Epimemetics (Epimemes) – Wiki

Epimemetics (Epimemes) – Wiki.

“Epimemetics is the scientific methodology of studying and consciously re-engineering “ideas about ideas’ (Meta-Memes) and “beliefs about beliefs” (Meta-Beliefs). The ultimate goal is to transform and limit the power of negative replicators by taking personal and cultural responsibility for them.

“Epimemetics combines the neurochemistry of dopamine with semantic theory, decision theory (game theory), motivational and behavioral theory, cognitive (bio)neurophysics, neuroeconomics, confabulation theory (blind spot theory), network theory, evolutionary biology, and memetics.

“Innovation and insight derived from these converging disciplines could be used to engineer a culturally-determined movement towards pure collaboration, compassion and endless creativity. “

Epimemetics (Epimemes) – Wiki.

A profound irony

We credit human beings with the greatest magnitude and scope of cognitive abilities of any species on earth. Furthermore, to our intrinsic biological intelligence we have added numerous prosthetics and enhancements:

  • language
  • culture
  • science (scientific method)
  • numerous technologies for gathering, recording, testing, communicating, and processing information
  • neuroprosthetics

Rodin’s Thinker

But here is a staggeringly profound irony:

With all this enhanced and aggregated cognitive ability, we are still unable to collectively choose between two familiar but diametrically opposed descriptions of reality with much greater consensus than a public coin toss would produce.

Specifically, polls indicate that across a very large and relatively well-advantaged sample of our species, namely US citizens, biases are about evenly divided between a reactionaryauthoritarian (e.g. Republican Party) description of reality and a progressiveegalitarian (e.g. Democratic party) description of reality.

However, the typical political poll is not specifically designed to question the “true” (and often well-concealed) behavior of political party “machines”. At that level there may not be a hair’s breadth of difference between the two major parties. Instead, I think election-season polls tend to  reveal the belief systems, world-views, or cultural narratives that are preferred by responders if we sort them, according to best fit, into just two buckets. Party platforms and rhetoric can then serve as rough but ready proxies for two contrasting views or models of reality. Such a binary complement of proxies is a handy shortcut for getting at deep, underlying belief systems of the electorate.  Since opposing positions on issues such as trade, climate, taxes, education, gender, etc. can be framed or spun in the most innocuous terms by those on each side, conservatives can freely express their bias towards “job creators” and against “entitlements” at the same time that progressives can favor the “working poor” over the “1%” in reference to the very same groups of actual people. These disinhibiting euphemisms and epithets selectively employed by each side give them to inadvertently expose their implicit attitudes and cognitive biases with (they believe) little or no obvious stigma attached.

Now, as far as the approaching US election is concerned, voting for any presidential candidate other than Romney or Obama is practically equivalent to not casting a vote at all. Sure–many on the right dislike Romney and many on the left have problems with Obama’s record that may influence them to vote for “third party” candidates or to blow off voting altogether. I think either of those choices fails to properly compute the effect of the election on the prestige or reputation of the winning and loosing narratives or world-views, regardless of the anticipated and/or the actual post-election governing behavior of those who get elected.

The right and left have two very different public narratives about the world, despite how similarly the parties and the politicians may actually govern in office. The difference in the “spirit” of the two platforms and the associated rhetoric is really quite obvious and profound. The fact that politicians routinely get away with saying one thing and doing another doesn’t mean that narrative doesn’t count or that voting doesn’t have consequences. The fact that voting doesn’t matter as much as we wish it did doesn’t mean that voting is completely irrelevant. Non-voting and voting for unelectable candidates are inconsistent with enlightened self-interest because reinforcing the reputation of one’s preferred world-view has non-zero consequences.

On the other hand, if a third party platform or candidate represents some world view better than either major party, the marginal theoretical difference is pretty much lost right along with the election-day results. The value of  third parties is all in the campaign period (debates, etc.) prior to the election. The value of any “message” a third-party vote sends to a post-election public may be (arguably) slightly greater than zero, but seldom by much. No matter how perfect a third party may seem compared with a just plain “lesser evil” party, the bottom line in the voting booth is almost always the same: the perfect is the enemy (not the champion, savior, or super-hero) of the good. And IMHO that’s about as close to a self-evident axiom (supported by overwhelming empirical data) or pearl of wisdom as you can find anywhere.

Thus the smartest cohort of eligible US citizens will be overcoming the various barriers erected by incumbent powers and voting for one of the two major parties. How they vote will reflect their beliefs about reality. But as things stand, the electorate appears fairly evenly divided this year. So to sum up, in what is arguably an election for the most powerful public offices of Planet Earth, the collective intelligence of homo sapiens as of this great year of 2012 has evolved to an effective level of utility roughly equivalent to a coin toss.

Yet this is hardly the supreme irony of human intelligence. As we embark upon catastrophic anthropogenic climate change and the Sixth Great Extinction of living species (possibly to include our own), we may wish to reconsider our definitions of the word intelligence.

What a piece of work is man, How noble in Reason…” (Shakespeare’s Hamlet, 1603)

Cheers,

Poor Richard

Proof Positive?

Classical Definition of Kno

Image via Wikipedia

“All the proof of a pudding is in the eating.”*

Is it?

That may be one point of view (the pudding eater’s), but what about the cook’s point of view? What about the server’s , the restaurant owner’s, or the health inspector’s points of view?

Wikipedia: “Perspectivism rejects objective metaphysics as impossible, and claims that there are no objective evaluations which transcend cultural formations or subjective designations. This means that there are no objective facts, and that there can be no knowledge of a thing in itself. This separates truth from a particular (or single) vantage point [or perspective], and means that there are no ethical or epistemological absolutes. This leads to constant reassessment of rules (i.e., those of philosophy, the scientific method, etc.) according to the circumstances of individual perspectives. ‘Truth’ is thus formalized as a whole that is created by integrating different vantage points together.” [my emphasis]

I differ with that definition of perspectivism a little: I’m agnostic about the actual existence of ethical and epistemological absolutes and about the possibility of proof positive. For example, a given point of view might (coincidentally) be perfectly objective even if no one could prove it with 100% certainty.

Its one of my favorite epistemological recipes none the less.

In contrast to moral relativism or cultural relativism, the recipe for perspectivism calls for wisely selecting, weighing, measuring, and combining diverse subjective, cultural, and empirical points of view and blending them all together to a creamy-smooth consistency. Top-quality ingredients (vantage points or perspectives), carefully chosen and thoroughly mixed together (integrated), will produce a fine, well-rounded pudding of noble character (approaching reality as closely as possible).

There is one important caveat, however: not all individual points of view are equally savory. Each must be carefully inspected for soundness and virtue before going into the pudding– or you can end up with a load of crap.

I always say, “A cup of sugar salvages a sour porridge, but a pound of poo makes a  piss-poor pudding.”

Poor Richard

————-

* Proof of the pudding (answers.com): Related to: appearance; reality and illusion

Jt is ywrite that euery thing Hymself sheweth in the tastyng.
[c 1300 King Alisaunder (EETS) l. 4038]

All the proofe of a pudding, is in the eating.
[1623 W. Camden Remains concerning Britain (ed. 3) 266]

As they say at the winding up, or the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
[1666 G. Torriano Italian Proverbs 100 (note)]

The Proof of the Pudden is in the Eating.
[1738 Swift Polite Conversation ii. 132]

Related:

Pretty Good Truth (PRA 2.0)

Now for a perspective that’s completely different:

When the truth is found….to be….lies
And all of the joy within you dies…

%d bloggers like this: