June Bug

Status Report
 

I write by fits and starts. I just have to wait until things come to me. Then, I am possessed by the necessity of whatever it is, and have to write it down. Sometimes I work 'til the wee hours, eating and drinking nothing except coffee and my R_x. Sometimes I am waked up in the middle of the night by some connection, some ramification, of what I am working on. Eventually the urge peters out, hopefully not before I have said all I meant to say. It is hellish to finish something, once the urge is gone.

It is unsettling not to finish something I know needs finishing, but I haven't got the energy to finish. It leaves me in a nervous, irritable state for weeks. Time passes; eventually I convince myself it wasn't important anyway.
 

When I was programming computers, everything was the same. There really isn't a lot of difference between programs for computers and stories (true or false) for people. They all have a beginning, middle and end. They all have a structure - a root and branches. They all have their important, central characters, and the lesser players. They all have their time, place and manner. (Maybe someone should apply Aristotle's Poetics to computer software.)
 

As I get older, I have increasing problems remembering things. This is frustrating and distracting. The only way I have of knowing what I wrote, say, in my economic works, is by re-reading them. This is not always fun; I don't always enjoy reading myself. The irritation is I know what's in those scribbles, but I fear repeating myself. At younger ages, I knew what I had said and done; I didn't have to review myself.
 

I know I have more to say about economics, but I don't know what I haven't said. As I said, I don't want to repeat myself. It interests me that others think the same thoughts, so maybe I don't have to worry so much about writing mine down.
 

I haven't figured out how to support my case about reasons in "War." But, maybe others have already figured it out. I was surprised, and then not surprised, to learn that John Rawls' concern with Kantian ethics led him to write his papers on ethics, politics and society. I am similarly motivated. So are a bunch of other people who have a "communitarian" outlook. The other guys - the ones not like us - believe in individuals, heroes.
 

Programmed
 

I had not noticed at an earlier age, that there are indeed "schools of thought" prevalent in modern times As a young man, it seemed to me that each person thought his own unique thoughts. Now, I realize that we actually do think our own thoughts, but they are the same thoughts as others have who are trained in the same tradition. The only difference is IQ; i.e., how fast someone comes to the same conclusion as others. Otherwise, the logical process is the same.
 

In studying ancient times, everyone appreciates there are schools of thought: Platonists, Aristotelians, Epicureans, Atomists, etc. It is quite clear that people signed up as disciples of one master or another. This is not to say that enlistees had no "original" thoughts; it's just that their thoughts were derivative from those of the master. Their thoughts were 'theorems' in an enterprise of deducing things from premises. So, we wrap all of them up in a volume, and call it 'school of thought.'
 

Somehow, the closer we come to our own times, the less we are able to do that. Or, I have been less able to do that. I have seen each individual as standing on his own; not as the extension of some tradition. Now, I am beginning to see that is not so.
 

I don't know why I hadn't noticed this long before. Somehow, it only became apparent as a result of George W Bush's election in 2000 and the outrages which followed. What I noticed is that most "liberals" expressed the same thoughts and feelings within a short time after the stimulating event. Sometimes, I had a certain reaction sooner than others; sometimes others were quicker than me. The important thing is, the reaction was (almost) always the same. It became apparent, on reading OP-ED pieces, news articles, event descriptions and analysis, that my thoughts and feelings were the same as thousands, even millions, of people. I was surprised by that, as I had thought of myself as a 'splendidly isolated' iconoclast.
 

I am slowly accepting my newly discovered, lowly status as one of the crowd. All those other activists had similar backgrounds to mine. We've read the same things, been in the same places. We've had a lot of similar experiences. The consequence is, confronted by a "new" reality, we think the same thoughts, feel the same emotions. So it is with the "liberal" community. Liberalism is a school of thought.
 

I noticed the same thing about conservatives. Liberals and conservatives live parallel lives, only touching in certain events and places. Otherwise, they are completely different. What they think separates them; a separation so profound that they do not even share the same "facts." What's a fact depends on how you think, which is another vicious circle.
 

