Is CREATIVE THINKING Somewhat EVIL? Are NEW THOUGHTS AGGRESSIONS?

Modern NEUROLOGY Teaches Us That: THINKING ANEW IS INTRINSICALLY AGGRESSIVE. Consequences.

The foundations of brain science were laid around the 20th century. One can deduce from the rough outline of neurobiology a surprisingly large amount of wisdom which may not have been certain previously… And which explains a lot of evil. In particular, why it’s so hard to think. Why? Because new thinking hurts and is subject to mental inertia. Both are obvious consequences of neurobiology.

Thus considering thinking in light of neurobiology explains why new ideas and new emotions hurt. And why they are so hard to accept. Neurobiology also explains why there is such a thing as mental inertia. Thinking at the very least consists in the activation of neural networks (maybe there is more to it, but we don’t need it here). Thinking needs facts.

“Fact” is a strange word. It curiously comes from Latin “facere”… to create, make. That’s curious, at first sight, because the modern idea of fact is that it’s something which just exists independently of human beings. So how could it be made or created? Did the etymology guess something common sense overlooked? Did etymology guess neurobiology? Well, yes.

Indeed, when considering a “fact”, what could possibly be made or created? At the simplest and most basic, a “fact” would involve electric activity from motor neurons… so we can move that finger or those eyeballs (to point towards a fact). 

At the most sophisticated, if the fact is new, new neural networks are made. Why? Because a NEW fact means a new association of ideas, sensations, emotions…. Thus new connection(s)… And new connection(s) in thinking have a direct neurobiological meaning. Connections in neurobiology literally mean new neurological formations enabling electrical or chemical impulses: axon, dendrite, etc… From these physiological facts  can be generated -I mean, facere, fabricated- a number of conclusions…

First, thinking new ideas and emoting differently hurts: having new thoughts means new connections, literally erecting new brain structures… Probably having to destroy old ones to make room… That’s all very energy consuming, and thus quite painful. And perhaps extremely very much so. So no wonder the public out there does not find new thinking attractive, pleasant and hilarious. Better keep on scrolling the same old same old…

Aristotle admitted the aggressive character of new thinking explicitly [1]. He articulated it around categories. Kategoria comes originally from against (kata) the agoria (public). This is an admission, by the initiator of the concept of how thinking works, that this most noble pursuit is an ADVERSARIAL process against the majority. [2]

Thinkers, new thinkers thinking things anew, need to be a funny lot, like Socrates, Aristotle to compensate and keep a sense of sanity. This is why Socrates made fun of the jury which was considering inflicting him the death penalty, by proposing free meals for him and his heirs…

And what of mental inertia? Routine brain activity consists in the activation of neural networks which get reinforced through Hebbian activity (the more synapses/neural networks are used the easier it is to use them… that explains the fascination of endless scrolling on Internet devices).  

Activating those existing networks is less energy consuming than creating new networks at the cost of destroying old ones… So brains keep on churning out the thoughts and emotions they are already endowed with…

***

Plato used to explain everything fundamentally with a theory of “forms”. Well, we found the “forms”: they are embodied in brain geometry… in particular neurological networks (the brain also has an elaborate, high dimensional neurological architecture of organs such as the hypothalamus, the pineal gland, the hippocampus, the amygdala, etc… Those react to, and cause further, neurological activity.)

Ideas are fundamentally relationships between concepts which are themselves sets of other relationships… All of this can be modeled by neural networks organized in… categories.

***

A number of issues arise from the preceding, in light of the (remote) possibility for extraterrestrial civilization, and, more pragmatically, the (unavoidable) rise of Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Consciousness. In particular: is thinking intrinsically aggressive?

In short: yes.  Thinking is not just a placid form of mental engagement. It’s intrinsically violent, if well done.

One needs first to understand that, given a body of thought, new thinking will consist in modifying this body of thought. Hence to spend energy. For a life form, or any thought form, spending energy could bring deactivation, it is adversarial… and prevented by the occurrence of pain.

So, if we want adversity at all cost, we will prevent thinking and that in turn will bring more adversity. Can’t win…

Looks as if we will have to learn to live with evil. Looks as if humanism will have to revew its relationship with war… It also looks as if intellectuals (including yours truly!) are not as innocent as they claim to be…

Patrice Ayme

Aryan dreams… Verdun 1940 on the right…

***

[1] Recognizing aggression for what it is is an act of honnesty and mental acuity. Aristotle fled Athens, telling that he wanted to spare the city another crime against philosophy (an allusion to Socrates’ death). So he recognized thinking was an aggressive act. So he Aristotle had committed aggression, he may as well flee. Whereas Socrates was in denial of his own aggressivity, and stood his ground.

