OURSELVES, CREATORS OF CREATION, kingdom of mind!

NOTHING MOST SHATTERINGLY NEW SINCE THERE ARE MEN, AND THEY CREATE NATURE, INCLUDING THEIR OWN!

Pure reason incorporates pure emotion. This is what most philosophical critters have missed so far. So when they talk haughtily about reason, they spurn emotions, just as if they were runners, on paper, but couldn’t possibly imagine what legs are for.

A professional philosopher claims that “ethics can’t be based on human nature, because biology tells us, there is no such a thing as human nature”. He deduces from this that everyone is an existentialist… In the sense of Sartre’s silly pronouncement that we are as we decide to be (something he proved by his own life, not to be true, as Jean-Paul as predictable as a cockroach). Not so far from things I wrote for years. However, the devil is in the detail, and I am the devil, as Nietzsche didn’t dare say (he just took himself for Jesus). Actually come to think of it, not really details.

To pretend that ethics can’t be based on nature, because evolutionary biology shows that such a thing as human nature can’t be precisely determined is as smart as saying that Quantum Mechanics couldn’t be based on momentum, because the latter can’t be precisely defined. (Both Relativity and the Quantum are based, in part, on momentum.)

Actually it’s not because something is uncertain that it can’t be determined well enough for precise computations. Quantum Mechanics is complete and well-defined a theory, in spite of the position-momentum uncertainty relationship: (uncertainty position) X (uncertainty momentum) > h. Biology is great, physics is greater. Lack of precision at some point of the logic doesn’t mean anything goes. This is case where the scientifically trained mind reveals itself vastly superior to those who croak with the centuries.

They appeared 1.9 to 1.4 million years ago. Tool use belongs to the Acheulean industry. Distinguished from Homo Erectus by its thinner skull bones. Reduced sexual dimorphism, a smaller face but a larger (700 and 850 cc) brain and was up to a gigantic 1.9m in height. Made hand axes and cleavers. Homo Georgicus (below) found in Dmanisi, Georgia in 1999 and 2001 seems to be intermediate between Homo Habilis and H. Erectus and is 1.8 million years old. It’s the oldest known hominoid in Europe and were found in association of implements and animal bones. Considering the cold climate in winter, he had to have had clothing. The species name originates from the Greek ergaster meaning Workman . This name was chosen due to the discovery of various tools such as hand-axes and cleavers near the remains of H. ergaster. Its use of advanced (rather than simple) tools was unique to this species; H. ergaster tool use belongs to the Acheulean industry. H. ergaster first began using these tools 1.6 million years ago. Charred animal bones in fossil deposits and traces of camps suggest that the species made creative use of fire. By then, tech was launched, big time!

When Sartre said “existence precedes essence” he was getting drunk, drunk on his own words. No, we can’t be just what we decide, and even if we could, most of us don’t decide what we want to decide, as the life of the highly predictable fame driven automaton called Sartre bears witness. Sartre and De Beauvoir were Nazis when it was a profitable to be so, resistant when it got safer that way, then Stalinist, anti-”colonialist”, when, that, too became the highest fashion, before meekly trying to look hip by being a “Maoist”.   

Hume distinguished ‘is’ from ‘ought’, claiming one couldn’t get from one to the other. Hume lived three centuries ago. What does he know about facts and values? What does he know about deduction/ Did he know heat was motion? Did he know nerve impulse was electricity? Could he have guessed that a value could be a fact anchored in physics?

Moore, more than a century ago, was baffled about what reality really mean. Moore wrote before Quantum Mechanics. He could never have guessed how entangled, quantum entangled, our world is.

If reason incorporates emotion, deducing morality from pure reason also means deducing it from pure emotion. Logic is not just ‘logic’. Logic is the set of all possible logics, in particular not just linear logics (as found in treatise on mathematical logic). It also incorporates topologically induced logics (as from neurohormones; in other words, emotions).

The world-wide web enables to recreate fireside conversations our ancestors had, a million years ago. It’s not really revolutionary, it’s just worldwide.

Human nature involves maximal mental creativity. In other words, maximal software innovation, from a hardware, the brain, which is greatly influence programmed. Sartre’s opinion that he was self-created, as he were Jesus/God is just arrogant and dumb. Sartre was trying to hide, with an outrageous theory, obviously wrong, to deflect attention, that he and Simone de Beauvoir, were outrageous collaborators with the Nazi invaders, something which was obviously true (for whoever knows the facts, and has the  values).

hat did Sartre know about existence? Nothing. He was the pampered child of a certain self-absorbed upper layer of the Paris coffee shop culture, famous in his aquarium, when he was not busy seducing Nazi officers with his theater. Existence is not the province of words. It is now the province of hard-core physics, and so it was in Paris, since 1923, when Prince de Broglie rolled out his matter wave theory. To think the matter wave theory has nothing to do with existence and thus values, would be cretinism.

