Assignments

[degringolade]

Expressionism / Margareta Sterian/ Landscape With Water

Einstein liked inventing phrases such as "God does not play dice," "The Lord is subtle but not malicious." On one occasion Bohr answered, "Einstein, stop telling God what to do."

In a way, that statement/response might well be at the core of a lot of the issues with my ponderings of late.  

I think that there are tons of smart folks out there who need to think that Einstein was right.  But everyone seems to forget that Albert spent his decline searching desperately for a unified field theory that remained elusive.  He stated firmly that God doesn’t play dice, but he never managed to figure out what the rules of the game were to explain the things..  Remember, he was pretty smart.

I am coming to the conclusion that by searching for an overall rule of how things happen we are chasing something that can’t be captured.  I think that individual variation is the driving factor between all of the fuss and bother about seeing the world.

We tend to think.  Can’t help ourselves actually, it is what we do.  We take in information from myriad inputs and try to shove it into a predetermined (by the individual) matrix of what it means and how to react to it.  It is the individual part that bugs the crap out of most folk.  

Look, the stuff we perceive is its own thing.  Our “consciousness” (whatever the fuck that means) is the individual’s means of dealing with the world outside of his own skin.  But it is a function of that individual and that individual alone.  Education and experience affect it to the extent that the education and experience is actually understood and absorbed.  Individual variation affects it. The old saw about “never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig” comes to mind as an explanation here.

So I am thinking (getting back to the Einstein/Bohr analogy) that when it comes to having to understand the interaction between the individual and the world around him, Bohr appears to me to have the right approach.  There doesn’t appear to be a unified field theory of our interactions with the world around us.  I am thinking that, like quantum “theory” it is a bunch of ad hoc rules lashed together in a kinda rickety mess that manages to stay afloat.

I am in total agreement with the idea that current neuroscience is utter horseshit in its spewing of completely unsupportable “truth”.  But it is data collection.  I think that after a couple more decades of data collection, they will have, providing that they don’t give up in disgust and maybe stop making such outrageous assertions (currently done to enhance funding) they just might be able to lash together a set of ad hoc rules that kind of explains (sorta) the relationship of the individual nervous system with the world out there.

But the definition will always be a rough approximation that has to be sufficiently loose to encompass the amazing degree of variation between individuals.  It also has to be completely aware that the “hard problem” is a chimera, it really can’t be understood as a hard rule, it can only be approached within the confines of an individual’s skin.