On A Lark

Prose for Neanderthals (Wikimedia Commons)

A few times now I have played a game with friends in which you try to get your team to guess a word on a card by way of hints/words you come up with. What makes it hard is that you may not use long words that need more than one “sound” to speak (yes, there is a word for that, but if I used it here, I would break the rules). If you slip up and use a “big” word, you get bopped on the head with a club (a soft one that is blown up with air from your lungs).

What I found was that my style is not the same as that of my friends. They tend to speak one word at a time, each one picked as a key hint that might—on its own—help close in on the word to be guessed. An example might be that hints for the word “soup” would be words like “hot,” “slurp,” “bowl,” “cup,” “broth.” It gets the job done.

But I tend to speak whole thoughts as a string of words that have nouns and verbs and all the bits that join them—the way we tend to speak in real life. And for the most part, I seem to keep up a pace close to what I can do in day-to-day speech—if not just as fast. In the “soup” case, I might say “It’s a type of food made with broth that you eat or slurp from a bowl or cup: best on a cold day or when you’re sick.” I can tell you that it works well. My friends are so quick to guess the right word when I use this scheme that I don’t make it to the end. It turns out that our brains are well-tuned to this style of speech.

On a lark, I thought I would try to write based on these rules, to see where it might go. So far, so good—sort-of. A few times I have had to go off on a strange path to make my point, when a key thought seems to have no short word that can do the job. But as I wrote more, things took a turn that I had not guessed would come to pass when I set out. The lark took the shape of a post!

Words do not make the world. They can’t catch all that is real. Words can’t give a full sense of how red does not look like blue, or what light is, or how quarks move, or why some things are charged or what charge is, in fact. Words are not up to the task. The world has been here for far more time than words have, so does not and can not work based on them. Words can give no more than a poor, pale sense of the truth of things.

What I want to do in this post, just for fun (well, more than that), is use the rules of this game to show how hard it is to make a strong and clear case for a point that would still be tough to make if I could use all words. I think/hope we can learn from it. When bound to a small set of words, all kinds of wrong views can be spawned in the cracks that are left. But this is true as well when the full set of words can be used, which is—let’s face it—still a small set in the grand scheme of things. In each case, words have no choice but to fall short of the full deal.

Continue reading

Views: 1049

Babylonian Banter

Tower of Babylon (by Jankaka on Wikimedia Commons).

In November I gave a seminar talk for the Planetary Limits Academic Network about why I believe modernity to be a dead-end, while also touching on underlying attitudes that drive us in this destructive direction. When presenting the narrative that sequential development of agriculture, writing, money, science, and fossil fuels collectively constituted a decisive trap leading us to the current state, I got pushback from a few in the audience over the notion of determinism. See my Time on the River post for a flavor of this narrative.

Fans of Graeber & Wengrow’s Dawn of Everything (and there are many, especially in the left-leaning academic circles from which I hail) tend to be—like the authors—allergic to suggestions of determinism. They find the notion very appealing that we could just as well have designed and conjured the ideal technological society: egalitarian, global, peaceful, prosperous, clean, and all the rest. See Abundance as recent example of such eco-modernist fantasy. I was honestly stunned by the gross simplifications in Graeber & Wengrow’s book, which elicited a sharp critique from me.

The moderator of the seminar prodded Chris Smaje, in attendance, to comment on my negative portrayal of agriculture. Chris has written, among other books, A Small Farm Future, runs a blog of the same name, and is generally an advocate of a small-scale agrarian response as a path to exit modernity—which in itself I believe is a fine (transitional) strategy.

The discussion prompted Chris to draft a blog post, which he passed by me to avoid misrepresentation and to solicit comments. We had an engaging e-mail exchange for a bit, and last week his post (By the Rivers of Babylon: debating agrarianism with Tom Murphy) went live. This post offers my follow-up response on the subject.

