the information persisted in a hostile environment. That the mutual competition between possibilities inevitably led to emergence of increasing complexity.

(12) That the arrow of time is well defined, and that it always flows in one direction. That simple counting of possibilities explains why time flows forward. That universe evolves through a set of possibilities at each and every time. That the transition between these time steps is random but on a macroscopic level this randomness is smoothed out.

(13) That the universe at its smallest scale is fraught with impossibilities and infinities, and that these are smoothed out at a macroscopic scale.

(14) That a human child learns to speak of its own accord. That it counts, recognizes and learns. That it carries the potential for all of that from the very first day of conception.

(15) That we have the ability to wonder, and that we have the desire to know. That we are mortals and yet our minds can be immortal.

(16) That the human (or animal body) with all of its complexity actually functions. That the successful designs for these bodies emerged, and that extremely clever solutions were found for the problems offered by nature.

The list is very very long ...

Is Science a Religion? I am sorry for my belated reply (about a month old), but better late than never:

Re: Anita Zaidi (reply 4)

Thanks for sharing a glimpse into your and your daughter`s life. I think I agree with your approach towards religion regarding her upbringing. I am sure she will, like her parents, find out what is best for her.

I am actually very intrigued by her discovery of Up. I am wondering if she could possibly have picked it up indirectly from the following sources: kindergarten/school, conversations between her parents, does someone in the family refer to Up (like pointing up without actually saying anything)?, tv.

Death is an interesting issue. Maybe people would not be so afraid of it if they came to accept it as a fact of life from their childhood without coming up with any fanciful explanations for it. I wonder what would happen if parents honestly told their children something like:

``See this flower, it is dead, which means that it will not smell nice, look pretty etc. Life has left this flower. But this is a part of how everything is. Things die so that other things could live. If everything lived then very soon we would run out of place and food. In a similar way, we too die, when we are old. After death we live on in the minds of our children and our friends. Death is a fact of life, and no one knows what a person experiences once he or she dies. No one has ever come back from the dead.``

Evolution 101 Re: Saad

What are your thoughts about the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium? Could that not serve as one modifier to the original theory of evolution to account for diversity and specialization.

Re: Saeed Jaffer

Though I am not a biologist by training, but still I must say this: I am extremely disappointed by your reply. The reference that you quote is quite frankly a joke.

``Arguments derive from religion (creationism)--disagreement with the Darwinian reduction of teleology to physical causation, from science--nonselective mechanism, and from logic--negation of the possibility of proof of any scientific theory allowing only for validity thusfar.``

Since when have respectable academic articles started basing their arguments on belief?

After reading this abstract multiple times, I am only amazed that you actually chose it as a reference.

While one may reasonably make an argument that the original formulation of Darwin needs (and has undergone) modifications, the basic process of evolution is undeniable.

The major opposition to Saad`s article has been from the point of view of blind faith. That is very hard to argue against, since faith is meta-circular, it bases its validity on itself. NONE of the people who responded negatively to Saad have spent any reasonable amount of time doing their homework and trying to understand the basis of the theory of evolution. And NONE of the people who react instinctively have spent a moments thought considering the illogical and contradictory implications of their own beliefs.

That is quite sad indeed.

Baybay I think that the article raises very important issues, which are very much part of our social fabric. BG, you have done a great job in bringing this issue to light, and the ensuing debate (particularly the eloquent responses by Anita) has been very fruitful.

This issue is obviously not endemic to Pakistan, the question of age is present in all societies. That does not condone any particular behavior, however it does suggest that there are at least two different aspects of this issue. First is the social aspect, which deals with a systematic bias towards one sex. The second is an issue of biological motivations that give rise to social norms, even if they are based upon misconceptions.

It seems to me that there is no one simple solution to this, because both aspects are important ingredients in the decision making process of anyone who is confronted by this situation. However, a lot stands to be achieved, in the removal of the systematic biases and in debunking popular misconceptions about reproductive ability of older women, by simple and candid education.

I would also like to ask the following question to all people who are actively responding to this article (since they care about the issue):

To all the men, how many are associated with women much older than themselves?

To all the women, how many are associated with men much younger than themselves.

Without engaging people who are actually in such relationships, one cannot get a view of the actual dynamics.

Alphabets Re: Saima

You are very right. I remember once having a heated debate with a friend of mine on the definition of the ``meaning`` of a word. (My friend was rather conservative, and therefore was extremely defensive because of the obvious implications of such a debate on textual interpretations of religious documents). Contrary to what he was claiming. I do not think that there even exists a context free meaning of a single word. That in my view is quite interesting. Each word exists in an ambiguous state, which spans all the possible known interpretations of it (and any additional unknown or as yet undiscovered uses of it). These words, when concatenated together, can lead to the emergence of very concrete or very ambiguous interpretations, depending on how they combine. As I said, ``... one plus one is sometimes more than two and sometimes nothing at all``.

It is interesting to note the views of modern philosophers on this issue.

So if such a disagreement and discord can be present in what we can explicitly define and write down, how much difference would there be in terms of one`s inexpressable thoughts?

Alphabets Re: MAK

Thanks for the compliment.

Direction, where to go, the different parts of direction. To me this question is so vast and so intractable, that I may be completely off the mark even writing these words.

How does one even begin to travel down a path? More often one realizes the path one is on after the fact, after travelling for a while. The choice is seldom completely individual and independent. So then do there even exist good criteria for choosing a path? And what of the infinity of possibility and finiteness of our beings?

A cynic would even say that there exists no complete independence, even to talk of an individual is wrong. (Remember in Wim Wender`s ``Wings of Desire``, the circus girl is cherishing her freedom, her freedom to at last be lonely, her freedom to imagine because she had nothing and no one in the world.)

An even greater cynic would completely give up. Reminds me of Khayyam, ``Az khaak baramdeem-o barbad shudeem``!

March on! Fellow Robots and Cyborgs! Nice poem, but I disagree with the content completely. Falls into the popular, and wrong stereotype that knowledge and technology is always at the expense of ``humanity``. That need not be so, and definitely is not so, as even a cursory reflection on modern history will reveal. Humans will always be human, whether they are in the caves, in ancient mesopotamia, in the roman times, in medieval baghdad, in ming china, in renaissance italy, in industrial england, in communist russia, in nazi germany, in booming america, in today`s world of computer and genetic technology and in tomorrow`s world, whatever it may be. humans will be humans, and the very presence of these verses is another proof of that.

plus, everyone assumes this, but no one really knows what they are talking about: what does it mean to be human? is being human an absolute quality set in stone that one must conform to? or is being human exactly what we have seen in the world for thousands of years, yearning, development, conflict, introspection ... ??

Autumn Winds I have not read such a touching poem anywhere for a long long time. I have read this many times, and everytime the simple and elegant beauty of the poem moves me even more. Thank you.

Alphabets Re: iconoclast

While your comment is generally true, in English it is acceptable to use one or the other. (c.f. Oxford English Dictionary)

1781 Cowper Convers. 11 As alphabets in ivory employ, Hour after hour, the yet unlettered boy.

1974 Encycl. Brit. Macropædia V. 326/1 The Gronsfeld cipher is identical with a Vigenère system with direct standard alphabets, except that only the first ten alphabets are used in conjunction with a numerical key;

Re: Khan and Godot

Thanks for your kind comments. Where does the categorization and fragmentation stop?

Miracle Workers at Shifa Hats off to the Miracle Workers of Shifa.

You are absolutely right Umair, they are the gems of Chowk.

From the depths of my heart: Thank you all.

A question: How can one extend the influence of the resident medical expertise at Chowk to a wider segment of the population in Pakistan? The benefits are obvious.

A suggestion: We should seriously think of defining Shifa as a prototypical Cyber-Clinic. Apart from free consultations, it could also have a system for referrals and on-line appointments, again with obvious benefits to Chowk and to the practitioners. Obviously the method of conducting the business of medicine can be expanded to include the capabilities of a new medium.