Paul's Brain as a Starting Point

These are just some thoughts I had that connect to Paul’s paper on emergence and to the article on resistance to science.

A point I would like to touch on here are the implications of Paul’s paper for religion. Paul's paper on emergence presents a view of the universe that proposes the possible emergence of complex life (humanity) through a process of simple objects (starting with the “active inanimate”) interacting to yield ultimately more complex entities. Such a process is not directional, but rather more of a random movement with the potential to yield surprisingly complex outcomes. That is to say, this process does not necessitate a conductor with the intent to arrive at some particular outcome. This has implications on the existence or role of a god behind the emergence of life and the human condition. While this far from disproves God’s existence, this “story” offers an alternative possibility for the appearance of human beings possessing “free will” on Earth.

I believe that the importance of God/religion in many people’s lives has the potentiality to drive a resistance to hearing Paul’s story, to blind them, not from the “truth,” but from an alternative explanation that may be “less wrong” (this is not directed at you, Ashley). My concern here is that due to the manner in which religion has become engrained in societies, some people may feel that to propose a view of the universe devoid of a god is to devalue the nature of existence, in particular, to devalue the human condition. I instead offer that the emergence of the universe from a process lacking ultimate intent could perhaps be viewed as even more “valuable” than a universe created by God. While such a universe would lack any ultimate Meaning, such a universe is no less awe inspiring when one considers the process in its entirety and how it lead to the creation of creatures with the capacity to reflect on their experiences and thus alter their future activities. [How could one’s mind not be blown when considering the possibility that consciousness is the result of simple entities interacting in simple ways for billions of years? That what started as an “active inanimate” became active, free-willed, animate beings?] The value of considering the universe in these terms stems from the wealth of questions it inspires as to the process and nature of existence.

When I was much younger, an aspect of biology that fascinated me was hierarchical systems and the ways in which the living world was categorized. In hindsight I can see that they’re not as pervasive as I thought, but the way in which the subject was simplified and taught at a middle school level made it seem that way. I enjoyed tracing through phylogenetic trees, seeing how we organized the world and narrowed everything down into highly specific little boxes. I liked to look to each level of organization, from ecological communities to single cells, and see how the patterns behind them related to each other. I knew that there was much interaction within those levels and between those levels in both directions, but it didn’t occur to me to think of the world in a way other than hierarchical. Later on as I took more advanced courses I realized that the world was not so easily cut into parts and that the interactions between organisms and their parts were not so simple or easy to follow. When I first heard of biological systems in which there was no pacemaker or leader I was thrown for a loop. Humans really don’t think in terms of mutual interactions between individuals starting a cascade. For example, when we think of a revolution we picture a group of underground rebels led by a few exceptional people who convince others to follow them. It almost seems as if we’re trained to look for a hero or a leader and to focus on that one in the story. We tend to think that without a leader any movement will be uncoordinated and will break down quickly. Whether it is the brain sending signals to muscles to contract or a political leader gathering support for a campaign, we often see the leader in the system without an appreciation of how much work is done by individuals within the system. Perhaps that’s why so many people cannot comprehend a universe in which there is no grand designer: where does this order and this appearance of purpose come from if not from a purposeful, ordering force? To use the terminology in the paper, the storyteller in us wants to assign a purpose or objective to the order we see around us because that’s what it has evolved to do. Even applying the emergence perspective to what is around us and saying that more complex things arise with no architect is making a story that fits the observations we have made.

I have been convinced that distributed interactive systems are the norm in biology (though I wonder why systems with a leader evolved in a few particular cases, such as the pacemaker cells in the heart). Still, I’m not sure how a society based on reciprocal action would work. We’re not unthinking matter; we’re all very much conscious of the world around us and we want to look after our own best interests. I can see this system working in a smaller, more intimate environment like in a family or in the classroom. In fact, I think that we could really benefit from it. I think that many children rebel against authority because they feel as if they are powerless. Children aren’t listened to very much, even when they have something important to say. I remember feeling very frustrated in an environment in which I was treated like a nonperson, being subjected to lectures and forced into activities I found pointless. Even today in places where children are well cared for they are still constantly reminded that they have no power. If there were more communication between teachers or parents and children I think that there would not be so much tension. I find that children respond to lessons better when you ask them questions directly and talk with them instead of telling them what we feel they need to know. Again, though, I really can’t see how this would work on a larger scale. Even though humans are very creative, we display the same tendencies throughout history and we are creatures of habit. Such an approach would probably would very well in smaller settings, but would be impossible to uphold in larger ones.

