I'm sure many of you have heard the old story about a group of blind men trying to describe an elephant. One guy grabs the elephant's leg and says an elephant must be like a tree. Another guy grabs the end of its tail and says it's like a woman's ponytail. Another one catches a breeze from the elephant's flapping ear and says the creature is more like a large fan. (Okay, obviously I don't remember the details of the story, but you get the picture.) One of the places I heard this story in detail was in a course on Indian Philosophies, and it was used as a way of describing the difficulty any one person will have in understanding the whole of reality.
Scientists, of course, have a general common goal of understanding all of material reality. Each one of us has a limited range of personal experiences, and we can only conduct so many experiments in a lifetime, but we try to listen to other scientists in order to get a better idea of what else material reality might involve beyond the experiments we have dealt with on our own. The broader the range of approaches we use to study a given phenomenon, or to study a range of phenomena, the better we can understand the whole of reality.
Up until recently, much of scientific methodology was based on a particular scientific lens known as reductionism. Through this lens, scientists try to understand reality by breaking it down into component parts, and then studying the behavior of those parts. A huge range of experimental methods and tools can be employed to study reality using this lens, so as a sort of meta-methodology it has been wildly successful. Reductionism has been the basis of probably most scientific fields, and has led to an impressive range of discoveries and technologies. Its elegance lies in the fact that getting rid of all the "other stuff" making up a particular phenomenon allows us to get back to proximal causation bringing about a small part of that phenomenon. Ideally, scientists get down to the point where they select factors they think are involved in the event, essentially making themselves the proximal cause of that small part of the phenomenon. The level of control involved in pulling apart phenomena in this way implies that technology readily flows from scientific study, and so phenomena that can be dissected in this way tend to become the most lucrative technologies. (Perhaps this explains why otherwise reasonable individuals are perfectly willing to believe in electricity but not in macroevolution -- they simply can't figure out how to make any money from it?)
One of the limitations of reductionism is actually one of its most useful assumptions: that the parts of a phenomenon are independent. This assumption suggests that it is perfectly valid to look at all of the parts of a phenomenon in isolation from each other, and that merely combining the understanding of all those parts will lead to an understanding of the phenomenon as a whole. There are obvious cases where this is clearly absurd. For example, it doesn't seem entirely fair to look at the expression of every gene in an organism as if it is truly independent from all the others. They all, after all, have a shared evolutionary history, are found in the same individual, and many have direct influences on each other. Even using traditional methods to correct for multiple statistical tests doesn't seem to fix this problem.
A more familiar example of this difficulty is the experience of consciousness. It seems incredibly difficult to predict consciousness as an outcome of physics, biochemistry, and cell biology -- none of what we know about the parts of the nervous system, in isolation, seem to be terribly predictive in terms of explaining how this phenomenon occurs. How can we explain this and similar sorts of emergent properties?
This very question helped lead to the development and use of systems theory. Instead of breaking wholes down into parts, this scientific lens focuses one's attention on the connections and/or flows of material or energy between the parts. In other words, this is more of a synthetic approach than an analytical one. It tends to be more conceptual in nature, with a major focus on designing mathematical and computational models of phenomena to see where unusual behaviors start to develop in the system as a whole. Comparisons are made between the models and the natural systems to determine how well the model explains the observations. Such approaches have led to new ways of thinking about ecology and biology, but for the time being, the preponderance of researchers in this area have strong engineering or physics backgrounds.
Of course, systems thinking also has its drawbacks and can never be used entirely in isolation from reductionist approaches. Obviously, without at least a rudimentary understanding of the parts, systems thinking is doomed to fail. Furthermore, because of the potentially huge number of connections between parts in even a moderately-sized system, the data collection phase for understanding the system at baseline can be quite intensive. Connections can be difficult to measure because they are transient, or because flows from one part to another are simply inherently difficult to measure. For example, if a cryptic mycorrhizal species is discovered in a forest ecosystem, an entirely new study might be needed to determine matter or energy transfer rates between the mycorrhizal species and any species it interacts with before a viable model of the ecosystem could be generated. This sort of work could take a few years to complete in and of itself.
Despite the difficulty of carrying out science from a systems perspective, it is very important that we do just that. As a species with huge material and energy transfer rates, we have an incredible ability to affect a broad set of aspects of the environment, such as species diversity, global climate patterns, and ocean pH levels. To study such phenomena in isolation from each other is unlikely to reveal the feedback patterns we badly need to better understand in order to ensure our future survival. There are good arguments to be made, too, that systems thinking is not merely a survival tool for the environment, but also for the increasingly globalized economy.
And of course, it would be pretty neat to know things like how plants integrate environmental signals to generate a specific response to a suite of environmental constraints. Or, for the more philosophical among us, to know from a systems perspective how Decartes came up with his famous statement, "I think, therefore I am."
