Anatomy of Culture.


“It is very likely that never in human history have there been as many treatises, essays, theories and analyses focused on culture as there are today. This fact is even more surprising given that culture, in the meaning traditionally ascribed to the term, is now on the point of disappearing. And perhaps it has already disappeared, discreetly emptied of its content, and replaced by another content that distorts its earlier meaning.” Mario Vargas Llosa, 2016. ( From ‘Notes on the Death of Culture. Essays on Spectacle and Society.’

Any ignorance, and hence confusion, regarding the invisible forces of ‘culture’ would be an obvious source of our many social misfortunes and political misadventures. Direct and indirect references to culture are continuously being made in many contexts, leading inevitably to the question: Is there anything in society that is not cultural?  Contrary to popular belief, it is being recognized that all of our public activities contribute to ‘culture’, even the vast numbers of trivial pursuits that set the stage for more interesting and controversial ones. We can therefore legitimately ask, do we ever really know what we are talking about when we reference the content of our culture, most of which is generated via social interactions? There probably was a naive time when many thought that they did, or at least the educated ones, the few that could read. Even today, politicians and experts fervently work at persuading us that their view of the world is ‘true’, that they hold the key to happiness, and that we should follow them. One should not expect these ambitious public actors, our so-called ‘thought leaders’, to be sufficiently sensitive or honest to admit to the limits of their understanding. The possibility that the average Jan or Jo is as aware of their surroundings as their supposed superiors never occurs to them, apparently. In this they are pretty much like everyone else, accepting the inevitable reality of hierarchical social groups. (Jan and Jo are indeed ignorant, but so are we all, as we shall see.)

It is surprising to note, however, that although the modern concept of culture is such an important part of our conversation, it has only been around since the mid 19th century. The first formal definition, and still one of the most useful, is by Edward B Tylor (1), the ‘first anthropologist’: “Culture or civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society”. Inherent in this definition is an emphasis on the better aspects of our behavior: Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art, and Custom (1871).

At the same time, ca. 1871, Matthew Arnold (2) published Culture and Anarchy wherein a highly aspirational and moralistic view of the goals of society as a whole was articulated, stressing our common humanity. In his universalist view Arnold held common ground with Tylor, but there were many dissenters right from the beginning. In the early 20th century, Franz Boas thus gained much support for his particularist view of many cultures, a view that is consistent with what most intuitively accept today. Contemporary evolutionists, however, seem to prefer the view that all social information passed on to others constitutes culture. (3) Thus the fields of sociology and anthropology have not settled into anything resembling a consensus. Today the very concept of culture is being challenged, battered perhaps by all the incomplete renderings and weak defenses of it. (4,5)

It seems clear then that a robust, reproducible and testable concept of culture would be an essential basis from which to develop a better understanding of the incredibly complex relations of humankind. Ignorance and incomplete understanding, especially about self and others, must necessarily produce irrational systems of coexistence since we are self-governing individuals, tasked by fate with having to arrange increasingly complex societies. But countering ignorance and confusion is hard work and success is not guaranteed. Wars, genocides and mass exploitations are still upon us. Opportunities for improvement all around are therefore great: reducing our inhumanity towards each other; providing for a greater sense of purpose and meaning in the lives of all 8+ billion; inducements for all to be the best that they can be; perhaps most important, we might improbably even acquire the tools by which to guide our future global culture in a more sustainable direction – virtuous evolution!

It would thus seem necessary to find the keys in the present so that we may solve the problems of the future. The fact that we are here and can talk about these questions means that we have been successful so far. The task appears immense, yet there is reason for optimism.

The Components of Culture.

  1. Global Culture. This is the ineffable totality, the natural ‘culture medium’, within which all people exist, actively participating in Darwin’s “war of nature”, surviving as best we can. (6) Simply put, it is the Web of Everything: all that is publicly displayed or articulated by all living human beings across the globe. In reality, (i) it also includes all the diverse behaviors, good, bad or indifferent, and all products and possessions, including tools and technologies, of all presently existing humans. (An alloverse*, as opposed to the individual idioverse of Rosenzweig.) (7) (ii) It also includes all the currently accessed stores of historical information about what had been known, thought, taught, observed, produced and evinced by humanity as a whole: physical and electronic records, books, articles, historic artifacts, rules, habits, addictions, (mis)understandings, (mis)classifications, (im)moralities, trades, disciplines, etc, etc. (iii) It also includes all the features of nature in the different localities where humans operate, now extending to the bottom of the ocean, miles underground, and to the outer limits of the solar system. Trillions of galaxies have very recently become ‘visible’ outside of our own. (iv) It constantly changes from moment to moment, in ways and at a pace that far exceed our individual or collective faculties of apprehension and comprehension. (v) While people, their thoughts, behaviors, artifacts and environments are real, the vast body of information and knowledge that is physically transmitted is virtual – i.e., strictly speaking, transmitted signals do not constitute knowledge. If and when such signals are captured by the sense organs of a person, they are processed in the body of that person, mostly within the brain, recreating a real instantiation of knowledge and awareness, albeit as an indirect, unique, approximate representation in a mind. So, while culture is public, meaning is private – a fundamental dualism that affects all our deliberations. There are also many physical limitations to our ability to capture signals. The statement that neutrinos are passing through my body is an interesting shareable thought, it is a phenomenon (publicly signaled statement) that we can discuss. Actual neutrinos that routinely pass through my body without any interaction, are undetectable signals, not phenomena. The alloverse of cultural information, while immense, thus represents only a very small fraction of all the signals in the physical or material universe. To put all this another way:

Total Global Human Culture is that supercomplex (8) whole consisting of the totality of all phenomena as observed by everyone in nature and society. This includes reports of phenomena communicated via language or emotion. Nature, human behaviors and artifacts, including all technologies, are the predominant sources of such phenomena, defined here as all events and structures perceptible by humankind. Global culture is therefore synonymous with ‘observable external reality’. Every human being is continuously contributing to its maintenance and construction.

  1. Effective Culture. The set of all those specific phenomena of global culture that a person, due to their unique situation, has been directly exposed to and has interacted with, learned from, and responded to, up until the present moment of their life. This represents our ‘little’ corner within the whole totality of global culture. We directly learn from it and are continuously shaped by it in a seamless dynamic process that to varying degrees becomes somewhat more self-directed and selective with the passage of time (wisdom). Even just observing the routine activities of people passing by teaches us something about the community in which we happen to be. Most importantly, in terms of our personal development, each child starts learning, from the moment of their first breath, directly from a completely new and strange sensory and phenomenal world composed mostly of family and its social circle, including teachers. This represents an extraordinary diverse and unpredictable source of information; a private set of ‘knowledge’. There are even suggestions that fetuses start learning to recognize a mother’s particular language while still inside the womb. Some ‘highly cultured persons’ acquire and become widely known for prodigious amounts of socially interesting information, but all of us directly participate in shaping our immediate environment. Even so, fame apparently amounts to nothing but a short-lived vanity in most cases. Alas, this process of learning, creativity and teaching does not seem to gravitate toward a meaningful consensus or recognizable goal. Rather, differing perspectives and disagreements multiply leading to more confusion, even chaos. Despite our extraordinarily productive brains in which hundreds of billions of cells, mostly neurons, are constantly processing ‘information’, we can only partially sample and internally process a small fraction of the whole external cultural reality, that global universe of all cultural phenomena. Therefore, it is thus impossible to accurately describe the whole at any moment in time, or even any part of it. Hence the term supercomplex is used in the abstract definition of the whole.

Effective social culture is the unique sum of all the phenomena within global culture that the life cycle brings a person into direct contact with, providing an evolving supply of learning experiences, feedbacks and opportunities.

  1. Personal Theory of Culture. Each person has their own, more or less incomplete, mind-view, intuition or ‘theory’ of what culture is, whether they call it that or not. (Prior to the 19th century it was usually called by another name.) This is often what is being referred to when we now talk about ‘our culture’. It is an individual ‘subjective/objective’ intuitive synthesis of the milieu in which they act out their biological and social imperatives. It is based on our personal effective culture (personal and social history) and shaped by our own unique biologic features – our idioverse (Rosenzweig). This is akin to Theory of Mind. A theory/intuition/concept is automatically conjured up in our minds when encountering the thought of society, or related questions such as duties, expectations, choices, actions, meanings, purposes, rewards, punishments, pleasures, and what individuals and groups are up to. This mental construct is the more or less coherent product of all personal experience and can therefore be expected to change with time or situation. It is always personal and subjective, and is variably but incompletely held in common with others, most closely with family and friends. The meaning and use of the word has drastically changed and expanded over the last 150 years, yet global culture itself has changed even more, in a runaway process fueled by our many biological drives, accumulating knowledge and evolving technology. This may be the reason why it has been reported that there are more than 160 published definitions of culture. Every investigator apparently hones in on an aspect of their effective culture that seems to be most fundamental or meaningful to them, most relevant to their interests. Furthermore, our culture is the ultimate complexity that we must deal with – on a par with the universe and our bodies. ‘Our culture’ is effectively ‘infinite’ since the reality of it dwarfs our mental and physical abilities. For these reasons, nobody, no polymath, no creative genius, anthropologist, historian, politician, scientist, or philosopher has a sufficient sensory awareness or computational wherewithal to fully, accurately and precisely describe or explain all the phenomena as experienced by themselves, or any other person, group or whole. Abstract, very ‘thin’ linguistic conceptualizations are the best we can do. Many of us try to fill in the gaps with art, poetry and music. Or we can go into great detail on a particular set of phenomena (e.g. science, history, literature, finance, etc.), but then we become less sure of how that fits into the whole – a variant of the Heisenberg Principle. We might as well invoke a variant of Gödel’s Theorem at this point: we also seem to strongly suspect certain things to be true even though we do not have specific or sufficient information to support that view.

A Personal Theory of Culture is recursively generated in the mind of each biologically unique, evolving person, enabling that individual to survive and flourish in a challenging, uncertain and changing external phenomenal reality over time.

  1. Community Identities and Traditions. These used to be fairly easy to recognize from a distance: groups of people from various localities looked, dressed, spoke and behaved in a recognizably different way. This was colloquially referred to as ‘their culture’. But the world is changing rapidly and what once seemed to be stable communities are now seen to be rapidly changing everywhere. They may still communicate in their own language and may have characteristic shared beliefs. This could lead to a certain predictability and confidence in interactions with such members of a traditional community or group. Locality thus has a tendency to homogenize the effective cultural experiences of local inhabitants, whose theories of culture would then also have similar features, leading to similar behaviors. This is a powerful source of learning. Such local adaptations can even lead to physiological changes: differences have been observed in central nervous system function when comparing distinct populations. E.g., different regions of the brain are used to perform the same task in people from Europe or Asia. In selected Asian-Americans, different regions of the brain of an individual may be used for the same task depending on whether the subject had just been primed with Asian or American associations. However, cultural traditions often have rather fuzzy geographical edges and they evolve continuously. Even very isolated groups learn from other traditions with which they intermittently came into contact with, so none are, nor were, ever completely isolated. Furthermore, individual biological and psychodynamic variation within such traditions may be wide and there would always be subgroups, exceptions and outliers. For example, it is inevitable that some members would attempt to be conservative, others liberal; some more socially conforming, others more individualistic – such diversity would be expected to provide a survival benefit. Dominant, widely established traditions tended to be viewed as ‘civilizations’ that often saw themselves in opposition to lesser civilizations, or even uncivilized barbarians. All this seems to be going out the window as a result of the communications revolution.

Group formation is a fundamental feature of human behavior. (9) Innumerable local and global, real and virtual groups and communities exist due to changes in technology and the explosion of information and knowledge. The word culture is often affixed to these as a loose descriptive term: corporate, criminal, drug, police, rural, cosmopolitan, African, Asian, Polynesian, European, white, etc. In this sense the word at best provides a very general sense of what is being considered, but very little, if any, reliable information is identified by these labels. Not infrequently, outright erroneous ideas are reified.


Going beyond Tylor, we identify a single ‘infinitely’ large ‘supercomplex’ abstract whole necessitating a multipartite, multi-perspectival approach. It is now obvious that there is just one culture, albeit extremely diverse. There has been a lot of confusion about this in the past. All peoples on earth have been interconnected by migration, trade or war, but information traveled rather slowly then. In the ‘good old days’, different ‘cultures’ or ‘civilizations’ were identified by unique features such as language, manners, arts, ceremonies, dress and social arrangements, all the while ignoring the simple fact that most of the basic behaviors and social interactions across all regions were very similar or indistinguishable. Where distinct differences did exist, intermediate instantiations were often found, and the borders were fuzzy. Superficial differences were allowed to obscure deep commonalities. In this respect, ‘cultural differences’ have much in common with ‘racial differences’. Just as there is now only one race, there is just one culture – there are no biological incompatibilities amongst human groups, there are no boundaries of social behavior. The underlying motivations for the hard, but erroneous, separation of race and culture may, in fact, be very similar: groups tend to form around any idea or behavior that might be associated with a competitive, security or lifestyle advantage. Such groups engage in positive feedback loops of self affirmation, so becoming less concerned about accurate evaluation of the evidence. World War II and the holocaust were extremes of this kind of thinking and it is still very much alive in the polemics of today. Ontologic unawareness (ignorance) and epistemic confusion cannot be legislated away, rather society appears to change as increasing proportions of its members intuitively see themselves and the world differently – a result of the ‘evolution’ of knowledge and the war of ideas.

Global social change could be an extremely slow process, but fads rapidly and chaotically come and go. The deep convictions seen in the process of ‘othering’ are usually misguided, even though they may be ‘adaptive’. So it is hard (impossible) to identify in real time anything by which ‘progress’ could be measured. Everyone’s personal theory of culture is incomplete and uncertain. Today’s undeniable trend might be the key to future success, but, more likely, it will just be tomorrow’s forgotten infatuation. “The inability of the mind to see its own advance is one of the reasons the future will always surprise us.” (Jason Kuznicki, 2018.) 

