Physical Basis for Problems Monday, Oct 6 2008
philosophy 12:03 pm
It’s important to realize the obvious: that every human problem, every malady, every concern, every evil, is at root simply a suboptimal arrangement of atoms and molecules. If this sounds quasi-spiritual, it’s because it is — for millennia, pre-scientific humans have attributed all ills to various agents — the gods, magicians, and other humans. This is because these ills demand an explanation, and we didn’t have a plausible one, so we made it up. Now, at least in the abstract, we have a concrete, very likely correct answer: suboptimal atomic arrangements.
This realization is neither trivial nor too broad to be useless. If your problems are caused by the gods (that some people sadly still believe in…), then to solve them, you either need to give up, on engage in rituals (prayer, sacrifice, etc.) that have an empirical impact of precisely zero. The ultimate promise is that the gods or God will come at the end of time to make everything better. Unfortunately (?) for us, that will never happen.
The alternative is to slash all spirits from your worldview and model the world as a game board where all the pieces are humans. This too isn’t quite correct, as many who avoid the error of deification of Nature fall right into the trap of the fundamental attribution error, where everything that goes right or wrong becomes some human’s fault or credit. The attribution error is absolutely omnipresent in politics, because invoking it also invokes human political emotions that a leader can easily use to manipulate everyone who has never heard of the error. Since this is practically everyone, it’s politically rational to exploit it to its fullest, and a self-reinforcing feedback loop of error is created. Excuse me, but there are a lot of relevant forces in this world besides deliberate human choice. The shared biases of all human beings come to mind, as do biological realities such as the existence of malaria, and economic realities such as centralized manufacturing.
One sidenote on the notion that “all ills are caused by suboptimal atomic arrangements”. People will have different definitions of what is suboptimal, that is patently obvious. That doesn’t change the fact the subjective personal ills are caused by suboptimal atomic rearrangements, or that there’s a huge space in the center of the Venn diagram of shared humans goals that is specified by certain specific atomic arrangements. Simply because we can’t specify all these arrangements doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
Despite my recognition of a physicalist basis to all problems, I do not advocate a universal convergence towards One True Atomic Pattern or other such absolutist nonsense. I simply wish us to recognize that all shared human problems can be ultimately diagnosed and remedied using the scientific method plus remedial effort: use tests to determine the suboptimal atomic arrangements, then devise engineering solutions to rearrange current arrangements into a more optimal state. This holds true for mental phenomena as well as phenomena in the external world — my brain is “the external world” for others and it is entirely physical. Those who advocate an aphysical basis for consciousness are making the same mystical mistakes that our ancestors have yawn-inducingly made for thousands of years. I am special even if my consciousness has a purely physical basis.

October 6th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
While I heartily agree with materialistic and naturalistic perspectives, I do not embrace the idea that the scientific method can solve any given problem. Problems and solutions are not defined in terms of the scientific method. The scientific method can only work within a context of shared values, such as materialism, naturalism, uniformity, non-contradiction, peer-review, etc. It seems we will always need that which is analogous to the arts, politics and religion to provide context for our ontological and epistemic evaluations.
I disagree with your assessment of the empirical impact of ritual. Ritual certainly has practical consequence, which explains why you do not like it, I imagine.
Whether gods will come to make everything better depends on how one understands the words you’re invoking. Will posthumans make everything better? Will friendly AI make everything better? I don’t think anything will make everything better, but I can imagine posthumans and friendly AI making things better than they are now in ways I value. I also consider posthumans to be the practical equivalent of gods. So, when I read a transhumanist claim that gods will never make everything better, I understand that transhumanist to be expressing a sentiment that stems from a dogmatic understanding of “god” that I do not share.
There are, indeed, a lot of relevant non-human forces in the world. I wager there are many about which we know little or nothing at this time. Some of them may be more intelligent than atheists imagine, and if they are not then our probable future is bleak — unless we are already extraordinarily improbable beings, which may be the case.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:57 am
I’m interested in the arts, politics, and spirituality just for the sake of enriching our lives, and because as humans we would be psychologically incapable of enjoying ourselves without them. But political or economic claims not backed up by empirical evidence are just grandstanding. Politics and spirituality only measurably improve the human condition insofar as they enact empirically testable improvements in atomic arrangements, including, say, tranquility induced by meditation. Note that I’m taking a wide view of “scientific method” here in the fundamental Baconian sense rather than as exclusively consisting of present-day published scientists.
The impact of ritual seems purely psychological. Despite many decades of study, for instance, there is no evidence that prayer of which a medical patient is unaware helps them recover. I’m currently reading The Golden Bough, a huge comparative study of mythology and religion that lists literally thousands of historic rituals, none of which have any empirical impact and work mostly on the principles of sympathetic magic.
Regarding dogmatic understanding of God, perhaps you’re right. I used to hypothesize the existence of pseudo-God-like entities (such as collective consciousness) before I dismissed the supernatural. I do understand how such entities are more philosophically appealing than the Judeo-Christian God.
I’d define a god as anything supernatural, while posthumans, friendly AIs, good humans, etc., are all natural beings which may or may not exist yet, and for those instances that don’t exist, we possess a great degree of associated uncertainty.
I disagree that there are intelligent forces in the area (the solar system at least) of which we are not aware. Only evolution and intelligence can produce sufficiently complex processes as to be called “intelligent”, and based on the fact that we’ve already catalogued most if not all of the mammals on the planet and found them all to be dumber than humans, other intelligent beings on this planet seems unlikely until we create them.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Hi Michael. FYI, I made reference to this post on my site at
http://cleareconomy.info/node/68
October 7th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Hi Jeff. You mention on your site that this post has “spiritual notions”. Where? Are you just referring to the second sentence, or something else?
October 7th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Oh, no big deal - I just didn’t want to exclude the possibility that someone might believe in a divine being or creator, but still recognize that all problems are ultimately physical. (perhaps by believing that physical reality is a complete, independent creation put forth by a creator, for example, and thus that physical reality is explanation enough for itself.) I thought twice about putting the disclaimer… but I just didn’t want to alienate any site visitors that might believe in a god. Maybe it’s because I grew up in the bible belt, who knows, but I definintely didn’t intend it as a criticism; I really enjoyed this post.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
It should be interesting when advanced nanotechnology allows precise atomic manipulation of any atom in our brain by the use of nanobots. I’m sure it should open up a bunch of new conscious avenues. Optimization of the neurochemistry of our brain’s reward system should make life feel like heaven on earth as already outlined in David Pearce’s the hedonistic imperative.
“I do not advocate a universal convergence towards One True Atomic Pattern or other such absolutist nonsense.”
I guess it might be difficult to ascertain what would be the optimal arrangment of atoms, specifically in our own brain’s as one example. I’m sure our capacity for reward could be scaled up quite a bit(100 times or more?). Some absolute zenith of peak experience by a precise predefined configuration of brain atoms certainly has a whimsical appeal. Out of the near infinite amount of brain atom configurations surely there some must be some that are much better than others. A large majority of molecular brain configurations are not associated with any consciousness whatsoever. So atomic brain optimization would have to maintain our erroneous sense of free will in addition to happiness and intelligence maximization.
October 8th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I like this article very much.
- Thomas