***

[2] So basically some Public P (it could be a nation, party, class, institution or a religion or civilization) says something Stupid S. Then A  comes with a piece of logic C, the kata-agoria, counter-public to demolish S and thus the brains of P.The Greek verb’s original sense of “accuse” had weakened to “assert, name” by the time Aristotle applied katēgoria to his 10 classes of “expressions that are in no way composite,”

Antagonistic has the same root: anti-agōn “assembly, mass of people brought together,” 

REMORSE: When WILL To TRUTH Bites Back

Abstract: Many human emotions make sense when analyzed in the context of humanity’s purpose… which is to establish truth. Humans are truth machines.

Where does this strong emotion, remorse come from? From the Will to Truth, and, more specifically the will to moral truth. Remorse entices humans to obsess So remorse is a good thing, a teaching attitude. Individuals and societies should practice it more. 

***

Emotions Such As Remorse, Which Ground Morality, Are Grounded In The Last Billion Years:

Morality, considered in its most fundamental way, is revealed to be a neurological, a neurogenetical (in the sense of genesis) aptitude to manage optimally the ways which enable the survival of the species… This neuroethics is more or less automatically inherited (in ways science has not fully elucidated yet… but research as deployed here should help). Automatic systems such as walking: when one has two legs, one ends up walking on them, as long as one is in “human” circumstances (that is not stuffed in a small cage; having other walking humans around helps).   

Thus, all and any trait of fundamental moral etiology is grounded in the old ways of our ancestors, some living hundreds of millions of years. A lot of our neurological biochemistry works so well, it has not changed since our fishy ancestors.
***

WHAT IS REMORSE?

The feeling of remorse consists more specifically in deep regret or guilt for a moral wrong committed. Morality (from “mores”, the old ways in Latin) is what insures group survival[1]. For example, the Nazis violated the old ways, the mores, so at least 8.5 million Germans died (that was about 10% of all Germans) [2]. 

So remorse addresses wrongs against the ways which insure group survival. Remorse is the motivation, the spur for much truth seeking of a social nature. 

***

An Example: Afghan Remorse:

The USA has been officially at war in Afghanistan for 18 years, the longest US war, ever. In truth, the order of attack was given on July 3, 1979, by “Democratic” president Jimmy Carter. The cynical excuse to justify the attack was to harass the Soviets, allied to the Republic of Afghanistan with Muslim Fundamentalists (the true reason, laying below, was even more sinister…. It was to insure no Franco-Russian sphere of co-prosperity would grow in Central Asia).

But that immoral war, initially launched, by Carter, for the indefensible reasons, in the most abject way (advise Muslim Fundamentalists to attack schools for girls)…  is not the subject of this essay. Instead the subject of remorse is.

From the New York Times: “My Friend Lives Inside the War on Terror. Listen to Him.”

“A moment of moral reckoning came when Specialist Murphy had to conduct a body cavity search of a college professor who could barely walk without a cane, during his prison intake for some unknown crime.

“And here I was in my United States Army uniform and here was this very sensitive looking grandfather-type guy, and just the … I don’t know. It kind of was one of those moments where I was just taken aback and I just was affected.”

All the while there were nightly mortar attacks. Rockets, too. There were ambushes at the gate and explosives on the roads. 

But MORAL INJURY — the damage to the soul caused by participating in something unjust — has a wide blast radius for anyone with a conscience. The ambiguity of military operations since 9/11 are fertile ground for moral injury. Average Americans may feel guilt or shame for the conduct of the war on terrorism — the pardoning of war criminals or the indefinite jailing, without trial, of men at Guantánamo or the civilian casualties caused by drone strikes — but it can be devastating for those who are a part of it.

To keep from being desensitized, he told me, he resolved to learn all his prisoners’ names and listen to all the questions they had for him during the twice-daily head counts.”

Moral injury? A good concept, because it reflects reality. Human beings are made prone to moral injury, so they can be hurt, and, hence, learn from it. 

***

SEARCH FOR TRUTH REQUIRES REHASHING THE PAST:

Human beings with a normally functioning mental machinery tend to relive past events and to regret their actions. Some sneer that it’s useless to relive the past. But of course, if such were the case, all literature would be of no interest and be gone. Besides, we would never examine our lives, thus, according to Socrates, would not have lives worth living. 

Less amusingly, and more fundamentally, if we didn’t revisit the past, we would learn nothing as learning consists into backtracking over what one thought one knew, finding all the inputs which preceded the errors, and proceed to the probable truth by systematic elimination of failing logic or bad data. Those who can’t revisit the past, can’t learn. When one can’t learn, one may suspect it has to do with inability to revisit the past.  

Some call learning by trial, error, and rehashing what went wrong, the “scientific method”, insinuating “science” is new. We the smarties have been doing science for 500 million years, it’s our home. Humans, who are truth machines, do much more of science than our beastly ancestors. Thus we thrive from much more equity seeking and remorse… among other apparently weird, very human behaviors.

***

WW 2 Hirohito riding proud with fellow criminal army idiots

An Example of Insufficient Remorse: Japan

Japan declared war to all of South East Asia in a period of half a century, concluded by the two atomic explosion, and the immediate threat of a third atomic strike. The Japanese invasions killed up to 50 million people, most of them civilians. By contrast, Japan suffered around 2.5 million dead… most of them Japanese troops which died of starvation. US bombings of Japan, conventional or not, killed less than 700,000… Thus, however horrifying the death toll was for Japan, it’s not commensurate to the death toll Japan inflicted to the the rest of the world… And in particular Korea, China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia (to put the aggressed countries in chronological order).