Serious, evidence based public debates founded on a reasoned analysis of the complex problems of society have been of very limited effectiveness. Profound inherent super-complexities, structural and functional, are involved: different effective cultures, different theories of culture and different or conflicting traditions. Language (narrative) also is an important limiting factor, only a very thin version of reality is communicated. Stories and narratives appeal to intuitions in ways that we do not fully understand. All our true inner feelings on social questions of morality, values, fairness, duty or mission are difficult to identify and articulate, and so are opaque to others. What is for me is never exactly for the other. A better approach, therefore, would be to be a little less concerned about what is wrong with the narratives of others – they are all incomplete and partially correct – but more focused on a self-critical analysis of one’s own gaps in understandings and knowledge, and improving on those. Such a continuously self-improving person could hopefully then act in a more effective manner, leading to a greater influence on others in their community. ‘Progress’ does not appear to be the direct result of our endless polemics. The ignorant self-righteous shouting and screaming across a perceived divide properly turns most people off. Authentic changes in behavior and attitude that spring from direct personal engagement in the problems of social reality have a greater chance of beneficially influencing others: each one of us teaches by example. In so doing we contribute to culture.

Learning from history is also a lot more complicated than commonly presented. The volume of information available to a broad public is now unprecedented, placing more and more people in positions where very sophisticated decisions need to be made. The industrial revolution presented new challenges and brought about great changes in social arrangements. It also brought the most destructive wars in history. We are now in another such period of large scale change. The scary thought is that we again seem to have no clear idea of what is coming. A simple, but reasonable, rule of thumb would be to invest in the diverse talents of all individuals above all else, to prioritize the functionality and competence of each uniquely valuable person. Society should organize around the primary principle of respect for each and every one – maximally inclusive diversity, building on the successes of the past and trying to avoid previous errors. Large corporate structures (bureaucracies, businesses, political movements, etc) to which people submit rather than exercising their own best individual judgement may represent the greatest threat to our happiness. We need to nudge and cajole our fellows into taking greater individual responsibility. We should also heed the lurking dangers of the moment. Politics is an extremely crude and dangerous instrument, but absolutely necessary.

The postmodern critique of ‘Enlightenment Culture’ and its terminal condition has been quite destructive. The over-dramatic meme of the death of the individual, reason, God, etc., has been very devastating but might now be losing steam. Reconstruction hopefully is in ascendance – a never ending cycle. Evolution is war, entailing the death and elimination of the obsolete, whether physical features or cultural manifestations. We need greater clarity on the frameworks within which we exist and operate. Familiarity with the structures and components of ‘our culture’ may therefore be essential guideposts in our pursuit of happiness.


(1) “While a foundational figure in cultural anthropology, Tylor … accepted the premise that all societies develop in the same way and insisted on the universal progression of human civilization from savage to barbarian to civilized. Nowhere in his writing does the plural “cultures” appear. In his view, culture is synonymous with civilization, rather than something particular to unique societies, and, so, his definition refers to “Culture or civilization.” In part, his universalist view stemmed from his Quaker upbringing, which upheld the value of a universal humanity, and indeed Tylor’s refusal to accept the concept of race as scientifically significant in the study of culture was unusual in Victorian science.” Logan, PM; 2012. BRANCH. (

“But in terms of cultural theory, the most important criticism [of Tylorean evolutionary anthropology] was that of the American anthropologist Franz Boas (1858-1942). A German immigrant to the United States, he was influenced by German Romantic philosophy, including Herder’s insistence on cultural particularity. In 1896, Boas published an influential critique of Tylor’s science, “The Limitations of the Comparative Method of Anthropology,” in which he persuasively challenged the basic notions of psychic unity and independent invention upon which Victorian evolutionary anthropology rested. .… He argued throughout his work for cultural pluralism, for “cultures” in the plural, and with him began the final shift in anthropological thought from the traditional universalism to the new, particular theory of culture that characterized twentieth-century thought.” Ibid.

(2) “Arnold objects to (the Victorian) narrow definition of culture, calling it a combination of “vanity and ignorance,” and attacking its acolytes as people who value culture solely as a form of “class distinction,” a “badge” that separates them “from other people who have not got it”. Instead, he argues, culture is a combination of broad intellectual interests with the goal of social improvement. “There is a view in which all the love of our neighbor, the impulses towards action, help, and beneficence, the desire for removing human error, clearing human confusion, and diminishing human misery, the noble aspiration to leave the world better and happier than we found it,—motives eminently such as are called social,—come in as part of the grounds of culture, and the main and pre-eminent part”. Culture combines this commitment to “the moral and social passion for doing good” with the ideal of scientific objectivity, “the sheer desire to see things as they are”. Rather than a means to differentiate the elite from the mass, Arnoldian culture assumes the elite and the mass have a shared humanity. This was a novel use of the term at the time and was seen then as the most striking aspect of his new idea, …” Logan, PM; 2012. BRANCH ( 

Arnold, M. from Culture and Anarchy: “The whole scope of the essay is to recommend culture as the great help out of our present difficulties; culture being a pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world, and, through this knowledge, turning a stream of fresh and free thought upon our stock notions and habits, which we now follow staunchly but mechanically, vainly imagining that there is a virtue in following them staunchly which makes up for the mischief of following them mechanically.”

(3) Chris Buskes, Nijmegen; 2013: “Hence ‘culture’ can be defined as: all information that is transmitted to next generations by non-genetic means, i.e., through spoken or written language, teaching, or imitation. … Similar definitions of ‘culture’ can be found in Richerson and Boyd (2005); Jablonka and Lamb (2005); Plotkin (2010); Distin (2011), and Mesoudi (2011).” (

(4) VandenBroek, AK. 2014: The Culture Concept. “The culture concept — which overtime has been contrasted, combined, and entangled with the related concepts of society, personality, identity, symbolism and practice — weaves together the history and core philosophical and methodological debates of anthropology as a discipline. Yet, today the concept that lies at the center of what anthropology is and does is fragmented and contested, as anthropologists have taken on the challenges put forth by postmodernity to cope with contradiction, borderlessness, constant flux, and the impacts of anthropological and historical biases, such as sexism, orientalism, and othering. This has left some anthropologists reaching back to science to find stability and others plunging into a realm of interpretation and description, while a new generation of anthropologists formed within this milieu must find space to make a discipline, whose central subject is disputed, both relevant and professional.(

(5) Vargas Llosa, M. 2012. Notes on the Death of Culture. The realm of culture is “understood not as a mere epiphenomenon of social and economic life, but as an autonomous reality, made up of ideas, aesthetic and ethical values, and works of art and literature that interact with the rest of social existence, and that are often not mere reflections, but rather the wellsprings of social, economic, political and even religious phenomena.” (

(6) Darwin, C. Origin of Species, 1859. “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

(7) “Alloverse”, a neologism, refers to an universe composed of all that is outside of the universe that is within. An alloverse, in theory, consists of all the psychic events and behaviors of all members of our global community. This is derived from Saul Rosenzweig’s concept of an idioverse: “The idioverse consists of the population of events experienced by a single unique individual. This conception supersedes that of personality because the idioverse purports to be a more direct and objective formulation.” ( “… the concept of the idioverse, defined as a self-creative and experiential population of events.…” ( In short, idioverse would then consist of all the psychic experiences (events) during an individual lifetime. The interaction between idioverse and ‘alloverse’ is yet another perspective on understanding our place in the world – the supercomplex relationships between and among individuals and groups.

(8) Supercomplexity. It is becoming apparent that many challenges of life need to be approached from the perspective of supercomplexity: ontologic and epistemic challenges that exceed our ability to conceive or study objectively. Many questions relating to culture easily fall in the supercomplex category since we can not recognize or define all of the components and how they might relate to each other. We do not even know what the measures for success might be. In algebra supercomplex and hypercomplex are terms used to describe ‘fictitious’ numbers that cannot be described in ordinary language. These concepts appear to be necessary to ‘understand’ data related to gravity and quantum physics, etc. ( In biochemistry it refers to a stable structure formed by the “association of two or more complexes of biological molecules that occur separately elsewhere”. ( The microscopic structure of our bodies similarly are supercomplex because we do not have the tools to ‘visualize’ what is inside of a neuron, for example. By transferring the rules gleaned from the macroscopic world to the microscopic one, we are engaging in a categorical leap of faith – the lack of reason in quantum phenomena illustrates the point. In addressing the complexities of preparing for tomorrow, Barnett (2004) refers to the supercomplexity of life’s learning challenges: “The challenges of complex systems, even if they could not be altogether unravelled, could be dissolved to a significant degree. The challenges of supercomplexity, in contrast, could never be resolved. They are the challenges that arise from the question: what is a university? Or: what is a teacher? Or: what is a doctor? The challenges of such questions could never be dissolved, at least not in ways similar to those of complexity. For such questions, in principle, yield a multiplication of answers and further questions. And some of those answers and further questions spring from perspectives, value positions and even ideologies that are mutually incompatible. To see universities and teachers as consumers of resources, or even as producers of resources on the one hand, and to see universities as sites of open, critical and even transformatory engagement are, in the end, incompatible positions, no matter what compromises and negotiations are sought.” ( Many examples of the inability of logic and reason to explain human behavior have been documented. Time, context and order affect outcomes, demonstrating the need for quantum-like theories of cognition and rational behavior – gestalt, query, configurable weight, integration, and fuzzy trace theory. A quantum probability theory model might succeed better at predicting outcomes. (Pothos, Busemeyer. 2013) (

(9) Weingarten, CP and Chisholm, JS; 2009. Attachment and Cooperation in Religious Groups. An Example of a Mechanism for Cultural Group Selection. “Nowak (2006) modeled the evolution of cooperation via five mechanisms: kin selection, direct reciprocity, indirect reciprocity, network reciprocity, and group selection. Nowak concluded: “we might add ‘natural cooperation’ as a third fundamental principle of evolution beside mutation and natural selection”. Group-selection models can be mathematically equivalent to models based on individual selection (Boyd 2006; Lehmann and Keller 2006; Nowak 2006).” (

Emphases mine.


Scientistic Perspective on Everything – Introduction.



Why scientism? And why do we need a perspective on everything? Suffice it to say that Science, Technology and Engineering have changed the world profoundly, but not all to the good. Cataclysmic dangers loom. It therefore behooves us to understand the issues and potential solutions. A Medical Model  is recommended: identify the relevant context, obtain accurate historical information, examine the current situation, test various theories, make a diagnosis, formulate a plan of action, monitor the progress. This may sound complicated, but it probably is not complicated enough. It would, at least, be a major improvement on current approaches.

Cosmos/Reality, Consciousness/Life and Culture/Existence.

All information and knowledge about everything, anywhere, at all times can be filed under at least one of three closely related, fairly distinct domains. They encompass all of human experience, knowledge and creativity. Every opinion of every person is concerned with an aspect of one or more of these areas:

1. The Cosmos represents Reality as it is, it is the foundational and generative basis of everything, including each one of us. With time (Evolution) it directly gave rise to Life. It is the eternal, evolving universe that we know is there, but cannot yet understand.
2. Consciousness, awareness and drive are biological processes inextricable from Life and its Evolution. In animals it additionally includes awareness of phenomena (complex things and events) associated with highly effective responses, frequently with a complex social component. In humans, mostly through language, it uniquely includes the ability to describe, communicate and choose among subjective simulations of past, present and future events. These biological, phenomenal and social components of form the foundational and generative basis of all of our Culture.
3. Human society and culture and our bodily existence in it are the substrates from which are generated the compelling virtual reality of all of our subjective experiences of self, environment and history.

Systematic biases and errors are at the core of our cultural conflicts since they exacerbate our misunderstandings. The above three intimately interwoven domains continuously modify and interact with each other. They are central to all understanding, yet their roles are not generally acknowledged. Scientific, philosophic, political and religious debates proceed almost completely unconcerned with these distinctions. As a result communication is deeply flawed and even superficial mutual understanding across disciplines is very difficult. More precise definitions and better awareness could provide a framework that focuses our discourse and opens channels of communication between disciplines and world views. Since no one has all the answers, no one is qualified to categorically exclude anyone else – but it happens all the time. It is essential that all parties actively participate and contribute, especially religion which has been under relentless and even irrational attack, but also philosophy, art, science, politics, etc

Growing up during the Cold War made a deep impression on many young minds: there were constant rumors of the imminent destruction of civilization. How could this even be that the human race would consider the possibility of destroying itself? It became somewhat of an early preoccupation trying to find the causes and possible cures for such madness. Total killed in conflicts in the 20th century about 100 million, many more injured and maimed. The 21st century already promises another rich harvest of death and destruction in the mass pursuit of delusional sectarian certainties.

There is no agreement even on a general approach to our problems. The proclivity to kill and destroy on a vast scale is dismaying, yet we seem baffled. People wring their hands and utter reassuring platitudes about peaceful co-existence, disarmament, trust, communication and cooperation. “If the others would only correct there ways” is the usual assessment by perplexed philosophers, politicians and spiritual leaders. They seem to be completely oblivious of their culpability and the limits of their understanding.

We all have great difficulty even in understanding ourselves, what we are thinking, and what our motivations are. How could anyone flourish under these adverse circumstances? Are we lost? Is this the inevitable price of ‘progress’? It might even be true that matters could have been much worse had it not been for religious campaigns for peace and universal human rights. The ultimate irony, of course, is that activists in favor of these noble goals may themselves end up rioting, burning and looting. Rather, humanity seems more distracted by other matters.

So, from where will salvation come? Do we have to wait on experts to deliver us from this bind? On a deeper level, the quest for understanding is so complicated that everyone always has to rely on authoritative sources who, it turns out, rely on other authorities, and so on. The experts upon which all of us rely are not true masters of all the facts upon which they are pronouncing judgement. Frighteningly, those upon whom much trust and responsibility have been placed, make momentous decisions without even having access to all the relevant information! In other words, assuming a leader is honest, sincere and responsible, she must still proceed by guesstimate or intuition. The crowd is usually anxious to rally behind any skillful or charismatic leader – that is the nature of politics. However, this has been a recipe for terrible mistakes. The battle of ideas too often ends up in real battles. Even in our daily lives there is much confusion, miscommunication and disagreement on everything.