Following human nature is following whatever goes. Just as science, or philosophies themselves. Technology is not just a human transition. Technology is the human transition. Our ancestors (Homo Ergaster) were found in the Caucasus 2 million years ago. They have got to have used technology, from weapons to clothing (the proverbial animal skins). Our ancestors (Homo Erectus, China) used fire at least already 1.3 million year ago. Human technology changed the environment, so our ancestors created not just a theory of evolution, but an evolutionary machine to evolve humanity further from.  

Biological mutation have thus been under the direction of humanity for millions of years. The next complication being of course that Quantum Physics is so smart it’s nonlocal. Hence evolution is driven by intelligence squared, human intelligence multiplied by Quantum Intelligence.

Lamarck was made fun of, excoriated, and threatened by slave master tyrant Napoleon, for suggesting that intelligence drove evolution. The true reason of the rage of the church and plutocrats was that Lamarck had established evolution by studying fossils (some under the microscope). If humanity evolved, and that had been scientifically demonstrated, shouldn’t society evolve too?

Lamarck was right, we know this better everyday. Darwin learned Lamarckism, as a student in Scotland (“evolution”t was outlawed in English universities). Darwin turned evolution into a version more compatible with plutocracy, the nebulously defined “selection of the fittest”. Hitler and the “intellectuals” who inspired those who controlled that German politician, mentally deduced that “selection of the fittest” meant extermination of those who were not the “fittest”. Hitler didn’t realize that ignorant, self-important morons like him, impregnated with their own gravitas, were not the fittest, but instead the lowest of the low. It is now surfacing that, indeed Darwin, by decerebrating Lamarck’s evolution, missed its most important point. Even Tom Wolfe has understood this (see his 2016 published “Kingdom of Speech”).

Humanity is not just the kingdom of speech, as Sartre and his followers, would have it. Humanity is the kingdom of ideas, concepts, pictures, metaphors and emotions rising above previously given nature. Humanity is the kingdom of mind.

The kingdom of mind has its own rules and ethics, never seen before. For example, far from being an aggression, critique is a gift. Criticizing helps thinking (and self-criticism, thus mental betterment).

Selection of the fittest has meant, for at least two million years, selection of the fittest ideas, and selection of those, and the moods, capable of fostering them. Genetics and epigenetics followed. Human will was involved in all this, over 100,000 generations.

The human principle: I think, therefore I, and my descendants, became better.

Selection of the fittest thinking. Selection of the fittest moods.

Our descendants deliberately created much of what we became, and for the rest, they created us by eliminating what, or whom, was not the fittest, and by setting up an environment conducive to that.

Yes, a terrible message of hope.

We evolve, thus we hope to create ourselves in a better form.

And ever superior technology will help us to become better, because, should we not rise to the occasion, we will disappear.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , ,

18 Responses to “OURSELVES, CREATORS OF CREATION, kingdom of mind!”

  1. EugenR Says:

     Feelings are unpredictable. If so, our acts are unpredictable. Human culture is all about to restrain our own natural tendencies coming from our feelings. The aim of culture is to be adoptable by the society.
    Reason and emotion are separate realms. Reasoning is explainable exactly to the other, the emotions are not. Poetry, music, plastic arts, etc…. are a not very successful tools to transfer emotional essences from the artist to the OTHER. Some have the capacity to come close to the emotions and intentions of the art creation, some are totally incapable of doing it. If you read sometimes art critics, self claimed professionals of art, you can see how far they are from understanding the emotional meaning of the art expression. And I’m not speaking about those, who play total ignorance in front of art piece or performance.
    Logic is the language of the reason. It is universal language for everybody. Not everyone can speak it, not everyone has the same capacity to speak it, but for everyone, who knows the lanuage of logic only one truth answer is valid. Not so with arts, not so with emotions.
    Emotions are emerging property out of complexity of human biology. As such it has entirely different properties than the biological material that is their domicile. Emotions exists in entirely different realm, than partical physics. Emotions are rulled by entirely different laws from the laws of physics. Be it linear or non linear mathematical laws.
    As technology evolves, we are evolving too. Look at our children, they are not Homo Sapiens anymore, but rather Homo Telephonicus🤳:-).

    Culture is about controling the emotions of individuals by society. It is anti-individual-emotions based. This means social emotions. Most of the cultural rulled and norms are about avoiding the most natural, hedonistic urge of the individuals. Human is a social creature. Culture is him as much as his animal individualistic urge is him, if not more. 

