I was skeptical of this platform at first but I am coming to love it more that youtube. It's nice being emailed an article and reading through it right there in the email.
I think History has a big role to play in our understanding of this issue, but as an immediate pattern rather than with the contextual authority of time. It is worth listening to Don Hoffman on the question of whether evolution has adapted us to see the truth, or merely what he calls `fitness pay-offs`. If space and time are akin to a computer browser interface, then maybe the `here and now` is more important than thought would have us think ?
That's self-refuting. If evolution means our beliefs aren't true, that includes our beliefs about evolution and science. Actually, however, we know things with no survival value, such as that 3x3=9 in all possible worlds. It's kind of like a cheetah being able to run at light speed rather than just fast enough to catch its prey.
The thing about Don Hoffman is that he is very much the scientist, but is pursuing something that one would associate with Zen. If space and time are only representational dimensions, then that seems to make all of science suspect.
I agree with his assessment of the reality of space and time, because life is essentially immediate, and where, within immediacy, is there room for time ? Time would seem to be a device within immediacy that allows us to separate advantage and disadvantage, and all of 'progress' is advantage, but disadvantage hasn't gone away. We think that progress is intelligent, but in fact it is efficient. That is why it works. The horseman gives way to the tractor, and the farmer gets 10 acres ploughed instead of one per day. That is efficient. We can't go back to horses, even if we love them and they can breed their own replacements, because they are inefficient. But the outcome of the pursuit of efficiency is automation, when intelligence is out of the loop. Do you see the conundrum ?. We have benefitted from progress greatly, but it has not been an intelligent process, it has been efficient. Now we pay the price for not maintaining intelligence, which is that no choice we make makes a strategic difference. That is the pattern of growth that we follow, because we have delegated intelligence to the process of thought, which pursues efficiency.
You need to cut me a little slack here because I am struggling a bit .
This may seem to be diverging from the subject of your essay, but the issue is, why do we abandon the liberalism that has worked so well for us ? The answer may be that we have simply followed the pattern of growth, in which intelligence is represented by choice, and choice always ends up being subsumed by conformity.
Good luck with what you are doing. A sane voice in a senile world
I was skeptical of this platform at first but I am coming to love it more that youtube. It's nice being emailed an article and reading through it right there in the email.
Good. YouTube is hostile to my content anyway. And since I had two videos banned, I am sure things are being manipulated.
Happy Christmas.
I think History has a big role to play in our understanding of this issue, but as an immediate pattern rather than with the contextual authority of time. It is worth listening to Don Hoffman on the question of whether evolution has adapted us to see the truth, or merely what he calls `fitness pay-offs`. If space and time are akin to a computer browser interface, then maybe the `here and now` is more important than thought would have us think ?
That's self-refuting. If evolution means our beliefs aren't true, that includes our beliefs about evolution and science. Actually, however, we know things with no survival value, such as that 3x3=9 in all possible worlds. It's kind of like a cheetah being able to run at light speed rather than just fast enough to catch its prey.
Merry Christmas!
The thing about Don Hoffman is that he is very much the scientist, but is pursuing something that one would associate with Zen. If space and time are only representational dimensions, then that seems to make all of science suspect.
I agree with his assessment of the reality of space and time, because life is essentially immediate, and where, within immediacy, is there room for time ? Time would seem to be a device within immediacy that allows us to separate advantage and disadvantage, and all of 'progress' is advantage, but disadvantage hasn't gone away. We think that progress is intelligent, but in fact it is efficient. That is why it works. The horseman gives way to the tractor, and the farmer gets 10 acres ploughed instead of one per day. That is efficient. We can't go back to horses, even if we love them and they can breed their own replacements, because they are inefficient. But the outcome of the pursuit of efficiency is automation, when intelligence is out of the loop. Do you see the conundrum ?. We have benefitted from progress greatly, but it has not been an intelligent process, it has been efficient. Now we pay the price for not maintaining intelligence, which is that no choice we make makes a strategic difference. That is the pattern of growth that we follow, because we have delegated intelligence to the process of thought, which pursues efficiency.
You need to cut me a little slack here because I am struggling a bit .
This may seem to be diverging from the subject of your essay, but the issue is, why do we abandon the liberalism that has worked so well for us ? The answer may be that we have simply followed the pattern of growth, in which intelligence is represented by choice, and choice always ends up being subsumed by conformity.
Good luck with what you are doing. A sane voice in a senile world