What is the cure for this historic ailment? As any good doctor knows, first make a diagnosis, identify the cause and then prescribe treatment. The diagnosis is not encouraging: (a) Our sources of information are limited and unreliable. Human beings have no choice but to make decisions without ‘knowing all the facts’. (b) We are confused on our aims and goals because we do not understand ourselves or others well. (c) We do not understand our culture very well, much less that of others. (d) Our prescriptions are often based on fantasy, bias or error. For example, conflict appears to be an inherited congenital condition that manifests as a chronic disorder. It should receive more attention and be placed under continuous active management. Furthermore, we do not even have an accurate understanding of the root causes and mechanisms of expression of this malady. Fairy tale assessments are usually offered up that suggest it is all due to a few bad apples: if only the good would band together, our problems would go away!! That sort of wishful thinking has been disastrous. Rather, there is a surreptitious “banality of evil”. Simple narratives about the Son of God, the Chosen People, the Perfect Messenger, a Glorious Leader or a Workers Paradise can be very inspiring, but the net effect on their followers has been to isolate them from new information, to widen the divide amongst communities, and thus to increase the opportunity for conflict.

In too many situations perceptions of irreducible differences with The Other arise because of ‘fundamental’ principles derived from some formulation of reality or another. This error, we believe, very simply has had its roots in the universal failure to appreciate the processes involved in the production of consciousness, thought and culture. Our experiences are so self-reinforcing that very few ask what is going on behind the curtain.

A new approach should not simply be to intensify the same efforts of before, and certainly not to launch yet another triumphalist movement. Diversity of cultures and competition amongst them have been destructive at times. However, efforts at enforcing uniform attitudes and values have been even more destructive. Could there be a way out of this mess?

The cure should include better communication. Our analysis appears to re-emphasize a special role and responsibility at the individual level. We can not rely only on a few of the best and brightest, or only on some elite group. There clearly is a need to re-examine our form of governance. This should be a longterm project involving all citizens who really have the ultimate responsibility for bringing forth a true democracy. (This is all old hat, but it gets lost amidst all the shouting and screaming by leaders in various theaters of operation, departments of opinion and schools of thought.)

Through the use of common sense and common language we hope to describe a framework by which anyone could approach all knowledge and information; to address in accessible terms everything that is real and everything that exists: every thing and every non-thing. Everyone has a huge but nevertheless very incomplete fund of information, yet each has a unique and potentially valuable perspective. An encompassing framework will enable just about anyone to put in perspective what they are thinking or what some specialist is saying. Much new information is inevitable and should affect our understandings profoundly. Nevertheless, the outline of our theory should remain intact.

Everyone should feel encouraged to participate to the maximum of their ability and interest. So what is the average curious layperson to do? Systems of learning have been of two types, and combinations thereof. A still pervasive ancient approach is to wholly accept the pronouncements of a charismatic speaker, a chief, a respected oracle, a mystic master or a divine prophet. Una boca de la verita. A newer approach is practical and scientific. It depends on the cooperative efforts of many individuals applying curiosity and reason. Oracles snared insights intuitively, while the empirically curious meticulously pursued any interesting question, often being surprised themselves by the results at the end of their search. Purely intuitive truths have an attractive quality and have worked quite well, especially in primitive times when there were few alternatives. Experience has since shown many great intuitions of the past to have been simply wrong. The community efforts of scientists, philosophers and others have far outstripped the best efforts of the oracles and, like it or not, society and culture have been transformed. Paradoxically, we now have come to realize that true understanding of ourselves and our world is extremely hard to come by in most areas. So, getting down in the weeds of voluminous scientific information would be deeply frustrating for anyone interested in solving large, overarching problems.

A simpler methodology that will point in the general direction of ‘The Truth’ is needed, stipulating up front that the final destination seems permanently beyond reach. By taking a big picture, holistic approach, combining science and intuition, suggestive answers to our larger questions can be surmised, even questions that have challenged us through the ages. We must begin at the beginning.

The story of life on earth resembles a journey – an evolution. It began at some very distant point and has evolved into what we see now: a wonderful display of phenotypic diversity and superficial teleological design. With each new creature discovered, the picture becomes a little more complete. It has been said that only ~10% of bacteria have been identified. If true, this means that most of the species on the planet have not yet been looked at; many surprises are certain to be still coming our way. Even so, the big picture is pretty clear: life has, more or less coherently, evolved into innumerable niches of survival. These niches, including ours, continue to change and evolve, as does Earth and the cosmos.

Our somewhat historical narrative is all inclusive; no information exists outside the three domains of (1) reality as it is, (2) biological consciousness and (3) culture. A story of everything should establish a framework that identifies the connections between all the parts and could be referred to when difficulties arise between fields of knowledge and systems of belief. Anyone could use this framework in order to gauge where in the universe of information their interests and pursuits lie. One does not have to know everything in order to know some things, but having some idea of everything could be very helpful by putting matters in perspective. No mathematical formulae are used although we grant that they are essential for many analyses. No complex philosophic abstractions, structures or ‘isms’ are relied upon because they are too confusing for everyone, even the professionals. Summaries and perspectives by experts, however, are very useful for up to date objective information in their respective fields; one should always keep in mind that such fields may have their own built-in biases. As new information develops, adjustments must be accommodated. In other words, one must keep an honest and open mind, recognizing that we lack complete knowledge and understanding in virtually every area of human pursuit.

Allowance for ignorance, misunderstanding and error should be an important feature of a complete framework. Perhaps what has been missing in all other efforts at providing a coherent framework of knowledge and understanding has been a recognition of our large information deficiencies and many misapprehensions. Despite our limitations, humans have managed to ‘flourish’ while holding completely incorrect or fantastical ideas. Our numerous gaps are especially acute at the borders of the three knowledge domains: what were the initial conditions at the beginning and what set this majestic process in motion? What were the crucial forces operating at the beginning of life, propelling it in an apparent quest for multiplication, diversification and survival above all else? Perhaps most important, what is driving events now and what is our role in our own future evolution? For instance, is our future wholly dependent on computable events? Or, is there a human element that is undefinable, essential, unpredictable and irreplaceable?

Furthermore, humility should be front and center because no matter how superior anyone’s knowledge might be, any such single individual can theoretically master but a very small percentage of all available information; especially since what is available is itself very limited in relation to the entire universe of potential information. Knowledge is more like a web of ideas to which everyone contributes. Culture is a web of ideas plus a web of behaviors plus a collection of artifacts. Various grandiose claims of profound understanding and mastery are on the order of the day and dot the cultural landscape. Prudence suggests great skepticism, even cynicism. To the extent that these claims motivate individuals and groups to attain new heights of excellence, they may be beneficial. But most of these claims, however, are hyped and subsist largely on the human need to trust, belong and be reassured. Humility notwithstanding, substituting one’s own judgement for that of another is always risky business and should not be done lightly.

Our approach is new of necessity because it has not really been possible until now. In the earliest stages of our culture knowledge was mostly intuitive, based on natural observation of phenomena that were all extremely mysterious then. The Copernican revolution about 600 years ago started the scientific ball rolling in earnest. The amount of information on natural/physical phenomena collected since then is amazing. There are still huge mysteries but now, at least, we have an idea of where to look for the answers. Biology was rather slow out of the gate. There were early fits and starts, but a coherent story has only been emerging over the last 60 years or so, essentially since the identification of DNA. We are only now beginning to understand the basic processes of life.

The most surprising realization, looking at all the different areas of knowledge, has been how coherent the picture seems to be. Despite the accumulation of an almost infinite amount of data, the gaps are still large. At this juncture it would appear that no definitely irreducible gaps are present within this vast body of information. All the processes appear as if they could be interrelated. The reductionism of the physicists studying ‘fundamental’ processes in the cosmos is therefore theoretically possible: all phenomena could in theory be explained in terms of the behavior of elementary particles and fundamental forces. As a practical matter, this is probably not going to happen, ever.

There do appear, however, to be definite irreducible boundaries to what we can know: We cannot obtain information from prior to the alleged Big Bang. We cannot obtain information from any signals that might travel faster than the speed of light, if there are such. We cannot predict the future with certainty because so much information has been lost or is not observable. In addition, human abilities of observation and processing appear to be extremely limited. Culture and behavior also appear not to be predictable because of the complexities involved: each one of us is functionally different; H. sapiens also mysteriously co-evolves continuously with nature and Reality. Absolute determinism and reductionism, therefore, appear to be abstract mathematical formulations, not certainties, and as a practical matter, they appear irrelevant to questions regarding our existence.

The theme of inter-connectedness is especially strong in the biological realm, all of which revolves around DNA. There is surprising genotypic similarity amongst the extremely diverse population of living creatures on earth. What could be more strikingly different to the human eye than a single-celled paramecium, a 1 mm blind worm in the soil, and a two hundred ton whale? Quite amazingly, there are numerous similarities at the molecular level between all these life forms. All life on earth appears to be closely related despite the tremendous diversity. There is also a high level of interdependence. Bacteria are the scavengers, scrubbers and true work-horses of our biosphere. If they went on strike, the rest of the biosphere would quickly grind to a halt.

In summary:
1. All information is relevant to the framework.
2. Most observable information is not observed, consciously or otherwise.
3. An incomplete but fairly coherent narrative is possible when allowing for unobserved and unobservable information.
4. An integrated story of all information always would represent an informed and inspired guess of one person, relying on the efforts of many others.
5. Individuals are the seat of the most coherent evaluation of the greatest amount of information.
6. A working framework of and perspective on everything should facilitate human communication.
7. Improved human communication should increase human flourishing.
8. Each human being consciously and ‘unconsciously’ processes a vast trove of information, far in excess of other animals, yet our abilities are still very finite.
9. Improved networking would be a simple and obvious means by which to improve our knowledge base, coordinate our actions and provide meaning to our existence.
10. The presence, extent, function or purpose of unobservable information will always perplex human imagination.

Scientistic Perspective on Everything – Reality As It Is.



Domain 1. Reality as it is (Ultimate Reality, Ontic Reality, the Universe of Everything, the Cosmos) consists of evolving interacting systems, said to be composed of energies, forces, matter, atoms, molecules and structures; animate or inanimate, dead or alive, organic or inorganic, simple or complex, observed or unobserved or unobservable. With the advent of higher forms of life Reality is now contemplating itself”. (See caveat below.)

Contrary to the imaginary situation described in our still very popular creation myths (mythical ontologies), we now have a pretty detailed and complex idea of Reality based on vast amounts of empirical observation (scientistic ontology). The evidence can not be squared with our inherited ancient myths: we now ‘know’ that our cosmos might have been evolving over the last ~14 billion years. The most popular version of the cosmic story is that in the beginning there was nothing, except maybe a relatively simple hyper-dense state of some sort. Suddenly, this point of comparative nothingness changed and an unimaginable effusion of energy ensued with particles radiating into space, possibly expanding at speeds even greater than light. After about three billion years our galaxy began to form. After another 6 billion more the sun and earth emerged; a billion or so more, i.e. about 4 billion years ago, life came about. Reality as it is had done its own thing for about 10 billion years, violently, in secret, noiselessly and in the dark. There was no person to see, hear or smell, let alone wonder about it. But out of the bosom of a vast interplay of material/physical/natural processes, life somehow became established on our little planet in a panoply of millions of different forms, sizes and shapes, all now orchestrated by an extremely gifted molecule: DNA.

The cosmos has been evolving on scales so immense that we can not intuitively understand it – from the beginning, now and henceforth. Each supposed little particle or wavy fluctuation has its place. Physicists use mathematical abstractions and a special language to describe their findings, still there reigns much disagreement amongst different schools of thought. Those who claim to understand the physics and math – many say it is impossible to grasp it all – admit that the submicroscopic universe is very different from the ‘natural’ phenomenal world we intuitively know. In fact, an ordinary language narrative describing the structures and events yields a very sparse picture of what is going on.

Chemists and biologists have also amassed libraries of information, far more than what any one person could possibly digest. No one can claim to understand all the ‘fundamental’ processes. We don’t even fully understand how the humblest forms of life manage to do the very complex things that they do – sensing, taxis, communication, etc. Reality as it is does not readily conform to the ‘laws of nature’ as we know them from our natural perspective and common sense analysis. Natural logic, language and human imagination are incapable of describing reality as it is, albeit now partially and indirectly observed in a very small nook of the cosmos. All we know for certain is that the findings are real, observable by anyone who would make the effort, and could be independently confirmed by anyone with huge resources. The findings have a basis in Reality but their interpretation is highly controversial and may yet prove to be highly inadequate. Our narrative therefore could be likened to a fairy tale based on reams of very strange but hard data.

Anyhow, our infant universe supposedly expanded prodigiously as it cooled from billion degree plus temperatures down to 1000 degrees C. in the course of the first 200,000 years. (It may have taken 10 billion years to get the temperature down to the about 70 degrees C. at which DNA could exist.) Out of this opaque miasma things coagulated and precipitated on a microscopic and macroscopic scale. The early universe was lifeless, but definitely not still. Tumultuous energy, force and motion was everywhere, yet exquisitely directed by intrinsic, systemic relationships. Then, still quite inexplicably, about 4 bya there arose molecules that had the ability to multiply and organize other molecules such as to create minute little organic systems of energy processing and molecule building: LIFE. There is nothing known for certain about what produced this miracle. Likely precursors or initial conditions have been modeled based on creative guess-work; we now have some vague suspicions of a series of events that could have lead to the evolution of DNA as the replicating molecule responsible for this diverse abundance of life on our planet. The possible roles of nanomotors (molecular motors) as drivers of an evolutionary process based on enhanced survival have been suggested. DNA must be such a rapidly replicating nanomotor, a local, microscopic conduit of basic physical and chemical forces that drive it along – the will to power, an élan vital, whatever. DNA appears to select in favor of survival, efficiency or fitness through competition. Perhaps this selection is in favor of greater information processing – an early sign of ‘intelligence’ in a molecule? The essence of this replicating force is that it appears to enhance survival through learning, adapting and diversifying as vast numbers of different iterations compete for limited resources. Probably viral RNA and DNA contributed crucially to the creation of life. A dynamic universe, therefore, drives all processes, including life, but how? ( (

And then life bloomed in dazzling profusion! Our earthly sector of living Reality rapidly proliferated and spread to populate seemingly every niche on our tiny planet, located near the sun, toward the edge of the Milky Way, one galaxy among a supercluster of 100,000! After about 3,800 million years of life, the first mammals arrived, circa 200 million years ago. The first anatomically modern humans appeared only about 200,000 years ago, having the most complex anatomy and physiology of any animal, regardless of size, and a clear and distinct human consciousness which is manifested in an utterly unique and exceptional socio-cultural existence. There thus seems to have been an inexorable drive toward ever more diverse and complex organisms, possibly having something to do with processing more information, exact reason unknown, but in the process probabilities of survival are increased. This promotion of diversity appears to hold even down to the individual level. For example, at least 12% of the human genome is highly variable, adding yet another level of mystery, uncertainty and unpredictability. Each individual human organism thus represents a unique assemblage of Reality, as it is now. And, as far as we know, there are only about 8 billion copies extant in the universe; an infinitely small number in the greater scheme of things.

