Pope Bendict XVI's thoughts on reason.

In his Regensburg Address, the Pontiff voices an interesting opinion on the state of reason today. Essentially, he believes that modern reason and particularly the sort of reasoning as practiced in science, tends to be much too narrow in its scope. Therefore, it (reasoning) is self-limiting beyond what he (Pope Benedict XVI) thinks it should be. The Pope describes modern reason as "This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology.". The Platonic/Cartesian element being the realization of how well mathematical principles can, and do, model reality. The "empiricism" is the view that only "falsification" and "experimentation" can provide you proof of what is "real".

The Pope further defines two points about what can be drawn as true from the sort of modern reason practiced today. The two points are as follows:

1. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity.
2. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question.

In his closing the Pontiff makes an extremely valid point, "...as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology." I believe, in saying that the modern reasoning, because of its adopted methodology, is essentially unable to answer the question of its own existence.

Not So Deep Thoughts

Here are some questions for you to ponder.

1. Reality...what is it?
2. How do you define it?
   
3. Would you think of reality as an abstract container for the events of your life?

Number three seems like a reasonable exposition to me. Perhaps you could even say that reality is the superclass from which your existence inherits. To continue with the association, let's say that our perception is the interface implemented by our existence. Sort of makes sense right? Your existence inherits properties from reality. How another existence interacts with your existence is formalized in your existence's implementation of perceptions.

Life as a software artifact!

America and the coming decades

One day while at lunch, the question was asked amongst us "What would you encourage your child to pursue as a profession"? Interestingly, nobody discussed having their children pursue the "hard" sciences such as chemistry, physics, or biology. Even engineering did not score very high on the list. The top professions that were discussed were those that you find in the growing market of service industries. Professions such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, and business consultants (a catch-all for change management, technology, risk management, and process improvement specialists). When we were discussing the reasons behind our choices, we discovered that we all agreed the U.S.A is losing its edge in terms of technology and development and could not compete when it came to industry (labor). While we didn't all agree on the root cause(s) for the decline, and some of us even had difficulty deciding which was more important, innovation or industry, we all understood that the flagging confidence in our country's ability to maintain its technological dominance was the reason for our choices. With that mindset, we see a self-fulfilling prophesy. We need more scientists and engineers, but since the perception is that there is no money in it, we don't have anyone fill those niches.

So involved in the discussion were we that it continued after the lunch hour was over. We talked about the situation as we all rode back to the client site and then more that evening after the clients had all left the site. While we couldn't pin down between us the exact cause (at least in our mind) of our concerns, we could all argree on the outcome. America would cease to be a super power and instead simply exist as a first-world country. In effect, similar to the European nations.

As we prognosticated on America's future, we all agreed that the "coming threat" to our technological dominance was China. China is spending money on research and development, they have a good number of scientists trained by western universities that are working for the home team, and above all they are "focused". The majority of the folks who were involved in the conversation believe America's lack of focus was the leading cause for our performance woes. We've always had a focus for our energies in the U.S.A. After World War II, when America could really be called a super power, the cold war and "red threat" fueled our country. Large sums of money were spent on weapons development and defense. However, it was during that time frame that America sprinted to the lead both technologically and economically. We were focused. We had a plan of action to follow. Our efforts were concerted and our monies were spent where they would bring the most benefit (more or less) in relation to the rest of the world. Now, however, we seem to lack clear goals and initiatives for the country. Perhaps we can become focussed again without having to resort to the tried-and-true "external threat to country" routine.

Perception and Reality

Have you ever heard the phrase "perception is reality"? That seems like a logical statement, doesn't it? When you stop and think about it, everything we know of the "reality" we live in is based upon our perceptions. We see, hear, smell, taste, feel (tactile) "things" in the world that provide us with information about our world. I think we give the information garnered from some senses (sight for instance) with more weight than others. However, we usually label items as "real" if they appeal to more than one of our senses at the same time; while we "reserve judgment" on items that may not stimulate as many senses at once.

I guess the most important question is; "What is reality?". When we say reality are we talking about simply the collective observances of the human race as perceived through their sensory organs? Perhaps we mean something more concrete? Perhaps we are discussing an "absolute" reality instead of a "perceptual" reality. I think that we can safely assume that there is a difference between perceptual and absolute reality. The "way of the world" doesn't change simply because one human has differing sensory experiences from another human. Blind people can hear the same note as well as someone who is sighted. Deaf people can see an orange ball as easily as someone who can hear. (Assuming of course, those are the only sensory deprivations they have.)