Continue reading

Views: 2194

The Flat Mars Society

A while back I compared enthusiasts for space colonization with Flat Earth believers, in that they both believe strongly in something that isn’t real, and in the fullness of time may look rather embarrassing. I thought it could be fruitful to contact Daniel Clark, producer of the excellent documentary Behind the Curve about Flat Earth believers, who was on board with a bit of space-bashing. When I mentioned this to Alex Leff, the idea for a podcast conversation was born.

You can listen to the hour-long conversation here. In it, we discuss some of the drivers behind odd beliefs, noting the similarities and differences between Flat Earth and space colonization beliefs (hint: one of these crazy ideas is prevalent in our society to the highest levels of wealth and power). I, of course, offer a number of perspectives on the absurdity of the colonization dream. Daniel and Alex work a bit to temper my “you just can’t do it no matter how hard you might want it” with a bit of catering (coddling?) to the unrealistic dreamers, trying to distract them with alternative attractive options, as one might a child. Nothing will stop them from continuing to pine—and failing in the end. Future generations won’t share the misplaced zeal and that will be that. I guess my target audience at this stage isn’t the true believers as much as it is those who might get swept along in their enthusiasm without having ever been exposed to the overwhelming hardships.

I also had a conversation with Derrick Jensen on why we’re not going to space, which he will soon post in a re-launch of his Resistance Radio YouTube channel. For now, this is just a placeholder: I will add a link to the conversation once it’s out. I’ll also put a note in the newsletter to subscribers when that happens.

Finally, I am scheduled to talk about the space fantasy topic with Nate Hagens and DJ White in late February, which I’ll also eventually add here (and notify subscribers).

Views: 1119

Ditching Dualism #10: Determinism

This driver is free to do anything with the steering wheel and gas pedal, at any time…or is he, really? (Photo by Szymon Kochański.)

One major hangup in subscribing to a physics-based universe of material monism is that it appears to remove human agency as typically conceived in our culture. If atoms and their interactions are making everything happen, abiding by rules they (or we) cannot violate, is there any room left for human intervention or free will? As obvious as it is to us that we can weigh decisions and do things when/as we want, this disconnect alone is often enough to cause categorical rejection of materialism—retreating instead to the more comforting and self-promoting metaphysics of dualism. This is quite understandable: the notion that physics, not “soul” is the master of all “our” actions is an exceedingly challenging prospect for meat-brains to square—especially when modern language is constructed around first-person ownership of “ourselves” as subjects. Even if able to make intellectual sense of the matter, it’s still a tough pill for anyone to swallow. It sure doesn’t feel right, for what very little that’s actually worth.

Determinism also rubs people wrong in the context of history: suggesting that only one path was available to the present, precluding any potential counterfactual fantasies that are all-too-easy and entertaining to imagine (by leaving out almost the entire, actual universe in meat-brain models). It also might imply to some (erroneously) that humans played no role in shaping events, if there’s only one way said events could have played out.

Many react to determinism with a “then what’s the point, if everything is pre-determined” sort of response (another fallacious framing). Determinism seems to lay out railroad tracks to the future, leaving nothing for us to do. Why even get out of bed, then?

I’ll try to address these issues here. Perhaps I’ve said it all scattered across other posts and comments, but here it is all in one place, with a few new twists and perspectives. Bear in mind that I am presenting (advocating) the case against dualism and for materialist monism. Please forgive the fact that I do not couch every statement with “In the materialist monist view…,” the repeated absence of which may come across as laying claim to ultimate truth, which of course I cannot do.

Continue reading

Views: 1852

Ditching Dualism #9: Reductionism

Atoms get up to phenomenal self-organized arrangements (adapted from a photo by warrenski on Wikimedia Commons).

Two posts back, we discussed common objections to the materialist (monist) perspective, before visiting the idea of material sentience. Another form of objection is to label such views as “reductionist.” The thinking is that claiming Life to be “nothing but” matter is not only a staggering simplification, but also reduces the amazingness of life to mere “dead” physics.