Reality, as it is in itself, has certainly come a long way! From our perspective, the arrival of life and the arrival of abstract, symbolic hominid self consciousness demarcate important phases in the evolution of Reality as it is. The fundamental lesson to be learned from this story is that we do not see a clear break when traveling from quark to neuron. Reality, as it is, supposedly started out as an undifferentiated singularity, and we, like everything else, are all descendants of that hypothetical Big Bang. Life and all its processes are expressions of this dynamic universe, even though it is limited to an extremely minute section of the whole, as far as we can tell. It appears that each of us is a slightly different and unique variation on this overarching theme. You and maybe sextillions of other organisms incarnate Reality as it is here on Earth in its most up to date version. This is awesome. Congratulations – we have been lucky indeed!

It is impossible for us to fully understand what utterly amazing creations we are. We do not come with an operator’s manual or list of components, and so we have to slowly uncover our own miraculous design and structure. Our nervous system is at the apex of complexity in our universe, unparalleled amongst most of the animals: about 100 billion interconnected neurons, approximately 100 trillion synapses continuously transmitting electrochemical signals. Each one of the neurons may be nothing less than a small (collection of) quantum computer(s). The neuronal cell body is stuffed with microtubules apparently containing quantum critical proteins that could function like quantum computers. This is still highly preliminary but does show the vast amount of information that would be required to understand brain function and the processes of life. We are just beginning to scratch the surface. (Kaufmann/Hameroff 2015)  Killer whales and elephants have somewhat comparable brains to primates.

This is probably more than what most of us would want to know about reality as it is (Reality). Most of the evidence and science is beyond me, and, I would assume, for many others. Still this new story told through science, even though extremely incomplete, rings truer now than all the wonderful creation myths of old.

HOWEVER, a major caveat is in order. The above description is very misleading because the language used to describe Reality is derived from reality as we experience it, subjectively, in consciousness, and not as it is in itself. There are no words to describe Reality since human consciousness has no direct access to Reality. The eye of the mind can not see Reality. Despite our direct sensing of it, intimate interaction with it, and the existence of volumes of investigative information about it, Reality still hides behind an impenetrable electrochemical fence in our brain.

We cannot conceptualize Reality except through representational imaginings correlating with our senses, or from experimental information obtained in ways that are very mysterious to almost everyone. Hence there is a very troubling, but not very surprising, degree of conceptual disagreement amongst researchers and ordinary folk. These conceptual imaginings exist in consciousness thus allowing us to describe in words what we think about this all encompassing presence. Unfortunately for us, our words are not up to the task, our communications are nothing but hints of the Real. (Here, as an example, is a fun review of the common sense difficulties encountered in imagining the atom.)

Furthermore, the overwhelming number of people on our planet do not agree with this naturalistic, physicalist, materialist or scientistic narrative because it is based on new and unfamiliar information, and it calls into question age-old settled beliefs. Our natural experience of reality in consciousness also is so compelling that we are not inclined to second guess it, or our intuitive understanding of it. Most also feel that this cosmic evolution could not have occurred without the guiding hand of a Creator and want to see an accommodation for this external force. It is becoming increasingly clear that direct evidence for such an intervention will never be forthcoming. The supreme intelligence of the design is in its divine seamlessness, in its inexplicability and ineffability. Clues leading to a designer are either everywhere or nowhere.

In stead of relying on oracles and revelations, us humans should realize that we are an intimate part of an evolving reality, changing ourselves and the world as we unravel its mysteries. Reality as it is is now engaged in trying to understand itself. But there is much more to this story!

First published 2015. Revised 2018.

Scientistic Perspective on Everything – Consciousness.



Domain 2. The necessary interaction of all living organisms with reality as it is (Reality) occurs through exquisitely precise physical, chemical and biological mechanisms that themselves are part of and harness the intrinsic ‘physical’ processes of Reality. Real or physical signals are recognized, internalized and processed in organized, interdependent, ‘intelligent’ biological systems (organisms) that respond to the environment, grow and multiply. This primary response to the environment can be recognized in all organisms, i.e. they appear to be ‘conscious’ of their environment. Animals have added prodigiously to this basic template: nervous systems and sense organs allow for a representational awareness of the internal and external world.

Let us start with what we all know well, our minds, and work backwards.

Embedded in our conscious minds lies a deep contradiction: we know it intimately, it is part of us yet we know very little about it. Mind is inexplicable even as everyone is utterly familiar with it: the greatest show on earth, the Magnificent Theater of The Mind, featuring true feeling, compelling narrative, cycloramic 3-D full color and stereophonic sound – even in our dreams as we sleep. Add to this our favorite tastes, smells and pleasurable activities; everything.

Despite this intimacy, perhaps because of it, we have always been confused about what and how it is and what it all means. There are many fanciful theories: an immaterial spirit that enters our body, an accurate representation of the external and internal world, our governing faculty, seat of the decider making choices, or even a completely pointless and distracting epiphenomenon of unconscious brain processes. Actually, the objective answer is disarmingly simple: Consciousness is everything an organism does in response to its environment, whether that includes thinking about it or not. The mechanisms by which our subjective experiences are produced are still shrouded in mystery. There is no adequate explanation, despite prodigious amounts of empirical data, because we still do not know all the structures that are involved. Invoking patterns of electrical discharges across trillions of synapses does not explain much. Our narratives are still pretty paltry.

Human self-aware consciousness, thought and language, along with their social implications, without doubt are amongst our most characteristic attributes. We are constantly aware of our feelings and our interactions with both the environment and our fellow sapient creatures, with an almost limitless ability to think, talk and write about it. We are compelled by our inner experiences and social interactions; it is there that we feel we find the reasons for our existence, our purpose and the meaning of it all. Many believe that this represents the essence of who and what we are. But in order to really understand what this means we need to examine the process, the underlying mechanics. After all, one would be very confused about the workings of a TV by analyzing the content of the programs on its screen. Rather, by unlocking the biological secrets of human thought we may be able to extend our self-understanding greatly, in turn, hopefully opening up opportunities for social improvement. Ignorance is not bliss.

Thus, if consciousness relates to the essence of who and what we are, it would be critically important to understand it. That would be a great step toward understanding ourselves and others. A good place to start, then, is to separate subjective content from the underlying objective physicochemical and biological, including psychological, processes.

We are not alone. Clearly, many other animals have easily recognizable consciousness since they objectively exhibit behaviors associated with consciousness – eating, drinking, sleeping, seeing, hearing, caring for off-spring, etc. Mammals and primates have sense organs just like ours with large brains and behaviors that parallel ours for the most part. Animals also exhibit on careful study what appears to be emotions, learning, memory, language and problem solving ability. The prior opinion that we were the only conscious creatures appears to have been based on prejudice and deep ignorance. Or, perhaps, we do not understand what our ancestors meant by consciousness In all likelihood, we will never fully know what it is like to be a bat, a lion, a dog, a dolphin or an ant. Each species represents their own very special case. We are constantly being amazed by how complex and intricate the lives of other creatures are. The closer we look the more common threads there are between all living creatures.

The Unity of Life

All animals capture and process ‘information’ from the environment in very similar ways. One of the major discoveries of evolutionary biology over the last 5 decades is the surprising degree to which all animals, down to the very simplest, share in a large set of common molecules that coordinate development and allow interaction with the environment. About 40% of the genes of a tiny worm, Caenorhabditis elegans, persist in humans. It has been possible to insert the human version back into the worm where it continued to perform its functions quite well. Outwardly, then, there is no similarity between this worm and a human being, but if one drills down on the molecular details, the correspondences are astounding. The similarities may even outweigh the differences. Human and worm have about the same number of protein coding genes, ~20,000, even though the human genome is about 30 times longer. But, by studying this little denizen of the dirt, we have learned a lot about ourselves. Certainly, we must accept the very likely possibility that any creature with neurons shares the beginnings of consciousness with us in some essential but not yet clearly identified way. Anyway, rejecting this possibility out of hand would be repeating a mistake we have often been guilty of in the past.

Let’s get to know this sightless little nematode a little better. C. elegans was first described by Emile Maupas in 1900. Then it was left mostly alone until 1960 when Sidney Brenner suggested that this humble, ~1 mm worm with no brain or respiratory and circulatory system would be ideal for intensive, collaborative study in the hope of understanding the mysteries of life. Brenner ultimately received a Nobel Prize in 2002. Today it is the best understood animal of all, including us. It was the first multi-cellular organism to have its genome sequenced. This little worm is also extremely predictable structurally: every one of 959 somatic cells of hermaphrodites has been mapped, including the structure and connections of each of its 302 neurons (males, a minority of the population, have 383):

“With only five olfactory neurons, C. elegans can dynamically respond to dozens of attractive and repellent ‘odors’ or ‘tastes’. Thermosensory neurons enable the nematode to remember its cultivation temperature and to track narrow isotherms. Polymodal sensory neurons detect a wide range of nociceptive cues and signal robust escape responses. Pairing of sensory stimuli leads to long-lived changes in behavior consistent with associative learning. Worms exhibit social behaviors and complex ultradian rhythms driven by calcium ion oscillators with clock-like properties. Genetic analysis has identified gene products required for nervous system function and elucidated the molecular and neural bases of behaviors.” [De Bono, 2005.]

When describing the behavior of a 1 mm blind roundworm, dispassionate scientific observers cannot avoid using anthropomorphic terms because the objective similarities to human activities are undeniable. Memory, learning, smell, rhythms, tracking, escape, social behavior and measurement of time; these terms describe intelligence and consciousness, not necessarily of the human kind, but of an organism fully engaged according to its needs and abilities in its world, sensing it, evaluating it, applying memory and making choices, using all available tools to flourish and survive. Lacking eyes it does not see, without ears it can not listen, BUT like the retina it has photoreceptors and like the cochlear membrane this little worm has mechanoreceptors. It does have an extremely rudimentary ‘nose’, and it does feed on bacteria so we can wonder what it likes best. There is neural circuitry for navigation and exploration to satisfy a natural curiosity perhaps.

Some populations of C. elegans feed in social groups, other populations consist of solitary individuals proceeding by themselves – a genetic basis for political preferences??. This is all due to the presence of a variant of one gene that codes for neuropeptide-y receptor. A related receptor is found throughout the animal kingdom and affects food consumption, mood and anxiety. Interestingly, it may modulate our intake of alcohol.

A small worm with no brain thus appears to be highly intelligent and clearly displays awareness of its surroundings – consciousness! (In fact, it is surprising how much can be done with so little.) This kind of anthropomorphizing (teleonomy) risks the introduction of confusing biases, but one has to start somewhere to gain insight and understanding of ourselves, others and the natural world. The complex and graceful interaction between a male C. elegans and an hermaphroditic partner is a choreography of multiple intricate steps that has to be perfectly sequenced for success: contact, reversing, finding the entrance, inserting spicules and ejaculation. This particular behavior (e-motion) is coordinated by oxytocin-like peptides (nematocin) without which the sequence becomes uncoordinated, ineffective and impotent. A few neurons are capable of producing very complex responses to the environment, responses that can be modulated and coordinated by chemicals.

If a short oligopeptide hormone can do this for a tiny worm with 302 neurons, imagine what it could do for an animal with millions or billions of neurons: oxytocin is a peptide consisting of 9 amino acids – not big enough to be called a protein – and it contributes much to what makes us human. It affects sexual, social and maternal behavior, controls lactation and uterine contraction; it can also affect levels of anxiety and fear, even ethnocentric behavior; the list is long and the interactions are extremely complicated. The cellular and tissue distribution of receptors for these neuropeptides varies widely among species and this has a profound effect on the many different types of behavior expressed by different animals, amongst closely related species, and even within a species such as C. elegans. It is complicated! With more basic information forthcoming, we are bound to learn much and our understanding of behavior should become even more nuanced. At this stage it seems that, while inputs and outputs are extremely variable, the internal tools with which responses are managed are surprisingly uniform. A stark, fundamental difference between worm and man is that the latter has a vast amount of DNA that is ‘non-functional’, i.e. DNA that we do not quite understand yet. [Bargmann, 2013.  Wikipedia.  Insel, 2010.]

Climbing further down the phylogenetic ladder in our search for what might be deemed unconscious life, let us take a quick peek at Paramecium, a unicellular creature with multiple nuclei. However, this one extremely large cell has many specialized intracellular organelles. There is a mouth area where food vesicles are ingested and then funneled through the cell as digestion takes place. Its cell membrane bears cilia for propulsion, is excitable and, like a neuron, can maintain a surface electrical charge due to the presence of ion channels. One cell thus performs many specialized functions. Its genome codes for about 40,000 proteins, almost double that of Homo. This is also, therefore, not a candidate for simple, unintelligent life. It is very complex, coordinated and extremely good at what it does. A Paramecium likely is more complex than any single mammalian cell. It performs many different specialized tasks and it is ‘conscious’ of its environment. It even has the ability to solve ‘simple’ navigation problems by ‘choosing’ between a few ‘simple’ strategies. Memory appears to be involved.

Bacteria occupy the bottom rung of life on the complexity scale, so what can these minute unicellular creatures do? Most of them amount to almost nothing, up to a million or more could fit inside a single Paramecium. However, once methods were developed to study their behavior and correlating such behavior with molecular structure, there ensued shocked surprise: “Nearly all motile bacteria can sense and respond to their surroundings—finding food, avoiding poisons, and targeting cells to infect, for example—through a process called chemotaxis” which exhibits “exquisite sensitivity, extensive dynamic range and precise adaptation”. [PhysOrg, 2012.  Hazelbauer, 2008.]