Germany, starting in 1945, recognized its crimes against humanity, through remorse which brought genuine atonement (see below; atonement took decades: top Nazis like von Manstein stayed influential for decades, preventing recognition of the German resistance against Hitler).

As he was preparing his 1952 speech at a ceremony to commemorate Japan’s return to independence with the end of the U.S. occupation, Hirohito insisted that he “must include the word remorse”. Hirohito was in excellent position to express “remorse” as he was nominally in charge. Hirohito felt that, instead of surrender, he wished he had been able to end the war earlier. He also privately expressed horror at the atrocities committed by the Japanese military, according to the documents. But he also said that the military was so powerful that he couldn’t influence it.

Hirohito wish to express remorse was relayed to then-Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida, who advised against it. However, since then, the present Japanese emperor, grandson of Hirohito, has expressed “deep remorse”. However these things take time to percolate down throughout society. The switch of Japan from nuclear to massive coal, presently underway with the complicity of Australia, shows that Japanese remorse doesn’t go far enough yet.

More of the same Hirohito riding high. The problem with such plutocrats is that they ride on hubris, and with hubris they blind the peasants. Clearly the imperial position, symbol of hubris, per se, should be cancelled in Japan (in China too: they justify each other…

)***

EQUITY BRINGS TRUTH:

Experiments have shown monkeys attach an overwhelming importance to truth: submitted to unfair situations, they can cut the Gordian Knot by attacking the experimenter. Why is equity so important to primates? Because being just insures the survival of the group, by making sure they all get taken care enough. Thus one would expect all social animals with intelligent societies to have a developed sense of equity. There is some evidence of this with, say, lions, wolves, hyenas.

Now equity has the equal sign therein: before having some equity, one needs to have some truth (to find out what’s equal; hence the power of equations!) Without truth, no equity. Conversely, much truth is socially, culturally derived (monkeys and apes don’t discover all by themselves foods and pharmaceuticals in the forest: they learn it from their parents, elders…). So equity and truth are entangled.

***

Atonement is Jewish, Remorse, French:

Remorse is often conceptually entangled with “atonement”, particularly in the USA, of course… Atonement is any change of attitude to create unity, to make many “at one” (at-one-ment).    In other words, “atonement” is a more primitive form of psychology than true remorse. To survive, the monkeys need to be “at one” (Latin adunare “unite,” from ad “to, at” (see ad-) + unum “one.”). Atonement is tribal, something monkeys and other advanced social animals (say wolves) have plenty of practice, to constitute the group which will allow them to live. 

Unity is most major in the USA, otherwise they would have none (since Americans are immigrants who came from all over the world, the US traditions use every possible tricks to create unity). Translating “Day of Atonement” gives Yom Kippur in Hebrew, the most sacred celebration of the Jews.

In a country such as France, an old instinct says that survival comes from mental diversity, not “atonement”.  Indeed, France got its unity from diversity! (Now Britain and the USA, descendant states from France are also ruled by that notion… historically to a lesser extent, but they caught up…)

Hence is France atonement is practiced only very reluctantly, to the point that the notion, this side of Vichy, is not even conceptualized…

In a country such as France, one would expect only a fascist government to set-up a day of atonement, repentance, etc. Right, this sort of thing happened in the Middle Ages… Times of great theological fascism and plutocracy, indeed. And that’s precisely why the late Middle Ages have bad press nowadays. Also then, in the Middle Ages, the Pope would go once a year to the Synagogue in Rome and try to persuade the Jews to convert to Catholicism: a fight of universalism, as Catholicism means just that. Catholicism proved more universal than Yom Kippur: there are barely more Jews now than under Rome, whereas the Christo-Islamists have multiplied like rodents (there are more than three billions)… Christo-Islamism expanded, precisely because it celebrated universalism, that it, to some extent, diversity, rather than Jewish atonement, unity as necessary, to plaster over the fragility…

***

True remorse is more specifically human, it rises above the herd to question the lonely conscience. Nostalgia and a capacity to sit away from oneself, let others be, and, more generally, listening to life speaking for itself, are not far behind. 

Want the truth? Learning to bite back at your own soul should be part of your arsenal!

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] Medieval Latin remorsum” a biting back or in return,” noun use of neuter past participle of Latin remordere “to vex, torment disturb,” literally “to bite back, bite again”

Medieval Latin phrase remorsus conscientiæ (“remorse of the conscience,” 

 

One could also say, some Medievalists, obsessed as they were with words, have got to think about it, that re-morse is uncannily close to re-mores (refurbishing one’s mores…)

***

[2] These are minimal numbers. I use spanking new statistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II

Notice that includes 5.5 million dead young men, the soldiers, presumably the best stock of the German “race”…