Comments
Excellent article! And I agree with what you have stated. I know it as network theory, but it amounts to the same thing as what you're talking about.
Most people don't appreciate how wise Kant was in making the distinctions that he did in his epistemic categories. But as you stated, we need both the analytical along with the synthetic, just as we need the a posteriori empirical data along with the a priori paradigms. And science has indeed focused too much on the analytical side. The time has come for us to integrate the synthetic approach with the analytical. It is the only way in which we are going to understand complex systems.
Most people don't appreciate how wise Kant was in making the distinctions that he did in his epistemic categories. But as you stated, we need both the analytical along with the synthetic, just as we need the a posteriori empirical data along with the a priori paradigms. And science has indeed focused too much on the analytical side. The time has come for us to integrate the synthetic approach with the analytical. It is the only way in which we are going to understand complex systems.
EricFD (not verified) | 03/20/10 | 13:25 PM
To study such phenomena in isolation from each other is unlikely to
reveal the feedback patterns we badly need to better understand in
order to ensure our future survival.
Science will never provide a solution, because people don't want a solution. We already know what the problems are and what we keep trying to do is use science to grant humans exemptions from nature. Therefore, as long as science can make some discoveries in that direction, then it appears that we are making progress, however at some point that will end and we will be faced with the reality that we are not exempt from the laws of nature and the universe. At that point, there will be no science that can help us, because it is the science that we are resisting.
Gerhard Adam | 03/20/10 | 18:34 PM
It's not that you're wrong, Gerhard, but it's like Einstein once said, and I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact quote: "Oh course it's hopeless! But if you take that attitude you might as well lie down and die, because you already have one foot in the grave."
You're talking about the "human condition". And, you're right. Whereas she is talking about scientific methodologies, and she is right as well. ;-)
You're talking about the "human condition". And, you're right. Whereas she is talking about scientific methodologies, and she is right as well. ;-)
EricFD (not verified) | 03/20/10 | 19:10 PM
Personally I prefer the idle curiosity and the inquisitiveness of investigation rather than the grand notions that we're going to save the future of mankind. Mankind will be subject to whatever events species are all subject to, and it isn't likely to make a bit of difference what we do in the interim. However, I for one, seek to enjoy myself with the questioning, but I'm also not under any illusions that anyone besides myself cares.
This isn't to say that humans may not undergo a radical transformation that changes everything, but I wouldn't hold my breath, nor does my happiness depend on such an outcome. I used to worry about what humans were doing to the environment and to each other, until I realized that there was not much that could be done and that the Earth was big enough to take care of itself. All I can do, is what I've always done (and what my ancestors did).... do the best I can to survive.
Gerhard Adam | 03/20/10 | 19:11 PM
Does that mean we are 'reduced' to accepting the selfish
Or is there still room for a cooperative survival?
http://www.scientificblogging.com/gadfly/selfish_gene_theory_its_time_di...
Aitch
Henry Cox | 03/20/10 | 20:27 PM
Science will never provide a solution, because people don't want a solution. We already know what the problems are and what we keep trying to do is use science to grant humans exemptions from nature...........Personally I prefer the idle curiosity and the inquisitiveness of
investigation rather than the grand notions that we're going to save the future of mankind........... However, I for one, seek to enjoy myself with the questioning, but I'm also not under any illusions that anyone besides myself cares..................... All I can do, is what I've always done (and what my ancestors did).... do the best I can to survive.
Which just seems like selfish Gene theory personified, to me, as you use we for anything wrong with humanity's attitude and I for your solutions, so perhaps you don't see the funny side....?
and this is a reductionist and systems thinking thread, so I reduced....;-)
Aitch
Henry Cox | 03/20/10 | 22:11 PM
Henry, none of us are omnipotent. In point of fact, each of us has very little power over the world in which we live. I found your comment a little off-base, so I didn't respond to it.
But, each of us does what he or she can in our individual lives. And, each of us must survive the best we can in a material world because as corporeal beings we have certain needs that must be fulfilled in order to maintain our existence as human beings. But, ultimately we have no control over what the rest of the 6 billion plus people in this world do.
Some of us can see the writing on the wall. And if I've learned anything from the Native Americans of this continent it is this: there is a way to live with the Earth and there is a way not to live with the Earth. And in my opinion, the way in which human beings today live with the Earth is not the way to live with the Earth. And we cannot depend on science to bail us out indefinitely because we choose to live in a way that ignores the laws of nature.
In our corporeal form as human beings we are quite fragile. The Earth, on the other hand, is extremely powerful. If we choose to ignore the lessons that the Earth has to teach us, then it won't be the Earth that will be in danger. The Earth doesn't need saving. It will be here long after we are nothing but a layer of rock in the fossil record and that's only if we last long enough. But we ourselves are bringing about our own destruction.