The next point that stuck with me was the importance of listening to scholars in other fields with open ears instead of holding onto the belief that one’s own research and opinions are more valuable. There is a peculiar tendency in academic and research communities to hole up inside one’s own circle and to hold other subjects in contempt. That’s not to say that everyone is guilty of that, but I’ve encountered it often enough even at the undergraduate level. It seems as if so much effort goes into tearing down others’ work and bragging about one’s own. At the same time, it can be difficult to find a worthwhile interdisciplinary program. Even though it’s important to keep what we’re studying and researching in a broader context and to make it accessible to anyone who’s interested it’s very easy to water down certain areas when taking this approach. It’s easy to say that we need to foster cooperation between different fields and to bring greater perspective to our studies, but how can we do it without losing something of each field in the process?

Gerald Schroeder, The Science of God, states, “The Hebrew word for evening is erev.  The root of erev is disorder, mixture, chaos.  The Hebrew word for morning is boker, its root being orderly, able to be discerned.  In the subtle language of evening and morning, centuries before the Greek words for chaos and cosmos were ever written…the Bible described a step-by step flow from disorder (erev) to order (boker); from the plasma of the big bang to the harmony of life” (97). (Genesis 1).  

I’m not is total disagreement with the idea of Emergence, but I do not agree with the idea of lack or purpose and that, “organization can exist without either a conductor or an architect” (6).  The creation of this Universe has been very purposely and this can be seem through the life and environment on the Earth.  I don’t like how you do not allow the door open for any other ideas, beside this one of things “…have no explanation OTHER than…”(7).  If simple things interact with simple things, why can’t it be guided by something?

Also, your Biblical reference to the “Word” is not entirely accurate. This encompasses God, the Bible, Jesus…many more things that you have allowed for.

 

I found myself agreeing on many aspects of this paper.  Not only was I able to find links in Physics.  On the other hand there were some areas in which I did not agree and would like some clarification for.  Over all I thought message was positive one – value people and what they have to offer.

On page four you quote yourself from pervious papers saying, “This ‘story’ is one’s conscious experience, one’s description of oneself and one’s relations to the world, including one’s sense of objectives and of alternatives that might be pursued to achieve them”.  I think this can also be linked to Quantum Mechanics’ wave – particle paradox. Gerald Schroeder in his book, The Science of God, states, “Bohr pointed out that this paradox of duality has a strong implication relative to our knowledge of the subatomic world.  If we measure an entity in a way that assumes it is a wave we find a wave.  If we measure the same entity and assume it is a particle we find a particle.  We see the world as we assume it exists”.  The duality paradox theoretically is applicable on a macro scale as well.  If we can only see the world as we perceive it, than our “stories” can only be created through our own experiences.  And I do agree with by acknowledging these “stories” people will be shaped because other “stories” and important, not just your own.

What I don’t agree with is that we area product of evolution.  I cannot not fully explain as to why this is not true in a short critique; but I know there is scientific proof that this is not possible, or at least statistically true due to the age of the Earth.  There have also been evidence that has made scientists rethink their previous ideas, such as Charles Walcott’s discoveries about the Cambrian life forms. 

I also believe the idea that as humans we have free will is confused with your ideas that we do not need a leader in our lives and that there is no human nature.  I am mostly in agreement with, “What we are aware of is a more or less coherent self, who is (or supposed to be) ‘in charge’ of what we do and expects it to be in line with its own ‘objectives’.  This is a deep statement, but without going too much into detail, I think this is a good example of the free will God has granted us.  We are free to make our own decisions, but must be aware of that we will also have consequences. Also, I do believe that we are changeable people and we have this free will to make decisions; but this does not mean we are lacking human nature.  I need a better explanation on what is meant by human nature before I can comment any further. 

