Mind-Body Problem

Mind-Body Problem

When you change your story, you change your life.  –Freddy Martini

The Setup

“It is all in your mind.”  “You are just imagining things.”  “You are living in a dream world.”

You have heard it.  You have said it.  And, that, my friends is the danger.

What is Real

It is not a question, “What is real?” but a statement “What is real.”  Since Descartes came on the scene around 500 years ago, this problem has been with us – Je pense; alors, je suis (I think, therefore I am).  It is the Mind in a Vat.  It is the Ghost in the Machine.  It is The Matrix – yes, the famous movie.  How do I know if I am dreaming right now?  How would I know if I were inside the matrix like Neo, Morpheus and Trinity? 

The Problem

You don’t.  You cannot know whether or not you are in The Matrix. 

How do external physical objects get into the mind?  Perhaps through the sensory organs.  And, this creates other problems such as, how much distortion happens when perception passes through the sensory organs.  How much of this woman I perceive in front of me corresponds to something physically out there?  This leads us to Immanuel Kant, and perhaps even to Berkeley.  Do we verify that what we perceive is actually out there?  Well, anything we perceived as “out there” has to be perceived through something, like an eye or an ear, so, no, we cannot get to the difference between what we perceive in the mind and what is “really” out there.

Do unicorns exist?  We may be tempted to say, “No.”  However, there are two problems with this answer.  The first is the Problem of Induction – observations cannot prove propositions – one discovery of a black swan destroys the proposition that all swans are white.  The other problem is the nature of reality.  If I can conceive something, then I can count it as real.  The unicorn is real – it is in my mind, my mind is real, thoughts are real, and thus, this unicorn is real.

What is the answer to this?  You may say I am using my imagination, and that I have never seen a unicorn in reality.  But – slow down – what is real again?  Are the contents of my mind real?  If the answer is yes, then unicorns really exist.  Now, this sounds bizarre, perhaps to some.  But, let us take this one step further into the Philosophy of Mind.

Numbers and Reality

So, the contents of the mind are real, but we are doubtful that we can say that unicorns are real, right?  I mean, this is just for crazy people right?  Well, read on.

The square root of 2.  √2  What is this?  It is a mathematical concept.  I find a number and multiply it times itself and get the number 2.  The square root of 2.  Simple mathematics.  If you are still with me, let us now go one step further.  Is this number real?  Not many would deny the reality of the square root of 2.  However, where does this number exist?  Is this number out there in external reality outside of our minds?  Think carefully about this.  The answer is “no.”  Nobody can point with their finger to something out there in reality called the square root of 2. 

If you are still with me, we have established that there is this real thing called the square root of 2, and it does not exist as a physical object.  It is a mathematical concept – it is a relational concept.  It is just a concept.  It is not an object.  It is not physical.  You cannot perform an experiment to determine the physical characteristics of the square root of two. 

And, if you are still following, we can go one more step into the abyss and declare the same thing about all numbers.  How does this work?  Well, point to me in physical space the number 127.  Nobody can.  Point to me in physical space where I can find the number 5.  You cannot.  Numbers are not physical existents.  Here is the shocking take-away:

Numbers exist only in the Mind 

If you have trouble wrapping your head around this, a little trick to bring you back to the idea is as follows.  Always remember to think about the square root of 2 and try to point to it in the physical world.  That will bring you back to clear thinking about the concept of physical existents versus existents that can only be in the mind.  Try to get this clear in your mind before going further.  When you have this clear in your mind, you are ready to dance on the edge of the abyss!

The Mind Body Problem

If we have no way of connecting something as simple and real as numbers to physical reality, then how do we say that unicorns do not exist?  How can we say that dreams are not real?  How can we separate fantasy from reality?  You have now jumped into the abyss and are now dancing with me in the abyss.  Come join the party.  It is fun down here!  Okay, let us get back to the discussion.

What is it like to see the color red?  Can you perform experiments to determine how I see the color red?  Can you hook up wires to my head and observe how I see red?  Can you hook up wires to my head and observe how I experience a cool fresh glass of pure pristine water?  Can these wires and this equipment determine how this woman sitting at the edge of the bar experiences that elegant taste of Martini in her glass?

No.  Absolutely not.  You cannot get to the interiority of the mind except your own. 

But this interiority - this experience of ours - is absolutely real.  It is often more real than external physical reality.  People with depression can testify to this.

The Problem of Science

Modern science focuses on the Objective – an object external to the subject.  Modern science cannot get to my experience – the Subjective.  However, the Subjective is perhaps even more real than the objects science measures!  When people dismiss things as purely Subjective, they are making a critical and perhaps fatal mistake: the mistake of blindness.  One cannot know the various hues, themes and variations of reality by excluding “Subjective” reality.  The Philosophy of Existentialism has a lot to say about the Subject.

