In many western societies offence is functioning is an epistemological virtue in as much as it has somehow, by some, been accepted to be a winning move during a conversation. I don’t necessarily expect people to read what I have to say and immediately believe “being offended” to be entirely useless, but I hope to at least make the argument that there is an unnecessary suffering almost being wilfully generated by those who believe that being hurt by another person’s words is the “correct” reaction.
Read moreFree Will Emergentism
Free will emergentists are those who recognise the very real and important distinctions between the levels on which one can discuss free will. It is analogous to trying to define the fluidity of water by looking at each hydrogen and oxygen atom and assuming we can learn everything we need to know from that micro-level of examination.
The flaw in the comparison is that we do not ascribe a mystery or ethereal significance to the fluidity of water as is often explicitly or implicitly done with free will. We understand that water will behave reliably under controlled conditions and so it is also with mechanistic predictions of human behaviour were all of the information known.
The example of weather forecasting is used to paint a picture of the importance of the levels of description when discussing determinism and whether “one could have done otherwise”. While it is true that the macro level study of meteorology currently proves the most useful in understanding weather patterns, this does not mean that an ever improving understanding of the micro-level wouldn’t supersede this prediction power.
This conversation is most consequential within jurisprudence. When considering how we should treat a murderer a free will emergentist would argue that we rightly ascribe agency to the murderer and punish him accordingly. This is where the rubber meets the road in what I see as the dangers of “emergentism”. This so-called agency is usually understood not to apply in a scenario in which a person is suffering from a brain tumour because this can be medically corrected and is accepted as a case of misfortune. What I struggle to understand is why sensible people are recognising that on an atomic level free will is deterministic, but as we currently lack the technology to address the tinier and more complex discrepancies in the brain which would cause somebody to murder it is therefore fine to assume “evil character” and move on. Were we to develop a way to alter the brain physiology, as we can now do in removing tumours, wouldn’t these people suddenly realise how reliant their argument was on the lack of medical competence rather than on what is true?
Psychological Planned Obsolescence
Psychological planned obsolescence is far more interesting than the conspiratorial “planned obsolescence” often attributed to Apple in their development of the iPhone, not least because it’s irrefutably real. Why make a new phone every year? Honestly asking that question inevitably leads one to the conclusion that it is because Apple’s wants more money, and it is only in the customers interest as a result of having been psychologically primed to want the newer, shinier thing.
It started with the manufacture of cars wherein suddenly it was necessary to develop vehicles in new colours and with minor improvements just to keep getting money from the customer, and once these consumables had become more akin to fashion we have never looked back. Progress is obviously a net good, but why is infinite progress good? Why is the current frequency good? Better to ask perhaps if it is even “progress” as much as it is a move towards whatever will next illicit desire.
Progress necessarily means moving forward, and in cases like a faster iPhone this is true, but when we’re talking about a slightly faster iPhone in a new colour it becomes less clear as to why we needed that minor improvement right now rather than in 3 or 4 years when it is no longer slightly faster, but truly a product of half a decade of innovation.
An Evening with Diana Fleischman and Geoffrey Miller
Evolution is a lens through which I now view the world around me. I adopted this framing about a year ago now as I learned from Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying, Gad Saad, and the fine people mentioned in the title. Alongside my spiritual journey, an expanded knowledge of evolution has allowed me to see the beauty and complexity in everything. If I could gift humanity with anything it would be the ability to navigate life in this way.
Last night I was lucky enough to watch Geoffrey and Diana speak with David Fuller of Rebel Wisdom about evolutionary psychology, with a particular focus on sex. I was reminded of the beauty of consilience, treated to the knock-down argument for respect of neurodiversity, and learned about how our evolved behaviours surrounding sex effect so much of our core nature.
While I do not have the ability to give you a link to a non-existent recording of their conversation, I can tease you with the fact that Rebel Wisdom will soon be publishing interviews with each of these philosopher kings of our time.