Frances to William and others...
My current preference as an account of the existing world is the theory of evolution, and then that as posited by the philosophy of idealist realism and its naturalist pragmatism. Evolution under this philosophy entails optimistic growth, which has proven to be progressive, in that stuff heterogeneously tends to advance and expand in holistic ways generally for the best. The process seems to be a combine of adeptive chances and adaptive changes and adoptive choices. The cosmos has been found by pragmatists to be made by the agent of purposive telic design, in that stuff has a dispositional tendency to habitually act as it evidently acts, which action tends to be for the most suitable way, and stuff thus exerts all its energy in a struggle to lean toward a good end goal. The spatial bodies of solar systems in this galaxy for example are held together by the habituating force of attractive gravity, despite some errors that occur in their evolution. The stuff of the galaxy simply cannot be other then what it now is. This realist theory of evolution applies equally to such artistic actions as artists making artworks in the world of the arts. If there is a better account of the sensed world, from say creationism or idealism or materialism or nominalism or rationalism, it has escaped me. Below are some quick replies to your numbered comments. 1. The "highest" state that stuff has evolved to is simply the one presently observed in context by ordinary experts. It furthermore need not entail the "broadest" nor "greatest" nor "wisest" state possible. 2. All the best mental paths leading to the goal of intelligence are presently held by normal humans, and then as habitually exemplified by their science. Not all the paths have been good, but in general the overall direction is good. 3. Any normal learned group of expert persons who tentatively agree by a consensus of fallible opinion need merely be ordinary persons engaged in the act at hand, be it in life or in science. It is the collective community that conditionally determines what is found to be provisionally good. The subjective determination of a sole individual person is simply unreliable, because they may be mad and not know it. The assumption here of course is that humanity as a whole species will continue to evolve infinitely. -----Original Message----- From: William Conger [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 30 December, 2010 12:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: "mad genius" All of this sounds fine except it relies on assumptions that can't be taken at face value. 1. "Highest state it has evolved to". It is not easy to know what that state is. Stephen Jay Gould showed that certain snails, his specialty, evolved to a very highly specialized state in certain South Seas island ravines. So specialized, in fact, that they couldn't survive in the neighboring ravines just yards away. It would therefore seem that evolution to the highest state may be a hindrance or may require other conditions to define what is necessary to the "highest state". 2. "That state for (humans) is...in the highest state...as a whole is cerebral and mental and psychical ands intellectual and logical...therefore thinking...more rational. Who knows if this is the best path? Some might argue that humans were better off in relation to their environment, etc., when they were less "civilized" more like other animals. Further, nobody is sure what is meant by the terms rational, logical, and reasonable. Generally, those terms rely on linear modes of exclusive causality but recent neurology shows that the so-called irrational or illogical or unreasonable are fundamental to what we regard as rational, etc. The "leap of intuition" or the "crazy but brilliant thought" the "mad genius" tags reveal that people have always given some respect to the seemingly illogical, etc. Now science shows it is not only reasonable but necessary to thinking. You might reply that this is the current state of evolved affairs but I say that's begging the question. Bottom line: Who decides what is rational, etc., and the highest evolved state? 3. "Only a learned group"...ah, so those are the people who decide, eh? We've seen them before, all through history and what they all have in common is not learning or expertise but power. Power seeks its own permanence and thus has been more of an inhibition to learning and that "outside the box, leap of intuition, breakthrough concept and the like than an aid. In the end it does come down to individuals, for good and ill, who lead, push, shove, manipulate, lie, preach, teach, argue, persuade, buy, crush, kill, and otherwise bully their way into a position to keep and change that so-called highest state. I tend to accept this view because there really is no alternative. But I'm for putting the experts on trial for treason against truth every single day.
