Being Optimistic

A reader: “I tend to be a little optimistic and hold on to the belief that a little goodness exists in the hearts of the average, ordinary person in spite of all the prejudiced and pernicious propaganda and brainwashing they are subjected to.”

 Thank you for re-affirming what I used to feel very strongly in my earlier years.I am holding on to it even now, as something more than a straw whenever I experience a drowning sensation in my thoughts about the human condition today. Even as the divisive and parochial forces are fanning the fires of mutual anger and hate, there are, as we know, many men and women of goodwill who think in human rather than in parochial terms and strive to do in their different ways many little things beyond hoping and praying to instill a sense of humanity and mutual respect in all of us.

I am well aware that such people are branded as naive idealists at best and as unwitting agents of destruction of their own groups at worst.

You may enjoy visiting http://www.metanexus.net/Institute/

On the Concept of Self

Do you think the concept of “self” is an emergent phenomenon of our neural complexity and if so is it continuously emerging throughout our lifetime?

I am inclined to consider the self as an emergent property of the neural complexity through the following analogy:
Paper is the end product (through several complex processes) of wood (which has a molecular structure). On this paper could be written countless words and phrases and pictures. [How these come to be written and what, are surely infinitely more complex than the mere manufacture of paper.
Likewise, as the human entity takes form and shape and completion, and begins to grow, the paper becomes fully formed. To begin with, aside from texture and color, all blank papers are equivalent. Then gradually, through the different scripts that are imposed on the different sheets, each sheet becomes very different from every other. So too, our various selves are each very different, but they have the same substrate.
As I see it, (in this analogy) neuroscience can unravel how the substrate is manufactured, what its electro-chemical properties are, how it can be straightened out when it gets crumpled, how its longevity can be prolonged, etc. All this is no mean achievement. But I fear the generation of the particular kinds of scripts on the paper is a very much more complicated process, and may not be amenable to the standard modes of current scientific methodology. As a devotee of science, I hope I am proved wrong.

On West and Non-West

1. Do you envisage or foresee a fight in this century not between West and non-West but between Enlightenment and “archaic” traditionalism within various societies?

I suspect the conflict between the West and non-West will arise on two fronts:
(a) Economic disparities and disproportionate consumption of materials and energy by the West.
(b) Conviction (right or wrong) on the part of the leaders and intellectuals in the Non-West that the West is out to destroy their culture. In my view, this arises largely because of a confused identification of modernism with the West.

2. What kind of conflicts do you expect within the Non-West?

The internal conflicts within the non-West are likely to be largely ideological between the two following perspectives:
(i) We should embrace science and Enlightenment which is recognized by those who know history as of Western vintage in their modern versions, but of immense practical value; and by those who manipulate history as claiming to be already there implicitly in their own ancient wisdom, books, etc. This latter approach is adopted by thinkers in some Non-Western countries, and can be helpful in ushering in science and enlightened values there.
(ii) We should reject the scientific worldview and Enlightenment values. This is recommended by some post-modernist Western scholars in the West, as well as by rabid fundamentalist reactionaries elsewhere. But even they adopt all the technological offshoots of modern (Western) science. But bereft of the Enlightenment framework, this can be terribly dangerous for the whole world.

3. Do we have, from your point of view, any chance to prevent this fight turning into violence?

Simplistic answer: Yes. Mass education in the basics of physics, astronomy, biology, and history of ideas, while being extremely sensitive to the religious, cultural, traditional roots of the people in non-Western societies. The fact is that very few non-Western societies have a well-documented SOCIAL HISTORY, with the result that very few (even educated) people in those countries are even aware of the dark and unconscionable sides in their own societies in times past, though they are well acquainted with the postive and enormously rich cultural, philosophical and intellectual history. On the other hand, they are well acquainted with the exploitation and oppressive behavior of the imperialist West, they have little conscious understanding of the West’s contibutions to science, medicine, and the re-discovery of the rich and ancient history of the Non-West.

On Population Growth

Would it not be really dysfunctional for cultures to compete by producing more babies than their opponents?

I am not so sure.
For one thing it depends on whether the culture is living in a closed system, independently of others, or is a minority in a larger culture. There are regions in the world where some minority groups are intentionally breeding at a faster rate to achieve greater power vis-a-vis the majority. They have already succeeded in this in many contexts.
Population increase is for some groups (religious, racial, or linguistic) what the bottom-line is for capitalist investors. They give a damn for what happens to the world at large, or for the majority of the nation of which they are a part. Their goal is to fatten their purse because this gives them more power with respect to others.

The Why is Existence

Here’s a question, why does the Spiritual side of reality exist? Why does the Physical side of reality exist? There must be a reason, agreed?

