Ezra Klein, a Rational or Irrational Lefty?

I have been repeatedly queried as to why I stated that Ezra Klein would be moderate to far left on the political spectrum. So I have drafted this reply to the countless people on Reddit who asked me to explain. The reddit thread is here.
Below are my reasons for my statement:

Ezra Klein Jonathan HaidtKlein states ‘That there is widespread racial and gender discrimination in American society’. However, as seen clearly in his discussion with Jonathan Haidt, Ezra Klein’s perception of gender discrimination in the workforce is completely based on arbitrary perception. It exists because he thinks it exists and wants to find it and fight this thing he thinks exists because it makes him feel good, not because it actually exists. Why doesn’t Ezra bring up industries dominated by women? Like healthcare or teaching? It’s also clear that Ezra’s Vox cares about scoring points, rather than showing facts.

As someone stated in you tube regarding his podcast with Haidt which I also contend, ‘Dr Haidt seems to me to be delineating the distinction between a rational Left and the crazy intersectionalist Left: a rational Leftist doesn’t begin from the presupposition that because he or she feels intensely about something, that makes the analysis irreproachably true and the belief irreproachably virtuous. It’s just a perspective to set beside a more conservative perspective as the premise for further debate, so that a pragmatic compromise might be reached. The irrational Left violently eschews this dialogic pragmatism because, like a spoiled (and disturbed) child, it believes it is unimpeachably virtuous and that countervailing perspectives must by definition be evil. That’s how sweeping generalisations (pervasive racism/sexism/transphobia, etc) take the place of specified, clearly defined problems in concrete situations that may be amenable to a solution borne of Left-Right debate and the willingness to reach a compromise. A rational Left will compromise; an intersectionalist Left will seek to silence dissent and use violence to impose its will. I’m a former Leftist. I know this from the inside, as it were.’

As was also demonstrated in the Haidt interview Ezra Klein didn’t read the Damore memo. He stated or words to the effect ‘It was just a silly little blog’. He just knows he’s supposed to denounce it. How can Klein interview Haidt, a extremely well respected Yale psychologist, and suggest that Haidt is the one who has made an error judging the Damore memo? Bizarre.

It is clear that Google and the media hugely misrepresented the Damore memo. My impression is that Damore had to be fired because he went against the feminist dogma of social construction and patriarchy. Science does not seem permitted at Google. Please find below this highly reasonable assessment of the Damore memo by this female Engineer:

Harris KleinIn the infamous Sam Harris podcast with Klein, Klein fantasized about punching Nazis, counting the new genders and driveling about the wage gap between the men and women. Sam has claimed Ezra to be on the far left probably referring to Klein’s virtue signaling and identity politics specifically in this case as it pertains to race and IQ. In social politics it’s fair to say Ezra could be on the far left, if not a far left apologist/sympathizer. Has he ever said anything critical of identity politics, or does he just take it to mean “fighting injustice”.

As someone stated in another post, ‘When Harris calls someone “far left” or. “regressive left”, he’s actually referring to SJWs, not to put too fine a point on it. It’s just that one of those terms sounds more professional, more academic, and the other sounds more internet meme. But he isn’t disparaging Klein simply for being left leaning on his politics. Harris is left leaning in his politics.’  But Klein did specifically choose to act like a full blown SJW  in that single episode he had with Sam.

Klein is probably intelligent and a good person, but he seems too possessed and brainwashed by postmodern ideology. He may wake up one day though. Many of today’s greatest thinkers were once in the same shoes. Even Jordan Peterson started out as a supporter for a Canadian socialist party when he was young and naive. My major problem with Klein is he seems completely amoral. He has no sense of right and wrong. It is all influencing and narrative spinning. I just watched first 30 minutes of his latest podcast and he hasn’t said anything of any substance. It is all generic ideas about ideas.

Related Articles:
1. The Political Compass Test. Where do you sit on the Political Spectrum?
2. What happened to the political left and why I bailed out?
3. What is True? The most provocative yet necessary philosophical debate of our time?

