It seems reasonable to call upon all that science has uncovered about the workings of the human mind in order to understand our present situation better. I realize that that is an ambitious idea and this diary will barely scratch the surface. Yet as I read diary after diary a common theme is present and we need to examine it. That theme is the apparent conflict between our rationality and our inability to do what we need to do about the environment, the economy, health care, etc. We have changed the planet so much with our marvelous technological abilities that some have come to write books about our "new" changed planet. Let us look into that aspect of mind that looks ahead. It "anticipates" read on below and we will explore the mind as an "anticipatory system".
The whole idea was beautifully explored by Robert Rosen in 1972 when he wrote Anticipatory Systems: Philosophical, Mathematical, & methodological Foundations when he was in residence as a Visiting Fellow at the Center for the Study of Democratic institutions at the invitation of Robert M. Hutchins its founder and Director. The opening paragraph of the preface says a lot about the topic:
The present volume is intended as a contribution to the theory of those systems which contain internal predictive models of themselves and/or their environment, and which utilize the predictions of their models to control their present behavior.
It would be tempting to go into Rosen's book in more detail but we have other fish to fry. Rosen poses a problem in this opening and it is the subject of this diary. He defines the anticipatory system as one that makes models but also as one that uses these models to govern its behavior. I'm not sure we humans qualify.
Human reason is built on causality. Rosen's other works build on that idea and go a long way to helping us understand why we are not as able to use our models to govern our behavior. George Lakoff has pointed out that a major difference between progressive thinking and right wing reactionary thinking (yes we are using stereotypes to make an example here) has to do with the different ways that they use causality in their world models. To be brief he sees the conservative world view resting in direct cause. An agent acts and produces a result. In contrast the progressive world view sees the complex real world as on where no single direct cause can explain things. Rather the outcome is due to interacting networks of cause of different kinds. This is a real major difference and it has so much to say about our real ability to act as anticipatory systems. The conservative seldom worries about about predictions in complex situations because the world view has no place for this. if you want a result you go out and make it happen. If something happens it is because someone made it happen. Given this world view how could humans be causing global warming, for example? How could humans ever replace the invisible hand that is the direct cause of all economic outcomes?
It would be tempting to say that we progressives have the correct view. From a scientific perspective we have a better analysis. That very truth is what makes it so hard for us to function in an anticipatory manner. We recognize the complexity of the real world and the shortcomings of simplistic models. So how do we make decisions? How can we be sure that we won't make significant mistakes? And, most importantly, how do we convince the public that we should go ahead with our programs even though we are, if we are at all honest, unsure of the outcome?
This is a real knot. We can not be two opposing things at once. If we accept a mode where we approach the public as if we believe in the over simplified direct cause world model, we are one upped most of the time by those who really do think this way. If we are honest about our knowledge of the limits of our models and the uncertainty that must accompany anticipatory behavior, we are quickly labeled as wishy washy and indecisive.
Meanwhile the big system of technology driven capitalist expansion driven by greed rolls on. It does not need answers to these problems to do that. The interlocking causal factors make change nearly impossible. If you stop pumping oil people are put out of work on a significant scale. If you switch to alternative forms of energy, rich powerful people lose their privileged position. If you institute a rational health care system insurance and drug companies lose the ability for an almost free ride. And so it goes. The mere act of trying to write it down is a vast oversimplification of the reality of it all.
Given that I've been around for 74 years and have spent my life as a scientist studying these matters I am anything but optimistic. Maybe Robert Rosen had too much faith in humans and their rational thinking. Maybe we are, in fact, incapable of anticipating if that means doing what our models tell us is necessary to do.