What does science say about the Subject?  Nothing.  Science deals with objects.  It deals with people as Objects.  It deals with emotions, desire, and love as an object of study.  This is where it is incomplete. 

Here is the core issue of science: Science only deals with half of reality: The Objects.  Science cannot deal with the other half of reality: The Subjective.

With a scientific worldview, you are only getting things half right.  You are blinding yourself to most of reality to fit the methodology of investigating physical objects. 

Here is the shocking truth: In the Mind-Body Dichotomy, Science has chosen to look at the Body, and has closed off all investigations of Mind as illegitimate. 

This is where people make a fatal mistake of dismissing religion, literature and art – the other half of human reality.  And, this other half of human reality is where the Soul resides – the identity of who we are, why we are here, and where we go from here, and why we get up in the morning and choose the hard life of Existentialism instead of the easy life of comfort and ease.

Physical science cannot explain Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, Napoleon, or Louis XIV, because the Mind – the other half of reality – explains these things, and not physical science.  Where is the equation for Steve Jobs?  What hypothesis can we put forth that produces another Thomas Edison? 

Stories

Humans relate to each other by telling stories.  We pretend to reason with one another and discuss things.  However, in all cases, the things we say must meet a certain expectation.  Think about the English language.  Subject ->Verb –>Object.  Often, western languages are structured for cause and effect relations.  The Subject ->Verb –>Object structure is based upon cause and effect, but also tells a story.  What is cause and effect?  A story.  When I flip a switch and then a light comes on, this is cause and effect, but it is also a story.  When the laws of physics tell us that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, it explains cause and effect, but at the same time fitting the narrative of a story.  Even science is a narrative – a story.  We cannot think or communicate outside of narratives and stories.

But stories can be rewritten.  We can write our own stories.  As long as they sound plausible and fit the structure of a story, they work.  The Greek and Roman gods were grand narratives and stories.  The Old and New Testaments are full of stories that have survived the test of time.  These stories are printed on pages, yes, but they only come to life in our minds.  On page, these stories are paper and ink – physical artifacts of no value.  When they enter our minds, they come alive – and give us life in the process.

Your Story

The only thing that matters is what you believe.  You can rewrite a lot of what you are thinking.  Steve Jobs rewrote a lot of our scripts for what we want in interpersonal communications.  You are probably not Steve Jobs, but you can rewrite a lot more of your scripts than you perhaps give yourself credit for.

So, what is your story?  Which stories sustain you?  Which ones give you life? 

Change your narrative – your story – and change your life.

///

Freddy Martini

CIA High Priest, Richards Heuer

CIA High Priest, Richards Heuer

The book

He wrote the authoritative book on the subject, “The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis.”  You can download the PDF version of the book free from the CIA, here.

My specialty is Engineering Technical Analysis, and I have learned a lot from this book on Intelligence Analysis.  Analysis as a subject can be cross-functional from many areas of study and practice.

The CIA developed several analytical techniques because they make policy recommendations to places like the military and to executives in the government, and even Congress.  These recommendations can have serious consequences – costly consequences if they are wrong.  So, the CIA has a high interest in analytical techniques that are very reliable.  Theories and policies here cost dollars and cents – and lives in many cases.

Just Enough Information (Then stop!)

With the advent of large databases, what are we to do with them?  Actually, nothing.  Information is not important unless it drives a decision.  Driving a decision takes much less information that one would think.  Furthermore, using all information available makes the decision-making process more error prone when the analyst moves past the critical amount of sufficient information.  More data is bad – very bad.

Some people call it Analysis Paralysis.  Too much data will overwhelm your mental faculties and you will begin to make serious errors in judgment, or fail to act completely.

Disprove Everything

If you can recall our discussion on science here, you will know that Karl Popper told us that we cannot prove anything in science; we can only disprove things in science.  Heuer created a straight-forward tool to use this concept in practice call the “Analysis of Competing Hypotheses.”  You can use the tool yourself with a simple piece of paper or a spreadsheet.  See how to do it from the CIA website, here.

The idea is that evidence can support almost an infinite amount of hypotheses, thus, if your theory has “supporting evidence,” so does perhaps 10 others using the same evidence.  What we are doing here is trying to list as many hypotheses that we think are viable, and then we seek to disprove every one of them.  Are you a real scientist?  Are you a fake?  This separates the men from the mice.  Show me how many hypotheses you have disproven in your path to your favorite hypothesis.  What evidence will disprove your hypothesis?  If this is not stated clearly, you are a fake, or at the least, you do shoddy, inferior work.

Implications for Science

We are told that the Scientific Method is what scientists use.  However, a core piece of the puzzle is evidence that will disprove a hypothesis.  Every “scientific” endeavor must define what evidence will disprove the theories.

Next time you hear someone talking about “science,” ask them to clearly define what evidence will disprove their theories.  There is no excuse, since Heuer has clearly defined the procedure and made it easy for all of us to do with his magisterial Analysis of Competing Hypotheses.

