The axiom proposed in the previous entry, that nothing exists outside of nature, must apply even to theoretical realms, regions of space, materials, phenomena, etc., that lie somewhat outside the scope of current theory or have so far not been directly observed, like parallel universes, hidden dimensions, heretofore undetected particles, dark matter and dark energy; provided, of course, their existence can be conclusively demonstrated.

In actuality it makes little sense to apply such attributes as "parallel", "alternate", "dark", or "multiple" in relation to the various proposed extentions to the portion of the observed universe already described to the general satisfaction of scientists, as any such extension would apply only to the human understanding of the thing, and not to the thing understood.  

However exotic or strange a phenomenon we might encounter, each new discovery is necessarily contiguous or coexstensive with aspects of the universe already known and understood, even if a discovery should radically alter the theoretical basis of that understanding. Otherwise, we would have no choice but to consider that the universe (or "nature", in the sense I have been using the term) is only as extensive as our limited conception of it presently allows!

Only one absolute

Although nature, as I have maintained, does not traffic in absolutes, the entirety of nature is itself absolute, existing in relation to itself only, for there is nothing that exists outside of nature. Therefore, if there is to be any absolute, there is only one, and it is to be identified with the whole (ὅλος), and not with any of its parts (μέλη). 

Hammer heads

Regarding the question of intelligence, commenting on what I said earlier, I should also note that it would be just as wrongheaded to think of sharks as being the pinnacle of evolution, or in some way more advanced than another species, simply on the basis of their evolutionary longevity, or indeed any other characteristic, as it would be to think of humans as the apex of evolutionary sophistication on the basis of intelligence. 

Nature does not traffic in absolutes, and while the characteristics of one species are necessarily entangled with those of others, their ultimate value is always accounted for at the level of the individual. For this reason, it's actually possible that intelligence could be a "desirable" characteristic, but if this be so, it is only because we ourselves desire it! And since the object of this desire is something that can only be known and understood by means of its own operation, by way of its very existence, it follows that this desire is at root, in actuality, a reflection of the natural regard and affection we have for ourselves and creatures that resemble us. 

It is not, although it appears this way out of a total necessity, a universal quality or characteristic having any substantive existence outside our own peculiar assessment, somewhat akin to the persistent illusion that the sun travels around the earth -- rather than the reverse.   

The principle referred to in the previous entry is also at play in the sphere of education and learning in general. A teacher, for instance, cannot directly "cause" a student to learn (no external force could accomplish this), they can only engender conditions favorable to the student furnishing their own comprehension of the material, guiding them to take their own steps toward understanding. Genuine knowledge cannot be implanted in another mind, or simply imitated; the work is always done by the learner themselves, despite the process occuring optimally (in the majority of cases) in the presence of suggestion, demonstration, illustration, guidance, etc., provided by an instructor or by works of reference. 

"If no idea of right or wrong, of moral good or evil, exists per se or is conceived in the intellects of men, no law passed by a legislator can render any action or failiure to act just or unjust, good or bad. For there can be no reason why obeying any given law is right or wrong, good or bad, and there can be no principle on which to base the right which any one person has to govern another, if the idea of legitimacy, duty, and right is not innate or inspired (as Voltaire would have it, that is, naturally and by innate disposition arising in the minds of men, when they reach the age of reason) in human intellects." (4 September 1823)

                       - Giacomo Leopardi, Zibaldone (Z3349-50 in the first complete English
                           translation, revised edition; Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2015)

No less true almost 200 years later. And yet the so-called conservatives in this country think they can solve the problem of "crime" (really the problem of poverty) by hiring more police and enforcing laws, which will inspire nothing but resentment and ridicule. 

I almost can't wait to see them fail. 

Note: This is the first time I've quoted from Leopardi's Zibaldone in this blog. Doubtless it won't be the last. 

Use your illusion?

The effortless illusion that the Earth exists for the benefit of living creatures like ourselves is one of the most natural, and therefore one of the most powerful and enduring, illusions produced by the human mind, which is itself a product of nature. It is to be found at the heart of most cultural mythologies in one form or another, even those lacking a creator figure or any overt sense of the spiritual. Even James Lovelock, whose hugely influential Gaia hypothesis gave shape to the emerging ecological consciousness of our age, was not above suggesting that human beings, with their superlative gifts of intelligence and skill in communication, may ultimately be "desirable to the planet" in the same way that the emergence of plants, with their photosynthetic ability, was similarly "desirable" for the development and continuing evolution of the Earth system in the past.  

Of course, saying that certain traits are "desirable" for living systems in general is not the same thing as saying that a living system exists for the benefit of any particular organisms who happen to possess those traits - at first glance the two ideas might seem almost diametrically opposed - but upon closer examination one finds the two perspectives rather more complementary than exclusive. At the very least, Lovelock's suggestion, much like the sentiment typically embedded within traditional systems of belief, implies that human beings have a special or possibly central role to play in the unfolding drama of terrestrial life. (For the record, I am not aware that any convincing evidence could be put forward to suggest that such a conviction is actually true, no matter the species in question. Surely the dinosaurs, if they had had our brains, would have said the same about themselves).      

The trouble begins when one starts to ask - as the question inevitably must arise - desirable to whom? or to what? 

Certainly not to any individual human being, who cannot desire what she possesses already, and whose assured fate is to be consumed by our planet after a lifetime of painful and often humiliating struggle. Nor indeed to the entire species taken together, whose fate is obviously no different than that of its individual members. It would be even more preposterous to suggest that our intellectual gifts are coveted by some other species, since we seem to be doing a pretty good job of laying waste to probably the majority of them these days. And so... what then? Well, the answer, for Lovelock anyway, is that if it's not God (it's not - at least we're in agreement on that), it's something called "Gaia". And if that's a bit too vague or nebulous for you (it is - for me anyway), then the desire is on the part of an as-yet unknown future species, somewhat like ours but which has yet to emerge from the primordial soup of the present epoch, all things being relative.    

There is no doubt that it's a fascinating idea. I'm just not sure I believe a word of it.    

I will not attempt to explore here in any great detail the dubious idea that intelligence can properly be considered a "bio-product" in the same sense that oxygen is a physical, biological product of plants. One suspects that this type of category error can at least partially be blamed on a quirk of language that often treats of objects on the one hand, and processes or qualities on the other, as grammatically interchangeable, thus falsely implying a kind of logical equivalency. But that's for another day. 

Perhaps more importantly, there are now reams of evidence that intelligence is not an exclusively human trait. Even plants, though they lack nervous systems, still grow in the direction of a light source. And while it's probably fair to say that humans have evolved a capacity for language far beyond that of many other species, one must be careful not to forget that no matter how impressive an evolved trait may appear to us, its actual survival value is never fixed or absolute. Evolution does not have a preferred direction. There are only ever degrees of adaptation, per the organism, relative to changing environmental conditions. Therefore, intelligence, considered as an end in itself, is precisely moot. Some species, like sharks, have found a niche that has remained practically unaltered for many millions of years, no special intelligence required! Considering that humans have brought themselves to the brink of global meltdown in a little over ONE million years - an eyeblink on the geological time scale - it's entirely plausible some will outlive our own species. There is undoubtedly a point, either as a matter of degree or as a function of time, past which intelligence is no longer useful to its possessor; in fact it may become actively harmful.               

This doesn't seem to have been the case for James Lovelock, who led one of the most successful and celebrated scientific careers of his time. After all, there is always the possibility that certain illusions may remain useful even if their content is not, strictly speaking, to be believed. 

James Lovelock died on 26 July 2022, his 103rd birthday. He will be badly missed by many professional and citizen scientists, philosophers and inquiring minds of all sorts who, despite not always agreeing with his ideas or taking his concepts at face value, nevertheless found his unconventional and iconoclastic approach as an independent scientist profoundly inspiring. I know I have!   

Mad world

If people are frightened by the idea that they don't have control over events occurring in the world, how much more terrified they are at the prospect of somehow lacking control over themselves! 

So frightening that a special category of being called "mental illness" was proposed and universally adopted to denote those unfortunate persons whose actions are thought to result from a somewhat less than authentic source, though through no fault of their own (of course).    

And indeed the majority have naturally come to assume views like this, without expending the slightest mental effort, and despite questions of free will or the precise extent to which our conscious efforts actually do determine our behavior never having been settled.