 

 

Side note: you paper references figure 2c, but this figure doesn’t exist

 

In his paper, From Complexity to Emergence and Beyond: Towards Empirical Non-Foundationalism as a Guide for Inquiry, Paul considers a notion held in science, the belief that we can come to an understanding of reality/truth through field specialization and the characterization of simple phenomena that give rise to complex phenomena.  The theory follows that from this approach we can establish sets of properties and rules that we can use to define and predict reality, constituting an understanding of reality.  Paul asks that we consider the implications of adopting such an approach to science and to question whether it is really the best approach for scientific inquiry.

 

Paul’s rationality begins with complex systems.  The complex systems perspective holds that simple things interacting in simple ways can yield complex outcomes, which accounts for our inability to find a simple relation between parts and wholes.  Following from this perspective, Paul agues that scientific inquiry should aim to investigate how parts with unique properties interact to yield the whole and its properties rather than searching for parts that share those properties of the whole.  Further, and perhaps more importantly, the complexity perspective challenges the notion that “understanding” should be invariably connected to predictability.  Instead, Paul wants us to consider the possibility that there may always be a degree of indeterminacy to reality.

 

The emergence perspective likewise focuses on phenomena as the result of simple components engaging in simple interactions.   However, the emergence goes a step further to recognize that organization can arise without the input of a conductor or architect, that organization can be the result of simple things interacting in simple ways in the absence of any intention.  With this notion in mind, one must face the possibility that the universe itself could be the result of an emergent process, devoid of an architect, intention or meaning; architects, conductors, rules and properties may be the result of emergent processes.  Paul stresses that we should not presume the presence of intent or an architect behind observed phenomena and that properties and rules should not be considered an unshakable foundation for inquiry.  Emergence, rather than serving as a way to explain reality, is the process by which reality arose, it stresses that phenomena are the result of and basis for an on going process.  The inquirer, then, like any other phenomena, is an object situated within this larger process and therefore a potential contributor to it.  Consequently, the world is both characterized by emergent processes and by the contributions made by architects/conductors.

 

The human brain is an example of a hybrid system, blending both emergence and architect function.  The brain itself is made up of billions of simple parts (neurons) interacting in relatively simple ways (chemical and electrical signaling across synapses).  From these interactions complex phenomena such as consciousness arise, hence the brains emergent characteristic.  A major pattern of brain interaction between parts involves a bipartite arrangement.  The brain consists of numerous specialized circuits of neurons that interact directly with the world.  These interactions occur simultaneously (in parallel) and unconsciously.  Reports of the activity of these systems are then sent to further sets of neural circuits including those in the neocortex.  The neocortex takes the inputs from unconsciousness activity are tries to create from them a coherent, simplified “story,” which works with a small representation of variables with simple causal relationships between them.  This allows the brain to rapidly conceive of goals and various options for achieving those goals, constituting our architect function.  However, as a consequence of this system we also develop a preference for rules and simple causal relationships. 

 

Paul argues that the bipartite nature of the brain allows us to make use of both emergence and properties/rules for understanding and characterizing the world around us, depending on which proves more useful at any given time.  Rules and properties allow for a simple understanding of the world, thus acting as a useful foundation for quick actions when there isn’t time for deliberation.  On the other hand, the storyteller function allows one to conceive of possibilities beyond observed rules and properties, allows us to conceive of the world beyond the restriction of previously experienced patterns of inputs.  The storyteller function gives inquiry a generative quality, allowing one to conceive of new possibilities for inquiry and for the notion of “understanding.”

 

So what implications do emergence and the bipartite brain have on the nature of inquiry, particularly within the context of hybrid systems, where both emergence and intent contribute to an ongoing process?  Emergence is not meant to replace field specialization as an approach to inquiry, but is rather a beneficial addition, suggesting that similar explanations may apply to phenomena across different fields.  When thinking about how we should go about reaching an understanding of reality, Paul would stress that we take note that first, as inquirers we are active participants/contributors to the very process we are inquiring into.  That is, reality should not be conceived of as an external, consistent phenomena (simply a set of properties and rules), but rather as an ongoing process, which is affected the very moment we inquiry into it.  Second, meaningful, complex phenomena can arise from simple interactions, in the complete absence of intent or an architect.