    Humanity is the kingdom of individual ideas, but also cultural social structures and elements like, rulls, norms, symbols, ceremonies, myths, artistic expression of different kinds, feelings of belonging, feeling for home, for the other who belongs, need for possession, need for recognition by the other, etc….. The other can be the one, the only one we care, or the whole society. 

    The fittest among the Homo Societicus  is the one, who knows the best what social and individual emotions  are about, who is the best using the tools of human culture to love or hate, and even more, to be loved or/and to be hated. 

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Eugen:
      Thanks for the comment, and all the ones before, and Happy New Year!
      Feelings are NOT unpredictable. For example, I understand Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, FDR, De Gaulle, Mao, etc. very well! Although I detest all of them, in many ways!… I understand very well where their emotions came from. There is a topology of emotions, and it forms a logic, an emotional logic, that’s what I am saying.

      Like

      • EugenR Says:

        Dear Patrice, happy New year to yourself. I wish to you and to myself a another creative year, so you will continue to inspire me and my writing. Probably you noticed, most of my essays in my blog are answers to your essays. Thank you a lot. You enriched my life.

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          You are very kind, Eugen! And keep your writing coming, you help me too. We are a community of mind (and so are the many contributors to this site). I particularly liked your African experience. My brother in law just died of a heart attack at 45 years of age, so every year is a gift! Let’s enjoy 2018.

          Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      “Reason” reflects what I call “linear logic” (it’s a bit abusive, as SOME logicians use the phrase for a particular type of logic; my meaning is more general). “linear logic” is as found in classical computers. NOT in Quantum Computers. Actually Quantum Computers logic prove my other point: there are many types of logic (something all 21C logicians know).
      I am just saying that EMOTIONAL LOGICS make up another set of logics. Yes, they are fuzzy, but there is something like fuzzy logic. And actually Quantum Computer logic is and will be fuzzy (it can be rendered precise by classical logic/computer adkunction…)

      Like

      • EugenR Says:

        Thanks for explanation. Must admit my ignorance, i know nothing about the subject. Not in academy to be updated.😔

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Let me reassure you! I did graduate studies in mathematics (also physics), for many years, including seminars to some of the most famous (in Stanford and Berkeley). I was always dismayed beyond belief by the lack of knowledge, or even knowledge of the interest, of logic among mathematicians.
          Historically, some mathematicians have been great, even immense logicians, but they are few and far between. They often didn’t have an easy time.
          Example the Dutch Brouwer, who, although a great topologist, and great algebraic topologist, was ridiculed for his forays in logic. ALL ATMs now use Brouwer’s “ridicule” conceptions…
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer_fixed-point_theorem

          Brouwer in effect founded the mathematical philosophy of intuitionism as an opponent to the then-prevailing formalism of David Hilbert and his collaborators Paul Bernays, Wilhelm Ackermann, John von Neumann and others…
          As a variety of constructive mathematics, intuitionism is essentially a philosophy of the foundations of mathematics.[9] It is sometimes and rather simplistically characterized by saying that its adherents refuse to use the law of excluded middle in mathematical reasoning.
          Brouwer was a member of the Significs group. It formed part of the early history of semiotics—the study of symbols…

          And still he was despised by some…
          Myself, long ago, I studied CATEGORY THEORY, and knew some of its founders, who were excoriated and ridiculed then. Now, they are celebrated, all over math, and even many theoretical physicists can’t get enough of it…

          Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      “Laws of physics” is a slippery subject. Indeed, the most basic science is Quantum Physics. However, as I said in the essay, Quantum Physics is funny, fishy, fuzzy and nonlocal to boot. Nevertheless we leave in a mostly deterministic world, on a macroscale. Or so it seems. Culture is not just about control. If it were, we won’t have the dozens of ecological catastrophes causes presently deploying…

      Like

  2. Jan Sand Says:

    Whatever Sartre might have supposed, everything affirms to my understanding of indications that I find satisfactory cannot divorce human existence from the exceedingly complex interactions we perceive in the actions of the natural forces of the universe. We are all integrated into that total mechanism.

    Throughout much of human existence humans have exercised their ingenuity to create huge mythical suppositions that have proven to be supportive of the persistent hubristic concepts that the entire universe was merely background for the presumed grandeur of humanity.

    A more neutral viewpoint out of a more objective search of what reality may be has focused upon the totally minuscule and insignificant quality of human existence. Our morality must be based upon how we deal with each other to produce a social system that preserves our existence and provides for each of us a means to experience the best possible lives we can manage. Various efforts in this direction throughout human history and most significantly in current times, that we are extraordinarily failing in this fundamental enterprise.

    There is very little time remaining in human existence to remedy this basic lack. The general universe, of course, will proceed with little if any notice of this failure since its operation is not particularly affected by human mechanisms.

    But the mechanisms of life evolution are lately coming into technical control of human expertise and this has huge implications for the existence of all life and its existence in the universe. It is a very tight race in human existence as to whether these innovations may have the time to have its profound effects on life in the universe since human indifference to its own existence is rapidly closing down the possibilities of life on this small planet. I can only hope.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hi Jan, thanks for the reply. It seems we agree on the general lines. I have sites with in excess of 2 million words roughly compatible with those. The big deal, always made that the universe is immense, and humanity immensely insignificant, is neeither here, nor there: humanity is how humanity perceives the universe. So if the universe is immense, so is humanity.

      It may well be we have the only existing civilization:

      https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/40-billion-earths-yes-no/

      Where I am, the forests are dying at an increasing pace, week after week (I will post an essay with pictures soon on that). So, indeed, time is short. First thing to do for the USA: as high a fossil fuel tax as in Europe…

      Like

      • Jan Sand Says:

        My understanding is that even the closest star system feels no impact from human existence and that star system itself is a negligible distance from our sun insofar as the universe is concerned. As far as impact to the universe goes, humanity does not exist. The immense indifference that humanity has demonstrated to Earth ecology with massive damage to all life systems looks to me a clear demonstration that human existence on this planet has passed the point of survival and no actions are being taken to even slightly modify that possibility.

        Like

    • EugenR Says:

      Unfortunately probably you are right. The existing political – economic system doesn’t give too big chance, if at all, to change and correct the devastating trend of changing Earth to an inhabitable planet. The only potential hope comes from artificial intelligence, that will wake up one day, and will stop humans from doing what they are doing. Isn’t it dreadful, that the humans have no capacity to save the world for themselves?

      Like

  3. Said Mohammad Says:

    Said Mohammad
    Humanity is the Kingdom of mind while you want the empire to decimate a small country of 23.5 million people? What mind is that? No offence meant!

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I never, ever said I wanted the “empire” to decimate a country. BTW, I was against both wars against Iraq. Big time. In the case of North Korea, I sit in a primary target, so I am not interested by a nuclear exchange. I am against KIM, not against North Koreans in general: KIM had many of his own family members killed in atrocious ways, that’s why he would prefer to die nuclear. KIM is also Swiss educated, and used to spend vacations in France. Like Trump, he is WAY smarter than people realize. Hopefully he will exchange is nuke arsenal against an offer he can’t refuse. Instead of tweets here and there, no offense meant, my two million + words out there depict the kingdom of the mind much better than those flea jumps, which even me has to do…

      Like

      • Said Mohammad Says:

        Kim and his people are a free country. Are Americans holy in a way to have an arsenal of nuclear heads while North Korea 🇰🇵 is not allowed. Kim remains a national leader and regardless of how the American propaganda machine shows him, he is nothing compared to Trump, Ivanka and the gang. One needs to get out of his cave to see things in the light. Go ahead and try to think as a North Korean who hates the guts of the empire
        Thank you for writing up. Respect that!

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          If 200 countries have nukes, there will be a huge, very messy, global nuclear war. As it is UN LAW considers only the five PERMANENT UN SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS have the right to have nuclear weapons. Others are in violation. Israel and India are not really a problem (long story). Pakistan, though, is because Jihadists could grab nukes. India, China and UK are not pushing their arsenal (only France, US, and Russia really have first strike capability, and have reserved for themselves that right, in retaliation. KIM is free, but not of his frights; and his people is not: just read what he said about “heterogenous ideas”… Is Iran “free” too?

          Like

          • Said Mohammad Says:

            Israel not a problem. India not a problem. Pakistan not a problem. Iran a problem. N-Korea a problem. Cuba a problem. Venezuela a problem. A pattern. No? Iran is another hegemony less worse than that of the US (the leader of the Free World). Have you ever heard about Ajax project?

            Like

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            I said Pakistan was a serious problem. I said nothing about Cuba, or Venezuela. Cuba is at peace, Venezuela and Iran in insurrection. President Rouhani himself said today that protesters were legitimate in asking for more freedom. If you try to make me pose for a US hegemonist, you are so far from the truth, it’s testimony of how the Internet culture is imbecilic.

            Type: great bitter lake conspiracy. Get, on top of Google: https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/great-bitter-lake/ … and this is just the tip of the iceberg…
            I have written about Mossadegh for more than a decade. And consider this: https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/world-war-one-chap-1/

            Like

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: