Re: Making your mind up

Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:04:07 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<me@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

On 2024-04-22 10:36:02 +0000, Martin Harran said:
 

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 11:39:56 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<me@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

On 2024-04-22 08:52:51 +0000, Martin Harran said:
 

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:08:58 +0200, Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:
 

On 17/04/2024 12:14, Martin Harran wrote:
 
snip

 
Another aspect that strikes me is how individual minds can operate
collectively, almost as if a new mind is generated as in mob hysteria
but also in other useful ways; as a management consultant delivering
management development programmes, one of my favourite topics was
showing how collective decisions are generally better than individual
decisions. Although that has long been recognised in management and
business,  I am not aware of any attempt to study it from a science
perspective.
 

 
I read this a few days ago and thought "shhh keep your responses
relevant and focused, don't bring your latest hobbyhorse into every
conversation it's even vaguely reminiscent of" [I ask that you imagine
here Taylor Tomlinson miming the effects of antidepressants:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47WXVTpnOyU&t=228s ]
 
But that laudable instinct wore off apparently. You know what book has
some interesting things to say about collective decision-making? "The
Evolution of Agency" by Michael Tomasello ! \o/
 
Actually one could argue it has a lot to say about decision-making in
general, it just gets at the problem from a very different angle than
the "how it works in the brain" that you seem to be talking about.
That's why I hesitated on the relevance front. But if a more high-level
discussion of how decision-making might work in its most general form,
that comes up with a very interesting perspective on the relationship of
individual humans to the collective, seems like it might interest you
it's a pretty short and (IMO) accessible book.

 
I've added the book to my list but for somewhat different reasons than
what you have said above. I have long been intrigued by the ideas of
Teilhard de Chardin

 
Have you read Peter Medawar's review of Theilhard de Chardin's book? I
can't find the complete review on the web, though I'm pretty sure it's
there: I've certainly read it, and I haven't got a subscription to
Mind. Anyway, some of the most characteristic parts are quoted here:
https://reasonandmeaning.com/2015/03/20/p-b-medawar-critique-of-teilhard-de-chardin/
 
 
 
I expect you won't like it at all, but others may.

 
Full critique is available here:
http://bactra.org/Medawar/phenomenon-of-man.html

 
Unfortunately my computer thought that link was dangerous, and wouldn't
let me go there. I'll try again when it's in a better mood.

 
I read it some time ago. What I didn't like about it was that it is a
purely polemic attack on Teilhard, I didn't see any *scientific*
contradiction to his ideas. Can you point any out to me?

 
I'll try to do so when I've managed to read the whole review again.

 
The reason your computer didn't like the link is probably that it goes
to a HTTP site (no digital certificate) and browsers have got very
picky about that. I have converted the web page to a PDF and uploaded
it here, perhaps your browser will be less apprehensive about that.
 
https://teilhard-medawar.tiiny.site/
 
The reason that I have gone to that trouble is that I'm genuinely
interested in hearing your comments on it. Before accepting ideas that
seem attractive, I always like to check contradictory views. I have
been looking for some time for a scientific response to Teilhard but
have never been able to find one; when I have asked, I have invariably
been referred to Medawar's piece which, for the reasons already given,
I have always found unsatisfying.
 

Given the omega point boils down to a path towards Christ (Christogenesis)
I don’t know that one can address that from a scientific perspective. From
a more abstracted remove his evolutionary perspective was a form of
orthogenesis, which isn’t taken very seriously. I think Gould indirectly
buries it in Full House (the random walk and Modal Bacter aspects) and
Wonderful Life (contingency).

I'm particularly curious to se your reaction to Medawar's' statement
that "French is not a language that lends itself naturally to the
opaque and ponderous idiom of nature-philosophy, and Teilhard has
according resorted to the use of that tipsy, euphoristic prose-poetry
which is one of the more tiresome manifestations of the French spirit"
 

I’m less put off by the post-structuralists like Baudrillard and
Situationists like Debord than others may be. Though Swiss Piaget was
Francophone and not too flighty. Luc Montagnier was a well known virologist
and did toy with homeopathy a bit.