Get the book and use the techniques.

///

Freddy Martini

Concorde Jet and Decline Trajectory

Concorde Jet and Decline Trajectory

Some say that they height of civilization was the reign of Louis XIV.  Others say that it was after Wellington and Blucher’s defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo with 50 years of peace ending in the Industrial Revolution that was the height of civilization.

However, in the technical fields, the undisputed champion is Concorde.  Concorde was the height of technical civilization, and perhaps the last product of the Industrial Revolution.  It was the only supersonic passenger jet, aside from a minor Soviet copycat version. 

There a no more supersonic passenger jets.  Concorde is gone – it was retired in 2003. 

We may think that the smart phone is a high-tech device, not remembering that it is just a telephone, and the telephone was invented in France in 1854 by Charles Bourseul.  Phones are 160 years old.  Computers?  Computers are a collection of millions of switches.  Switches have been around since electricity was industrialized back in the 1880’s.   

2003 seems to be a year of watershed when we will look back and see that things went down fast from that year forward.  Yeah, the Space Shuttle is gone.  We are no longer smart enough to send men out into space.

What is next for decline?  I think computer operating systems are on the way down from bloatware, a phenomenon happening at an accelerating pace in the last 15 years.  There is some evidence that we will decline in the technology of passenger jets also – there have not been many produced in the last 30 years.  Embraer out of Brazil is an exception, but it is a smaller jet for regional flight along with the likes of Canadair Jet.  We are in a military decline despite having advanced weapons (we are told) – we can no longer defeat enemies on the battlefield unless they are a conventional army.  GM went bankrupt along with many of its former suppliers like Delphi.  The Midwest core of the automotive world is a giant rusting hull.  Silicon Valley is dead, I am told, because people there only want to develop “apps” for phones and computers – toys to play with. 

So, we are no longer producing anything useful, but government is growing, spending is growing, and people are debating “heath care.”  We are more concerned with the sick and the dead than the living and growing.

What are we to do?  Study philosophy.  Philosophy always buries its undertakers.  It will remain when we no longer have Science or Engineering.  It will never die as long as men have the ability to think.

Freddy Martini

Random Notes 20140916

Taleb Again

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d3/Fooled_by_Randomness_Paperback.jpg

Nicholas Taleb ignited a lot of thinking within me.  He talks about the problem of induction.  He speaks of being fooled by randomness.  He talks of travel and speaking many languages.  He talks about the false history of science and technology when in fact this is s history of tinkering more in line with engineering than science. 

Thomas Nagel

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QAIG-qR0Brs/maxresdefault.jpg

I also downloaded the audio book from Thomas Nagel.  He is a guy who gets the problem of materialism and understands clearly the problem of consciousness.  Science is dead.  The Avant Garde movement in intellect right now is in Philosophy of Mind.  There is nothing new from science since the advent of Quantum Mechanics.  That was almost 80 years ago.  And, given some recent research, it is doubtful that science ever contributed anything useful to modernity outside of stealing ideas from engineers and inventors and making them their own.

If Science is Nonsense, how to we explain…?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Air_France_Concorde_Jonsson.jpg

What caused the enormous technical explosion in the last 150 years if it is not science?  Well we had scientific thinking for hundreds of years, with nothing to show for it.  What caused the great technical explosion was humans discovering a very compact form of energy and exploiting it: coal, diesel, gasoline, and heating oil.  The reason we can build large systems and get components for high technology equipment is because we have a fast transportation system based upon fossil fuels that gets things to a destination faster by an order of magnitude than previous generations 150 years ago.  It took about 6 weeks to cross the Atlantic in the times of Samuel Champlain.  Now, we can cross the same ocean in 7 hours with a standard Boeing jet, and in 3 hours with a Concorde.  Materials for the manufacturing of goods can be brought together very fast.  We ship food to remote areas whereas before we had a risk of spoilage and mostly had to rely on local supply – very local supply.  The most important set of “laws of physics” are Maxwell’s Equations.  Why were they developed?  We finally had a source of energy – coal and steam – and we wanted to transport this energy across large distances using electricity.  Engineers figured all this out, and scientists swooped in and took the credit in the history books.

A New Civilization

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_LMJJTrtlZtYb5x7A9SZPR3Ly1lOxMCENXdKzy6xZW_6JJv5_kLWxZoOYRvUfOqvWTBUgoFUsQWbGV6smSCMkdwLc25F_M8sdq66oLlhsYaE8dRSPdzesbzFXWafxccUhFDmx_p0GT1Y/s1600/Screen+Shot+2013-09-23+at+00.32.26.png

What causes advances?  Experimentation.  Tinkering.  It is those with the Fortitude (balls) to take risks and try new things.  These tinkerers will use everything at their disposal to mix things up and come up with something new.  

Freddy Martini