A Greater Mystery
 

I don't find it strange that what I felt to be my original thoughts are, in fact, productions of a trained system. It just shows the human brain can be programmed to do more sophisticated calculations than any of our computers (to date). There is some sort of "analog" - not digital - process in brains, which moves from similarity to similarity. That analog process, which still eludes the brains of computer programmers, is "pattern identification." At least, that is one of labels we apply to it.
 

(The use of the singular, 'process,' here is not meant to prejudice the case that pattern identification may involve several processes. The label "pattern identification" is merely a name, a heading, for whatever goes on that identifies patterns. Until we really understand it, and are able to replicate it in digital computers, we don't even know what is a "pattern." These are a lot of loose terms we are trying to explicate.)
 

The fact that I evaluate something as part of a pattern - for example, that I can identify Senator Kerry and President Bush as belonging to the school of American Imperialism - in the same way as numerous other individuals of our species, implies all of our brains work similarly. [More minimally, those brains coming to similar conclusions work similarly.] That similarity suggests the possibility of a mechanistic explanation: 'people like Walter process percepts this way ... because their brains are wired thusly ... ' How does someone become like Walter? By having the sort of experience (training, programming) that Walter had. [Education and brainwashing work.]
 

Why does Walter think he is an individual, and not just a sub-assembly of some machine? Part of the training is self-identification; giving the parts of ourselves unique serial numbers as we are assembled. This sequence ... is "me." Even my clone would "think" the same thing, as long as each of us is able to discriminate oneself from all others. Having a self begins with recognition of separation from others, a function of the brain. For that reason, I have no objection to the idea that other animals probably have some sense of "self."
 

The "sense" of individuality is something developed along with brains during the evolution of species. It probably grew in fits and starts, by degrees. Dogs can be trained to recognize their names. Our near relatives, the primates, develop senses of self not only in captivity, but also in the wild. Thus, we should accept the notion that the sense of self and consciousness are matters of degree, not on/off conditions.
 

But, if all of this results from evolution and experience (nature + nurture), how is it anything new ever develops? Are masters unique creatures able to invent something new, while all others are merely slavish imitators? I don't think so. I still think much of what I have thought is new and original, even if it follows a pattern inculcated in me.
 

Evolutionary Nexus
 

The solution to this seeming puzzle starts with the fact that I, as an individual, was able to generate conclusions ("theorems") on my own, in the same way as all the others like me. We all have the machinery to identify patterns and determine similarities and differences. That machinery works very well in coming to "similar" conclusions from similar inputs. Being able to identify an attacking lion is an advantage strongly encouraged by evolution, as those who cannot do so are not likely to tell the story. Evolution has made our brains work the same, little by little, over millions of years. Evolution has followed a well known programming practice: make one change at a time. Our pattern identifying machinery is the result of billions or trillions of trial and error experiments. Some worked, others didn't. The ones that worked are here to tell the story.
 

What is "evolution?" Really just a name we give to the process of trial and error. I don't ascribe any status to the name; it isn't a law, or force or anything like that. At most, it is a procedure followed by the genetic mechanism which is tested by the external world.
 

Incidentally, I am not arguing against Stephen J Gould's "punctuated equilibrium." I actually agree with his invention. I interpret it to mean that, occasionally, several successful steps are taken almost at once. The pace of evolution varies, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, which is the same thing as saying it is a stochastic process.

Some Darwinians still insist all evolution is gradual, the accumulation of characters, one by one. That view is somewhat supported by the notion of a genetic clock. DNA, like radioactive atoms, mutates randomly, but at a measurable average rate. That average is supposed to be constant. Strict gradualists seem to assume that each mutation, each evolutionary step, is tested before the next one can proceed. I think that is not so. In fact, DNA can accumulate lots of mutations with nothing happening of any importance. For example, mutations in the "junk" regions change nothing; most DNA is non-coding. (Non-coding means not translated: it specifies no RNA or proteins.) Even mutations in active coding areas very often have no effect. Mutations can proceed until the total genetic load is, for whatever reason, lethal or a useful evolutionary step.
 