But see, not only is the “dead” part dead wrong (animated interactions never rest!), the objection itself requires a fundamentally dualist perspective: asserting/fabricating a hierarchy and division between Life and matter as a non-negotiable starting point. If the concern is that Life is devalued by comparing it to (or even further, saying it fundamentally is) “just” matter, the problem is in concocting a dual valuation in the first place. Why not say the entire singular phenomenon is amazing? Maybe the problem is in denigrating matter. What’s the equivalent of “racist” when it comes to matter? I guess “dualist” will do.

Thus, we may appreciate how “sticky” dualist beliefs are. Without truly inhabiting a non-dualist viewpoint, any materialist approach seems reprehensible from within that biased framework. Lots of belief systems feature similar mechanisms to quell questioning or discourage straying far enough from the path that the path begins to seem janky.

Continue reading

Views: 1599

Ditching Dualism #8: Sentience

These animated little guys know what they’re about: sensing and responding (sentient). Adapted from Wikimedia Commons.

Now we turn to one of the more perplexing aspects of materialism: one that prevents many from abandoning dualist beliefs. How can sentient living beings possibly arise from matter alone? Dualism asserts a sharp ontological divide between animate and inanimate (mind and matter as a parallel aspect), categorically prohibiting animate beings from being wholly composed of inanimate matter. The last post addressed the flaw in characterizing matter as being “inert” in the first place.

But even once past this barrier, our inability to connect all the dots from atoms to conscious experience (which no one has managed to do, and likely never will), strongly tempts us to declare—assuming phantasmic authority—that no such route even could exist, or that failure to map it means it may as well be declared non-existent (a reaction worthy of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast). Where’s the adventure in that?

As an aside, allusion to “phantasmic authority” above may elicit the reflexive charge that advocating materialist monism is an equivalent assertion devoid of authority. Not so fast. Materialist monism amounts to being satisfied that matter/interactions can plausibly form the entire basis of reality even if we don’t understand how. It is in claiming materialism to be insufficient—without evidence—that meat-brains seize more authority than they are due. Materialist monism cedes authority to the universe as we find it, rather than presuming to fabricate comforting alternatives.

Anyway, lacking a complete map, how does materialism deal with our experience as sentient beings, or other sentient life? We find a significant clue in the etymology of sentient. The root word is “sense.”

Continue reading

Views: 2421

Ditching Dualism #7: Objections

Why is strict materialism a hard sell for many in our dualist-dominated culture? Okay, so some are understandably pulled by the attractive idea of an immortal soul. Others just feel that there has to be more to all this than the interplay of matter and energy in a vast, unblinking universe. But attractions aside, what are typical objections to a material-only existence?

It may be instructive to ask why people objected to the idea of a round Earth, to the prospect that Earth orbits the sun, or to the concept of evolution (see Daniel Quinn’s “three dirty tricks“).

Part of it, we must recognize, is good-old-fashioned ignorance. If unaware of the observations in conflict with the stale stance, or insufficiently observant, there would seem to be no need to switch trains. The old view serves quite well enough, and even engenders a certain fondness or comfort. Also contributing is that incomplete grasp of the new idea (perhaps poorly delivered or too unfamiliar) favors its premature rejection—after which entrenchment more likely obtains. But then again, most changes in worldview at the cultural scale happen via generational replacement rather than by changed individuals.

Continue reading

Views: 2769

Ditching Dualism #6: Maybe Monism?

Blurring into one, without boundaries (see details for creating this graphic).

Okay, we needed to go on a long two-post detour in order to better understand how manifestly-imperfect mental models trap many of us in a self-centered dualistic mindset, and how we might recognize the pattern and move past it. For some, it may be tempting to focus on the division between humans and animals as the crux of dualism, but the more fundamental divide as articulated by DayKart [my gesture of disrespect] is between mind and body (matter). As long as we hold minds to be transcendent phenomena apart from matter and proclaim without evidence that “mind” could not possibly derive entirely from vanilla physics and atoms, we risk elevating ourselves to holy status—justifying the savaging of mother Earth as a collection of commodified resources. Perhaps more importantly, there’s also a very good chance it’s just plain wrong.