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in politics, Reflections

From Cells to Cities Part 3 – Cities and Growth (Geoffrey West)

Cities and growth

Waking Up with Sam Harris #86 – From Cells to Cities (with Geoffrey West)

From Cells to Cities Part 1 Geoffrey West discussed Biological Scaling and therein the nature of scaling, the phenomenon of space-filling and fractals.

From Cells to Cities Part 2 Geoffrey West discussed power laws relating to biological scaling, heart – rates, and your expected maximal life span.

Part 1 and Part 2 is prerequisite reading to appreciate the context and continuity of the discussion as well as the nature of Geoffrey West’s scientific arguments.

From Cells to Cities Part 3 below Geoffrey West discusses the idea of emergence and the city; the scaling of cities, growth and finite time singularity and innovation cycles.

So there’s a kind of extraordinary universality to cities underlying their extraordinary diversity and complexity mimicking the extraordinary simplicity of the scaling laws underlying the extraordinary diversity and complexity of organisms.

Part 3 Cities and Growth

The idea of Emergence and the City

The City is not the sum of all the people in it and it’s not the sum of all the roads or all the buildings or all the events that take place. There is something much more to Cities which stem from the integration of the aforementioned. The City is useful to think of as some form of a collective phenomenon. It has its own individuality. Fundamentally, the idea of emergence is the collective phenomenon which goes beyond its individual constituents. And ‘constituents’ is semantic, because it depends on what you call constituents. Often one thinks of a city you think of its constituents as people. And in another way you might think of it as the buildings.

I think that’s true of the brain as well. Almost no one talks about the brain in terms that the neurons needs to be supported by an energy system…it has to be metabolised. So people talk about the neural system which is doing all the firing and presumably is the origin of our consciousness and mind. But along with that is this circulatory system feeding it and doing so in a highly integrated way – localized in space and time. When we think about the constituents of the brain we don’t talk about the capillaries of which there are many if not more than there are neurons. Our brain and our mind is the emerging phenomenon coming from not just all those neurons or all of that white or grey matter and the electrical firings, but also of the support system and the whole infrastructure giving rise to this.  Cities could be described like a fractal adumbration of the fractal structure of the brain.

The Scaling of Cities

So consider this; if civilization were to ever fail would this have anything to do with the future of cities? Essentially cities are very hard to kill! They tend to survive even if you drop a nuclear bomb on them. However, companies die and organisms die. It’s reported that half of publicly traded companies will disappear within 10 years of entering the market. So cities do matter! The kind of social networking and collaboration between its inhabitants has led to extraordinary socioeconomic systems, quality of life and standard of living for which we are privileged. The kind of structure which underlies its social networks and dynamics is fractal like; they have this fractal quality to them in terms of their social organisation. They also have another important distinguishing aspect that instead of having an ‘economy of scale’, meaning the bigger you are the less per capita; these networks induce something which is the opposite behaviour; the bigger you are the more per capita. That is something that doesn’t exist in biology. So through social networking we have this positive feedback mechanism. So ideas develop and that dynamic which is formalised through commerce, business economies, finance and education systems is fairly recent in human history, like a few thousand years. That is the origin of this huge difference and enormous success in terms of socioeconomic outcomes. And there is nothing like that in biology. That has led to the phenomena of wealth creation, innovation and idea creation. Cities are the engine we invented for facilitating and enhancing social interaction. That’s also where the buzz and the idea of a sexy life take place and where opportunities reside. However it also incorporates the bad and ugly. So you might have higher wages and wealth creation but you sadly also get access to more crime, more pollution, more disease and so forth.

The amazing thing that we discovered about all these aforementioned socioeconomic activities is that they all progress or advance to the same degree. That is, the scaling of cities match-up in terms of these characteristics and metrics. So the wages, the length of the roads, the number of aids cases, and so on – all of these scale effectively in the same way to each other city and across the globe. So there’s a kind of extraordinary universality to cities underlying their extraordinary diversity and complexity mimicking the extraordinary simplicity of the scaling laws underlying the extraordinary diversity and complexity of organisms.

