Critique of TSW Part 28a The Last Chapter

Blog 20150325

Bill still has trouble with the univironmental concept, eschewing anything that could be construed as dialectical. In his mind, this apparently falsifies concepts such as microcosm/macrocosm, divergence/convergence, and probably yin/yang too.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked “TSW: “are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

The Last Chapter (Part 1 of 2)

BW: First, let me say that I found the book intellectually challenging and comprehensive. I very much appreciate your attempt at intellectual consistency and admire the effort you put into expressing your views. I know my critique has been harsh and petty, but I considered the issues important enough to point out faults in the facts or the arguments. As I've said before, I agree with nearly every conclusion and most arguments.

[GB: Bill, thank you so very much. Glad you liked "The Scientific Worldview." Again, I greatly appreciate your detailed critique, which addressed many of the objections entertained by other folks as well. We are all deterministic products of our indeterministic culture, and you have demonstrated that overcoming mainstream thought is no easy task. Each of us learn the elements of univironmental determinism at our own pace, which is made especially difficult by the necessity to confront the philosophical struggle head-on. I am afraid that I was of little help during that process, since you had written your entire review before I responded. One major purpose of the book was to change minds, which, as we all know, is never an easy task. Most of us are confronted with the religious world view at an early age, with daily reminders to continue along that path—or else.]

BW: >Ten Assumptions

You can call them assumptions or premises, but your arguments attempt to *justify* them as propositions ... sometimes successfully, sometimes not. My rating of your main claims on a 10-point scale:

[GB: Remember that, by definition, fundamental assumptions cannot be proven, they always have opposites, and must be consupponible. Attempts to justify a particular assumption ultimately fail to convince those holding fast to its opposite. I am always grateful for any additional facts and arguments in support of the assumptions, which might actually convince a doubter to switch sides, but I won’t be holding my breath in the meantime.]

BW:

1. Materialism - Agree, with minor qualifiers: +10
2. Causality - Agree: +10
3. Uncertainty - Agree, if "unmitigated truths" are added: +9
4. Inseparability - Agree, with the exception of light sphere and inverse square law: +9
5. Conservation - Agree: +10
6. Complementarity - Agree somewhat, if you discard arbitrary and subjective "cosms": +8
7. Irreversibility - Agree: +10
8. Infinity - Agree in the macro sense, but only "nearly infinite" in the micro sense: +7
9. Relativism - Agree, but the argument lacks definitions: +8
10. Interconnection - Similar #4, though I prefer "related", which makes it similar to #9: +9

Overall, we agree on at least 90% of these propositions, as you've presented them.

However, some major components of your arguments, to my mind, are faulty.

A. Micro/inside v. Macro/outside is an arbitrary, subjective attempt to introduce a "dialectic" that doesn't exist in nature. It adds nothing useful to your discussion of the issues.

[GB: Sorry Bill, you are completely wrong on this one. "The Scientific Worldview" is based on univironmental determinism, the universal mechanism of evolution stating that what happens to a portion of the universe is dependent on the matter in motion within (the microcosm) and without (the macrocosm). Even many systems philosophers do not regard system boundaries to be absolute, objective features of the universe. In science, we are forced to use arbitrary boundaries all the time. For instance, “Bodies of soil and nonsoil occur as a continuum at the surface of the earth. They merge into one another often at imperceptible though arbitrarily defined boundaries” (http://www.pedosphere.com/resources/cssc3rd/chapter02.cfm). In soil descriptions the transition between soil and bedrock varies from millimeters (very abrupt) to tens of centimeters (diffuse). It is true that the novice in science is often confused by nature’s refusal to provide the clear distinctions that were promised them by the absolutists at church. Nonetheless, we gradually learn to live with it. You can be as subjective and arbitrary as you wish, as long as you come up with meaningful and correct answers. The only difference between systems philosophy and univironmental determinism is whether or not you consider both sides of that boundary as equally important. And as we have seen throughout the book, one often reaches completely different conclusions by using univironmental analysis. Indeterminists might consider the results to add “nothing useful to…discussion of the issues” only because they contradict their opposing preconceived notions.]

