The Golden Geek

Image of Goldman from Minerals of Scotland


A Selection of Comments Panned from Science 2.0


Most people are fearful of ideas, especially those that suggest that they aren't in control. The idea that the brain is doing something "without their express knowledge or permission", is something most find disturbing. So, they cling to "free will", or "morals", or even "rationality" as something that they can use to justify their belief that humans are better than that.

As a result, we find more fascination with fringe topics to suggest that humans have a huge reserve of untapped power. Psychic abilities, notions that we only use a tiny percentage of our brain's capabilities. Even things like the "power of positive thinking" are all geared towards helping people try to capitalize on some hidden power to elevate themselves beyond simply being "human".

That's the whole point of the singularity. If we can't achieve super-human status biologically, then our technology becomes our salvation. God doesn't do the job, so we'll invent some super-computer to do it for us. Techno-religions are the wave of the future, because they represent an updated version of the same superstitions, but they sound so much more legitimate because they are all sciency and mathematical.

Personally I suspect that part of the problem is that we've evolved a brain that is capable of doing more than is necessary for survival. We've already "won" that round, so now our brains are attempting to explain our success as something intrinsic in us as humans, rather than the lucky coincidences that gave rise to humans. In the end, it's one of the primary reasons why most people reject evolution, because they can't envision that humans could exist without some special act of creation in which the universe itself acknowledges our uniqueness and greatness.

above bespoken by Gerhard Adam, 11 May 2012


Cognitive Tribalism

If it is new to people it is often threatening. Call it cognitive tribalism, fact is it happens. Time and again I have been met with stares of amazement when I say something that is perfectly obvious to me but new to them. Your idea about science as an emergent activity is worthy of serious consideration but it undercuts the still deeply embedded faith in what some call free will.


Whenever you attack free will be prepared to face barrages of people who think you are half balmy. People en masse seem to need to believe that someone is steering the ship, that we\they are in control of all this. It may well take another hundred years before people are ready to seriously consider that we're all on one crazy and fascinating ride.


Great line in the movie "The Big Chill", something like this: you can go for a week without sex but can you go for a week without a rationalisation?


I am not qualified to critique the work of Frank Sulloway regarding creative thinking types but having read the book I think he is onto something. Sulloway's central idea is that the creative mind set arises from the individuals in their developmental years being exposed to significant authority figures with whom they are in very strong conflict. Don't have to psycho analyse this, it could simply be about habits of thoughts arising from constantly engaging those figures in arguments about this or that. 


I meet people who take astrology seriously, 10 miles to the west of me there are health farms selling bulldust to rich gullible people, I read today that apparently 1 in 6 USA citizens still think Obama is a Muslim, on the internet there is a cure for every disease and a solution to every problem. I'm amazed at the stuff out there. So it seems to me that perhaps our Western Culture is not nearly as unified as we would wish. There is certainly a much greater multiplicity of views now and the conservatives, if the history of monotheism is any guide, are onto something when they suggest if you move things too fast all hell can break loose.


One of the appeals of Star Trek is that if not in phenotype at least there is hope of moral improvement(that closet socialist Roddenberry!). A faint hope ... . A while ago I read The Evolution of God, by Robert Wright. An atheist-agnostic he does seriously put forward the idea that humanity has demonstrated a moral evolution. Could be true and might even serve as a useful foundation stone for a future religion. As Carl Jung wrote: You can take away a man's gods but only to give him others in return. Or Albert Camus, The rebel, who at first denies god, finally aspires to replace him. And on it goes in the laments of history.


We can do better, we need a new dream. In these days I'm worried about the chemical soup we are slowly but surely spreading across the planet. We may not have time to do better. Not my problem, I'll be long dead.


above bespoken by John Hasenkam, 11 May 2012

Further Resources

How Is Personality Formed? - Interview with Frank J. Sulloway at The Edge

Let the Mud Fly!: a scientist's guide to insulting other scientists - Paul Knoepfler