I really think Feynman and Kauffman and generally complexity theory properly understood address the issue McGilchrist is going after… and which he can’t get to from where he starts.
First Feynmans beauty of a flower is useful. Scientific understanding properly applied is expansive - it explodes the dimensions of information - not reductive.
Second, Kauffmans World Beyond Physics is useful. As Morgan states the world is combinatorially explosive. But his and McGilchrists conclusions are wrong, or they miss what is truly amazing. As Kauffman points out, the chemical combinations needed to develop simple life happened much more quickly than one would expect from random interactions. Kauffmans conclusion is that for unknown reasons we happen to live in a universe whose structure is such that we happened naturally. This is as weird as it sounds. Kauffmans conclusion is that the universe itself is creative and we are creative beings in a creative universe.
McGilchrist is interesting - and our brains are crazy and amazing… but there is also an element that is left out around Schrodingers What is Life in that life locally violates the second law of thermodynamics by organizing and concentrating energy in space and time. You and I, each of us is roughly 10 to the fourth power (10,000) times more energy dense than the sun per unit mass (Rob Philips lecture). This is done through control and regulation and structure.
So is it surprising that our brains incorporate a domain for reinforcing and extending the sort of structure which created life by concentrating energy in space and time? We need structure.
And that our brains also see the connections, because we ourselves, each of us, are just different branches of a complex interconnected web of self-reinforcing and iteratively evolving chemical reactions which began as life on earth a few billion years ago, and which somehow the laws of the universe we live in were structured to create. The invisible hand or force isn’t reaching in. It’s always there in how physics and chemistry work.
Anyway - Morgan’s presentation is amazing. I just think McGilchrist only gets halfway to the interesting insight that we are creative beings in a creative universe.
And the real punchline is that our technologies are really just beginning to enable us to use our creativity. We are still just at the beginning.
As a native Kansan, I am naturally inclined to find midwesterners to be a source of wisdom. So, when I think about the competitive advantages of curiosity I can help think of this scene from Ted Lasso:
And I think we do have to think of curiosity as a social trait which is selected for or against as part of cultural evolution via group competition.
And what is interesting about our current time period is the way our global networks are enabling new ways of forming and collaborating groups - changing the dynamics of group competition and the course of cultural evolution.
But you can also just enjoy the humor and remember to be curious not judgmental. Be Ted, not Rupert.
There is one epic and inexcusable error throughout McGilchrists work. Human brains need basic nourishment to develop, and for most of human history it is likely most humans lacked that basic nourishment. For instance throughout documented history the majority of humans lived at subsistence levels in abject poverty and were malnourished. Their brains didn’t develop fully, and they were physically stunted. Until the early 1970s the majority of humans lived in abject poverty (less than around the equivalent of $2 a day)… and although it is painful to recognize, what this means is that the majority of humans for almost all of human history until the last 50 years - lacked the basic nourishment to be able to fully develop physically and that included their brains.
The idea that creativity ruled in eras dominated by abject poverty seems improbably, and feels like the sort of romantic anachronistic delusion we need to have the metacognitive skills to correct for to see the world accurately.
Those who live lives of privilege need to take care not to generalize their experiences. There has perhaps been an oscillation in the perceived experiences of a small elite over time - but the broad human experience just began about 50 years ago when we crossed out of the time when most humans lived in abject poverty.
The world evolves - it doesn’t oscillate like a pendulum.
I really think Feynman and Kauffman and generally complexity theory properly understood address the issue McGilchrist is going after… and which he can’t get to from where he starts.
First Feynmans beauty of a flower is useful. Scientific understanding properly applied is expansive - it explodes the dimensions of information - not reductive.
Second, Kauffmans World Beyond Physics is useful. As Morgan states the world is combinatorially explosive. But his and McGilchrists conclusions are wrong, or they miss what is truly amazing. As Kauffman points out, the chemical combinations needed to develop simple life happened much more quickly than one would expect from random interactions. Kauffmans conclusion is that for unknown reasons we happen to live in a universe whose structure is such that we happened naturally. This is as weird as it sounds. Kauffmans conclusion is that the universe itself is creative and we are creative beings in a creative universe.
McGilchrist is interesting - and our brains are crazy and amazing… but there is also an element that is left out around Schrodingers What is Life in that life locally violates the second law of thermodynamics by organizing and concentrating energy in space and time. You and I, each of us is roughly 10 to the fourth power (10,000) times more energy dense than the sun per unit mass (Rob Philips lecture). This is done through control and regulation and structure.
So is it surprising that our brains incorporate a domain for reinforcing and extending the sort of structure which created life by concentrating energy in space and time? We need structure.
And that our brains also see the connections, because we ourselves, each of us, are just different branches of a complex interconnected web of self-reinforcing and iteratively evolving chemical reactions which began as life on earth a few billion years ago, and which somehow the laws of the universe we live in were structured to create. The invisible hand or force isn’t reaching in. It’s always there in how physics and chemistry work.
Anyway - Morgan’s presentation is amazing. I just think McGilchrist only gets halfway to the interesting insight that we are creative beings in a creative universe.
And the real punchline is that our technologies are really just beginning to enable us to use our creativity. We are still just at the beginning.
As a native Kansan, I am naturally inclined to find midwesterners to be a source of wisdom. So, when I think about the competitive advantages of curiosity I can help think of this scene from Ted Lasso:
https://youtu.be/5x0PzUoJS-U?si=YjByIimhMUi5WO8D
And I think we do have to think of curiosity as a social trait which is selected for or against as part of cultural evolution via group competition.
And what is interesting about our current time period is the way our global networks are enabling new ways of forming and collaborating groups - changing the dynamics of group competition and the course of cultural evolution.
But you can also just enjoy the humor and remember to be curious not judgmental. Be Ted, not Rupert.
Thanks mate!
There is one epic and inexcusable error throughout McGilchrists work. Human brains need basic nourishment to develop, and for most of human history it is likely most humans lacked that basic nourishment. For instance throughout documented history the majority of humans lived at subsistence levels in abject poverty and were malnourished. Their brains didn’t develop fully, and they were physically stunted. Until the early 1970s the majority of humans lived in abject poverty (less than around the equivalent of $2 a day)… and although it is painful to recognize, what this means is that the majority of humans for almost all of human history until the last 50 years - lacked the basic nourishment to be able to fully develop physically and that included their brains.
The idea that creativity ruled in eras dominated by abject poverty seems improbably, and feels like the sort of romantic anachronistic delusion we need to have the metacognitive skills to correct for to see the world accurately.
Those who live lives of privilege need to take care not to generalize their experiences. There has perhaps been an oscillation in the perceived experiences of a small elite over time - but the broad human experience just began about 50 years ago when we crossed out of the time when most humans lived in abject poverty.
The world evolves - it doesn’t oscillate like a pendulum.