RE: WHAT IS REALITY? A SYSTEMIC VIEW OF LIFE - Part One
Hey,
Interesting text, I think that these ideas have emrged from many different disciplines not just systems biology. For instance Jean Piaget also once said: "What we see changes what we know and what we know changes what we see".Are you perhaps familiar with Predictive Processing? I am trying to specialize in this area of cognitive science and many of these themes reoccur in a slightly different format. This paradigm basically states that our brain functions as a prediction machine, always trying to explain away the uncertainty over our sensations. I realize that this may be a different usage of the world uncertainty. But as a scientist I do not think scientists in any real sense what to explain away all epistemic uncertainty. Realizing what we do not actually know is how I go about generating new hypotheses. I would say that human nature is constitued by a drive to reduce uncertainty, but this doesn't mean we will seclude ourselves into empty rooms that are fully certain, quite the opposite! We are ever drawn to reduce new uncertainties.
To quote Karl Friston on this matter:
"Conversely, in a completely unpredictable world (i.e., a world with no precise sensory evidence, such as a dark room) there is no opportunity and all uncertainty is irreducible—a joyless world. Boredom is simply the product of explorative behavior; emptying a world of its epistemic value—a barren world in which all epistemic affordance has been exhausted through information seeking"
source
I think this can be applied to systematic as well. In the process of reducing uncertainty, we create systems that are rigid and create the equivalent of an epistemically empty room. I would necessarily pit science and uncertainty against one another, the two go hand in hand. But I guess that is the point you are making?
Thank you very much for engaging, I appreciate that.
Correct. That is what I tried to say. The connection is the "and" between science and certainty. One goes with the other. As we live in a complex world and cannot learn any longer through osmosis in direct contact to the physical natural realm and the social tribe is also not directly but only indirectly available we need the sciences to explain the world because it doesn't explain itself just so.
For example: as an early farmer a couple of thousand years ago it was totally clear to me that climate, season, soil, plants and animals and also myself were acting within a circular "behaving environment". I was seeing, touching, hearing and smelling the impacts of the living systems. And I felt myself as being a part of it. It didn't occur to me to exclude me from this entire living systems. Like the fish which probably isn't much "thinking" of the element water which surrounds it. My farmer's life and that of my tribe were bound to nature and physical elements in which no waste was ever produced. All that went in went also out.
I wasn't thinking about the chemical formulas of the air I breathe, the water I drink and the food I ate. And so on and so forth.
Today, I am not having this experiences and must learn about all kinds of systems in order to understand reality. Which makes it different (and I would also say more difficult). Now I am facing uncountable multiple disciplines and processes and I realize I cannot and will not understand them all. That is impossible. Complexity is frightening and in order to not feel that way I must come to a point where I feel certainty about my stand in the world.
Thanks for the quote from Jean Piaget, I liked it a lot.
Exactly. I do not know about all the others because I was educated in systemics. That is the point, right?
What we try as humans are to come to conclusions and we are lacking the "world knowledge" but often come independently to the same results. What I try is to see if I am in good company or must fear the majority, hence, becoming isolated from the social group.
Someone told me that probably Leibnitz was the last one who had a general knowledge about the world and all who came after represent their narrowed knowledge in their disciplines. Doesn't matter if that is correct but it shows the point.
To not become frustrated or despaired about this I am trying to put "ethics" into the field. For me, it is the connecting link (and provides certainty/trust where I cannot find it elsewhere). The demands are high. What I perceive is that the pace of creating new hypothesis is going to escalate the fewer people on earth are bound to their land. Which I see as not only beneficial but problematic. How about you?
I don't think Leibnitz was the last one, Goethe for instance is a shinning example of someone who strived to extend his world knowledge instead of specializing in a single niche. Nietzsche thought he was the closest person to an "Uebermensch" because he didn't restrict his knowledge to a single facet of his life. For instance he used his insiration towards nature not only to write poetry, but also to create laws that ensured public parks. He was also the last non-scientist to conduct empirically valuable experiments.
I am more inclined to think about ideals than ethics, since science and technology do not contain any inherent meaning. But I do think science does help in informing ideals, after all scientist must also hold beliefs in order to generate new ideas. I think science offers a unique method of probing and controlling for our beliefs, which is what seperates it from a purely dogmatic religion. I do not think generating more and more hypotheses is in itself a problem, since new scientific discoveries also reveal new uncertanties. The problem I see is that people may start worshipping science as some kind of deity and stop ackknowledging uncertainty. Science cannot give anything meaning after all...
Thank you. Yes, those are good points of yours, dácord. In particular what you said about "new scientific discoveries also reveal new uncertainties". I remember that scandal about "Contergarn", a pharmaceutical specimen which caused severely disabled newborn babies. Or the research about placebos ... or ... hypnoses connected with anesthesia which they investigate in France when I remember correctly.
I need some more clarification about "ideals" and how you define and include them in your personal life.
I myself have difficulties to define an ideal without pulling ethics on one hand and role models on the other hand. The third factor is the social realm in which it is allowed to debate ethics and let me being taught from those who study what is attached to birth and death in the sense of giving me spiritual guidance in experiencing an inherent meaning.
For example: The fact of death directs me towards having a spiritual problem. This problem I like to discuss with a person who is educated in spiritual matters and also does not lecture me from an isolated but an embedded place. Say, being a member of a community where giving company to the dying people is actively practiced. Which, as a consequence shows me some reputation in order to feel trust in the provided services.
Without these supporting mental and physical realms, I wouldn't know what and who is representing this ideal. Where do I have to place myself? When the ideal is too low - like nobody I know can serve as one - I lack orientation to where I can look.
Following this logic, this led me to my personal life to begin to study religion and re-think my Christian experiences within the community I grew up in.
After giving you this brief derivation of mine I would like to read yours if you don't mind. I think you are a sensible and good debating partner.
Well I hardly disagree with you here, I use ideals in the sense of meta-ethics or reasons to behave ethically. To put it the other way arounf, ethics are applied ideals. For me, ideals presuppose ethical dilemmas and I typically boil it down principles that help us form meaningful relationships. I think death is key here too, because it directs you towards the search for meaning. I think when Heidegger was asked how people could live more meaningful lives, he said they should visit cemeteries more often.
With regard to science and ideals, I think you can probe ideals in a scientific manner. The scientific manner necessitates that we test our assumptions meticulously and so we should also use this to test our ideals.
Another point worth mentioning is that science has increased the average life expectancy, but it hasn't necessarily made people happier in their entirety. One could hardly argue that hunter-gatherers were unhappier. Individuals were always surrounded by their family and friends. Personally I believe in forming meaningflu connections to others, which is (I) talking with them and not them, (II) learning to love people for their differences and not just looking for people that remind you of yourself. Not to say I don't like people with common interests though :D .
"Visiting a cemetery", what a good example! You know a lot, that is for sure. What you said reminded me of Alan Watts' lectures where he talked about that Zen Masters always answer worldly when being asked a spiritual matter and answer in a spiritual manner when being asked a secular question.
It's always an act of balance to accomplish the task of not rejecting people for their differences and welcome their perspective. Common interests are the ground to feel commonality.
I am looking forward to what you come up with next.