Rich systems of communication via chemical signals can exist between individuals of the same or different strain, sometimes communicating with a different species or even the host. Thus bacteria can sense their population density, and so judge whether conditions are favorable or adverse (quorum sensing). This allows bacteria to coordinate their gene expression and the behavior of their entire community to enhance collective survival and prosperity. This may even entail a life-style switch, from a nomadic individual, “planktonic” existence to that of a strictly controlled community, e.g. a biofilm, one that is relatively impervious to toxins, or to a virulent community that can attack other organisms or their host. In biofilms it has been found “that the descendants could remember the surface sensing signals of their ancestors”, suggesting primordial memory and learning. This is surprising. Also quite impressive has been the discovery of electrical signaling resembling neuronal activity, allowing different parts of the biofilm to communicate. [Lee, CK et al. 2018Prindle, A et al. 2015Masi,E et al. 2015]

There seems to be no limit to the strange behaviors of bacteria; strange because such behavior seems, improbably, to be an analogue of human behavior. For example, there is community policing of ‘cheaters’ that benefit from collective efforts but do not contribute their part. In some situations, some cheating is tolerated, apparently because such diversity improve chances of overall survival. Sometimes competing entities might try to disrupt the cooperative efforts of others by chemically interfering with their signals. Bacteria are actually engaged in a never-ending arms-race with intense and lethal competition for lebensraum and natural resources! (Humans can benefit from this because bacteria are the major pathway for introducing non-carbon elements into the food chain.) Bacteria thus have a very impressive arsenal of toxins and weapons at their disposal, even leading to feasting on DNA released during the fray. A recent sensational headline warned “Killer Cholera Bacterium Stabs Others With Tiny Spear, Steals DNA” – some fragments of victims’ DNA may become incorporated in the genome of the victors in the hope of promoting fitness for survival. Sometimes fratricidal groups will kill off their non-aggressive comrades, but the opposite can also happen: virulent individuals commit suicide when exposed to the ‘love-hormones’ of their more peaceful kin – give me freedom, or give me death. [Speaker Abstracts, 5th ASM Conference on cell-cell communication, 2014.]

Bacteria are the smallest free-living units of DNA – viruses exist at the borderline of life. While animals are infinitely more complex, bacteria are definitely not simple. There are predictions now being made that we will never be able to accurately conceptualize the submicroscopic structure and inner workings of even a single cell. Therefore, it seems rather odd to call something simple when one is utterly unable to explain how it works. That almost everyone is guilty of ignoring this paradox raises interesting questions about the accuracy and precision of human thought: maybe close is good enough? Now that we are able to study bacteria with more sophisticated tools we have been surprised at their level of complexity and exquisite interaction with their environments. This now makes sense given the fact that life and its precursors have been incubating for ~4 billion years or more. Today’s survivors are all highly evolved and maximally complex, it being highly unlikely that a bacterium from the dawn of life could survive today.

Nobody would seriously suggest that bacteria think the way we do. However, careful observation of them leads to the firm conclusion that they are very ‘intelligent’, conscious in an operational and objective sense of the word, and that they react purposefully. It is apparently built into their DNA, or, more precisely, that is what DNA does. Understanding what exactly that purpose is and how it is pursued is still a deep and fascinating mystery. A better intuitive understanding of what drives molecules would be very helpful. DNA is a very talented, purpose driven and intelligent molecule indeed! In its most basic bacterial form, it has managed to infiltrate and populate every nook and cranny where life could survive.

A common thread in human history seems to be that we always have been and continue to be surprised by Reality. Now that oracles have been proven unreliable or possibly deceitful as sources of knowledge regarding the nature of reality, all possibilities are now on the table. We should continue to expect more surprises.

Human Sociobiology

After learning of the extraordinary ‘intelligence’ of bacteria, worms, fruit flies, fish and so on, we come face to face with a very interesting and revealing set of questions: what a piece of work is man? How do we do what we do? But most important, perhaps, what, exactly, are we doing, and why? One of the first attempts at a science based materialist investigation of these matters was apparently met with anger and derision. Edward O. Wilson has said that he was taken completely by surprise by the reaction to his “Sociobiology, The New Synthesis” published in 1975. Political biases came into play. However, answers to our basic questions about  life are seemingly far more subtle and  complex than what we had anticipated. Our universe contains much more intelligence than we ever imagined. But how does this help us in dealing with our apparently chaotic culture? That is our fundamental challenge. It has been said that ignorance is bliss. However, our thesis is that ignorance is also very dangerous – it certainly has been so far.

From what we now know, it seems clear that all of life exhibits a form of intelligence by directly responding to and interacting with its environment, even altering that environment in a particular niche of Reality. We will call this biophysical consciousness. It has been stated that most or all animals also exhibit phenomenal awareness which would be in addition to the various forms of basic biophysical awareness. That is, most animals are also aware of macroscopic structures and events in their environment – the crash of a falling tree, a sudden flash of lightning or the repellent stench of rotting flesh (repellent to us but attractive to flies). Thus through enhanced processing and integration of the basic physical signals that give rise to biophysical consciousness many animals have senses like ours; sight smell, sound, vision, touch, etc. It seems almost certain that animals with bodies like ours (eyes, ears, noses, tongues and brains, etc.) would experience the world generally in the way we do, but with numerous specific differences. For example, most primates have trichromatic color vision – they can see red. Most other mammals are dichromatic and can not see red. Shapes, sizes and movements seem to be observed similarly to us, but we can not even imagine what their sense of smell or taste is like, or what they feel when threatened or in danger. Trying to imagine the world of very different creatures like fish, worms and bacteria at this time is asking too much. (Since there is also a wide variation in how humans are constituted, we are also never quite sure what another person would be experiencing.)

Furthermore, as an example, it is still a profound mystery as to how the utterly reliable and predictable subjective sensation of any color comes about – the qualium of color. Apparently, we can distinguish ~200,000 shades of color. It is another one of those ‘miracles’. Add to this the stunning variety of  tastes, smells, sounds and feelings that we experience, pleasurable and otherwise, and we can not help but being cognitively overwhelmed. Apparently, the nervous systems processes signals from everywhere in the body in a complex hierarchical system, feeding information via the autonomic and peripheral systems upwards through the hind-, mid- and forebrain. It then seems as if there is a cortical network that looks at all the intracranial activity and then produces a report to a separately experienced self. The dimensions of what is happening as we laugh, cry and dream are practically infinite: billions of neurons, trillions of synapses, interactions with peptides, hormones and the immune system, ad infinitum. But, put it all together and there effortlessly appears before us a clear and distinct world. It is quite beguiling, another miracle.

We have learned much about human consciousness by studying animals. Parallels with primates and mammals are now obvious. Somewhat surprising, it has also been very revealing to learn that fruit flies, fish and many other lower animals also use social strategies that can be correlated in humans: strategic copying, innovation, social learning. (Laland, KN. 2017) With new technologies we are now also learning much by scientifically studying human subjects. Research over the last few decades in human consciousness has yielded quite surprising results, leading to a complete rethinking of how it works and what its biological correlations are.

The almost universal assumption that what you see is what you get is not tenable anymore. The longstanding, still popular, common sense view that “the conscious self is fully in charge of behavior, sees the world generally as it is, and directs behavior as it sees fit” has been almost completely revised based on human psychological research. In essence, close observation of humans under controlled conditions has revealed that our mental processes may produce unreliable results unbeknownst to ourselves: our explanations of our own behavior are often not very rigorous at all; rather, the most convenient or facile reason may be selected from a trove of stock explanations, especially if it is socially acceptable. Actions may already be underway before conscious thought joins in, even though we might still think that we are consciously initiating the process. Gaps in a narrative or pattern may be unconsciously filled in. Conscious analysis may not even be essential for complex planning; goals and social motives can be activated in the absence of a conscious decision. There are therefore multiple extraordinary complex processes occurring while we are under the impression that a ‘simple’ conscious act is underway.

Perhaps the most arresting feature of all the new information about consciousness is that we have historically neglected the role of affect, feelings, mood and emotions in our lives – swept under the rug, as it were, because, quite simply, emotions were beyond the reach of all rational understanding. They needed to be suppressed or controlled, certainly banished from rigorous intellectual, scientific or philosophical discourse. Unlike intentional cognition, there is nothing clear and distinct about affect, yet here may lie another great store of future discovery and understanding. Emotions appear to provide the underpinnings of all our behavior, even ‘rational’ thought.

We know guilt, shame, fear, disgust, anger, hate, etc. These negative emotions tend to narrow the focus onto a problem to the exclusion of everything else. They often end in separation, loss, destruction or worse. Positive emotions may be less conspicuous or salient; they broaden and build, bring growth and innovation with improvements in health, wealth and happiness. Given our state of ignorance, we do not know how to best harness the powers within. The range of possibilities beckon, especially if it turns out that emotions are not as automatic and primitive as had been thought. (Barret, LF. 2017)

The adaptive value of human thinking and communication thus far appears centered primarily around social goals such as inclusion, cohesion, security and survival. Our interests in philosophy and science, i.e. pursuit of reliable and useful knowledge, are rather recent and had been largely secondary. This now appears to have changed, with science, technology and engineering affecting human social existence radically. These findings, accumulating now for a couple of decades, have been devastating to the classical conceit that consciousness controls input and output from the perspective of objective knowledge. The concept of humans as independent rational conscious executive agents is rarely true, if ever. [Baumeister et al, 2010.  Panksepp, The affective brain and core consciousness, 2008.]

What have we learned then, so far, about human consciousness that is likely to be true? Well, as we already know, humans occupy a special place amongst the animals when it comes to thinking, language and complex social interaction. However, our consciousness, like all others, has evolved from basic biophysical consciousness over billions of years. It is an attribute of our particular biological heritage. At least all animals with brains have what is referred to as phenomenal consciousness; awareness of the structures and events in their surroundings through sense organs leading to highly intelligent responses, e.g. tracking a smell across an open field, identifying the prey and then capturing it. Humans can do much the same, except for the tracking of a smell part, but what no other animal can do is to communally identify a goal, devise a specific strategy, communicate it amongst the group, assign different responsibilities and then execute based on the mutual understanding of the articulated plan. Non-humans are at a deep existential disadvantage in this theater of operations! Each human can mentally simulate what is being discussed as if it were really happening. No other animal can communicate in complex logical sentences because none can think in such sentences. So their powers of simulation have to be very limited compared to ours. That, at least, is what the latest evidence suggests, but it is likely that animals will again surprise us to the upside.

We have diverged from other animals by virtue of this ‘quantum leap’: our ability to simulate events and circumstances away from the here and now, to communicate what is in our mind, and attempt to emulate what someone else is simulating in their mind based on their words. Past or future events can be simulated, shared, discussed and analyzed, leading to vastly improved cooperation, execution and coexistence. Such advanced teamwork obviously has been of great adaptive and survival value – fitness in our case is determined by how much information is processed, communicated and stored. We have access to a total store of about 200,000 words, the average person has a vocabulary of about 20,000 words, with an upper limit of about 100,000. We all have quite a memory for words, but there are extraordinary individuals, for instance, that can remember every day of their life. There are others that can remember a sequence of about 80,000 random digits. There are yet others that can replay a piece of piano music after hearing it once.

Nevertheless, notwithstanding the unreliabilities already mentioned, conscious thought has a creative ability of coming up with novel situations and ideas, including the ability to imagine, fantasize and speculate without limit or regard for practicality. These are the skills that produce art, literature, music or play-acting for entertainment and enlightenment. There are, also, real strengths inherent in our focused thinking: many individuals are able to intensely concentrate on logic, evidence and innovation, achieving very impressive results in technology, science, mathematics and philosophy. Our greatest creative achievements have been thus inspired, but also some of our worst misadventures. This creativity is the source of our celebrated faculty of  so-called ‘free will’; mind can seemingly go anywhere. A garden of both good and evil is enclosed within the walls of our skull.

The evidence alluded to so far exposes numerous, unsuspected large gaps in our understanding of human and animal consciousness. Interestingly, while human consciousness is rightly elevated on a pedestal, much of what we know is based on studies in animals, including primates, rodents, insects, worms and bacteria. The evidence so far does not support the popular but ancient concept of a specific supra-natural or extraneous human faculty inserting itself into our bodies. All of the vegetative, tropic and reflexive functions, as well as many of their molecular and genetic underpinnings, present in humans, can be found in other animals. Our unique specializations, such as complex language and socio-cultural interactions, are very exceptional indeed but their primordial beginnings can be recognized in other animals. All this correlates very well with our large neocortex, great number of neurons and possibly 100 trillion synapses that are further fine tuned by physiological factors. Therefore, no unbridgeable gap or irreducible mystery appears to exist – our biological equipment seems very much to be up to the task. Our perplexity and confusion is due to the extraordinary nature of our subjective experiences, which had led many to assume a  divine gift. However, it now seems likely that mammals also see, hear and taste like we do. They too have phenomenal consciousness, but, unlike us, they probably just don’t think or talk about it as  much or as clearly as we do. Like many other mysteries, we can not explain phenomenal consciousness yet – it is extraordinarily complex, another ‘miracle’. Evidence based theories are only now beginning to show up.

In summary, consciousness divides the universe of information into two: the little that we are aware of and the rest that we are not. Protagoras had said something similar, “Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not”. Consciousness is a fundamental feature of life, itself having been produced by the dynamic natural processes of a submicroscopic and cosmic Reality. All species have their unique qualities. Our unique human mind appears to be a culmination of the ancient processes of biophysical awareness and phenomenal consciousness. Most of our processing of vast amounts of information still occurs in the biophysical realm without involvement of phenomenal or conscious thought (mind) centers. Everything that we find interesting is addressed in the realm of thought and simulation, and it becomes part of our culture when it is socially shared in words, sounds, images, tastes and artifacts. Our responses to information that we acquire from the environment (culture), however, are usually and mostly managed through automatic and semi-automatic processes residing in biophysical and phenomenal consciousness. Affect, emotions and feelings are central to our humanity, and, unsurprisingly, we understand even less about their role in our personal lives. It appears that conscious thought is very selective in its involvement in day to day operations, monitoring our activities and intruding when necessary. Intense focus and concentration on certain selected tasks are possible.

Human consciousness is, therefore, an extraordinary complex incarnation of biophysical and phenomenological awareness. Still, it is, in theory, potentially explainable by the underlying biological processes. Human behavior now might seem limitless and it had been easy to dismiss less complex organisms as unconscious machines or automatons, as some scientists and philosophers still do. That clearly is a mistake and it appears to be a vestige of prior ignorance. We have been blinded by the infinitely complex and utterly compelling nature of our subjective social and cultural experiences, erroneously concluding that lower animals can not possibly share anything like this with us; mythical narratives have also contributed to this prejudicial attitude. This represents a still very prevalent basic anthropocentric error.