BW:

B. Neo-Darwinism is misrepresented and confused with generic evolution.

[GB: Neo-Darwinism is currently regarded as the mechanism of evolution. However, it is only applicable in biology, involving only genes and natural selection. This should never be confused with generic evolution, for neo-Darwinism is only a special case—it doesn’t even include the entire biological microcosm. Until the discovery of univironmental determinism, there was no mechanism for generic evolution.]

BW:

C. Equal causation (within/without) is simply false, though you frequently abandon this claim.

[GB: A cause was defined by Newton in the Second Law as the collision of one body with another. As put forth in his Third Law, the resulting accelerations are equal and opposite. It is pointless to declare these as “false” or “simply false.” In univironmental determinism we view the collider as the microcosm and the collidee as the macrocosm. We could just as easily reverse that conception, seeing the collider as the macrocosm and the collidee as the microcosm. In either case, both contribute equally to the “cause” of the particular event in question. Even in Newton’s First Law, we can view the inertial body as a microcosm traveling through a macrocosm that is sufficiently non-resistant to allow that to happen. The key is to look on both sides of the univironmental boundary to discover why events occur—not only one or the other. It is true that, being human, we often tend to overemphasize the importance of either the microcosm or the macrocosm in our analyses. We need to avoid that, so I welcome your calling attention to it whenever that becomes evident.]

BW:

D. Divergence/convergence is vague and probably contrary to Newton's laws with respect to convergence.

[GB: Definitely not vague. What could be clearer that the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things)? In addition, Newton’s laws of motion do not expressly forbid complementarity. True, the “unless” in the First Law takes no position on whether the universe is finite or infinite. My substitution of “until” for “unless” in my revision of the First Law in neomechanics expressly assumes that the universe is infinite. After all, the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) is what distinguishes neomechanics from classical mechanics and one of the reasons for the “beyond Newton” claim in the book’s subtitle. I suspect that your difficulty with such a simple concept stems from the anathema with which you hold its dialectical implications. Simple concepts like this idea of things coming and going tend to become vague in our minds when they contradict our presuppositions. We would rather keep them fuzzily in the background than admit their validity.]

BW:

E. Gravity as a Push is contradicted by the evidence, as is the aether medium.

[GB: Sorry, but there is no evidence for the pull theory either. Newton’s laws of motion have only pushes. Newton proposed two theories for gravitation, one a pull and the other a push. Indeterminists chose to popularize attraction because it fit their world view and did not require an actual physical cause. I mentioned the Le Sage theory in the book because it appeared to be the best push theory at the time. Since then, Steve Puetz and I have discovered the actual physical cause of gravitation (Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, Stephen J., 2012, Neomechanical gravitation theory ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf ), in Volk, G., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 9, p. 53-58). Perhaps surprisingly, after working this all out, we discovered that Newton had proposed a similar push theory.

Although regressive physicists dare not use the word “aether” there is plenty of evidence for it. As Robert Louis Kemp put it: “Various models of the aether are being published in current scientific journals under different names: Quintessence, Higgs Field, Vacuum Expectation Value Energy, Zero Point Energy, Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), and Ground State Energy. All are Aether Theories at their core, each with their own twist, but Aether theories never-the-less!”( http://superprincipia.wordpress.com/about-the-author/)]

Next: The Last Chapter (Part 2)

cotsw 069

Critique of TSW Part 27d The Myth of Exceptionalism

Blog 20150318

Bill objectifies motion and we reread part of the preface in sympathy with his eventual conversion from indeterminist to determinist.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked “TSW: “are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

The Myth of Exceptionalism (Part 4 of 4)

TSW:  "For every departure there must be an arrival. All things, except the infinite universe itself, must have an end."

