Hello, tpaine! Sorry to be so tardy replying. WRT the above quote, I find myself mystified that you find Pinker’s thought complementary to our Constitution’s core principle of liberty. Indeed, I have reached the opposite conclusion.
You suggested you doubt Pinker has a “hidden major premise.” But I think there is one. I think his (undisclosed) initial premise is: absolute self-denial is good and necessary. Yet liberty cannot inhere in anything other than a “self.”
I notice that Pinker does not abjure his “self” – his homunculus as he disparagingly puts it – in favor of logical consistency with his theory.
You asked me whether I’ve read any of his books. The answer is, no I haven’t. Though I’ve browsed him in the stacks, I’ve yet to actually check him out of the library. The reason is, reading him gives me a bad case of “cognitive dissonance”: On the one hand, he is saying that there is no self or soul, that all a man is, in essence, is the epiphenomenal result of the activity of a machine -- his physical brain.
On the other hand, the strong, indelible presence of Steven Pinker as something quite real and distinguishable from Pinker’s brain makes itself constantly felt. One definitely senses the vivid presence of a self or “ego.” Yet his writings seem to be an attempt to demolish that concept. Still, he leaves us with puzzling questions on which his theory seems to cast no light. For instance, why would a physical brain choose to engage in scientific pursuits that are essentially non-physical and apparently extraneous to its normal functional needs? What supplies the motive? What is the mediating principle directing the physical system to explore what is essentially spiritual reality? How does the brain hook up with the external world in a way that creates meaningful information – and for what or whom is this information intended? How does the brain engage in self-reflection – which is the means by which we purportedly “fictional selves” locate ourselves in space/time reality and understand our values, purposes, and goals – when there is no self there to reflect? Left to its own devices, it seems to me the brain would just happily keep chugging along coordinating and maintaining the life functions of the organism for as long as it could. What could inspire it to reach to any larger task? Indeed, can it feel inspiration? Can it feel at all? Can it decide? Does it have free will? If it has “will” at all, then where is that located? How is that to be accounted for? Does it love? feel sorrow, joy, fear, etc.? Or covetousness, jealousy, lust for power, hatred, etc.?
What does it actually mean to say that “the brain decides?”
I get the distinct impression that this seemingly mild-mannered, soft-spoken and charming professor intends his theory to apply to all the rest of us, but not to himself. Clearly, Pinker gives himself “a pass” from selflessness.
And I think this is intellectually dishonest. To me, it is a prime example of ideological thinking, not science. And I would note the general tendency of all ideological thinking to drift into forms of tyranny of one type or another….
Pinker’s model seems best suited to the life of an insect colony – or of a totalitarian state. There is zero sense of the self in a colony of ants, bees, or termites. Their societies only “work” because all individuals are merged into a collective Self and are “ordered” by its needs. There is no liberty here – all is determined by the pattern of the colony’s rigid and unchanging social life.
I feel certain that you’d agree: This is no model for a truly human society, tpaine – one that respects the dignity and liberty of the individual….
Well my friend, this is all probably “as clear as mud.” But it’s the best I can do right now.
Thank you so much for writing. Please share your thoughts with me when you get the chance.
I feel sure Prof. Pinker's project must be "exciting" in principle; especially as it is seemingly bent on finding ways to falsify and thus overcome the planted experience of the human race over the course of decades of millennia by now.
Sad you should think so Betty. I find that his ideas compliment our Constitutions principles, that free men should follow the ruled of law, -- not be ruled by the morals of the majority.
WRT the above quote, I find myself mystified that you find Pinker's thought complementary to our Constitution's core principle of liberty. Indeed, I have reached the opposite conclusion.
And I asked you at #25 to explain why you have such a conclusion. No such luck I see..
You suggested you doubt Pinker has a "hidden major premise." But I think there is one. I think his (undisclosed) initial premise is:
' -- absolute self-denial is good and necessary. Yet liberty cannot inhere in anything other than a "self." --'
Where do you 'pick up' a mystifying premise like that? Pinker agrees with our constitutional principles of liberty. He is found of quoting Madison's political views as being close to his own.