Suppose someone has a 6th finger - some families have that gene. In most cases, this is neither lethal nor helpful to the individuals expressing the gene. It just doesn't matter. Then, suppose we advance to a world where having more fingers is an advantage in pushing buttons. Sooner or later, "evolution" might catch up by favoring 6 fingered hands. The "gene' needed to produce the 6th finger is not just one mutation, but the result of a whole series of mutations. Its sudden appearance as a successful adaptation would appear to support "punctuated equilibrium." While such a change does support Gould's theory, it also shows that Darwinian gradualism was happening all the time. It took a lot of mutations to make one punctuated leap.
 

This disconnect and connect between gradualism and punctuation is possible because the underlying process - genetic mutations - is not usually directly tested in the external world. Phenotype - the results of expressing genes - is tested by the environment.
 

Thought Evolution
 

The same sort of difference - between genotype and phenotype - can be applied to whatever goes in the brain. The brain is subjected to myriads of impressions, "percepts," but only some of them come "before the mind." When they do, one has an experience. (This language is not meant to invoke the "Cartesian Theater," described in Dennett's Consciousness Explained.)
 

Learning is exactly the same sort of thing, by integration (summation) of experience. This is also another programmer's trick. Suppose I figure out how to do a little thing, and test it. I know the little thing will work exactly that way every time, not only on account of the tests, but also on account of the program structure (form). It must be so. Maybe that's as far as it goes; maybe I never need to do this little thing again. Or maybe not: maybe I discover the little thing is involved in other things. By iteration or recursion, this little thing becomes a big thing.
 

For example, once there is a procedure for adding 2 numbers, any number of numbers can be added by iteration. The procedure can be made even more economical by recursion; feeding back the output into the input for the next step. Iteration requires N procedural blocks to achieve N steps, or (N+1) results. Recursion requires just 1 procedural block to obtain the same result. In the process of evolution, perhaps some things that were done iteratively were eventually streamlined into a recursion.
 

Looking at a brain doesn't necessarily provide a clue as to how we think, or whether we are or are not original. Pattern discovery may not be a linear process: it could be rolled out from several iterations and recursions at different levels. If the brain evolved by trial and error, then its pathways may not be simple or logical or linear. Unlike hearts, lungs and livers, brains are not specialized to do one thing or a collection of related things. Brains organize and run nerves, but not always the same way. There may be a pattern to running, but learned responses to environmental challenges (experience) cannot be predicted. That's why some people hop, skip and jump through a child's chalked hopscotch game, and others just walk past or over it.
 

So, maybe I can be original after all, while at the same time just being another instance of my type. The devil is in the details. At a sufficient level of generality, I will find myself in agreement with my fellow liberals, my fellow anyone. Most liberals condemn the Iraq War. Almost everyone wants to breathe their next. However, if I go to a meeting of liberals and begin a discussion of the politics of the Iraq war, we will soon enough find ourselves screaming and yelling, ready for fisticuffs.
 

Thoughts are not infinitely fine-grained; they have a measure. This suggests the brain is not a continuous medium. If we sift through them enough, we find our experiences are not comparable to those of others. The differences are probably not resolvable by some sort of relativity calculation, or quantum hocus-pocus. They are just plain different and incommensurate. It is this fact which makes whatever I, or anyone, thinks unique and original. Those who are "masters" are not at all different from you or me; they are just the results of many little things coming to fruition at once. Masters are retrospectively the punctuation in thought evolution; but any of us may be a present or future masters.
 

Looked at that way, the miracle is that anyone agrees with anyone else about anything. It is the miracle of the quantized atoms, mostly empty space and never really "here," but only probably "there," which nonetheless constitute the solid world around us.