Now we can get upset and obsess about it and make ourselves miserable. But getting upset and making ourselves miserable isn't going to change anything. So rather than wallow in despair we can choose to live our lives to the best of our abilities, making what ever contribution that is in our power to make to the rest of humanity. And, I believe that is all that Gerhard was saying. And I agree with him 100%. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted what you have said, Gerhard.
But, each of us does what he or she can in our individual lives. And, each of us must survive the best we can in a material world because as corporeal beings we have certain needs that must be fulfilled in order to maintain our existence as human beings. But, ultimately we have no control over what the rest of the 6 billion plus people in this world do.
Some of us can see the writing on the wall. And if I've learned anything from the Native Americans of this continent it is this: there is a way to live with the Earth and there is a way not to live with the Earth. And in my opinion, the way in which human beings today live with the Earth is not the way to live with the Earth. And we cannot depend on science to bail us out indefinitely because we choose to live in a way that ignores the laws of nature.
In our corporeal form as human beings we are quite fragile. The Earth, on the other hand, is extremely powerful. If we choose to ignore the lessons that the Earth has to teach us, then it won't be the Earth that will be in danger. The Earth doesn't need saving. It will be here long after we are nothing but a layer of rock in the fossil record and that's only if we last long enough. But we ourselves are bringing about our own destruction.
Now we can get upset and obsess about it and make ourselves miserable. But getting upset and making ourselves miserable isn't going to change anything. So rather than wallow in despair we can choose to live our lives to the best of our abilities, making what ever contribution that is in our power to make to the rest of humanity. And, I believe that is all that Gerhard was saying. And I agree with him 100%. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted what you have said, Gerhard.
EricFD (not verified) | 03/20/10 | 23:35 PM
I haven't been here long, but I'm enjoying the views and exchanges with people.....some more than others
Gerhard has been one of the more prolific posters to my threads and comments, and so I felt, maybe mistakenly, that he was up for a bit of ribbing, as he can dole it out quite well, and seems as capable of provoking as any....it WAS pasted as deleted, and followed by a wink......however Americans don't have quite the same humour as the English, but it certainly wasn't my intention to actually upset anyone, fer crying out loud.....and I don't honestly think, despite you claiming sympathy, your views are as 'rigid'
Now, are we staying on thread here or exploring the intricacies of division across a pond?
To my mind division is not natural, but selfish, as nature has a unifying quality, and as a unified human being I would like to think that to aim for the stars, even if we fail we end up farther up than if we sat and moped about how bad the next person is......if that's not a given on your side of the pond then 'take it under advisement' is a phrase I've heard on American TV....
I still don't quite get this, 'isolation from the rest of humanity - I'm alright Jack', stuff?
Seems bizarre to me, and I'm the one living on a small Island - but I do perceive it to be on the same planet
However, I DO feel I have more power over things than common conception, and you seem to feel, but don't claim nor seek omnipotence
Gerhard, ....sorry, it wasn't my intention to talk about you, as you'll see from my comment to you later, just responding to Eric's post where our exchange became topical, OK?
This seems to me to be a fine example of the failure of reductionist theories, in action
So, ..........anyone else for the grinder.....? ;-) <<NOTE!! LOL!
Aitch
Henry Cox | 03/21/10 | 00:19 AM
Which just seems like selfish Gene theory personified...
Hmmm .. don't think so. Is the lemming that hangs back being selfish?
Gerhard Adam | 03/20/10 | 22:17 PM
One of the limitations of reductionism is actually one of its most
useful assumptions: that the parts of a phenomenon are independent.
This assumption suggests that it is perfectly valid to look at all of
the parts of a phenomenon in isolation from each other, and that merely
combining the understanding of all those parts will lead to an
understanding of the phenomenon as a whole. There are obvious cases
where this is clearly absurd. For example, it doesn't seem entirely
fair to look at the expression of every gene in an organism as if it is
truly independent from all the others. They all, after all, have a
shared evolutionary history, are found in the same individual, and many
have direct influences on each other. Even using traditional methods to
correct for multiple statistical tests doesn't seem to fix this
problem.
Substitute Genes in an organism for humans in humanity...
later......
A more familiar example of this difficulty is the experience of
consciousness. It seems incredibly difficult to predict consciousness
as an outcome of physics, biochemistry, and cell biology -- none of what
we know about the parts of the nervous system, in isolation, seem to be
terribly predictive in terms of explaining how this phenomenon occurs.
How can we explain this and similar sorts of emergent properties?
Haven't we seen this before....?
[not being facetious, just doesn't have to be in the personal zone]
Aitch
Henry Cox | 03/20/10 | 23:21 PM
Let me be clear that I'm not upset, nor angry, nor put-off by yours or anyone else's comments. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent, but I simply respond as it strikes me at the moment, so if I missed a greater subtlety, then that's simply on me.