So, what is the "absolute" reality? What does that mean? I think the jury is still out on those two questions. What I think we mean when we refer to "absolute" reality is, actually, those unbending rules and principles from which sensory mechanisms (such as eyes, auditory nerves, etc...) operate. Obviously, we can affect how we perceive a sensory input by artificial means. However, the underlying principles that govern the creation of the sound, or light wave, or thermal current (etc...) cannot be modified. Those bedrock principles are the ones I'm discussing as being the "absolute" reality. It is easy to manipulate perceptual reality. One merely needs to change or obfuscate the sensory inputs. L.S.D, a popular illicit substance during the late 60's and early 70's was a chemical compound which "confused" the sensory processing system of the mind. You would "hear" colors and "see" sounds. The term used to refer to this is "synesthesia". Within the framework of "absolute" reality your perceptions of that absolute reality don't necessarily dictate how another individual will perceive absolute reality. If you are red/green color blind, for instance, that doesn't make a red light less red and more green for someone who is not red/green color blind. Nor, for that matter, can it change the fact that a red light really is red (in wavelength) and not green (a different wavelength).

The single most compelling argument for perception being reality is that we humans can only interact with absolute reality based upon our "perceptions" of that reality. Ther could be a component of absolute reality speaking to us right now, but if we lacked the sensory organs to hear it we wouldn't respond. Indeed, we wouldn't even know of the existence of such a potential sensory input. I think the arguments that are made for "perception being reality" typically boil down to ; "anything that can't be perceived is irrelevant". Personally, I would say that stance is remarkably astigmatic. What about X-rays, infrared light, and sound waves that are beyond the capacity of the human ear to experience? Do those sources of input no longer become a part of reality if we cannot perceive them? I would say, no. (It is possible to argue that those events are experienced indirectly via their affect on other sensory inputs) However, I think it is important to qualify my statement by saying, our responses to those inputs can only be generated once we perceive them. So the question remains, is perception reality? I think the adequate answer is "almost". More-so from an individual stand-point and less-so from a collective (collectively human) stand-point. We, as humans, by our very exist create a perceptual reality. However, perceptual reality only exists because of absolute reality. Well...at least that is my perceptual reality of the situation!

Free Will....is Our "Will" Really Free?

Just a quick definition to establish a conversation.

Free Will: (dictionary.com)

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

Now, fair warning, this is a religiously toned article!

It is widely understood by Christians that God is an "all knowing", "all seeing God". An omnipotent and omnipresent God. I think it is quite easy to reconcile the idea of free will with an "all seeing" God. God can see everything, but that doesn't mean He will "do" anything with respect to how you go about your life. However, there is a great deal more of an issue with trying to reconcile an "all knowing" God with the idea of free will. Especially, if you consider that God "has a plan" for your life. God knows what decisions you make before you make them. Wouldn't that in and of itself mean that you were already destined to make that decision?

Perhaps there is a plan for your life, only it is like a roadmap, or architectural blueprint; rather than a computer program. You are free to follow the map to a destination that has been marked for you, or you can pick your own destination. You can build the house according to the blueprint or you can make modifications to the design. In both of these instances, you are given the freedom to decide how or what to do. If your life was programmed (as a computer program), then you would only be able to execute the commands or instructions as you encountered events that initated those commands. When something were to go "wrong", you would get "debugged" and a new set of instructions. As an aside, perhaps when you encountered a logical error, you "throw" the exception by prayer?

In any event, the problem still arises from the fact that God knows the choices you make before you make them. He possesses knowledge of the future, which means that the future is knowable (at least by God), and that it is already written. God, either knows or does not know the decisions you make. Does it really only boil down to two scenarios? If He knows the decisions we make before we make them, then the future is written for us. If He does not know the decisions we make before we make them, then the future is not written for us. Can there be a third option? God knows the decisions we make before we make them, but the future isn't "written in stone"? I'm not sure how this third option could exist.

Freedom Fighters

You know, the term freedom fighters could be misconstrued as someone who fights freedom. Think of "crime fighters". They are usually somebody who goes in search of the evil doer and brings them to justice. But, when we say "freedom fighters" we are typically referring to those militant organizations that rise up against an oppressive regime. Why is that? Why do we not say that freedom fighters are those folks who rise up against the hallmarks of freedom? Why do crime fighters equate to "fighters of crime" and freedom fighters equate to "fighters for freedom"? To be honest in our application of english and its grammatical constructs, we should be saying "freedom's fighters". In that sense we are saying fighters for freedom. There can be no ambiguity with that statement. Perhaps in my next post, I will put forth my opinions as to why such incorrections are being promulgated in a "generally" literate society such as ours.

Popular confusion

Here is a question to ponder,

Is it possible for a law to be fair despite being unjust or even unfair despite being just?

Consider this; the question of fairness deals primarily in the execution of a law. To be considered fair, a law should provide for being applied equally to all subjects. Now, the question of "being just" depends upon what society will tolerate as law (in a democratic society).