Published 2015. Revised 2018.

Scientistic Perspective on Everything – Culture and Existence.






Domain 3. All our accumulated knowledge, stories and beliefs, along with the things we do and make, exist in a virtual public domain, composed of numerous social and cultural communities. Throughout history communities have preserved what is regarded as valuable and thus a vast trove of virtual information becomes the ecology in and with which individuals consciously interact (existence). This interaction of humans and culture is the point at which virtual information becomes real. For instance, an unread book or blog may contain very valuable virtual information, new knowledge or even truth, but our culture would remain completely unaffected.

We thus distinguish here between what is real and  what exists. Many things exist in our minds that are not real. Santa Claus exists, he provides a huge boost to the economy every year despite his being an imaginary figure. However, like all thoughts, the thought of Santa Claus is, apparently, real in our minds.


So far we have rather fancifully described the evolution of reality over about 14 billion years, from an hypothetical Original Moment to the arrival of amazing molecules that organize to grow, replicate and compete for survival. There are almost 8 billion original copies of H. sapiens, as well as untold trillions of trillions of copies of millions of other species. Reality-as-it-is has evolved, from relative simplicity into us and a vast multitude of other extremely complex living things.

This third domain is so rich and varied that it cannot be fully described, not even its local manifestations. We will, therefore, simply point out some aspects that are not well appreciated. For instance, most people assume that they have a very good understanding of their local culture and what their community is about. Rather, each one of us interacts with the small, usually unrepresentative, sample that they have access to.

As already indicated, it appears that we are the only ones that can recall our experiences, simulate them and relay them for further consideration and commentary. We can also simulate and plan future events, and even freely imagine novel situations or circumstances. Most crucially, we can communicate and share this virtual simulation with our fellow human beings and, very importantly, our children, for the purposes of discussion and learning.

Thus, adding together all the things we can learn, make, do and say, we create our own existential experience of ‘everything’ in a deceptively seamless process. We neither understand the processes involved, nor do we agree on the ultimate purposes. Our culture is completely dependent on the real, dynamic connection of immaterial, virtual ideas to the material reality of our brains. A dynamic web of virtual ideas and culture is created by real material processes brought together in our brains and bodies by evolution. Our brains are the critical central processing units in the vast web of our cultural universe. Each one of us occupies a small niche in this multidimensional web where we actively participate in this continuously creative and destructive process of maintaining our culture; each brings their own perspective on what is beautiful, good and desirable, or not. Thus there is a liberal agenda to discover the new and replace the old, and a conservative agenda to preserve what is best. Every single person brings a totally unique perspective which unfortunately is not generally  recognized nor appreciated in the vast majority of situations.

The only coherent and comprehensive statement that can be made about the content of human culture is that it is so vast and complicated that no one individual is capable of grasping the whole or even understanding it in the abstract. Nor would anyone seriously consider putting a thousand experts in a room, and ask them for a definitive summary – most people would not believe them anyway, even if they succeeded in the impossible by coming up with a consensus. Something as simple as a universal declaration of human rights is a bridge too far for many. There are so many components of culture, no one can understand them all. There are so many different perspectives there can never be universal agreement.

A fundamental difficulty with culture is that there is such a large excess of information, no brain is capable of directly sampling even a small fraction of it all. This explains the reason for efforts being made to augment human thinking by means of prostheses that could directly download vast amounts of information directly into the brain. These efforts probably are misguided, as is the idea of superhuman computers capable of integrating all available knowledge and then presenting humans with manageable summaries from which they could make more informed and ‘reasonable’ decisions. It is difficult to see how this would work, but it clearly illustrates the problem. However, humans already augment their inputs and outputs by multiple devices such as printing presses, telephones, televisions, calculators, copying machines, spread sheets, internet based communication and search engines, etc.; these trends should continue to improve our culture.

Another fundamental aspect of culture is that much of its content is entirely opinion based and personal. Almost all human beings accept as true great swaths of belief that can not be verified or falsified, but are accepted simply because such ideas appeal intuitively, are embedded in tradition or are repeated by large numbers of individuals. Children have no choice but to trustingly imbibe much of culture as it is presented to them by important adults in their lives. This makes perfect sense from a survival perspective, but it leaves every young adult pre-loaded with a large pool of entrenched ideas that will go largely unchallenged. The generally accepted ordinary or folk view of ‘reality’ is therefore highly subjective, even as it appears highly real to the observer. Fundamental misunderstandings are built into our lives.

We exist, intellectually, subjectively or ‘consciously’, in a seamless, self-enclosed individual-social-cultural continuum. What we see and hear in our heads, the incredible Theater of the Mind, seems to us to correspond exactly to what is happening out there in the virtual universe that is our culture. The reason for this is straightforward: every consciously observed event or object out there must first be simulated before one becomes consciously aware of it. This process of simulation must occur 100% of the time, separately, in the brain of each one of us. Since all of awareness is continuously created by one instrument, one’s own brain, it stands to reason that everything we see, hear and think is absolutely personal, familiar, internally consistent and compelling. (We should note that our widely divergent behaviors clearly indicate a radical lack of consistency from one brain to the next.) Even when confronted with something totally strange, we can only deal with it as a simulation or as a reflex ‘fight or flight’ reaction. This means that before we can consciously deal with anything, it must first be sensed, reduced to electrochemical signals, and then subjectively simulated. It is impossible for us to consciously deal with things as they are. The interactions between self, society and culture therefore take place in a clear and compelling  virtual space that is entirely constituted as a real simulation in our unique brain, separately, one at a time. Each one of us is the bearer of their own version of the universe; disagreements about the nature of ‘reality’ which includes us are built in again.

Thus the individual personality interacts with a simulation of a vast and expanding idio-socio-cultural continuum grounded entirely on electrochemical processes in their own brain! The obstacles to a true understanding of just about anything are enormous. Very few, if any, are aware of this and its implications. Realizing this would make it possible for us to imagine going even further – to begin to think ‘outside the box’. How do we communicate better, plan more effectively where we want to go, or exercise our ‘free will’ more constructively. The limits of global cultural possibilities are set by the aggregate limits of individual imagination. The potential total cultural experience is vast beyond comprehension, yet the degree of creative participation by individuals vary tremendously. Greater involvement by everyone, according to their interests, should be in the primary political interest of everyone, liberal or conservative, socialist or individualist. We certainly have so far been frustrated by our inaccurate understanding of self.

Existence in culture has continued to become more and more complicated ever since the days of Homo erectus, maybe even Australopithecus. Conservative ancients related this to our eating of the fruit of knowledge, expulsion form paradise and a fall from grace. Our liberal culture, nevertheless, has defiantly evolved over the last few millennia; even now we seem to be going through a rather tumultuous period. In the beginning, ~200,000 thousand years ago, ‘modern’ human culture consisted in what was discussed around the campfire – we can only imagine.

Communities kept on growing. About 40,000 years ago counting systems began to appear and about 6,000 years ago the first literature on business and entertainment apparently came into use. Almost immediately speculative religious, philosophic, political and scientific writing also appeared. Many great names from that time are still revered today even though most of what happened then is dimly recorded and left to our sophisticated imaginations. One could bet, though, that crowds flocked to the best entertainments of the day. Nevertheless, there always was a strong spirit of learning, enquiry and sharing. A high demand for books finally lead to the development of the printing press in the 15th century; cheap secular works became available for the first time to a rapidly growing audience. Intellectually we were off to the races. Today there is an inexhaustible supply of information with popular culture front and center. Electronic media has made access to content effortless and cheap. In the early days of Rome one had to venture down to the Colosseum for a distraction from the daily grind, today we click on the TV remote and watch with 186 million others as exciting history is made in the  battle of Super Bowl football.

The crowd always follows the crowd. It seems to have a mind of its own, whether in search of a messianic leader or a seductive paragon. When aroused a crowd will not be deterred – there is power there, waiting to be unleashed or brokered. This fits the theory, therefore, that human consciousness (conscious thought, affect, feelings and emotions) is more involved with social interaction and bonding rather than the classical concept of consciousness as primarily involved with discovery, learning, logical analysis and informed executive action based on knowledge and truth. The pleasures and rewards of friends and community serve to pull societies together even as these same forces can work to separate us, or, even worse, blow us apart in war and conflict. When the crowd wants to get serious, it engages in dogmatic debates on religion and politics, hurling stock phrases at the opposition. The language is usually couched in terms of fighting and battle, victory or defeat. However, there are tantalizing signs suggesting that the crowd is wising up, which would be a wonderful thing – why would anyone trust the politicians?

Mass religion could thus be viewed as performing important functions such as fostering social cohesion and reducing internal conflict. A culture-wide foundational, explanatory and aspirational narrative eliminates the need for endless debates and argument; the community can just go ahead with its daily business. Life is thus certainly made easier for everyone including the rulers who can also use religion as a powerful motivational force against a common enemy. The great religions have been quite successful in this regard, but, in the end, different doctrines, even within a religion, have almost always led to conflicts on an even larger scale. A temporary peace and quiet is inexorably followed by an uncontrolled eruption of fear, paranoia and war. The naive faithful have a very difficult time, psychologically, dealing with challenges to their entrenched foundational beliefs. Unfortunately, such challenges are inevitable since most religions claim to be an explanation of all of the mysteries – primitive theories of everything. Volumes of objective evidence adduced so far, however, have contradicted the basic religious explanations of life and the cosmos in all cases. The faithful have no other option but to steadfastly affirm the infallibility of their blind vision. Their received dogma must be preserved against a tide of evidence to the contrary. Challenges become increasingly difficult for the faithful, inevitably leading to a final confrontation. Such a process can be bloody as believers, in denial of the evidence, rise in a violent defense of their threatened ‘truth’ and the superiority of their way of life. Crude political strategies can inflame the passions even more.

Philosophy is another product of the incandescent power of our minds but, unlike religion, the diversity of its manifestations seem quite limitless. Any interesting question automatically implies many different and challenging answers. Tot homines quot sententiae. As we all know, persons will interpret difficult questions differently and are likely to come up with their own unique answer. It may actually be that we are destined to come up with different answers for multiple reasons: every brain is genetically different; every brain is functionally and physically(!) shaped by an unique set of experiences (plasticity); conscious thought can also be susceptible to uncritical acceptance of perceived socially sanctioned solutions; conscious thought sometimes may not be aware that it is making things up; every individual comes from a different perspective and will produce different simulations based on their personal history in their socio-cultural continuum. Left to our own devices, therefore, we are guaranteed to come to different conclusions on all questions that might require insight or intuition.

Expertise in philosophy, as in most other subjects, requires much dedicated learning, including familiarity usually with technical languages. Its power appears to reside in the rigorous analysis of the content of minds, the philosopher’s and that reported by others. Novel ideas and speculations may be introduced, but firm conclusions, though, are rarely established. Alternative formulations are immediately provoked, challenging the original position, ad infinitum. Many philosophical questions over time have become of interest to scientists, and it seems that when science provides relevant information, philosophy is obligated to take that into account. There is no philosophical position that can survive when it is consistently contradicted by empirical findings. Indeed, psychology and sociology employing the methods of science have contributed much to what used to be the exclusive domain of philosophers. Even in metaphysics empirical findings are changing the landscape.

Some observers have suggested that, because of the above, the idea of a creative rational personality capable of ascertaining truth is an illusion, or even that consciousness may have no real adaptive value. It seems obvious, however, despite these naysayers and despite our many supposedly irrational and pointless pursuits, conscious thought can indeed be a very powerful creative, analytical, rational learning and adaptive tool.

Scientific enquiry and technological creativity are the most obvious examples of the positive powers of conscious thought: logic, reason, intuition. The apparent explanation for the astonishing successes of science and technology is that their insights and inventions relate to objects or ‘things’, and are available for independent examination and verification by other interested parties. This is a crucial difference with religion and philosophy. The pursuit of objective knowledge is a community effort that always seeks to find support through the accumulation and analysis of evidence. “Show me” says the curious sceptic. Science and technology build knowledge one little step at a time, without much concern for the survival of any pre-existing favorite opinions or the sensitivity of others. Coming up with a more accurate and complete answer is, in fact, the goal and a reward in itself, both personally and tangibly. Applying mathematical rules to physical relationships has also been amazingly powerful. Analytic human thought is thus capable of discovering new aspects of truth about phenomena as they appear in existence around us. We also try to probe the secrets of Reality but that has been extremely difficult. Deep mysteries still remain at the limits of our imaginations, and wide differences of opinion abound.

What about these unique individuals that make up the crowd? What kind of actors are they? We apparently guide our behavior through continuous simulations of the past, present or future in consciousness. We probably have little control over the content of our simulations. What bubbles up from our unconscious processes is not under direct conscious control as far as we can tell. For example, when one meets an old acquaintance, the name of that person comes to mind automatically. Sometimes the memory can be jogged, sometimes the name pops up two days later, seemingly from nowhere. Conscious efforts to remember do not help very much. Recall from memory can also be highly unreliable; sometimes memories are simply incorrect no matter how distinct they are. The content of such memories are highly conditioned by our past psychological events, themselves colored by our particular cultural environment. This would roughly correspond to our personality. The brain, via a non-conscious executive, must therefore select relevant memories when attempting to analyze a present situation. This is all still quite mysterious, but there does seem to be an interested spectator inside that sometimes tries to direct what is happening – a self-inspector, perhaps Freud’s super-ego?

Conscious thought is conditioned by past history and present phenomena, yet it is probably free to ask any question and to simulate any response. The content of thoughts and images are immaterial, purely ideal, and have no specific mass. It is therefore almost effortless to manipulate any thought according to the personal inclination or caprice of anyone. The only requirement are keeping the brain and body healthy and supplied with energy and oxygen. Unlike anything else in the cosmos that we know of, the range of human thought is potentially infinite. The concept of infinity is a good example. The only place where infinity exists for sure, is in human imagination: infinite number of integers, infinite space. (Space may or may not be infinite in reality.) All our thoughts, therefore, require approximately the same expenditure of energy, it does not matter whether they are little banal truths or great transcendental errors. The only difference might be that more time could be ‘wasted’ on the latter because they are so beguiling.

