California Expert Software

Introduction

A few evenings ago, my long suffering s/o asked me this disparaging question, "Why are you interested in philosophy?" Her tone was the one our relatives take when referring to me. I do understand their point of view, as they are a very successful bunch, measured by money, certificates, status, etc, whereas on those accountings I am a failure. But, I have never been inclined to conformity.

Why would anyone get interested in Philosophy? Why choose to be a bum?

The first answer to this criticism of what I am is simply that it is involuntary. I am what I am. I didn't ask to become a philosopher; I just evolved that way. I have no idea why I began to ask Big Questions before I was 10 years old. The questions just popped into my head, and were not answered by those around me. As far as I can determine, my peers were not interested in my querulous pursuits, so I had few friends and spent a lot of time alone or working a job.

In my hometown, then and now ruled by Puritans, there were books in the library unavailable to minors or the general public except upon presentation of suitable credentials. Those books included volumes on the origin of the Universe, the Solar System and our planet. Books about Darwinian evolution were locked up, as were biology books about human sex. It's not hard to imagine the same situation today, as the Religious Right persists in banning such books wherever they have sway.

I don't remember how I discovered that there were books shelved behind locked gates that might answer my questions, but the discovery induced my first criminal expeditions. I found a way to get into the library's attic, and from there into the locked stacks. I spent many hours after school reading forbidden texts. One such was Immanuel Kant's 200 year old book proposing the nebular hypothesis (in Universal Natural History and Theory of Heaven), which I decided had to be correct. Before arriving at that conclusion, I was puzzled by Sir James Jeans' book proposing the planitesimal collision hypothesis, because I wondered 'where did the planitesimals come from?' Kant's idea, that the Solar System had collapsed from a cloud of gas, seemed to be more explanatory, especially since Jeans' collisional hypothesis could be included as a sub-case. My criminal career ended when I became old enough to take the bus and MTA to Boston's Public Library in Copley Square. There I found the volumes I needed and more than I could absorb. Because Copley Square is near Symphony Hall, I also reinforced my taste for classical music.

In any event, before I arrived in Junior High, I had a burning desire to answer the following questions:

How did the Universe get started? How did the galaxies, stars, solar system and Earth get here? And, whence the Universe and all its parts?
How did life begin on Earth? How did we, Homo sapiens, get here?
Are there other intelligent beings (ETs) somewhere out there?
What is consciousness? Why am I, I? How does the brain work?
What is the meaning of life?

All of those are still burning questions for me. It amazes me that none of those questions had anything like a reasonable answer when I was a child, whereas now we are close to "good" answers on #1-4. I leave out #5, as I have an idiosyncratic answer to it. Question 5 is the root of much "philosophy," including some gems and a lot of trash.

I started working when I was 10. My parents wouldn't buy me a new bicycle, but I was given a second hand wreck. After many applications, I managed to get a paper route. I was assigned the largest and lowest paying route, both in numbers of papers to deliver and the length of the ride in hilly areas far from the town center. My clients were poor, so I received few tips. I resented the WASPs who were given easy routes for which they were richly rewarded. Nonetheless, years later an Irishman who distributed the Boston Globe - the liberal paper now owned by NYT - learned I was a hard worker and hired me to sell the Globe at a local supermarket. I did well in that assignment, driving out the ultra-conservative Boston Herald from the store premises in an ultra-conservative town (which is still 95% registered Republican). I was one of the reasons the Globe became the dominant newspaper in Boston. As a result of this and innumerable other experiences, I later discovered that growing up Italian (or Irish) in my hometown was like growing up Black in the South. Thus, I not only became a life-long Leftie, but added an assertion and another question to my list:

American society is plainly unjust. What is just (good, right)? How to create a just society?

In high school, I learned enough to want to be a Renaissance Man. Although I have many shortcomings, I still feel being a Renaissance Person is a very worthy ideal to put before young people. In my adult life, I found out just how difficult that is, and that I probably cannot achieve that ideal. Over the years, I had to give up portions of my thirst for knowledge and expertise. I learned to be satisfied with the work of others. Thus, I am almost always thrilled to witness the classical repertoire in Theater, Opera and Music. I wonder at the gorgeous paintings and intriguing sculptures that inhabit our museums. I depend on those adventurers risking their lives to learn about remote peoples and different societies, who return to tell the tale. I discipline myself as best I can to grasp the strange and difficult findings of mathematicians, physicists, chemists, biologists and social scientists. All of those things require time and effort, more time than I have in my life, and more effort than I can give. I am also limited because all those things cost money, lots of it, and I have never had much money. Given the choice, I prefer the academic life - becoming the Renaissance Person - to accumulating money or wealth. Very few of us are lucky enough to have both.

So, I take the answers to some of these questions from others, while I work on the other questions. Here are some answers I think adequate.

I think it settled that the Universe started in a Big Bang. What followed the Big Bang is fairly well described by astrophysicists. There are some unsettled questions, such as "How does it end?" Another troubling question is, "Does Quantum Mechanics explain the origin, the first event?" The Theory of Everything has yet to be settled, partly because of the difficulty of inventing Quantum Relativity. Aside from these small matters, I think we are well on our way to understanding how our Universe works, physically, chemically and biologically. I think it unlikely what we now know about our physical and chemical Universe will be overthrown in favor of a radically different conception.