In my view, Eric paraphrased my intentions correctly, with my primary point being that I cannot and will not sacrifice my life (and mental well-being) in worrying about something that our species is doing to itself. My "instincts" tell me that I can only do what I can regarding my family and those around me. I don't see this as some sort of "survivalist" attitude nor a Mad Max scenario.
Despite the optimism of science, humans are heading for extinction at an accelerating pace and they simply don't want to hear about it. Whether my attitude is a coping mechanism or reality is of little consequence. What matters is that I no longer get upset when I listen to the stupidity of how human society operates. In my view this is a natural consequence of having far too many people.
People don't like big government, but do everything they can to advance it and give it more power. Despite complaints, people don't want to be individually accountable. They don't want to be responsible for their choices.
In particular, my concern regarding science (as I've stated elsewhere) is that we are losing the essence of it, by imagining that somehow science has become responsible to fix every problem that humans create. Research is funded based on its practicality, with corporations waiting in the wings to bring the next great "solution" to market. That's no future.
Human evolution has largely drifted out of the biological realm and is overwhelming affected by culture at this point. Therefore the future of humanity is going to be subject to the direction our culture, rather than our biology takes. As a result, I'm not very optimistic. In my most pessimistic view, we will either destroy ourselves, or worse ... wish we had.
Gerhard Adam | 03/21/10 | 11:27 AM
My sentiments exactly! I agree 100%.
EricFD (not verified) | 03/21/10 | 12:49 PM
My view too - and I suspect the latter.
Humans are very fragile, both physically and mentally, and yet behave as if they are masters of the universe.
On the idea that science has taken a wrong turn, well, that happened over 300 years ago with the much-heralded scientific revolution. Baconian philosophy equates progress with the common wealth - science is technology. The scientific revolution in the UK was also a financial and political movement which led directly to the British Empire; better ships, better navigation, better maps etc etc.
Rycharde Manne | 03/22/10 | 00:08 AM
I'm relieved as I now see that both Eric's assessment of you and mine are both good, though for different reasons and about different aspects
I completely concur about individual responsibility, and do my level best, and am true to that, as far as possible
I have to say, I'm deeply saddened that the dimwit brigade have so worn down your 'faith' in humanity and our 'greater future' which I still firmly hold on to and promote
I think pessimism has it's place along with skepticism, but only in the same way of contrast as a white chalk on a black board.....without pessimism, what would allow us to differentiate optimism from it?
So, we differ only on that, as far as I see, as I am as interested as both you and Eric, who I like also, in my survival.....I just feel a strong need to awaken and bring along as many healthy humans with me into a forever improving life on Earth
How many of us have had people say, 'Oh, you young people wouldn't have survived if you'd had to struggle like the older generation....?' or the contrasting, 'I remember the good old days when.......example of choice'
Me, I just see change as the most brilliant thing about being human.....it creates dynamism, rather than mundane, and if people feel bored, then on many occasions, it is because they've stopped 'wishing on a star' or 'climbing to the end of a rainbow'
I urge everyone to aspire to their highest dreams, as without, ......what? !!.....'Oh, I never bothered because of other people....?'
That seems pessimistic to me......
Aitch
Henry Cox | 03/21/10 | 16:27 PM
I am forced to tell them that most ideals are manipulative lies and therefore they must be twice as doubtful and skeptical when someone wants them to do something. After all, we live in a society where greed is honored, corruption is expected, and lying is the basic means of communication. Integrity is based on convenience and ethics is completely situational. When this is coupled to a society that is rapidly transforming its citizens into disposable cogs of whatever economic machinery makes them the biggest pile of money, I am very concerned that my grandchildren must be significantly more vigilante than I was when I was young.
We, as humans, have created a society we cannot afford the upkeep on. We cannot afford to live here. Therefore its beginning to unravel as "globalization" becomes a quaint term that loosely translates into "every man for themselves".
I also want to be clear that the points I'm making are aimed at the social organizations we have created to which we subject. Ironically, individuals are mostly good people. Individually, we tend to care and behave in a completely opposite manner than the social groups to which we are attached. This is what has lead me to believe that humans aren't fundamentally bad, but we have created a social system that produces bad things and reinforces that behavior. In many ways we can argue that individually we are simply components of large cultural organisms that have taken on a life of their own and are subject to their own versions of natural selection. As a result, individually we have as much chance of making meaningful change as one of our cells does in modifying our behaviors.
The optimist always argues that change is possible and historically has been demonstrated time and again. However, I don't see much change historically and whatever significant changes have occurred were invariably a combination of "evolution" (i.e. the next inevitable step) and extreme violence. In any event, it doesn't really matter, because that ship has already sailed.