Growth

How does an organism change over time? How do we grow? One satisfying aspect of the theory are growth curves. In that you grow quickly and then stop growing and the theory explains that and it applies to any organism. So much so the theory tells you how to scale any organisms and it appears that they all grow in the same way and at the same rate. The reason that you stop growing is intimately related to the sub-linear nature of these 1/4 power scaling laws. That you have economies of scale which lead to the cessation of growth. So all organisms grow and lead to a stable configuration and then they stop growing. And the bigger the organism is, the slower the pace of life, its longevity increases, but ultimately dies. So all of this comes out of this generic network theory. However, in cities instead of having this sub-linear scaling, in terms of its socioeconomic dynamic we have this super-linear scaling. So if you ask how does that feed into the growth of a city using the same kind of ideas, you discover that the city can grow indefinitely. That’s what we see with cities; they just kept growing. In contrary to scaling laws of biology the pace of life increases with size rather than decreases. So life gets faster the bigger you are. People walk faster, transactions take place faster and so on. So you have this open ended growth. But it has fatal flaw built into it.

Finite Time Singularity and Innovation Cycles

Mathematically it’s called a finite time singularity. What that means is in some finite time; it could be 5, 10 or 100 years into the future whatever the metric is, whatever growth you are looking at; it could be the GDP of the city, number of restaurants in the city, number of aids cases in the city would become infinite. Then the theory tells you that the system would eventually stagnate, collapse, and die.

The question is how do you get out of it? This is where innovation comes in. Because when you talk about these mathematical laws they are set within a given innovation paradigm. A grand innovation; like coal, iron or computers which has universal cultural and socioeconomic implications effectively resets the clock.  It’s a paradigm shift where effectively the system starts over again. So the way you avoid stagnation and collapse is before you reach the singularity you have to make a major innovation. And once you start all over again, you reach a finite time singularity in principle, so then you have to re-innovate again to reset the clock and reinvent yourself. So if you demand continuous open ended growth then you have to have continuous innovation cycles. The catch is – the pace of life has to be continually speeding up to grow, but the time between innovations has to get shorter and shorter. So you have to accelerate the rate at which you keep innovating. So it might have taken a 100 years to develop an idea a 1000 years ago, now it only takes 25 years because of this positive feedback mechanism that’s coming from that which is built into the social network. So it speeds everything up and gives rise to super linear scaling and demands that the system be open ended and viable to enable accelerating innovation.

So it took us 25 years to go from computers, laptops to IT. So we are going to have to forge another major innovation in 20 years to something which will have as bigger impact. In less than 20 years after that we will require another one and so on and so forth until you have to make a major innovation paradigm shift every year or even 6 months. It will be unsustainable. So something dramatic has to change in this dynamic for us to avoid the inevitable demise. So the typical mantra by economists etc, ‘Oh don’t worry we are going to innovate ourselves out of this’, but when you look at it through this lens those innovations are just postponing a big problem. So the question is how do we get out of it? It will be difficult we have always thought of innovation in traditional material and technological terms.

Conclusion

Maybe we need to redefine what we mean by paradigm shift or what we mean by growth. Traditionally, growth is measured by physically types of quantities in particular economic ones like GDP. May be we should start redefining and introducing a real matrix for quality of life, happiness and contentment or at least think in different terms away from technical innovation towards cultural or social innovation. In this sense it might require a major cultural – educational shift towards a new appreciation and channeling of our external reality.

Could this suggest that much of what is material will become virtual? Is this how we escape entropy in all this?
May be it will just be a new way of being, like living far simpler lives. Because part of the dynamic ingrained in modern society is this manifestation of greed. For example, we may want to have more cars than we need or more IT than we need. It’s this treadmill affect. Can we channel that energy into a social and cultural phenomena and still remain a vibrant socioeconomic society with wealth creation and innovation; but without this need for mindless material growth?  Can we can lead new kind of lives where our ideas of success and contentment are not determined by material well-being; rather where there are other matrices and other dimensions we might all consciously agree to. It’s hugely speculative and flaky, but it is something we do need to come to terms with being on this accelerating treadmill of innovation.

It could be that the sustainable future is some hybrid of a super hi-tech perfection of IT and whatever can be virtual should be made virtual and a greater intellectual and ethical norm of simplicity attained.

Hereby ends the ‘From Cells to Cities’ trilogy.

Related Articles:
1. From Cells to Cities Part 2 – Life Span (Geoffrey West)
2. From Cells to Cities Part 1 – Biological Scaling (Geoffrey West)

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Science

From Cells to Cities Part 2 – Life Span (Geoffrey West)

Life Span

Waking Up with Sam Harris #86 – From Cells to Cities (with Geoffrey West)

In From Cells to Cities Part 1 Geoffrey West discussed Biological Scaling and therein the nature of scaling, the phenomenon of space-filling and fractals.

Part 1 is  prerequisite reading to appreciate the context and continuity of the discussion as well as the nature of Geoffrey West’s scientific argument.

From Cells to Cities Part 2 below Geoffrey West discusses: power laws relating to biological scaling, heart – rates, and your expected maximal life span.

Part 2 – Life Span


Power laws relating to Biological scaling

There is one number that runs through this phenomenon of biological scaling. All the living systems scale through the 1/4 power. Fundamentally the number 4 permeates all these scaling laws. For example, 3/4 the metabolic rate, 1/4 for time scales and for lengths it is also very similar. It’s certainly no accident that we have a 25% saving of energy. That’s what comes out of the theory of these mathematical principles of network design. However ‘4’ in this context is not actually 4!  Rather it is 3 +1.  3 signifies that we live in 3 dimensions (up, down and sideways) and the 1 is the reflection of the fractality of systems.

Koch curveFractals have a peculiar sense of dimensions. A fully fractal system adds an extra dimension. See the Koch curve. (The Koch snowflake (also known as the Koch curve, Koch star, or Koch island) is a mathematical curve and one of the earliest fractal curves to have been described).

So these give rise to the scaling laws. It provides a theoretical mathematised framework for asking all sorts of other questions such as Why do we age, why do we die..why do we sleep, where does 8 hours of sleep a night come from?

Heart -rate
The general average lifespan of mammals is 1.5 billion heartbeats. The mouse has the same number of heartbeats as a blue whale.  This comes out of the theoretical framework of biological scaling and is strongly supported by the data that heart-rates decrease in a systematic way according to these 1/4 power laws. And lifespan increases with the 1/4 power scaling law. And when you multiply lifespan by heart-rate, the increase in one namely lifespan is cancelled-out by the decrease in the other. So that lifespan x heart-rate should be the same for everybody which says that even if a mouse lives 2 or 3 years and a whale 150 years they would still have roughly the same number of heartbeats in their life.

At about the middle of the 19th century the average lifespan of a human was somewhere between 35 – 40 years. That corresponds to about 1.5 billion heartbeats. Since the industrial revolution we have been through an extraordinary phase where our lifespan has extended to about twice of what it was 150 years ago. In the western world we now have equivalent to 2.5 billion heart beats. This life extension is a reflection of urbanization, socio-economic and materialism. It begins with introduction of running clean water and sewerage treatment which had a profound effect on longevity. People would go many months and possibly years without cleaning themselves. Since then governments have provided access to health and attention to disease as well as the development of antibiotics.

What is the maximal lifespan you could expect?
What is the system that is keeping us alive? Our metabolic system has built into it dissipating forces. For want of a better word, wear and tear. There is continued damage being done by the flow of blood through the circulatory system. The blood flowing through your capillaries can be quite destructive. It’s like pushing fluid through very thin tubes and there is a great deal of resistance such as scraping between the blood and the walls. So this scraping is really what’s called entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) which in turn leads to cellular damage. So as already discussed we have the scaling laws theory and you can calculate that the maximal lifespan should scale with 1/4 power scaling and hence gives us a rough estimate of longevity. Essentially the parameters associated with lifespan point to metabolism; not surprisingly because metabolism is that which keeps you alive. However, we also have the physical deterioration of material (wear and tear) which is occurring at the molecular level. And even something outside of that which is the process of repair; that we repair damage. Where does that repair come from? It has its origins in metabolism as well, because you have to supply metabolic energy to clean out damaged cells and regenerate new ones (Autophagy) and avoid premature death.

