Shadow

A New Science of Mind and Society?

A New Science of Mind and Society?

A New Mind and Social Science-Part One

Here the reader will not encounter any of the daring flights that seem to characterize the works of our time…they are often due to the mind gathering all its strength to see only one side of the subject and leaving the other side unobserved.

Charles De Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws (1748)

A New Science of Mind and Society?
A New Science of Mind and Society?

Promotion

This article proposes a restructuring of science to advance human health, happiness and evolution towards a smarter adaptive and creative global society. A method of reuniting scientific and spiritual values is described and a general plan is proposed for the transition to a syntropic science that will prevent the crises expected in the 21st century as a result of both technological evolution and the impact of human civilization. in the Earth’s biosphere. “Ten Ideas That Changed the World” were featured in December 2011 Scientific American. The tenth idea was described and discussed by David Weinberger in an article entitled “The Machine That Predicts the Future.” Weinberger is a Senior Research Scientist at the Harvard Berkman Center and Associate Director of the Harvard Library Laboratory.

A New Science of Mind and Society?

The “Machine” in question is actually a computer system under development at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich under the leadership of Dirk Helbing. Many universities and research institutions around the world support the project, and it was once considered the best option to receive a EUR 1 billion research grant from the European Union. However, Weinberger’s article was highly critical and may have influenced the EU’s final decision to award the prize to two other projects; one of them is the Human Brain Project (AB), designed to reverse engineer the entire human brain.

Here is a brief summary of Scientific American’s Weinberger article:

The project would be powered by massive data streams now available to researchers.
Still, the models aren’t perfect: many researchers think they’ll never capture the complexity of the world.
A better knowledge machine could arise from Web-like principles such as interconnection and argument.”
Weinberger’s paper is an excellent discussion of the problems involved in understanding and modeling large complex systems, and I use it here as a starting point to present a proposal for New Science.
Weinberger argues, I correctly believe, that (a) we do not have a coherent theory of social behavior on which to build a coherent social science. I will suggest one. (b) It refers to an exponential increase in difficulties when trying to understand all the layers in a complex system. I will propose a basis for triage. (c) mentions the natural limits of complexity models imposed by “two hallmarks of unpredictability: black swans and chaos theory”. I propose an approach for working with unpredictability. He describes the tension between (d) a “central agency that takes responsibility” and a “common data” available to all. This is a well-known and solvable systems problem. Weinberger raises (e) problems with a definition of knowledge. Finally, (f) points to a version of the uncertainty principle in social models that changes the behavior of the system as it is modeled.

A New Science of Mind and Society?
A New Science of Mind and Society?

Why a New Science?

Science can be an expensive activity, and scientists are sometimes accused of spending money on trivial pursuits. Perhaps there are better ways to organize our search for knowledge. A New Science of Mind and Society?

Science has long been in the service of defending certain political formations and their sometimes offensive campaigns.

A New Science of Mind and Society?

When not used to support religious organizations and movements, science is an essentially secular activity that is agnostic in terms of religious beliefs. We must not forget that science was once a fascinating new way of discovering and understanding the nature of reality. Therefore, it was met with great skepticism by the religious authorities. After the trials of Galileo and Bruno, the French philosopher René Descartes saved both science and religion by providing a theoretical basis for a territorial division: the Church would dominate the realm of the soul. Science would be free to explore the body and, by extension, the material Universe. He would surrender the Universal Purpose and leave that to the gods.

Mind and Society
Mind and Society

A New Science of Mind and Society?

This artificial separation worked for a long time, but like many compromises that satisfied temporary interests, it eventually led to some unhealthy situations. Most organized, monotheistic religions have become increasingly dependent on an integrative revelation truth and belief. The power of faith-based trust

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.