 

Following from these two important ideas, Paul suggests that instead of dogmatically approaching inquiry as a process of uncovering rules and properties to use as a foundation for understanding reality, one should rather treat inquiry as an open-ended process, for which there is no unshakable foundation.  By open-ended, it is meant that there is no absolute truth to uncover, for, as reality is an ongoing process, so too will truth be an evolving phenomena, not a fixed objective to be reached.  Inquiry, then, should be about “getting it less wrong” as apposed to being “right.”  The process of inquiry is facilitated by both defining what is and by conceiving new possibilities and the subsequent comparing/contrasting of these various stories (a transactional process).

 

I find Paul’s call for open-ended, transactional inquiry to bear a resemblance to an argument put forth by John Stuart Mill in his essay On Liberty.  Essentially, Mill argues that a degree of negative freedom (individual’s freedom from subjection to the authority of others) is necessary for reaching an understanding of Truth.  This demand for negative freedom stems from what Mill refers to as social tyranny or “the tyranny of the majority.”  Social tyranny refers to the manner in which customs, ideas and belief become integrated into society and accepted as true for no other reason than because they have become the most popular opinion.  Such a system runs the risk of establishing “truth” through people believing themselves to be right rather through reason. 

 

Mill argues that everyone should have the freedom of thought, speech and action, for to silence an opinion, be it right or wrong, is to deprive humanity of a more complete understanding of truth.  If the silenced opinion is right, humanity is deprived of the opportunity to exchange error for truth, and if the opinion is wrong, humanity misses an opportunity to better understand truth as understood through contrasting it with error.  Further, Mill believes everyone should have the freedom to act as they chose, to experiment with their lives and examine different opinions through first hand empirical inquiry.

 

Paul’s assertions reflect those of Mill in the sense that both Paul and Mill value the role of multiple lines of inquiry and communication between parties, so as to compare and contrast the results and value of different approaches.  However, Paul goes a step further than Mill to argue that there is no set Truth for us to reach.  Truth as a continually evolving thing further necessitates the need for freedom of inquiry and speech so that we do not tie ourselves down to a single “understanding.”  However, would Paul go as far as Mill to argue for a necessary freedom of actions?  To allow for freedom of action is make the argument a moral issue, and this became Mills’ greatest problem in his essay.  Mill includes in his essay a harm clause in which he says we may only right interfere with the actions of others when those actions may harm others.  However, there is no specification as to at what point one’s actions are harmful.  If we are to follow Paul’s suggestion and value multiple lines of inquiry, does that not mean we are also supporting lines of inquiry that could be potentially harmful (to animals, to people, to the environment, etc.)?  So how then do we confront the moral issues surrounding inquiry? 

 

Additionally, I must ask, if we are to believe there is no truth for us to reach, why inquire in the first place?  What is the purpose of engaging in an act that can never reach a set goal?  I suppose the most logical response is that inquiry allows us to better understand our reality (get it less wrong) and therefore allows us to more effectively act within reality.  However, maybe we shouldn’t require of inquiry and ultimate purpose and appreciate inquiry for what it is in itself.  As humans we are naturally inquisitive, so perhaps that is reason enough to engage in this ongoing process.  Or rather, maybe it should be understood that there is a goal to inquiry, to get things less wrong, which is not a set goal, but rather a continuous one.

 

I believe that many of the points Paul presents in this paper are of exceptional worth.  Particularly, I believe it is most important to consider reality in terms of an ongoing process of which we are involved and active contributors to, rather than viewing it as an objective/external thing for us to define.  Every answer is only a tentative one; there is no absolute “right.”  Consequently, it is important to view inquiry as a collective practice rather than an individual race to be right.  And as Paul himself would agree, this paper should not stand alone as something absolutely “right,” but should instead be understood as a contribution to an ongoing conversation about the nature of inquiry, as well as the implications of existing within a hybrid system.  Paul ends his paper by applying his notion of empirical non-foundationalism to teaching and to social structure, which he further examines in his paper Social Organization as Applies Neurobiology: The Value of Stories and Story Sharing.  I will discuss the social implications of Paul’s ideas in another post.