Dialogue with reality. Column in ComputerraOnline #91

I decided to discuss once more the problem raised in the previous column. Important is not only this topic itself, but also the opportunity to clarify matters concerning other thoughts that are significant to me. I quoted the opinions of students discussing optimal actions in a situation of threat of ecological catastrophe. I was surprised by how many readers reacted painfully to this very topic. What is this connected with?
I think one reason is the fanatical character of propaganda typical of many "green" agitators. The threat of ecological catastrophe is spoken of by people who seek merely to manipulate their listeners and readers—and you have all encountered propaganda of this kind. But could anyone have perceived my column in the same vein? Oddly, I tried to avoid categorical statements, indicating that the discussion concerns conclusions from models treating one or another future as probabilistic...
It seems to people that the problem is contrived? Yes, among readers’ responses there were declarations that there is no need to worry—the market will fix everything itself. Such reasoning appears to me extremely short-sighted. Our present existence has become extremely fragile, highly dependent on the general state of the world economy. The mechanism thanks to which most readers of this text live operates well only in one case: under conditions of continuous economic growth. This growth is ensured by increasingly intensive use of non-renewable resources. I think that reorienting the global life-support system is very difficult. Experience in managing a child’s bicycle may prove useless or even harmful in managing a large ship. The engineer long ago executed the command "full astern," yet the liner’s mechanism continues to move relentlessly forward, only slightly slowing its pace. No force can stop it instantaneously; if, by some miracle, this happened, it would break into pieces. Does it not seem to you that the world economy is even more inert than a liner?
How do people react to this situation? Many of them, without much reflection on the validity of their positions, realize their prejudices. "Greens" fight against nuclear energy or genetically modified products, perceiving them as unequivocal evil. Presumably, these technologies harbor dangers, but likely their development will increase the probability of successfully executing the turn that humanity must make. These are not panaceas, but partial supports, yet even this is not so little.
And what is there in the "green" positive program? Biofuel, taking huge cropland, requiring expenditure of fossil fuel for its production, and stimulating energy expenditure for food production. "Organic food"—an amusement for the wealthy, giving them a sense of righteousness and increasing the load on the biosphere. Expensive games with alternative energy, which often appears advantageous only if one does not account for the substantial part of energy and other resources required for it. If propagandists of these simple recipes are truly concerned about saving the biosphere, why do they not adjust their actions depending on the results? And why—do they already know what seems right to them!
No, one should not think that fanatical defense of dogmas unadjusted to reality is characteristic only of greens. Various "patriots" try to live by recipes of antagonistic politics that were relevant in the 19th century but poorly suit global humanity in the 21st. This, however, is a topic for a separate conversation...
A sad picture? Excuse me. But to understand it, the following is important. All our models are based on the experience we have had, whereas our future has no analogues. All "indisputable forecasts" grow either from self-deception or from lies. Extreme positions in the spectrum of opinions are unjustified. Yes, many specialists are pessimistically disposed and do not believe in a transition to another type of relationship between humanity and the environment that would not be accompanied by great misfortunes. Yes, some readers of Computerra firmly know that everything will be OK, and regard alarming future scenarios as something only fools, alarmists, and provocateurs consider. It seems to me that given the limitations of our knowledge, we should proceed from the assumption that possibilities of both favorable and unfavorable futures are open to us. It remains to understand which mode of action will be optimal for us in this situation. And for now I will speak about the worldview most appropriate in our position.
The initial data for the problem to be solved are as follows. Serious changes will surely occur in human life; perhaps we face serious dangers. What worldview, what mode of interaction with reality will prove most adaptive in such a situation? Even if you disagree with my diagnosis of the situation, do you not acknowledge my right to pose the question this way?
In a comment on the previous column, one reader expressed the thought that the present difficulties experienced by humanity correspond to the prophecies of ancient religions. If so, to exit the present situation one must turn to the corresponding commandments. Is such an approach adaptive?
And does the present crisis truly correspond to ancient commandments? I think this correspondence is limited to the fact that things have become bad and alarming. If you want to believe in incomprehensible ancient wisdom—please do, but do not forget that the prescriptions it recommends do not correspond to rational analysis of the situation. At best, religious commandments can help reconcile oneself with a harsh fate or alleviate suffering through hope of posthumous consolation.
Long ago I promised one reader to answer what harm there is in creationism. Battles with creationists under my columns have somehow subsided, and I delayed fulfilling the promise. I will not conduct a full-scale analysis, but I propose to compare the effectiveness of solving urgent problems by two people. For a creationist, the world was created quite recently. The properties of our habitat reflect the design of a Creator concerned with testing our virtues for the sake of present, posthumous existence. For a person with evolutionary thinking, the world is the result of its prehistory. For him, analysis of the causes of those properties of humans, biosystems, and the biosphere that he must take into account is accessible. Who is more likely to find an adequate mode of action?
However, something positive can be found even in creationism. Look at this article by A.V. Markov. He retells an American study explaining the vitality of creationism. Children are innately inclined to perceive phenomena in the external world as traces of someone’s activity. Why? Because such an approach is more adaptive. Later, as their literacy grows, they understand (if they do not get stuck at the transitional stage) that external phenomena are very often manifestations of natural mechanisms, not someone’s sophisticated will. Unfortunately, those stuck in childish perception of reality are forced to hide behind acceptance of dogmas that hinder, rather than help, adequate perception of the environment.
But do only creationists have dogmas that drown out the voice of reality? I have never met a living solipsist who truly believed that he himself is the primary cause of the world around him, although I have more than once talked with young geniuses trying this toga on themselves. Will a solipsist find the correct solution in a complex situation of interaction with the environment? If he does, his worldview will only interfere.
Two columns in a row I have devoted to discussing the myth of "objective reality." I think this myth is less dangerous than uncritical faith in ancient commandments or playing at solipsism, but it also harbors certain dangers. It was inherited by our system of education and public consciousness from the era of "dialectical materialism"—a dogmatic ideology partly justifying the dictatorship of one part of society over others. It is based on unprovable axioms; it opposes some "objective" judgments to the only knowledge available to us, based on empirical, sensory data.
We see only what passes through our filters, our cognitive schemes. As soon as someone says: "I know for sure that the world is such-and-such... here is the objective reality..."—he simply blocks those channels through which information not fitting his adopted dogma arrives.
The diversity of dogmas is enormous. Here are just some of them: God’s commandments, the Prophet’s precepts, objective reality, the illusoriness of the world, the great destiny of the Nation, the special democracy of the pickaxe, the supreme value of nature conservation, the wisdom of the Leader, the villainy of enemies, the struggle for the rights of sexual minorities, the greatness of the state, the conspiracy of the Jewish lobby, etc. All possess significant viability potential: accepting a dogma, you will perceive only what corresponds to it, and therefore at every step you will receive numerous confirmations of its correctness. All violate the feedback of our models with our environment—in other words, they prevent dialogue with the world. But is knowledge of the world possible without dogmas?
What is the alternative to dogmas? Chaos in thoughts? Perception without cognitive schemes? This is another extreme that may prove even more pathological than dogmatism.
I received an answer to this question in a letter from Aleksandr Pavlovich Rastsnitsyn. He reminded me of the solution proposed within the analysis of evolutionary reconstruction methodology. I was familiar with this idea but had not extended it to the formation of the most general cognitive attitudes. Now I understand that Rastsnitsyn is right. Rejecting dogmas, we will not be left defenseless before the complexity of reality.
"Obviously, we do have adequate tools, and we actively use them, only without giving ourselves an account of it, as Monsieur Jourdain did not suspect that he was speaking prose. We managed to extract the sought tool from the subconscious long ago, but lawyers did not suspect its universal significance either. This tool, in my conviction, is presumption <...>. Its paradigmatic variant (model, with which all other presumptions can be compared, that is, in our terms, a typical instance) is, of course, the presumption of innocence: 'However heavy the suspicions, the accused must be considered innocent until and as long as his guilt is properly proven' <...> All presumptions are built similarly: for a certain class of tasks a presumption proposes a typical solution to be accepted regardless of whether there is evidence in its favor, provided that reliable evidence against this solution is absent" A.P. Rastsnitsyn
No immutable wisdom. No absolute truth. No irrefutable proofs of the real state of affairs. No supernatural commandments. Only presumptions—assumptions reflecting previous experience. Starting points for our reasoning, which we can hope will lead us to success with the greatest probability. Initial assumptions that should be discarded if it turns out they have ceased to be adequate. Generalizations that have shown their adaptiveness in the past. The optimal variant by default.
Aleksandr Pavlovich gave a description of a complex of presumptions used in phylogenetics. I will not risk developing an integral complex of presumptions describing our relations with the environment; nevertheless, some details are clear to me.
— Our sense organs’ data should be regarded as signals about certain properties of the surrounding environment, unless there are weighty grounds to assume the opposite.
— If the models of reality we use allow us to forecast its dynamics, we should assume that they partially correspond to it at least in some essential circumstances (as long as there is no convincing evidence of their inadequacy).
— Our future depends on our actions, unless the opposite assumption is well grounded.
When we enter into dialogue with someone, we do not possess full knowledge about our interlocutor, but we rely on the general understanding of a whole set of premises necessary for this dialogue. To our remarks we receive answers from the interlocutor; our further mode of action depends on their explicit and implicit content. We begin a dialogue by accepting some presumptions (for example, that the interlocutor hears us; that, like any unknown interlocutor, he can politely exchange remarks with us; that you are speaking with him in one language). In the course of the dialogue we will have to discard some of these presumptions, but as a whole their initial set allows us to hope for successful dialogue.
...so, I think, with the world in which we live we should "talk" in the same way...
Happy New Year!