Does all this upset me? Truthfully, no. It saddens me that we have the means to create a veritable utopia on this planet, but that we won't do that. Instead we will follow this course until it destroys us or something external to us forces a change.
Gerhard Adam | 03/21/10 | 20:08 PM
Being mindful of the original thread, and systems thinking, I think what you are referring to is a lingering effect of the mass mind numbing achieved by Edward Bernays propaganda model adopted by government, media and industry, as a means of giving post 2nd WW America something to occupy their minds whilst the Cold War was engineered and propagated
Much of the recent fear machine which has swung into action, with supporting legislation, has only been able to do so because of the spread of malaise and disconnect which has been augmented by things like fluoridisation of water, mercury poisoning throgh use of amalgam and injections for flu and psychiatric categorization of what used to be normal stresses and strains, now classified as disorders requiring drugs like prozac, nexium, citalopram, and a raft of others
Kids are being diagnosed ADHD or somesuch, and put on drugs preteen!
People's rights have been stripped from what masquerades as a constitution.....yes, I see the model......systemic fraud! .....a dis-powered society, but one that pays the piper......so, it just needs reminding to call the tune, surely?
I'm with you on the be self reliant, be independent, stay alert front, but puzzled by your view that science cannot provide answers....
Maybe science as a profession has lost its sense of value, but to me it can do so much before it completely loses its popular respect, by exposing the things which are the real causes of malaise, which are known, by the likes of you, and show the public how to apply scientific methods of discernment, - which people are losing the knowledge or ability of how to apply it to their life/lives - and advise people to detox their minds, bodies, and social systems, and ridding itself of poison, physically, mentally, and spiritually, in order for health to mean 'life in its radiant state', that passes hope to future generations, and not despair [ref: your opening 2nd and 3rd sentences]
You know it makes sense....don't you, fellow human? ;-)
Aitch
Henry Cox | 03/22/10 | 00:40 AM
In general, people don't really want freedom, they want security and predictability. Therefore whenever an opportunity presents itself, they are willing to transfer more freedoms to central authorities under the illusion that they have exchanged it for more/better security.
An example I like to use is the concept of law. Most people believe the law is there to protect them, but in truth it does nothing of the sort. No law has ever prevented a crime. In fact, the law specifically applies to only one circumstance ... defining the rights of the state for retribution. It very rarely has anything to do with justice and everything to do with the power of the state to assert its authority. Yet, time after time, people clamor for more laws despite the fact that they have never helped or protected anyone directly (with the notable exception of those in power or with money).
I agree that critical thinking is of utmost importance for people to discern the types of things they should understand, but I suspect that most aren't interested and most are easily persuaded that they are probably wrong anyway. I don't have much faith that science can bridge this gap, because science is engaged in its own battles to preserve its credibility away from the corporate and political persuasions that want to subvert it to their own ends. In the end, I believe that money will win out, so I'm inclined to view a more pessimistic outcome. As always, we can expect cyclical extremes and perhaps we're entering one now, but I personally believe that we are on the verge of another "dark ages" rather than a resurgence of "enlightenment".
Gerhard Adam | 03/22/10 | 00:53 AM
I urge everyone to aspire to their highest dreams
My highest dream is that those who come after me will have higher ones.
Patrick Lockerby | 03/21/10 | 17:32 PM
Lindsey Lignocellulosic Biomass Hugger? :)
If what you speak of, is seeing the forest for the trees...
The total greater than the parts...
I'd like to use a favorite one that more average people can understand.
My car is the total of its parts, no part of the car is the car.
Yet if we do not understand how the alternator works, how the drive train works, how the exploding piston chamber and valves and crank shaft work, then we are not able to fix the car if it breaks down.
Science in its divisions is like that, like study of car alternators can lead to improvements in its design, that adds to the improvement of the entire car.
Even if those who are so focused on the alternator as specialist, have little clue how to hone out a cylinder wall and replace the rings on the piston, it is the total of all sciences working together, that can allow someone with no understanding of the parts, to climb in, turn the key and drive to work.
We need -all- sciences if we are to improve the total.
The more we understand how the parts work, the more we can apprecieate how they all work together,
and those who seek to know, also stand a greater chance if it stops working, to be able to fix it.
Like someone who is not a specialist in one part, can listen to a car running and know, almost with intuition, whats wrong with it, and how to fix it.
The tree in the forest is worried about its own survival, but even in its selfish attempt, it knows if it destroys its competition, it destroys its own growing enviornment.
The more the forest flurishes, the greater and easier it is for the individual tree to flurish.
In an economic enviornment, consider one company that gets money from all the people.
The more it can get from them, the more wealthy the company gets, and reinvests in more ways to get more money,
until the population has no money left, then what?
So it is a nessesary thing, if the company to be selfish, to thus want a wealthy population, correct?