BW: I've discussed this previously: I don't think the terms "departure" and "arrival" are properly defined. Even the word "things" is poorly defined. Do all configurations of matter change? Of course. Nevertheless, there are natural processes ("Westmiller Things") which are persistent, even eternal, that are distinct characteristics of matter in motion. Understanding what they are is a challenge, but I doubt that gravitation will cease to exist, no matter what the configuration of matter. Those kinds of "things" need not end.

[GB: I can’t figure out what you are trying to add to the discussion. I have clearly defined things as microcosms, xyz portions of the universe. “Natural processes” are motions, not things—a mistake common to many indeterminists since Einstein got them even more confused than they normally would be. I never could see your problem with departures and arrivals. Maybe you should get out of the office a bit more. Perhaps your confusion is a way of opposing the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things).

I can see why your understanding is a challenge. Indeterminists must oppose the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). Through the objectification common to Einstein (Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011 ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf ), College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68.), indeterminists typically form "Westmiller Things" out of pure motion. Your idea of gravitation is an example. Gravitation, like “running,” “walking,” or any other kind of motion, does not exist. It occurs. It is what matter does. Yours is an easy mistake to make, particularly for aether deniers. Without aether, Einstein left us with “immaterial fields” as the cause of gravitation and magnetism. This has gotten so bad that I often hear from those who theorize that matter can be made out of pure motion. I guess that I should not be so shocked. After all, we live in a universe that supposedly exploded out of nothing.]

TSW:  "Eventually, a few of these [external things] will seal our fate."

BW: Undoubtedly, they will affect our fate. In a few billion years, when the Earth will be uninhabitable. That doesn't necessarily mean that humans *must* cease to exist. We can create our own environment, or find a new one.

[GB: That is a nice refrain perhaps, but it smacks of salvation and living after dying all too common in indeterministic literature.]

TSW:  "... the motions of the microcosm are determined by the main features of the microcosm and the macrocosm."

BW: This essentially concedes my point: it is the *main features* that are consequential to humans, not an infinite set of features in the universe (whether finite or infinite). Nor are the main features *equally* attributable to microcosm/internal and macrocosm/external causes. The causes for any effect are *mainly* - almost exclusively - proximate. Depending on where you draw (real or arbitrary) boundaries, they may be *mainly* external or *mainly* internal.

[GB: Agreed. That is how we do science. In practice, we can only determine a few of the causes for a particular motion. The rest we lump into the plus or minus category. Often this makes no practical difference (unless you are trying to predict the weather, perhaps).]

TSW:  "It treats humans, not as the microcosms they are, but as inert bodies that are bounced around helplessly, undergoing no internal change whatsoever."

BW: But, whether internal or external, it seems to me that Univironmental Determinism is fundamentally fatalistic. Absent some form of free will - abstract causes - we are just "bouncing around", with no rational purpose or motives.

[GB: You are getting there, but your imagined free will won’t prevent you from bouncing around. The fact is that the universe has no purpose—that is a religious idea for which there is no evidence. Any of the rational purposes that microcosms exhibit are the result of univironmental interactions with the macrocosm. Your imagined free will cannot produce motives, since free will does not exist or occur. Motive is derived from the word “motion.” Causes were defined by Newton’s Second Law of Motion: a colliding microcosm changes the velocity and direction of another microcosm. That is how we get “motivation” and why we call them social “movements”.

With regard to the concatenation of cause and effect that determines our activities, remember this wisdom from Shakespeare: “All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players.” To this I would add that we are not privy to the full script, so there is always excitement in following the chain of events. None of the acts are “predetermined,” even though all are determined. We do not have free will, but we can have the “feeling of freedom.” The upshot is that we should dance like no one is looking, continue along life’s journey, and partake in the great evolution of humanity wherever it may lead. You may swear to opt out of the whole thing, as some try to do by “rising above” the commands and urges of their earthly existence through abstinence of one sort or another. But if you “choose” to remain in the flow, you will have to drink, eat, and perform all that required for your survival as a biological microcosm within the social microcosm.