So you could ask yourself how do you extend lifespan from this picture?
Well, you have to reduce damage and simultaneously increase repair. If you like, it’s analogous to an engineering problem when maintaining complex machinery.
One way to reduce damage is to reduce your metabolic rate. How do you do that? You could eat less. That’s called caloric restriction. Many experiments have been done on mice in particular; extending their lifespan by feeding them less. However it still remains inconclusive because of some ‘controversial’ contrarian results when testing the same on monkeys. Moreover, there still needs to be a lot more research done but certainly the theory demonstrates a lot which is correct about ageing.

Warm and Cold Blooded AnimalsAnother way of decreasing metabolic rate and just about every other organism can do this; except for us humans is to lower its body temperature. So if you lower the temperature, you lower the metabolic rate because metabolism is derived from chemical reactions. And chemical reaction theory tells you how things slow down when you decrease the temperature. Temperature is a reflection of the interaction among molecules and if you lower the temperature there is less interaction among the molecules and the metabolism goes down even exponentially.  So a small change in body temperature produces a large change in our chemical reaction and metabolic rates. However, that is very difficult for us to do. Unlike us, most mammals are cold blooded. There have been experiments on mice which lowered their body temperature and it was shown it did increase their longevity.

So there is lots of supporting evidence that decreasing metabolism and lowering blood temperature increases lifespan. But goodness knows what consequences all this would have. Do we want to live so long yet be couch potatoes? No we don’t. We want to have healthy, lively and passionate lives right to the end. You don’t want to just extend it for the sake of extending it. The other way of increasing lifespan is to increase repair mechanisms. One could imagine genetic intervention to increase repair mechanisms. Interestingly there are animals which have repair mechanisms that we don’t have which attack specific tumors. But one of the unintended consequences of concentrating on genetic intervention to increase repair mechanisms is that we could become tired and exhausted all the time. So again it’s a lifestyle question.

BogusMenacingEthiopianwolf-size_restricted

Related Articles:
1. From Cells to Cities Part 3 – Cities and Growth (Geoffrey West)
2. From Cells to Cities Part 1 – Biological Scaling (Geoffrey West)

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Health, Science

From Cells to Cities Part 1 – Biological Scaling (Geoffrey West)

Cells to Cities

Waking Up with Sam Harris #86 – From Cells to Cities (with Geoffrey West)

In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Geoffrey West about how biological and social systems scale, the significance of fractals, the prospects of radically extending human life, the concept of “emergence” in complex systems, the importance of cities, the necessity for continuous innovation, and other topics.

This post is part one of three of this illuminating ‘Waking Up’ podcast. ‘From Cells to Cities‘ deals with aspects of life that we rarely consider yet are intrinsically part of who we are and the environment in which we live. It is so overwhelmingly relevant and cutting edge, I felt compelled to write excerpts as a personal development exercise so I could internalize it.  This is my attempt to do that. Such is the plethora of vital information therein, I had to split this exercise into 3 parts.

Some of what is written below is verbatim and some of it is redacted slightly to be more reader-friendly:

Part 1 – Biological Scaling

If you are starting to think about aging and mortality, you have to start thinking about what is going wrong in terms of keeping you alive. What wears out and starts to become dysfunctional?
What is really keeping you alive is metabolism. You eat and metabolise food for energy. But before we get into that, lets look at scaling laws.

MycoplasmaOrganisms: Smallest organism: Mycoplasma is a tiny sub bacteria organism. A parasitic bacterium which lives in the primate bladder, waste disposal organs, genital, and respiratory tracts.
Largest: Blue Whale
The order of magnitude between the smallest and largest is 20 order of magnitude or 20 powers of ten. This is even a much greater scale than say the relationship of us to the entire Milky Way. Or an electron to a cat. So the order of magnitude as part of this life span is far greater than one might presume.

Scaling laws (The phenomenon of scaling)
How does a mammal’s characteristics scale as you change the size of the mammal? The smallest mammal is the shrew and the largest the blue whale. That covers 8 orders of mass. Now if we look at the metabolic rate… That is the amount of energy any organism needs per second, per hour to stay alive. So then how does that metabolic rate scale with respect to the size of the mammal?