The distinct clarity with which we view the world and ourselves thus becomes somewhat suspect once one starts probing into the processes involved. Our innocence and naivety are great but are not obvious to ourselves. Nevertheless, it appears that our faculty of conscious thought and culture building has made us the most successful primate – the most fit for survival. Our greater communication abilities have allowed us to exploit nature to a point where we ourselves have become a problem. Our benign earth now may need to be protected. Erstwhile predators and competitors are in danger of extinction. The biggest threat to our survival now is H. sapiens. That is clear, but what is very unclear is how to tackle the problem that is us. In the past we managed by assuming that an appeal to truth is the best guide for our actions. That foundation is now in ruins; the belief that we have an ability for discovering and being guided by radical existential truth is being assailed from all sides: physics, biology, psychology, philosophy. Support for this conclusion jumps out by simply observing the nature of politics.

Unassailable truth had been a delusion, a pipe dream, inherited from more innocent times. Absolute truth would require total access to all information and flawless data processing, a situation that could only be in the Mind of a God. Such a mind presumably would instantly understand everything that has been, is and will be. A MoG knows ultimate Reality as it is, as it was, and as it will be, without limit of time, place, space or number – no need for counters or clocks. It does not need to think, ponder or plan because that would indicate a degree of uncertainty. A MoG is not dependent on any senses because that would limit the information streaming in, it would also imply that God needs to learn when everything is already known. A MoG is not defined by any human category, distinction or requirement. Is a MoG jealous and wrathful as stated in the Bible? Does it care about human interests but not those of bacteria? We ask these questions because we can, while knowing that any answers would be human answers, miserly anthropocentric efforts, limited by our very impressive but still very finite processing capabilities.

We are created as nature and the cosmos is created, through evolution, but we do not understand the processes well at all. We should be honest with ourselves and recognize that answers to existential questions are articles of faith. All philosophers, politicians, pundits and preachers are simply expressing their opinions with varying degrees of conviction and skill. Truth by acclamation is a democratic delusion but it has been our best governing option. There is untutored personal conviction with clear and distinct opinions at one end and unattainable absolute truth at the other. In between, there are numerous local installations of belief and objective fact, depending on which of thousands of subcultural communities is being addressed. Everyone operates in the sphere of their personal firmly held beliefs, their ‘truth’, which merges with their existential reality: all their simulations, memories, internalized values and interactive discussions with others combine to produce an unique instance of personality, beliefs and behavior, an idioverse (Rosenzweig). A personal identification with a particular, self-defined but real community is thus arrived at – no one operates in a vacuum. A further limitation of our deliberations is that most of the information processing occurs unconsciously, away from the theater of the mind. The degree, therefore, to which individual biologic and genetic variations affect our thoughts is presently unknown, but it is a question that is being asked more and hopefully with greater urgency.

A better, more pragmatic approach to the true nature of our world could, therefore, still be extremely useful: truth is always relative to the perspective of individuals, whether they be the questioner, the responder or an innocent bystander. Every individual therefore is a custodian of part of the truth, wrapped in many layers of hope, faith and, alas, misunderstanding. Everyone is contributing to the structure and content of society, whether they are aware of it, or not.This is a responsibility that should be taken seriously. Personal convictions have a naive air of certainty and authenticity, but are always riddled with biases, inaccuracies and gaps. Radical self-doubt should not be encouraged, for good reason: no contribution is too small.. Religious, cultural and political axioms are nothing more than strong contemporary convictions or passing popular opinions on the needs of individuals, communities and societies. Ultimate and final truth is unattainable, but it still remains as an ultimate idealistic goal and, as such, it is related to such concepts as God and Ultimate Reality.

Humanity seems to be in need of a better regime: diligence in one’s endeavors, fairness to others, and honesty with oneself. Humility, self-reliance and openness should be natural outflows. We should be careful, the only ones that should be trusted are those that have been vetted, preferably in person. All dogmas are suspect. There are thousands of communities that are so focused on their narrow agendas that they are ignorant of the big picture, including what affects the majority of mankind. Life in all its splendor and diversity passes these specialists by because they are too busy or too distracted. There is a great need to be able to communicate broadly which puts an onus on us to learn, to integrate and improve at the personal and community level. Labor needs to understand capital, ‘society’ needs to understand individuals, economists needs to understand poverty; the list is infinite. Certainly atheists and believers should try empathy for the other. Left versus right, conservative versus liberal – these labels confuse more than enlighten. A generally well-educated layperson would be struck by the obvious biases of these specialists. A better system of teaching children would do wonders. At a minimum, everyone should be taught a course on the evolution of human consciousness. 😉

Society must learn to flourish as it acknowledges the now very apparent limitations and biases afflicting everyone, especially the so-called elites who seem to be especially vulnerable to the temptations of corruption. The best compromise is to recognize that local community efforts have the potential to leverage individual efforts by generating better information, limiting errors and moderating biases. Promoting the independent efforts of everyone in all their diversity, would be fundamental in our quest to elevate individuals, communities and culture as a whole. Society needs to be more integrated, up and down, and across.

In conclusion, our proposed scientistic narrative of the evolution of everything places all systems of information and knowledge into a feasible relationship. Any discussion, debate or disagreement could benefit by reference to an overall map of knowledge. At the center of our problems are the many different exclusionary and conflicting formulations of ‘human nature’.

Scientistic Perspective on Everything – Epilogue.



All things appear connected in a vast, complex, ineffable system constantly in evolution. A dynamic, prebiotic Reality gave rise to forces for survival, life and, ultimately, imaginative exploration beyond the here and now. We now dare to think that we could decide the future.

The complex relationship of our experienced universe and the actual universe is managed by little understood processes of life and consciousness, instantiated in our bodies, or brains, to be more specific. Mankind continues to be befuddled by the dual questions of what to make of ourselves and all that we are confronted with. The clues are most intriguing.

A surprising result of our scientistic project has been that, although there may never be a final answer, many of our past understandings have been incompatible with the evidence.

Another surprise of our study has been that this triune relationship of Reality as it is, the reality of life’s processes and the virtual reality of culture strangely resembles the structure of the Christian God: an all-powerful Father and Creator; the Holy Ghost, giver of life; and a Son struggling with society. The Sumerians, Egyptians, Etruscans, and others all had made reference to magical triads of gods that seemed as one. Emperor Constantine for political reasons tried to unify the Roman church under one creed in the 4th century. The end-result was an official statement on the Holy Trinity. This correspondence is very interesting, its explanation might very well reside in the intuitive recognition of the basic structures of Reality, consciousness and culture. It certainly is fun to think about.

A prime lesson issuing from this personal review of all that I know, believe or suspect is that there is no single foundation, perch or fulcrum from which to view our challenges, or from which to move the world and those in it. Diversities and differences are baked into our biological selves. Intellectually there is also no infallible tool, all-revealing instrument or reliable method to apply. Logic, reason, science and faith/intuition all fail to account for everything. For one, we have inherited so much subconscious knowledge and skill from our distant ancestors. Therefore, if our goal can not be certainty then perhaps we should strive to manage uncertainty, i.e. be aware of its presence in everything we do. At this point we must concede that all knowledge, except perhaps the most basic or simple, is relative and incomplete, representing nothing more than fallible opinions. This probably will never change, but in the meantime, we will and should keep on with our collective explorations, society imperceptibly changing as a result. We might never get there but that arduous and virtuous road might reveal clues to the key that has eluded us thus far.

All foundational religious and creative myths thus far have been proven wrong because they were unable to predict the unfolding of knowledge, and so were contradicted by it. Since the whole is evolving, accounts of the whole must be able to evolve also. There is no escape from this conundrum for anyone, unless the seeker opts for a delusion of absolute knowledge. No secret door leads out of our personal ‘universe’ which is only one of billions of other such personal ‘universes’. Our culture is therefore a multiverse made up of about 8 billion separate but interconnected idioverses. Engagement through honesty, humility, love, caring, diligence and generosity sounds like a good thing.

Older fixed ideas with little supporting evidence riddle all cultures, and with good reason. Such endemic fallacies may have played a very constructive role in a society and may have been supported by most at some point in time. Unfortunately these fossils of the mind often survive beyond their usefulness; foundational ideas are not easily discarded. Replacing these important existential ideas with the latest and greatest liberal thought would be too chaotic. So there are very good reasons for being conservative. It would be such a very good thing, though, if all could learn to be more diligent, open-minded and sympathetic. Engaging in honest and fair discussion would seem the best way to do cultural maintenance. The time honored methods of settling disputes through conflicts are too brutal and destructive.

Some examples of endemic fallacies:

EF1. God is an entity with humanoid features.

Many conservatives are committed to defending and some liberals have dedicated themselves to destroying this obviously fantastical idea. At one time the idea of gods actively intruding in the operations of the world was generally accepted by most. A Wizard of Oz hiding behind some cosmic curtain! There is not one iota in support of such fantasy, but here is the paradox; one cannot disprove this myth either. It is a matter of unsupported opinion and fantasy. HOWEVER, we all are still completely baffled by the world around us. Whether there is a higher pan-cosmic or supra-cosmic intelligence or creative agent is something we can only speculate on, using the rather limited information we are able to access in our region of the universe. The concept of god will continue to evolve as more information is revealed.

EF2. Truth is real and eternal.

Reality, knowledge and culture are in a state of continuous change, but our ancient myth-makers forgot to include that little fact in their story. Obviously, the creators of those myths were ignorant of evolution’s pervasive and powerful presence. Societies and communities, however, depend for their existence, it seems, on the binding power of a grand story. Central to many of these stories is an all-knowing, changeless generator of all things that provides a solid foundation upon which all can confidently build. There may, indeed, be such a Supreme Entity, but only in extreme reaches outside the cosmos, far beyond our most creative imaginations, in speculative regions such that it could have absolutely nothing to do with our mundane lives as we must live them, or with the universe as we continue to find it.

EF3. History follows the actions of a few great men and women (placed there by God for a purpose).

It is convenient to attach a famous name to an important development in history. Yes, a few ‘geniuses’ have done spectacular things and seem to have ‘rewritten history’, but they have all stood on the shoulders of others and reflected the culture of their time. They were completely dependent on the work of predecessors and colleagues. Einstein could not have done what he did had he lived in the 18th century. Conversely, many once great personalities are now almost completely forgotten – probably because they were later proven wrong. The vast floods of real-time information that determine events are lost almost immediately. What survives is a miserably anemic rendition of very complex events. The majority of us know almost no history, and much of what is regarded as history is nothing more than propaganda. The idea that a few great leaders have forged our present is not believable. With trepidation we can now see in real-time the clay feet of the self-anointed great ones when we turn on a 24-hour news channel. Leaders, wielding frightening power, thrash blindly hither and thither. We could even feel sorry for these feckless ones, but we all really need to figure out a more manageable system of government. Communication technology certainly could make democracy a more interactive or distributed proposition, with wider participation. Present systems of governance place such great responsibility in the hands of a limited few that nobody could be expected to fully understand the situation. It is therefore to be expected that in most parts of the world leaders dissemble and deceive in order to stay in power. Is it time that the critically important contribution of the very large majority of human beings be recognized and, indeed, be encouraged? After all, the quality of society is completely dependent on the quality of its members.

EF4. Individual human beings are small, ignorant, weak and dependent.

This is still an almost universal sentiment and fits in very well with the designs of our ‘great’ leaders. The more people are willing to subject themselves to authority the better for the status quo (e.g. the powerful will arrogate more power). Ignored usually is the fact that each genetically, structurally and functionally unique human being represents the most advanced computing system known. Inherent in the great and small person theory is supposedly great differences in abilities and accomplishments. The reality is that we are very different, not necessarily better or worse, from each other at the margins, but in our cores we are probably very similar, possibly identical. This is a fascinating question with more evidentiary information forthcoming. This interplay between our differences and commonalities is at the center of our culture and our struggles. More people are intuitively onto this shell-game and progress in a more enlightened direction could become a reality. It may even be that greater acceptance of diversity is the mark of a more advanced culture. Sociological studies of individualism and cultural complexity seem to suggest this already. Complex societies are wealthier, but there is still much work to do, especially on the egalitarian front.

Investing resources in a global project of research and learning should be surprisingly cost-effective. Improvements in efficiency should far outweigh the costs involved.

Our Lost Center, in Defense of Reductionism, the Dangers of Metaphysics.

Our history is a nightmare, despite the efforts of great figures like Abraham, Buddha, Plato, Jesus, Mohammad, Marx and many others. We have lurched from one disaster to another, from wars to persecution, genocide, oppression, massive exploitation and more. One popular idea after another has been the reason for our descent into hell. Obviously we have not figured out why we keep on repeating the same mistakes, much less what to do about it.


Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;

Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out

When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,

A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it

Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again but now I know

That twenty centuries of stony sleep

Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Written in 1919 in the aftermath of World War I, full of despair and hopelessness – no hope for change here – an ominous zeitgeist already stalks the land. Indeed, William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939) died just 8 months before the next tragic installment of our bloody history. The center did not hold then and it will not hold in the future, unless…

The center could not hold because there never really was such a thing. There could not have been since it was built on the sandy shoals of illusion and delusion. Enlightened minds envisioned rational human beings that aspire and transcend. By our genius we could remake society in our own image, rather than that of a battered and abused God. These new ideas worked for a while, sort of, with a flowering of art, music, science, philosophy and literature giving inspiration to some. Of course, many disagreed, and therein lies the rub. Some have disagreed violently and the results are now for all to see and think upon.

During World War II humanity revisited hell again: extermination camps, genocide, incendiary bombing and nuclear annihilation. Not unreasonably people blamed the status quo ante. The crumbling edifice of modernism and humanism left an opening for yet another narrative, a postmodern one: there is no narrative, no author, no subject, no concept of the human. Radical, atomized difference is the reality and decentering of society shall be the program. Western civilization was responsible for the evil and had to be taken down. We must ask, however, what will fill this vacuum? Radical action? Marxism? A new revelation and second coming? Perhaps a New Critical Theory? The brilliant professors of Ecole Normale Superieure would surely come up with something.