Bill, I sympathize with what you are going through upon finding out how the world really works. I expressed a similar reaction in the preface to the book:

“The univironmental idea had an intense personal impact. In my experiments I had always considered myself outside the reactions I was observing. Now I was a crucial, historical part of them. My physicochemical model of the world ran wild. For more than a week I was in a fatalistic daze as I thought, still somewhat narrowly, but certainly not conventionally: "We are all chemicals and all our behaviors are chemical reactions." This was a giant, if somewhat clumsy step outside systems philosophy. In this new way of thinking, whether we consider ourselves chemicals, systems, microcosms, or just plain folks ultimately made little difference—all are influenced by both the within and the without. Behavior was simply the motion of one portion of the universe with respect to other portions. This simple, yet profound conception was radically different from anything I had known. The dictionary didn't even have a word for it. I gradually recovered by savoring the newfound perceptiveness. I would never look at anything in the same way again.”]

TSW:  "We don't need to believe that, with the advent of consciousness, we can now step outside evolution, go under it, rise above it, or stop it."

BW: With sapience, we already *have* stepped outside biological evolution; we go under it, above it, or stop it whenever we find a new scientific method of enhancing our survivability and pursuing happiness. A "Scientific Viewpoint" that ignores that is denying all scientific achievements.

[GB: Again, the only way you could believe that is to remove yourself and all predecessors from the univironment that produced those achievements. In a way, that is like the one-year old solipsist who puts a blanket over his head, making the world go away. In your case, the mental estrangement verges on that of the religious folks who imagine that they will eventually transcend their physico-chemical existence as solitary systems containing the sapience and souls they were promised.]

Next: The Last Chapter

cotsw 068

Critique of TSW Part 27c The Myth of Exceptionalism

Blog 20150311 

Bill confuses mystics with determinists and claims that univironmental determinism denies knowledge.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked “TSW: “are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

The Myth of Exceptionalism (Part 3 of 4)

TSW:  "Only an indeterminist could see humanity as part of nature and not part at the same time."

BW: Of course human beings are a part of nature. Only mystics believe that the "spirits" of humans are "above" nature, thanks to a grant by God. I don't think it's useful or informative to use the term "indeterminist" to describe every view with which you disagree. Mystics are, in a sense, *absolute determinists* who believe with certainty in their teleologic or scatologic future.

[GB: You certainly have a different view of indeterminists and mystics. By my definition, indeterminists are those who use the assumptions in opposition to “The Ten Assumptions of Science”. I do not know of anyone who thinks that mystics are determinists (material causes for all effects), absolute, or otherwise. As you should know by now certainty is the indeterministic opposite of uncertainty.]

TSW:  "The solipsist’s or fatalist’s tendency to lean back and 'let nature take its course because it is all determined by the univironment anyway' is also determined by matter in motion."

BW: If you reject free will (as I've described it previously), then your form of determinism is fatalistic: there can be no knowledge, no ethics, no choice of behaviors. I think you have it wrong, but the way you've framed the question, "Univironmental Determinism" is pervasively fatalistic.

[GB: Remember that there are two major errors one can make in philosophy: solipsism and fatalism. Univironmental determinism eschews both of those. Solipsism is the belief that you control what happens to you and fatalism is the belief that the environment controls what happens to you. The scientific truth is that what happens to you is the result of your interactions with the environment. Even fatalism still allows for “knowledge, ethics, and choice of behaviors”, while solipsism allows for nothing at all. You will find that univironmental analysis will help you understand how the universe works. I am sorry that you hoped for something else, but the law of gravity and all the other physical laws have the last say. Your free will assumption will never change that. You are probably right that we are just part of the green scum on the planet Earth. Too bad. I think I now will have another glass of wine…]  

TSW:  Engels: "determinism ... tries to dispose of chance by denying it altogether. According to this conception only simple, direct necessity prevails in nature ... an irrevocable concatenation of cause and effect."