Dear friend, you started by saying: Here’s a question, and gave three questions. The answer to the last is: NOT agreed to by everybody.
Indeed, the fundamental difference between the so-called SCIENTIFIC view of Reality and the RELIGIOUS lies precisely in this: The former does not think there MUST be a reason for the existence of anything. The latter does.
The former is based on empirical evidence, the latter on specilative vision.
If one accepts the latter (as religiously inclined people do), one does exerience an inner satisfaction: it is certainly an endopotent thesis. But it also presents us with a conceptual quandary: Various religious traditions offer different views on spiritual reality. Then the question arises: Which of these is the right one, and on what basis?
I don’t know the answer to this question I have raised. But many others seem to do. I am happy for them, but I don’t feel sorry for myself. I enjoy the mystery more than the certainty on ultimate answers that seems to satisfy people who are unable to recognize the culturally conditiond parochial origins of their knowledge on these matters

God or No-God?

Suppose we allow that the US has a god/no god population belief ratio of 90% – survey suggests somewhere in the 85-95% range depending on whatever.
Suppose over say a year, for reasons internal to the belief systems of the population, this ratio is smoothly and completely reversed . Is it your prediction that the culture would change dramatically for the
better or worse?>
I will answer the question by an analogy:
God/No-God is like technology/No-technology.
Consider any society which has been affected by technology.
Your question is equivalent to asking: What would happen to it if more technology is introduced into it or less? Will this change society for the better or for the worse?
One can’t predict, because a lot depends on what kind of technology is introduced or removed.
Or again, Will the world change for the better or for the worse if internet is removed?
In many ways for the worse, in many ways for the better.
I think the lives of individuals can be improved with a minimum or no God/religion or technology or internet. But I can’t be so sure about society and civilization as a whole.
This is my assessment, because I have seen the worst of religion and the best of it too.

Questons on Randomness

What are the best examples of randomness out there?

The notion of randomness began to be explored from a scientific (quantitative) perspective from the latter half of the 19th century as a result of the development of the kinetic theory of gases (thanks largely to the work of Boltzmann and Maxwell).
The three major instances of randomness occur in the following contexts:
(a) At the molecular level in gases: Here the distribution of the velocities of molecules is random, i.e. various individual molecules move about along different directions and with different speeds at any given temperature. However (and this was the major contribution of Boltzmann and Maxwell) it is possible to calculate how many molecules are there in the sample whose velocities lie within a specified range. Randomness in a population of incredibly large numbers was tracked down to a quantitative measure for the first time!
(b) In the chaos context: Chaos theory has shown that very small perturbations in a complex physical system may lead to utterly unpredictable consequences in utterly random ways. Recall the famous butterfly effect.
(c) The hypercomplex level (the term is of my coinage): This is at the human (consciousness/interaction level). The manner in which one thought leads to another is utterly random. So are expected and unpredictable (random) encounters between people, leading to totally unforeseeable consequences. The simplest example may be found by considering how one met and came to marry one’s spouse.

How would you define randomness?

There are technical and quantitative definitions of randomness in statistics, mathematics, information theory, philosophy, thermodynamics, etc. More generally, as I see it, randomness refers to the presence/emergence of a sequence of elements/events which are (to all appearances) utterly unconnected, and in whose totality one is unable to detect any pattern or purpose whatever.”

Can you connect God with randomness?
Maybe in the following manner:
Randomness is the opposite of any order whatever which was the primordial state of the multiverse: somewhat like the heap of tiles in a game of Scrabble. God dwelt in that original Chaos until (for whatever reason) God decided to make some words and sentences out of the jumble, and so was born our Universe. The universe of order corresponds to the words that have been laid out on the board. There are still so many tiles under the cover: the randomness that is still present and potential, while we watch, analyze, and admire the spelt out words.

On the Best of All Possible Worlds

1. This may well be only one of several equally good, but very different universes that God created. Many great artists, writers, composers, have produced numerous outstanding works from which it is difficult to single out one as the BEST. Or this may be the only universe that God chose to make, like some single-book great authors. Who can tell!
Then again, not everything God makes/made may be equally good. After all, even among living creatures, some creatures seem more beautiful and gentle than others. And how can be judge?

Big, big assumption on which hinges the very possibility of answering your question meaningfully. But the assumption may not be correct. I, for one, have no inkling of “all the parameters involved which restrict the design of the universe.” Nor does anyone, I am inclined to think. Under this condition, how can anybody answer the question?

I do not think this is the best, nor not the best, of all conceivable worlds because (as I said) of lack of info on other possible or actual universes. But I do think this is a very good, interesting, and overall enjoyable universe, if only because it has enabled me to become aware of these characteristics. For this, I am thankful to God or whoever/whatever made all this.