What Nonsense is - Reader comments at The New York Sun

Reader comment on:
The Edifice of Pinkerism

Submitted by Andrew McCarthy, Nov 12, 2007 06:42

This is where 'facts' are really nonsense in disguise. If one has a hypothesis that cannot be proved or disproved then it is nonsense in that it is meaningless. Language is about words. Instinct is about action. Words can never be what acts or is acted upon whereas action of anything be it a person or a rock is beyond any word.

What we view as a rock does appear to be a rock. And we see a human being in a much different light in that the human being has an entirely different level of existence-it is animated by something. But the visual nature of the human being and the rock does come from the same phenomena, based on what we can see, within certain wavelengths. And our physics teaches us that everything we see is based upon what can be perceived. Thus it may appear to us in a relative fashion that the person moves while the rock is stationary. But in atomic terms both are in motion.

Perhaps I could say that a rock has an instinct too in that its instinct is to remain still. But the word instinct has no connection to the rock. And in many ways the word instinct has no connection to the human. Human action must come from a cause beyond its visual representation. It is hidden. I suspect Dr Pinker would say that all human action is based upon some kind of cellular mechanism that wants to survive and such a mechanism the best way for humans to act. I would say that human action is never entirely a cellular action in that causation has nothing to do with the instinct of survival but what is best.

Dr Pinker would not agree with me I am certain. Perhaps we are incapable of viewing same world. To Dr Pinker I suspect that all evidence must be measurable/perceivable for there is nothing else to know. And to me that is impossible. Instinct has nothing to do with what is best. Let us say that two people remain in the world and only one meal. What action would be best? I suspect Dr Pinker would say that our DNA and cells would probably make such a situation into a bloody one. And that is what is the most probable outcome.

But it is only probable if one believes that perception is everything. Human action is defined away as base instinct. The words are used to make a kind of life philosophy. However the words are really meaningless for they only try to secondarily explain what will probably happen. And that makes sense in that all perception is based on Heisenberg's principle that what we see is probably what is. (We make uncertainty into certainty.)

Such a thing is not possible for if everything is in motion then words such as survival and instinct are meaningless. I would say that what matters is what is possible and not what is probable. I would say it is best that we two humans should not fight over the last meal but to share it. It is possible for us to get along even if our survival is impossible perceptually. Life is based on what we cannot know entirely for certain-ourselves. It is what we view as what is best. And what is best can never be put into words. It comes from our hiddenness of being.

We live in world of perception/science, wealth/money, and land/territory . It is this world that evolutionary psychology represents- it feels if we can understand human beings via words and facts that we can control terror.(Just as a John Locke would try to convince a Thomas Hobbes that the transitory world can be a good place.) Dr Pinker and others think that by making these things into words that we can control them and what they do to us. But I would say that this whole philosophy is not even possible. Terror does comes as Hobbes says it will for if this is all there is then we must fight. Thus Locke is wrong as Bertram Russell is wrong. Life is something that words and numbers cannot understand. To say otherwise is nonsense for all action comes from a place beyond words. Words become a kind of world on paper, a world of certainty. And thus Dr Pinker and his like feel that we must follow our instinct for survival for it is first probable that all we see is all there is. Thus probability becomes certainty.

I say this is not the right way to live one's life. It must be based on, not knowledge for real knowledge is beyond us, nor on the words we use for they are held captive to what we perceive. No what matters is that you treat humans kindly even if you have no idea why. I would rather share that last meal than fight over it. It is what I view as best. It is not my instinct to destroy my fellow man. I may appear to act with instinct but that will result in man remaining a base creature. I say we believe in the soul by which we act upon the world. It is hidden and via this soul we can make a world of the possible. If not we will probably become extinct via what we viewed as instictually best- we only wanted to keep what is transient. To me such a thing is not only not possible but really not right. We must think in terms of kindness before intelligence. We may love words and numbers but if we view them as the way to truth we will kill what really makes us think well- our good hearts that believe in things beyond our transitory nature...

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.

Reader comment on:
The Edifice of Pinkerism

Other reader comments on this article

Comment on The Edifice of Pinkerism

Reader comment on:The Edifice of Pinkerism

Other reader comments on this article

Comment on The Edifice of Pinkerism

Reader comment on:
The Edifice of Pinkerism