BW: Egads. I'm actually agreeing with a few observations by Engels. Certainly, I will burn in libertarian hell. ;-)

He is correct that determinism precludes chance, which is merely an admission that we don't know the causes, but have detected a probability. And, he is correct that there is an "irrevocable concatenation" of cause and effect. His error is in assuming that all causes *must* conform with the Laws of Nature. I've made the case that there is a unique cause of human actions (not mere chance) that can be pure fantasy. See my prior Notes on Ethics and Free Will.

[GB: I do not think you got his meaning correctly. Engels was an indeterminist opposed to the “irrevocable concatenation of cause and effect”. He apparently thought that without free will, there could be no revolution. Glad to see that we agree with him that determinism completely rules out chance per our assumption of uncertainty. Unfortunately, like you, Engels did not assume “that all causes *must* conform with the Laws of Nature”. On the other hand, it was nice that he refrained from making up stuff. I hope you realize that fantasy also is dependent on chemistry and physics. That is why our dreams at night so often have images from our experiences during the day. BTW: If you are sincere about defending the free will idea, I understand that, to be at the frontier, you now need to invoke quantum mechanics. Like religion, the intellectual space left over continues to shrink. After adopting the Copenhagen interpretation, you might then be able to disagree with Engels after all.]

TSW:  "... because every effect has an infinite number of causes ..."

BW: I've disputed this proposition to exhaustion in prior commentary. To summarize: a) there can be no cause for proximate events beyond our light sphere, which may be moving toward infinity, but is always finite; b) information radiates, subject to the inverse square law, which means that remote factors that affect any event are (to humans) inconsequential; c) asserting that the causes of any specific event are infinite is a denial of the possibility of human knowledge; and d) the proposition that causes are infinite is the exact inverse of Aquinas' proposition that all causes diminish to a single cause: God. Both propositions are false.

[GB: At least you are consistent. Finite Particle Theory (FPT), which you adhere to, would force one to rely on the inverse square law to satisfy the requirements of the Second Assumption of Science, causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes). Of course, FPT is a contradiction of causality as well as the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything), which certainly is not a “denial of the possibility of human knowledge”.

Your problem with regard to infinity is common to many, so I will present some addition explanation. There are all kinds of infinities (e.g., an infinite number of even numbers and an infinite number of odd numbers, etc.). Nonetheless, there are only two main types: micro and macro. That is why I state the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity as this: The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions. As you have noted, without the micro version of infinity, infinite causality would make no sense. On the contrary, micro infinity does not force us to seek causes far afield, for they are right here all the time. Remember that “empty space,” like “solid matter,” is an idealization. The impossibility of perfectly empty space also makes non-existence impossible. With the intervening space between microcosms being filled with still more microcosms per interconnection, we have the assumed infinity of causes (microcosms in motion) right here at home. That is why every measurement we can make has a plus or minus per uncertainty. That is why we can never make perfect predictions.

BTW: I love your pointing out the association between the indeterministic assumption of finity and Aquinas' single cause god assumption.]

TSW:  "The theological conception emphasizes the 'pre' in predestination, thus implying a subjective, conscious intent. The scientific conception emphasizes the 'destination' in predestination, thus implying an objective nature."

BW: You've paired a set of two conditions, illogically. An observation may be either subjective or objective, relative or absolute. A subjective claim is one that is necessarily relative to the subject's frame of reference. An objective claim is one that can be verified by multiple subjects, with unique frames of reference, as an absolute (or at least unmitigated) truth. That's not a contradiction, nor a problem, just a matter of validating (by evidence and logic) the merits of the claim.

[GB: Sorry, but I see nothing wrong with analyzing individual parts of a particular word. The quote stands as written. You are correct in implying that “predestination” is an oxymoron. This involves the difference between actions that may happen and actions that have already happened. With an infinite number of causes for any effect, we can never be 100% positive that a particular predicted effect will actually occur. Thus, we may predict that we will see the Sun tomorrow, but that may not occur if some unexpected clouds get in the way.]   

BW: The problem is that you've "married" that distinction with "conscious intent", which is entirely different. Only a small portion of reality (vertebrates) is conscious and even a smaller portion (humans) act with the intent of achieving an objective. The error of mystics is to assume that all events are "intended" ... by some supernatural being. But, nature has no intent: it can only do what it must do, irrespective of any consequential effects.

[GB: Gee, Bill, I wish you would stop denigrating vertebrates. I know a lot of them have “the intent of achieving an objective”. Without those objectives, no nests would be built. Remember that the difference between mystics and us determinists revolves around whether any particular objective is supernatural or natural. You are right that nature has no intent. It just is.]

BW: So, I don't think the contrary proposition of "unconscious intent" is properly paired with "objective" claims, which are all conscious. I think you're trying to deny the existence of conscious intent in human acts, because that would imply free will. To my mind, you're trying to fabricate a dichotomy by denying reality.

[GB: You can call any act “conscious” or “unconscious”. But what we generally think of as “conscious” behavior is that which involves an obvious thought process. Those motions within the brain and nervous system of whatever microcosm have nothing to do with free will. The reality is that the electrical operations of the mind are so complicated that some folks tend to hypothesize supernatural reasons for their occurrence.]

Next: The Myth of Exceptionalism Part 4 of 4

cotsw 067

Critique of TSW Part 27b The Myth of Exceptionalism

Blog 20150304

Bill agrees with the party line of the former USSR in their assertion that nothing concerning humans can be learned by studying other animals.

I am ever so grateful to Bill Westmiller, whose comments are marked "BW: ". The quotes marked “TSW: “are from "The Scientific Worldview" and my comments are marked "[GB: ".

The Myth of Exceptionalism (Part 2 of 4)

TSW:  USSR Academy: "Attempts to spread to humanity the laws of the animal kingdom are attempts to lower the human being to the level of beasts."

BW: Out of its original context, I agree with the sentence. Particularly, that "humanistic ethics" ought *not* be derived from the social characteristics of ants (which seems to be E.O. Wilson's perspective). However, Wilson had a particularly amusing comment: “Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species.” http://www.froes.dds.nl/Wilson.htm

[GB: Remember what I said before: Ethics are the result of all the interactions that occur among humans. Any other statement about ethics must be regarded as an aggressive attempt to change them. To claim that we can learn nothing from the interactions of other microcosms, particularly biological ones, is vacuous. It certainly is not scientific.] 

TSW:  Heller: "The logical climax of evolution can be said to have occurred when, as is now imminent, a sentient species deliberately and directly assumes control of its own evolution."

BW: I think he's referring to biological evolution, which is already happening, to increasing degrees, with advances in genetic engineering, medicine, and pharmacology.

[GB: Sorry, but the statement is false because he is analyzing the species as a whole. No microcosm can assume “control of its own evolution” in the same way that the body in Newton’s First Law of Motion cannot change its velocity or direction by itself. Like all microcosms, the Social Microcosm evolves per univironmental determinism, the universal mechanism of evolution stating that what happens to a portion of the universe is equally dependent on the infinite matter in motion within and without.]  

TSW:  "To attain the state of amazing grace, the indeterminist asks us first to accept the Sartrean burden. Then, and only then, would he allow political power to become egalitarian."

BW: I don't think Sarte's "Bad Faith" was in the pursuit of egalitarianism. Almost the inverse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_(existentialism)

[GB:  Let me explain a bit more. The “Sartrean burden” I referred to is Sartre’s imagined, overbearing freewill. Because free will does not exist, Sartre always would win that bet and would never have to grant equality to anyone at all. In existentialism, “Bad Faith” is the “phenomenon where a human being under pressure from societal forces adopts false values and disowns their innate freedom to act authentically. It is closely related to the concepts of self-deception and ressentiment.” Realize that all this talk of “false values” and “self-deception” really has nothing to with “innate freedom”. Sartre’s imagined free will is capable of nothing, least of all, an escape from the deception typically sponsored by the powers that be. Escape from deception proceeds only through education about the ways of the world.]

TSW:  "... the Social Microcosm will assume control of its own evolution on the day the world has pure democracy, free will, and the ability to make perfect predictions. Because none of this is really possible."

[GB: You missed the rest of the last sentence. The complete version is: “Because none of this is really possible, the indeterminists proposing it need not worry about losing political power, at least not to those who agree to such terms.”]

BW: Humans will never control the entire universe, but they certainly determine the progress of political evolution (not necessarily toward pure democracy). They also have the option to substantially control their personal intellectual evolution, to the degree that they think.

[GB: Wow! Glad you agree that your imagined control of the macrocosm has to stop somewhere. Again, the Social Microcosm, like all microcosms, cannot “certainly determine” its own evolution. That is the whole point of this chapter. As you have demonstrated, that realization comes with great reluctance, if at all. Believers in free will invariably forget that they actually cannot be in control of their own “personal intellectual evolution”. This is because we are all microcosms. What happens to us is “equally dependent on the infinite matter in motion within and without”. What we are and what we will become is the product of an infinitely long chain of physical events.

Since it is illusory, the belief in free will is only a hindrance to “personal intellectual evolution”. Personal evolution is never internally generated. It is the result of a 1:1 interaction with the macrocosm per univironmental determinism. Those who wish “to change themselves”, must change their environments. That is almost a cliché, but that is why we go to school, read books, and study those we admire.]

BW: It will always be true that scientific evolution, however successful, can never achieve "perfect predictions" of the future ... we will never be prescient, which requires omniscience, which can't exist. That's not an "exceptionalism paradox", it's just that human (or computer) knowledge can never BE an exact duplicate of all of reality ... nor even proximate and consequential subsets of reality.

[GB: Right. That sentiment is included in the Third Assumption of Science, uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything).]

TSW:  "No one has yet discovered a single verifiable case of species suicide ..."

BW: I agree with your optimism that humanity won't destroy itself with nuclear weapons, but I don't think that's a certainty. You're correct that no other species has *chosen* its own extinction, but that's because no other species of animal can chose to die: they *always* act on the natural instincts that facilitate their survival. Nevertheless, instincts are not very reliable, since 99.9% of all living species are now extinct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction

[GB: Remember that suicide is never a solitary act. The path to a suicide is univironmental, whether the trigger is medical or mental. No microcosm, including the Social Microcosm, exists in isolation. As you documented so well in your comment above, all extinctions have been the result of changes in the macrocosm. The “natural instincts” you referred to are similar to the nonexistent “free will” that you think is an exceptional property of humans. Get back to the univironmental concept. Everything in the universe exists at the behest of its macrocosm. Bigger, stronger microcosms displace smaller, weaker microcosms. That is how extinction works. That is why our species is displacing other species by the millions. Neither “natural instincts” nor your so-called “free will” can be sufficient in the face of great macrocosmic changes. When the Sun dies, our species will die with it. That is the way of the universe. Get used to it.]
       

TSW:  "... one especially pernicious way of competing has been to convince others, directly or indirectly, that suicide is a viable or even honorable alternative”.

BW: But, it occasionally is. Not because of competition or persuasion, but because humans can decide that their lives are no longer worth living. That may be because of excruciating pain, untreatable disease, sacrificing one's life to save a valuable other, or simply making a fatal error of knowledge.

[GB: A little off point. The subject mentioned involves competition and honor, which is used to instill and enforce loyalty for the protection of the tribe. That is the evolutionary purpose of religion.]

Next: The Myth of Exceptionalism Part 3 of 4

cotsw 066