COnsider a ruler of a country taxing its people into total poverty, if after wealth, it defeats is own goal, by taking more than the population can reinvest to improving thier own wealth.
Even if a theif, in a small town, kept stealing at gun point from the residences, soon they would have nothing left to steal and the poverty he inflicted on them, would then become his own.
This same thing can be applied to the planet, governments, corporations, forests, etc.
In the case of my own example, I'm living so far below poverty level it is not funny (not self inflicted).
Yet if I do not invest in improving the total economy of my country, what good is it if I'm wealthy,
yet the rest of the country falls apart?
Or what good is it to live on my mountain in the wilderness in a paradise, while I watch from the mountain top, the world being poisoned to such an extent I can no longer drink the rain?
If I can improve the conditions of the total, then my one part, also improves, without my individual effort required, other than to improve on the whole, that I too am a part "of".
The attitude of "me first" at the expense of others, comes back on me.
This is a common law, even if humans forgot it, by focusing to much on themselves, and not on the total that they are a part of.
One field of science, does not exist, independant of the whole.
Even particle physics could not exist if not for the galaxy, those particles are a part "of", nor could someone study the galaxy as if particle physics had no role.
It is the total that is greater than the sum of the parts, but all the parts are necessary to create the total.
The more we can improve those separate parts, the more we improve the total.
I study the total.
I do not exclude religion, time, gravity, quarks, cosmology, chemistry, electron field theory, psychology, medicine, or any other "branch" of the tree of science, even if some of them may not see how the others fit into this total.
A Lakota grandfather who gave me my first feathers, said I was this:
"Fool among fools, wise among wise"
My wife, says I am a gift from God.
Others call me the Thunderchild.
I was 'sent here' by the total.
But I am, just a man.
One of, the total that is humanity.
Not above, nor below, not separate from, but part "of".
I am, the continuation of the same life form, that first appeared on this planet.
I am "connected" to it, and to my ancestors.
And to that which created me, and to everyone here.
I am not here for the sake of my own life, but of "all" life.
If I take the total, of all of the problems of humanity,
I find a common denominator to all of these problems,
then offer a better solution, than that which creates these problems.
I then solve many problems, with less effort.
The study of the individual things is a good and very wise thing to do,
they help us understand the total, better.
But they are not divided.
The are in truth, all one.
The total of truth is infinite, nor is it dependent on humans to perceive of it for it to exist.
But the more we learn about the parts, the more these parts then come together in our understanding,
when we look at the whole, we can then see more clearly how they all fit together.
No less than an advance in one area of science, aids in advancing what is the total.
Part of why I am here (created as a white male human in America in this generation)
is because of what is being called global warming, or climate change.
These, are only PARTS, of a total, and focus on them, means something else is not getting noticed,
that is related, but apart that will/may have greater impact on all life here, than is currently understood.
If millions upon millions of voices screamed -
if time is connected, and a creator has heart, and compassion,
is it not possible, that these voices would be heard?
If true, I was sent here, in response to that.
Before it happens.
There is no money in this,
and humanity has repeatedly sought to destroy my life because of my difference.
So I do apologize for my lack of education, and being in poverty and basically homeless.
These were not self inflicted, but done, with the intent, that no one would listen.
The result of extensive efforts to silence why I came here.
What happens when you catch a thief?
Not knowing I'd only offer him a job instead,
I get attacked, to defend his ability to continue to steal.
Until there is nothing left,
and I already explained what happens when it reaches that point.
I am on this site,
trying to do what I was created to do,
even if I fail here, I will not die before I do my best,
to fulfill the reason I was created.
Or my creation would have been for nothing.
I may fail, but I cannot fail, to try.
The total is greater than the individual parts.
I have to do my best to do my one part.
Even if my life is destroyed for trying,
it wont be in vain, because millions and millions of lives,
are more important, than just my one life.
I did not come here to destroy the destroyers.
I was sent here, with gifts.
In destroying my life, to the extent others have succeeded,
they have only destroyed my ability to give all (the total) that I was sent here with.
With what little I have left,
even at $20 a month income,
I give all I have that I can, and can still survive as an individual.
Because it is more important, than just my one life.
I could not study science as I wished,
I missed a lot of school, after I returned from the wilderness I fled to for my life,
at 21 years old, it was a semi- truck vs. bicycle, math can tell you who won,
my compensation for the permanent physical damages preventing me from working for others, was around $5,000
Then I was forced to focus to exclusion and obsession, for over a decade, on saving my sons life.
Not said for sympathy, but as an apology, for not being able to offer more.
Nor knowing how to speak very clearly with fewer words, but there are many parts to the total, and an absence of knowing some of the parts could cause confusion I dont desire to create.
Even if those of science fail to see the value of their parts, their contributions.