Yes, they do have a point. Ideologies, generally based on philosophy, religion and/or science, had brought us the status quo, but post-modernism promises to be no different. Why? Surely, it would be silly to trash our past and start over again without knowing the etiology and pathogenesis of our disease. What would we do different this time to avoid the pitfalls? It would be just as silly to pick through the rubble of history yet again, hoping to stumble upon the hidden key that we have repeatedly missed over the past 3 millennia. False keys will surely be found, giving great hope to the needy crowd.

No, we should ask at least two questions, probably many more: Where did we go wrong? How do we integrate knew knowledge into our basic assumptions about ourselves and others?

Now, maybe we should try something different! Start our search where we have not looked, in the quiet corners and back alleys where there are no paparazzi or adoring crowds. We should study the idiots! (From the Greek idiṓtēs, “a private citizen, one who has no professional knowledge, layman”, also one who declined to take part in public life). After all, there are vastly more ordinary people than emperors, messiahs, generals, prophets or pundits.

There seems, based on what we are learning now, to have been a misunderstanding of what it is to be a human being; sometimes a god-like creature that struts across the globe and pretends to reach for the stars, but beset mostly with profound challenges. Yet, what a piece of work is man! We are much, much more complex and interesting than we ever did imagine:

1. Each one of us represents an intricate and utterly unique memory bank of psychological events. These experiences start at birth or even before and mold the developing brain, both functionally and physically. The final anatomical shape of our brain may actually be determined by childhood experiences! We begin life in complete ignorance and have to learn everything: how to form mental pictures, how to interpret sounds, how to recognize tastes. Much of this is ‘innate’, but in many situations learning is a combination of direct experience and guidance by others. We must also learn the structures and rules of nature, our culture, social relationships, ‘philosophy’, etc. Unfortunately, much of what is learned is imprecise, inaccurate, or, sometimes, just plain wrong. Everything we are exposed to has to be captured, recognized, sorted and classified; thus a vast amount of information is reduced, compressed and formatted to manageable proportions. Almost all of this is done subconsciously.

2. There are also remarkable, unappreciated variations amongst members of the species that further enhance our individual uniqueness. Each one of us is genetically, physically and functionally different. Genetic polymorphisms induce variations from our sense organs to our brains and everything in between – in fact, we seem to be programmed for diversity. The experience of taste or the pain of injury, all may be unpredictably different from person to person. We come preloaded with strengths and weaknesses, with high functioning and low functioning faculties, and there is no way to tell what is happening on the inside by just looking and listening. What unfolds after birth has an additional and profound effect on the brain and body of the developing human. An absolutely unique genotype is thus further modified in a mostly unpredictable way.

3. Everything in our ultra-super-complex culture in some way is dependent on 1 and 2. The quality and content of culture is therefore different for each one of us, despite the effects of socialization and enculturation. Each one of us, therefore, transfers a unique view of culture to the next generation – quite a personal responsibility!

Each wonderfully original individual person represents a unique universe or idioverse, a term, introduced about 60 years ago by Saul Rosenzweig, indicating that each individual is considered to be a unique universe of psychological events. Everything that one feels, thinks or does becomes part of that idioverse. Not much has been said about it since Rosenzweig. It refers to the totality of our being; there is nothing else in our consciousness but our psychological events. Enjoying the genius of Bach, Beethoven or the Beatles is a series of psychological events completely enclosed in our personal idioverse, composed of and mediated by electrical and chemical signals. We may listen to the same recording but each of us, almost certainly, is transported on a different experience.

Our personal idioverse interacts with a vast ambient cultural universe that consists of family, friends, acquaintances, public figures and about 7.5 billion other human idioverses, our artifacts, as well as mother nature, the cosmos and perhaps things unknown. A single idioverse is certainly a supercomplex system but it can only receive and process an extremely small fraction of all the available and potentially relevant information. Each person integrates into patterns, concepts and abstractions all the information they have been able to capture, sometimes extremely detailed and impressive, but still just shadows of reality. Our reductionist processes (thinking, speaking, body language, etc) can not reproduce the complexities and subtleties of consciousness, understanding, feeling and motivation as they exist in ourself and each other. We cannot fully share awarenesses with each other.

This is the essence of our challenge: The irreducible complexity of a single person and their idioverse must face the irreducible complexity of the total universe, the latter being vastly more complex than the former. The most immediate challenge, by far, is what is one to make of the billions of other people, each with their own unique idioverse, all enigmatic and mysterious? This is beyond supercomplex and seems to be an adequate reason for why ideologies, philosophies and religions have failed to keep the peace and/or caused so many wars, despite our best efforts. These narratives, for example, have tried to stuff everyone into various boxes and categories – an example of a misguided, reductionist effort that has been at the core of our nagging problems.

It is not possible for any one person to acquire all the relevant information on any complex issue, whether personal, social, political or philosophical. While we are intimately aware of what enters our conscious awareness, we are unaware of the underlying ‘unconscious’ processes. These affect our thoughts and behavior and they are under the direction of our genotype. So, we are unaware, and therefore not in conscious control, of our complete self. An academic committee, the US Congress or the United Nations Human Rights Council would seem to be even more ill-equipped to come to an accurate understanding of an issue. This is just a fact about what it means to be human. We have limits, all of us, but also amazing faculties. We do not have to become skeptical or cynical or heretical or religious or mystical or angry or sad, or whatever. This simple fact has always been with us in one form or other, but perhaps it has been too daunting or unpalatable to deal with. It certainly has caused a lot of confusion. However, we can not avoid the issue any more. Life is now too dangerous on multiple levels. The good news is that we have done surprisingly well, so far, despite our ignorance, our wrong ideas and grievous misadventures. There must be forces for the good, the crucial question is what are they? Could there be hidden, implicit biological, psychological and sociological factors at play? (Yes!)

Humans utilize reductionist strategies all the time, it comes to us naturally. We are less successful with integrative processes. There are a number of existential reasons for our situation, some related to the core of our being. This would be a wonderful subject to explore at length but here are some basic elements to consider:

1. Living organisms are reductionist when sensing the environment. Only information useful for the organism is culled from the ambient universe and is then reduced to signals that can be processed and responded to. Unlike dogs we cannot hear very high frequencies. Unlike chickens we cannot detect four different bands of light, only three – our mental pictures could be much simpler than theirs, who knows. We will have to ask a chicken. And unlike mosquitos we can not ‘smell’ carbon dioxide. Some birds, frogs and salamanders use earth’s magnetic field for orientation and direction. Still, humans capture more information from the ambient universe than any other creature, but it is still meager, i.e. highly reduced. Captured information is then converted to generic electrical and chemical signals impinging on neurons.

2. Conscious awareness is an almost realtime reconstruction based on integration of trillions of bits of continuously changing electrical and chemical information. We are only just beginning to identify the sites at which different tasks are performed in the brain, but we already know that most of our subjective experiences via the senses are rife with ‘illusions’. Colors, sounds and tastes do not exist independent of consciousness. Our reconstruction of nature is exquisitely precise but not very accurate. Our subjective reconstructions are in fact detached from ‘true reality’.

3. On the other hand “Thoughts are the shadows of our feelings — always darker, emptier and simpler” – Nietzsche. Sounds true, but even further down the reductionist road are the words used to describe such thoughts and feelings. So, when we read or listen, we are getting a reduced and redacted version of events which we reconstruct and integrate into our subjective experience. Misunderstandings of all kinds are inevitable.

4. Science is the prototype of reductionism. Believers in ‘holism’ use this fact to undermine knowledge gained from analytic experimentation. However, “Reductionism is one of those things, like sin, that is only mentioned by people who are against it”—Richard Dawkins. A surprising fact is that “Few scientists will voluntarily characterize their work as reductionistic. Yet, reductionism is at the philosophical heart of the molecular biology revolution” – Fang, FC; 2011. Anyone who wants to know what they are talking about must understand and know reductionism, and it seems that few do, even scientists.

5. Philosophy is a complex personal thought narrative integrated from abstract reductionistic concepts such as truth, love, beauty, reason, good and evil. Religion is a similar narrative except for the use of an abstract reductionism, God, to rationalize the difficult and mysterious parts. (This does not imply, of course, that there is no God.)

6. Our conscious dealings with other human beings are reductionist inasmuch as everything we say, write or do is filtered through the mechanisms and concepts existing in our and their minds. The information thus exchanged is a greatly reduced version of the conscious awarenesses on both sides. It is impossible for anyone to ‘fully understand’ another person. We do like to believe that it happens though, in spite of the evidence, and this probably relates to that powerful axiom, our common humanity. We love, care for, help, sympathize and empathize with our neighbors because that is what most members of a community do, but not all. We also hate, discriminate against and make war for more complex reasons.

A huge problem should now be evident in our almost exclusive reliance on politics, philosophy and religion as guidance on the most difficult questions. These systems of thought and communication are all based on integration from reductionist inputs which can not yield anything even approaching a complete understanding of reality or any complex issue. Integration always takes place within an idioverse where information is very incomplete and rules apply that are unique for each person. Serious disagreements and opposite views are inevitable. Our huge problem then has been our general unawareness of the systemic imprecision and inaccuracy of religious, political and philosophical thought – the deep personal and cultural biases of such thinkers are not acknowledged. These modes of ‘higher thought’ or speculative thinking are even more susceptible to the systemic error inherent in integration. However it seems that times could be a-changing. Complexity science is being developed and the role of education in a supercomplex world with few definitive answers, is being addressed. So there is progress and hope as people are waking up to the enormity of our challenges, but also to our unrealized potential. (See Ronald Barnett on supercomplexity and education.)

There is more to be careful of. The integration process at the level of politics, philosophy and religion is further compromised by elites competing for power and influence. Fairness and honesty fly out the window when self-interest is at stake. This has been a distraction, a sideshow, deadly, wasteful and corrupt – we still live in the midst of cycles of war and peace, boom and bust. One of the things that distinguishes elites from the rest of us is that they have access to more information, partly because they are closer to the levers of power. They often come out ahead when things go wrong. However, given what we have indicated above, there is very little reason to believe that these power brokers are any closer to the truth than the rest of us. They are, on the contrary, much more prone to the common delusion of “Since I am smarter and know more, I am right”. The problem with our so-called great leaders is that they are frequently wrong, do not take responsibility for their failures and failings, and are insufficiently aware of their own limitations and ignorance.

There is another narrative that is more plausible: society has survived and even progressed in spite of the difficulties and obstacles, in spite of the disastrous adventures of leaders and governments. There apparently are powerful hidden, implicit, common human factors at work, throughout society, including elites – it could be our ‘common humanity’ or maybe something like our ‘common sense’ as described during the Scottish Enlightenment. How this operates is almost completely unknown at the present, but it appears to be real. The idea of instincts comes to mind. Hints are also coming from the study of complex adaptive systems in which unexpected emergent features develop spontaneously. Human beings do not need to be told to have families, to provide for and raise their children, or to participate in the organization of a community. We are competitive, we respond to incentive and disincentive. Above all, it seems, we learn, share information and ‘pursue happiness’. Of course we love to do things better, and for this purpose, good teachers are supremely useful. Everyone, however, should exercise judgement and be appropriately skeptical. Beware of alligators!

In the end individuals evaluate, consciously AND unconsciously, all the information available to him or her and react in the perceived interests of themselves, their family and/or the community. Every decision is a psychological event amongst numerous others in a single, utterly unique idioverse. While our decisions are often intuitive or based on woefully incomplete information, others provide direct feedback on their wisdom or otherwise. This is the level at which society operates and shapes itself. Individual, unique humans and their networks are at the center of our universe. A single human is the most complex and powerful learning and decision-making entity in the universe, pound for pound, that we know of, committees and deliberative bodies not so much. Those billions of idiṓtēs out there should realize that they are in the best position to evaluate and act on what is best for them and their community.

So yes, because our society is a widening gyre, neither the falcon nor the falconer can see or hear each other, unless they focus on better communication. We are still looking for our lost center but a sense of it should begin to appear as we become less distracted by epiphenomena and more appreciative of our greatest asset, those formidable abilities residing in each of us. We are the center of the functional universe and we should all act appropriately, expecting more of ourselves and others.

__________ __________

Some random political thoughts:

We should not be surprised when systems theorists and complexity scientists soon start publishing results about sophisticated computer models, utilizing the largest databases in the world, being able to predict social outcomes. Policy recommendations will be based on their findings, and the smartest people in the world will promise that, if elected, they will fundamentally transform the world. A new UN Commission on Freedom and Justice will be chartered for the benefit of all. China and India will be permanent members of the Commission since they account for more than a third of the world’s population. Unfortunately, results will be very disappointing! All the world’s leaders, and all the world’s elite professors will explain how reactionary forces had caused the failure. All will recommend that far more resources be invested and the programs be expanded.

It would seem axiomatic that a smarter, more responsible and more empowered populace would forge a smarter, better and more prosperous society. The USA has been the country that has historically diffused power the most and, not surprisingly, has been the most prosperous. Our representatives are given power to govern and it is absolutely crucial that they not be given power that is not required for their responsibilities. They should also be held as accountable as possible. The central authority in a large state such as the US should only be delegated the power to do things that can not be done by institutions closer to the people. The closer government is to the people, the less large scale corruption there should be. Powers not necessary at the federal level should automatically revert to the people or the states.

Presently an increasing amount of power and influence is being vested in central government in most societies because it seems like an easy solution for just about any problem – that, at least, is the current favored narrative. However, when things go wrong, and they frequently do, it can be incredibly destructive and deadly. We must find leaders who are honest enough to appreciate the superior wisdom of the people. We need more empowered and competent citizens who are prepared to challenge abuses of power and assume more responsibility in their own lives. We do not need a revolution.

The above is not a recommendation for more self-loathing in ‘the West’ (a useful reductionism), there is enough of that. The West can be blamed for much, not because we are necessarily evil, but because we have been the most dominant actors on the world stage for quite a few centuries. The disasters have occurred under our watch and so we own them, but other cultures have been caught up even more in their own ruts. The ultimate geopolitical problem, everywhere, is how to bring power under control, specifically how to align it with the interests of The People in all their diversity. This will happen when power understands its own interests better. The West gets little credit and much blame, but we appear to be further along on the winding road to empowerment, liberation and realization of the individual human self. A turn to a new narrative that respects and values the diversity and power of each individual, a narrative that does not idolize reductionist fallacies is my recommendation. No revolution required, we just have to put people, philosophy and religion in their proper perspective.