Lets look at characteristics of these mammals such as the metabolic rate, length of aortas (the main artery that comes out of the heart), the size of hearts, or the length of limbs. Also how long do they live and how many offspring do they have? One could list 50 or 75 of such characteristics. But how do they change with the size of the animal?
The remarkable thing when you look at any of these quantities is they all scale in a regular fashion; in a similar way mathematically. You might have thought due to evolutionary reasons such as natural selection that if you plotted these characteristics such as metabolic rate versus size of mammal you would get points scattered all over the graph. On the contrary, there is tremendous regularity underlying this extraordinary complexity such as that of metabolism. So if you ask how it scales across this huge range of organisms – it can be expressed mathematically and conceptually in simple terms.

The Nature of Biological Scaling
If you look at an organism that is twice the size of another one, such as a mammal then it contains roughly twice as many cells. That is linear scaling and it is roughly correct. However, the scaling of all other characteristics of mammals are non linear. For example, regarding metabolic rate, if you double the size of an organism; instead of getting twice as much energy, requiring twice as much food to stay alive what you in fact need is 75% as much although there contains twice as many cells. This happens systematically, so if you double the size from 4 grams to 8 grams you only need 3/4 the amount of energy. There is a 25% saving, every time you double the size. That is called a classic economy of scale. It means the individual cells which is linear to scale require 25% less energy. So as a human your cells work less hard than your dog or cats, but your elephant or horse are working even less harder than you.

This is a pervasive phenomena in biology and biological scaling laws.  This economy of scale has far reaching consequences. That similar kind of scaling gets repeated across any measurable quantity whether its physiological, like the length of an aorta, or something sophisticated like the rates at which oxygen diffuses along membranes or how long an organism lives and so on. These are governed by this 25% rule. Time scales increase also, so the bigger you are the more the pace of life slows down. So looking at an elephant and following these scaling laws; if you ended up scaling down you would end up with a mouse. With respect to the nature of this scaling, a mouse is a tiny elephant. However these laws are not like the laws of physics. They are not as precise like Newtons Laws where we can calculate and predict things in a highly precise fashion. That is not true of the kind of scaling laws discussed here in biology. These scaling laws are course- grained in their modeling in that they are only true with 80 – 90% accuracy.

If you give me the size of the mammal I can tell you just about anything about it. Its metabolic rate, the complete structure of its circulatory system or respiratory system, how long it will live and how many offspring it will have, but only with 80 -90% of accuracy. So generally speaking it’s relevant for the average animal of that size.  That’s still extremely powerful because it connects these organisms which live in different environments by providing a baseline using the scaling laws.

Interestingly, the same scaling laws apply to trees and plants. The way the trunk of a tree scales is identical to our aorta. The analogue to the tree inside us is our circulatory system. The analogue to our aorta is the trunk of the tree. What is the origin of these scaling laws? What is it that’s common amongst plants, trees, birds and mammals etc. They all seem to obey the same scaling laws although the engineering and design is different. What’s common amongst all of them is they have hierarchical branching network systems that deliver oxygen and nutrients from a central reservoir all the way down to the cellular level.

Space-filling
These networks also have universal properties one which is called space-filling. Whatever the structure of the network, for example our circulatory system, its terminal units are capillaries which feeds the cells. These capillaries have to go everywhere because every cell has to be fed by oxygen diffusing blood from capillaries to cells. The end points of the network have to be close by the cells.  So the network in that sense has to be space filling not unlike how road networks function within a city. The road networks have to service all buildings and ultimately all people. The street system doesn’t leave vast array of houses without any access to them. So it is with the circulatory system within our bodies. Fundamentally, our circulatory systems minimise the amount of work our hearts have to do to pump blood and feed cells. So this allows us to maximise the amount of energy we can devote to whats called Darwinian Fitness; having sex and rearing children. Such is the complexity and efficiency of the structure of the network is that if we changed it in any significant way such as doubling the third branch of your arterial system that would increase the amount of energy your heart would have to do.

This continuous feedback process inherit in natural selection signify that mammals which have survived tend towards this optimisation and minimisation of the energy and thereby maximising the amount put into their genes going forward ie Darwinian fitness. This optimal system is fractal like – self similar. The fractality of a tree for instance; if you cut some branch and remove it..it looks like a little tree. Then you can cut a branch of that and it looks like an even smaller tree. That’s the idea that you have with this repetitive self-similarity. All of these systems have this fractal regularity which permeates nature, that something is being optimised.