Please know there is one among you, who is so greatful for the work you have done, that I am almost in tears as I read so I can better understand how to do my one part.
Bless you all!
Tree Thunderchild | 03/22/10 | 02:45 AM
Steve Davis | 03/22/10 | 02:53 AM
Though we yet to exchange views or provocations ;-)
Aitch
Henry Cox | 03/22/10 | 05:50 AM
Steve Davis | 03/22/10 | 20:57 PM
He/she could find the common problem to all of humanity,
And in one sentance solve it while leaving everyone laughing.
(Henry seems right on track)
Tree Thunderchild | 03/22/10 | 09:22 AM
If Lakota wisdom "fool among fools wise among wise",
Then you just paid yourself a complement ROFLMAO!!!!!
Back Aitch'yah :P
Tree Thunderchild | 03/22/10 | 12:22 PM
I don't recall one with detachable posteriors ......ROFLMAO2....!!
Aitch
Henry Cox | 03/22/10 | 12:22 PM
That would be any tribe that would talk with a young white boy needing to know as if his life depended on it, the math, science, and technologies of living with the earth on my own (the tribes without tails, other than the ones they told me).
Much was the art of doing much with little, being resourceful, which pays off when you need to build a future limited to things you pull out of dumpsters, or build the tools to make the parts that you cant find because the parts have not been made for what has not been invented yet (thus unable to find in the dumpsters).
PS just kidding, no detachable tail here, only opposible thumbs, but you got both of em up ;-)
Tree Thunderchild | 03/22/10 | 14:18 PM
I am a 'big picture' guy. I look at the current focus on CO2 and can see why that would put people into two camps. The one side is right: bigger taxes will not solve the problem. The other side is right: big business will not solve the problem.
There are cycles in human events which operate when every individual acts alone, but the total effect makes it appear that those people are acting in concert. I call that cybernism. It is a human trend driven by natural forces.
I shall shortly be publishing an article on a cybernist solution to the CO2 problem. It amounts to nudging the world's economies in a particular direction using a financial incentive and just letting things roll.
Viewed by humans through the reductionist lens, our biosphere is impossible to understand. Viewed by humans as a system, our biosphere is impossible to understand. Viewed with humans as a part of the system it becomes obvious that we are a major influence on our own biosphere.
What we must decide is how to direct that incontrovertible influence: shall we squander our inheritance and leave our descendents in squallor, or ... ?
Patrick Lockerby | 03/22/10 | 12:24 PM
First is my best to you (and all here) on your article.
Second is my comment below, I'm not here looking for info for a patent nor invention, while I am trying to figure out two materials best suited for some parts (one is an electrical conductor), I love science and that is why I came here.
But I may have to leave, they passed some health care laws in my country, and as a result they will likely be closing the place my wife works so we will be both living on my income alone and I'm going to have to make changes in order to do that.... including no more R&D on my inventions (again).
Its hard having all these things in my head, and rairly able to build them (all of them work, so far).
My prayers (sending possitive energy) to all those of science.
I hope my computer models of the past and current ones are not accurate, but if they are, then this world needs your help, beyond what I'm willing to state due to not wanting to sound alamist.
I will give a hint in the direction though.
if we stopped right now, it will take around 150 years before the impact (most of it) of what has already been done, will be clear enough to know, if we stopped in time.
I dont like the math, sometimes......
And I'm sorry all the more, for the help I will be now farther behind on being able to give.
Not sure how much time I can spend here on the site....
but some good news (on the personal front) I finished a small washing machine that runs on wind power :)
stinking filthy rich...
well, I "had" 2 out of 3!
Peace, is worth fighting for, when your sword is a slide rule!
"I think therefor I am"....
my horse does not think, in same cognitive thought process way, but he still is self aware.
in this and the real world, he, and I, and many others share (not limited to humans).
Perhaps when humans stop being so separate from the rest of life.....
their lenses can see more than they see from an 'outside' perspective....
Gods (or the deity or higher power or 'luck' or total of the universe, .. your choice) speed to you all!
Tree
Tree Thunderchild | 03/23/10 | 01:04 AM
I seek not to change my government nor bigger business, but the people,
by being one, and changing.
This then changes government and bigger business.
No one had 'the wheel' forced on them, no one had to, it was a good solution that worked, and all anyone had to do was see someone else do it and it spread.
How fast did cellphone use spread? The internet?
Was it forced?
As a patented inventor I had self interest in learning the art and dynamics of invention.
And its results on human evolution.
Tree Thunderchild | 03/22/10 | 13:04 PM
Be encouraged, there remains hope:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1478-3975/7/1/016003/
The simplicity of completion time distributions for common complex biochemical processes
Biochemical processes typically involve huge numbers of individual reversible steps, each with its own dynamical rate constants. For example, kinetic proofreading processes rely upon numerous sequential reactions in order to guarantee the precise construction of specific macromolecules. In this work, we study the transient properties of such systems and fully characterize their first passage (completion) time distributions. In particular, we provide explicit expressions for the mean and the variance of the completion time for a kinetic proofreading process and computational analyses for more complicated biochemical systems. We find that, for a wide range of parameters, as the system size grows, the completion time behavior simplifies: it becomes either deterministic or exponentially distributed, with a very narrow transition between the two regimes. In both regimes, the dynamical complexity of the full system is trivial compared to its apparent structural complexity. Similar simplicity is likely to arise in the dynamics of many complex multistep biochemical processes. In particular, these findings suggest not only that one may not be able to understand individual elementary reactions from macroscopic observations, but also that such an understanding may be unnecessary.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1478-3975/7/1/016003/
The simplicity of completion time distributions for common complex biochemical processes
Biochemical processes typically involve huge numbers of individual reversible steps, each with its own dynamical rate constants. For example, kinetic proofreading processes rely upon numerous sequential reactions in order to guarantee the precise construction of specific macromolecules. In this work, we study the transient properties of such systems and fully characterize their first passage (completion) time distributions. In particular, we provide explicit expressions for the mean and the variance of the completion time for a kinetic proofreading process and computational analyses for more complicated biochemical systems. We find that, for a wide range of parameters, as the system size grows, the completion time behavior simplifies: it becomes either deterministic or exponentially distributed, with a very narrow transition between the two regimes. In both regimes, the dynamical complexity of the full system is trivial compared to its apparent structural complexity. Similar simplicity is likely to arise in the dynamics of many complex multistep biochemical processes. In particular, these findings suggest not only that one may not be able to understand individual elementary reactions from macroscopic observations, but also that such an understanding may be unnecessary.
John H. (not verified) | 03/23/10 | 08:38 AM
Human evolution has largely drifted out of the biological realm and is overwhelming affected by culture at this point. Therefore the future of humanity is going to be subject to the direction our culture, rather than our biology takes. As a result, I'm not very optimistic.
That suggests that human culture is somehow separate from evolution. No, human culture is a result of human biological evolution. The directions we have been taking for thousands of years is consistent with the evolution of life in general:
1) The primary pattern of the evolution of life for billions of years has been of increasing complexity accompanied by increasing capabilities. Human history clearly follows that pattern, especially apparent in our technological developments over the past several centuries, and accelerating.
2) Most species tend to increase in population until something limits their growth, usually food supply or predation. Humans show the same tendency. We are different in that our unusual intelligence has enabled us to extract resources from the environment in unique and extravagant ways.
A big question is: Will we as a species be intelligent enough to limit our population to a size that our environment and resources can reasonably sustain? Can humans cooperate on a world-wide basis? It appears to be a toss-up at this point…
Patrick Lockerby stated:
My highest dream is that those who come after me will have higher ones.
[...]
I am a 'big picture' guy
Amen to that! We often hear people say something along the lines of "making the world a better place." This intuitive desire is, again, consistent with the big picture view of the directionality of evolution!
Fred Pauser | 04/19/10 | 07:25 AM
That suggests that human culture is somehow separate from evolution. No, human culture is a result of human biological evolution.
Fred,
I'm not disputing that, but rather suggesting that human evolution is primarily being influenced by our culture rather than factors such as mutation, genetic drift, etc. This isn't to say that none of these factors plays a role, but when considered overall, the effects of culture will be more influential than the purely biological elements.
Gerhard Adam | 04/19/10 | 08:16 AM
Thanks for the clarification. The effects of our culture are, and will continue to be, quite influential, including ways which overlap and include our biology. Our rapidly growing scientific technological knowledge has entered an era whereby we are genetically modifying food products. We are also at the dawn of being capable of altering the genetic makeup of our own species. It appears that our culture is enabling us to shift biological evolution into warp drive! It seems likely that we may eventually genetically engineer a new superior species of human to replace ourselves (provided the current negative aspects of humanity don't first lead to our destruction).
Fred Pauser | 04/19/10 | 13:46 PM
It seems likely that we may eventually genetically engineer a new
superior species of human to replace ourselves (provided the current
negative aspects of humanity don't first lead to our destruction).
Actually in my view that's precisely what would destroy humans. In the first place, such a "superior" species would clearly supplant the old, however game theory also suggests that once some segment of the population has a distinct advantage, it isn't likely they'll be altruistic enough to want to share it.
Since such a modification clearly can't be done simultaneously, one is left with the bad feeling that should such a capability exist, it would simply result in a biological equivalent of an aristocracy. Of course you could just accuse me of pessimism and you'd be right too.
Gerhard Adam | 04/19/10 | 18:23 PM
The following saying is attributed to him:
Physics Department
University of Reading
England