I think our biological knowledge is more rudimentary, but will be greatly expanded and firmed up in coming decades. (Biology was a late starter in the scientific revolution which began in the Enlightenment.) Thanks to major efforts in geology and paleontology, we have a very good picture of the stages of evolution. Thanks to Darwin and Watson and Crick, we have a very good understanding of evolutionary processes. Some of the vague theories I was taught in Embryology over 30 years ago have been replaced and improved with exact science. We know how our bodies develop, and how we are related to other species at the genetic level. This knowledge is being put to good use in new medicines and in leading healthier, longer lives. There are still some nagging questions, such as "How did life start?" Are there living things on other planets or near other stars? We have come very close to creating "test tube" life. It is already possible to make viruses from scratch. To some extent, whether we have created life depends on how we define "life." As to what exact sequence of events was involved in making the first living thing(s), we cannot say. But all of these questions are the point of ongoing research projects. We are making good progress.

I feel I must point out again the astounding difference in the overall state of our knowledge and engineering ability today compared to just 50 years ago. Primitive computers and A-bombs were just the beginning of what amounts to the greatest Revolution in human affairs since the invention of agriculture, 10,000 years ago. We are living a Peak Experience, a Golden Age, which far surpasses all other periods of in human history. All of this is attributable to Philosophers, especially modern philosophers who spun off modern science, making possible modern scientific engineering.

In contrast to Questions #1-3, my further questions #4-6 are still mired in indecisive controversy. Of them, question #4 is closest to realization of answers. The key development of the Twentieth Century was the computer, which required all of the science and philosophy leading to it. The computer, the A-Bomb and the TV reflect a completely different understanding of the world from anything thought before. Information and computing science are crucial in a completely revised understanding of Consciousness, the Mind and the Brain, even if Minds and Brains are not computers in the ordinary sense. Our knowledge of the Mind is built on modern biology, neurophysiology in particular, together with ideas appropriated from the "hard' sciences. So, while I think present proposals about Mind are either inadequate or wrong-headed, they are far superior to anything the Ancients and pre-Twentieth Century philosophers considered. Recent philosophies of Mind have the virtue of supporting research projects. That is, the Philosophy of Mind is turning into the Science of Mind before our very eyes. For that reason, I am hopeful most of The Answer will be available before I drop dead. Also, in this matter, I have tried to contribute my two cents worth.

What that leaves is Questions #5 and #6, which is where I spend most of my time. Actually, Question #5 - what is the meaning of life? - is ill-formed and too general, as it has many possible answers. I don't consider it often. For example, one possible answer is already given in the philosophy of Mind. Another is given in our biology. Yet another answer is given in the way I set my own goals: personal preference or inclination. It is also possible to accept being blown wherever the winds take us. Generally, I believe this is a question each person must ask and answer for oneself; no general answer is feasible.

This leaves question #6, which is a question about society requiring a Philosophy of Value. Justice has been a major concern in my life. The quest for justice motivates politics and law, but it requires a foundation in ethics. The Ethical Theories are intertwined with The Answer to Question #4 about Consciousness, Minds and Brains, because they depend on the ability of voluntary choice. All those questions are necessarily encapsulated in my recent project, Moral Agents.

Is a philosopher not just another ordinary bum? I suppose it depends on your meaning of life. If you want to live in a Palace, be adorned by jewels and surrounded by psychophants, probably philosophy is not a good choice. On the other hand, I am reminded of being thrown out of Berkeley's Philosophy Department by an aristocratic Professor of Metaphysics, who enforced a Departmental rule prohibiting graduate students from holding "outside" jobs. To be a Philosopher was to be independently wealthy. I also had an insufferable Chemistry Professor with similar views at my undergraduate college. That rule and aristocrats were forced out by the student rebellions of the later 1960s, too late to help me. I never learned anything from those experiences, because I continued to pursue my intellectual interests. I had to work to make a living even though I had little interest in being rich or wealthy. All of that added to my sense of living in an unjust society.

I believe Philosophers have asked the truly Big Questions. I think we owe most of our present exalted status to those ancients who started the ball rolling and their successors who kept it on track. Aristotle's Physics was wrong, but at least he wrote the book against which Galileo and others reacted. Where would we be without the virginal alchemist, Sir Isaac Newton? How about the homosexual Alan M. Turing, inventor of modern computer science? Should we condemn the French philosophes because many of them were womanizers? If so, what about one B. Franklin, discoverer of lightning electricity and "checks and balances." Is Einstein's Photoelectric Effect forever damned because he flirted and cavorted with women not his wife, divorced and married a couple of times, and probably was a male chauvinist pig? Since the Photoelectric Effect explains the operation of the TV picture tube, is that also the explanation of the crud passing for "programming" on TV these days? (That is, if the Medium is the Message, does Einstein's alleged immorality somehow infect the theory so that it can only produce immoral results?)

I think it takes a certain hutzpah to be a Philosopher, to snub society and ask embararssing questions. Good philosophers almost never please the crowds or Popes. As Socrates and Galileo and many others found out, philosophy can be a very risky business. I was taught that lesson when I was fired from jobs a few times on account of my radical beliefs. American society is no different from the notoriously conformist Chinese and Japanese societies. They all live by the slogan, "The nail that sticks out get hammered down." So, like it or not, to be a philosopher is to be a bum much of the time. But it is also to be much nearer the truth of our existence.

Introduction
A few evenings ago, my long suffering s/o asked me this disparaging question, "Why are you interested in philosophy?" Her tone was the one our relatives take when referring to me. I do understand their point of view, as they are a very successful bunch, measured by money, certificates, status, etc, whereas on those accountings I am a failure. But, I have never been inclined to conformity. Why would anyone get interested in Philosophy? Why choose to be a bum?

Black Sheep Questions