I notice that Pinker does not abjure his "self" – his homunculus as he disparagingly puts it – in favor of logical consistency with his theory.
'Pinker doesn't deny his "self" in favor of logical consistency with his theory' ?
- What is that supposed to mean, Betty? - Are you choosing words for effect? -- Weird, meaningless comment, imo.
You asked me whether I've read any of his books. The answer is, no I haven't. Though I've browsed him in the stacks, I've yet to actually check him out of the library. The reason is, reading him gives me a bad case of "cognitive dissonance": On the one hand, he is saying that there is no self or soul, that all a man is, in essence, is the epiphenomenal result of the activity of a machine -- his physical brain.
More hype? -- I'm getting a bit of "cognitive dissonance" meself.
On the other hand, the strong, indelible presence of Steven Pinker as something quite real and distinguishable from Pinker's brain makes itself constantly felt.
One definitely senses the vivid presence of a self or "ego." Yet his writings seem to be an attempt to demolish that concept.
Hmmmm. Does one now.. I see no such presence.
Still, he leaves us with puzzling questions on which his theory seems to cast no light. For instance, why would a physical brain choose to engage in scientific pursuits that are essentially non-physical and apparently extraneous to its normal functional needs? What supplies the motive?
Curiosity?
What is the mediating principle directing the physical system to explore what is essentially spiritual reality?
Why do you characterize Pinkers as research being into "spiritual reality"?
How does the brain hook up with the external world in a way that creates meaningful information – and for what or whom is this information intended? How does the brain engage in self-reflection – which is the means by which we purportedly "fictional selves" locate ourselves in space/time reality and understand our values, purposes, and goals – when there is no self there to reflect? Left to its own devices, it seems to me the brain would just happily keep chugging along coordinating and maintaining the life functions of the organism for as long as it could. What could inspire it to reach to any larger task? Indeed, can it feel inspiration? Can it feel at all? Can it decide? Does it have free will? If it has "will" at all, then where is that located? How is that to be accounted for? Does it love? feel sorrow, joy, fear, etc.? Or covetousness, jealousy, lust for power, hatred, etc.?
What does it actually mean to say that "the brain decides?"
You seem to believe its "spiritual reality", I'd guess.
-- Pinker & millions of your non-religious peers are seeking non-mystical answers. - I'd say we need such answers, as todays world wide religious turmoil makes clear.
I get the distinct impression that this seemingly mild-mannered, soft-spoken and charming professor intends his theory to apply to all the rest of us, but not to himself.
Clearly, Pinker gives himself "a pass" from selflessness.
Really Betty? What do you base your impression upon? I've seen nothing so far that supports your rancor. Such rancor isn't like you Betty.
And I think this is intellectually dishonest. To me, it is a prime example of ideological thinking, not science. And I would note the general tendency of all ideological thinking to drift into forms of tyranny of one type or another….
Pot, -kettle. You too have an obvious ideology, Betty. We all do, to varying degrees. Religious ideology's "drift into forms of tyranny" just as much, perhaps more, than other forms, imo. -- And history bears me out.
Pinker's model seems best suited to the life of an insect colony – or of a totalitarian state.
Pure hyperbole. You've offered no support for such an opinion.
There is zero sense of the self in a colony of ants, bees, or termites. Their societies only "work" because all individuals are merged into a collective Self and are "ordered" by its needs. There is no liberty here – all is determined by the pattern of the colony's rigid and unchanging social life. I feel certain that you'd agree: This is no model for a truly human society, tpaine – one that respects the dignity and liberty of the individual….
Yep, ants, bees, or termites are no model for our society. -- Who said they were such? - Only you, just above.
Well my friend, this is all probably "as clear as mud." But it's the best I can do right now.
You got the 'mud' part right, kiddo. -- Thanks for your comments.