To be clear, I am not claiming to have the right answer. No one can (or should) make such a claim. But I will make the case for what it seems the universe is trying to tell us. It’s not necessarily the most appealing framework (even for me), but what is that to the universe?

Relatedly, here’s what I think really gets the goat of those who cringe at the suggestion that mind is not apart from matter, and that it is in fact “just” an arrangement of matter: such a stance would seem to relegate us and all living beings to mere “machines,” echoing DayKart’s disregard for animals as unfeeling automata. As vile as the implications were in his case (vivisections), why “demote” not only animals but ourselves (gasp) to similar lowly status? It’s demeaning—if one derives meaning from a sense of supremacy, as many in our culture do. If we (and animals) were just machines, all sorts of atrocities would seem to become fair play, and we would wish to avoid this at all costs.

We need to pause and take a breath, here. The reaction spelled out above is burdened with hasty reflex and all sorts of mental-model baggage (and only makes any sense in a recalcitrant dualist framing). We’ll have to unpack all this, slowly. We’ll eventually get there—not all in this post—but for now I’ll just point out that it is abundantly clear to us (and is also true, I would say) that we and other living beings are far more amazing than any machine we might imagine when restricting the comparison to our technological gizmos.

We’ll revisit the central “machine” objection a few times in posts to come, but for this post it’s time to outline basic metaphysical options to help guide our discussion.

Continue reading

Views: 3069

Ditching Dualism #5: Revolutions

Early depiction of evolution (Wikimedia Commons).

In this quest to move past dualism, it may be useful to examine a few key revolutions that corrected erroneous and sometimes damaging perspectives in the past. I hope to cast dualism in a similar mold: eventually to be abandoned as an embarrassing, destructive, and self-centered phase of adolescent excess.

We’ll consider common elements of past beliefs (flat earth, geocentric, creationist) that most eventually moved beyond, and see that dualism shares many of the same traits of anthropocentrism and missing context.

Past Prevailing Paradigms

We’ll start with Flat Earth beliefs, as touched on in the previous post. In all likelihood, more than one human over the hundreds of thousands of years prior to the agricultural period imagined the sun and moon to be spheres (illumination of lunar phases as a pertinent clue), and assumed the same to be true for Earth. The Greeks convinced themselves that Earth was round, and even estimated its circumference based on shadow lengths at the summer solstice. Astute sailors knew something fishy was afloat well before the voyage of Columbus, based on how ships and land reliably sink below the horizon as distance increases. Yet Flat Earth belief prevailed until recently. Part of the point is that adoption is not monolithic or simultaneous. Most people still had no need for anything but a Flat Earth model. Restricted to a small locale, the larger truth was neither evident nor relevant. That’s what counts for effective mental models. A Flat Earth model is not at all inappropriate, in a limited context. All mental models are incomplete and wrong in some way(s), after all.

Continue reading

Views: 2780

Ditching Dualism #4: Going Mental

Since this series aims to confront dualism in its primary form as a mind/matter split, we should devote some time to mental matters. What are the central arguments for mind—or associated consciousness—as a phenomenon unto its own, not “reducible” to mind-numbingly complex material interactions (just reducible to a label of “mind,” apparently; simpler!). What is it, in fact, that we do with our brains, and how much of it depends on matter (i.e., physiology)?

Subjectivity: What it’s Like

At its core, belief in mind rests on the truth that one individual can’t experience another’s “inner” experiences. Language helps tremendously in providing a foggy window into others’ experiences. And while clumsy, language does at least help to confirm predominantly-similar sensations among humans. Yet even via language, how can we really know what another’s pain feels like? How can we know that seeing blue feels the same to them as it does to us? We can’t, really. And since individual life-experiences create differing associations within each of us, the full impact of seeing (or imagining) the color blue is surely a bit different from individual to individual. To my dad, it meant the Kentucky Wildcats, for instance.

Continue reading

Views: 3406