Fractal BiologyNot only are fractals in the world all around us – they are even inside us! In fact, many of our internal organs and structures display fractal properties.

So each of our lungs are the size of a football, but the surface area of the respiratory membranes is the size of a tennis court because of how endlessly branching it is. If you laid out all the vessels in your circulatory system end to end you would go round the earth more than once.

Related Articles:
1. From Cells to Cities Part 2 – Life Span (Geoffrey West)
2. From Cells to Cities Part 3 – Cities and Growth (Geoffrey West)

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Health, Science

What is True? The Most Provocative yet Necessary Philosophical Debate of our Time?

Sam Harris Jordan peterson

Waking Up With Sam Harris #62 – What is True? (with Jordan B. Peterson)

For me at least, it required multiple listens. More listens than what I might ordinarily feel comfortable. It gnawed at me every time to come back and challenge myself about what one of the most fundamental questions of life – What is true?

I have been thinking a lot about the essential philosophical contradiction between the Newtonian worldview (materialist rationalism / determinism and the scientific argument) which I would say your view is nested inside and a Darwinian worldview…The Darwinian view as the American pragmatists recognise like William James and the like. The pragmatists claim that the truth of a statement or process can only be adjudicated in regards to its efficiency in attaining its aim. So their idea was that truth was always bounded because we are ignorant and every action you undertake which is goal directed has an internal ethic embedded in it. And the ethic is the claim that if what you do works then it is true enough. And that’s all you can ever do. As put forth by the pragmatists was that it was impossible for a finite organism to keep up with multi-dimensional transforming landscape. So the best that could be done was to generate random variance. Kill most of them because they were wrong. And let the others which were correct enough live long enough to prosper and propagate whereby the same process occurs again. It’s not like the organism is a solution to the environment. It is a very bad partial solution to an impossible problem. The Darwinian claim to ensure adaptation to the unpredictably transforming environment is through random mutation or death. And there is no truth claim which can surpass that….

Lets look at the hydrogen bomb. If you want a piece of evidence that our theories about the subatomic structure of reality are accurate then you don’t really have to look much further than a hydrogen bomb. It’s a pretty damn potent demonstration. Imagine for a moment that the invention of the hydrogen bomb did lead to the outcome we were all so terrified about during the cold war……
So the proposition that the universe is best conceptualized as sub atomic particles is ‘true’ enough to generate a hydrogen bomb, but it wasn’t ‘true’ enough to stop everyone from dying. Therefore from a Darwinian perspective it was an insufficient pragmatic proposition and was therefore in some fundamental sense wrong.  Maybe it’s wrong in the Darwinian sense to reduce the complexity of ‘being’ to a materialist substrate and ignore the surrounding context.
Jordan Peterson

From the outset, this debate was scorned by listeners and participants alike; however 5 debates have ensued since between Harris and Peterson about big existential questions like this. Whatever negative assumptions this debate has conjured, there is no denying its huge impact on the recent renaissance of philosophical discussion.

This debate seems to fall head-first into the belly of the whale (as Peterson might describe it); to not rescue the dead father exactly, but to rescue oneself from complete and utter hopelessness. These two opposing world views could be depicted as a ‘Ali-Fraseresque’ intellectual 15 round boxing match. Both are trying to knock the other the hell out, but by the 15th round they both end up felled bloodied and tired still throwing hard punches.

I feel only after probably 10 listens I can find a winner. One in which I feel comfortable claiming the sole victor. But it’s not the point, it’s not even worth arguing since each listener has to weigh it up until it cannot be any clearer to them. And that my friends could take years for a person to reconcile in their own minds.

Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson – Vancouver – 1

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in Reflections, Science

How to Read your Blood Test Results. And Reading Cholesterol is not What you Think

Dr. Paul Mason – ‘Blood tests – what your cholesterol results mean

Everyone should watch this video by Dr Paul Mason. Every time I see a video from this good doctor he is busting age-old dietary and medical myths with irrefutable scientific evidence. It really is impressive.

Please find below the 3 graphs which Dr Paul Mason refers to in this video. If you like, save the images and keep them handy for your next blood test.

Dr Paul Mason obtained his medical degree with honours from the University of Sydney, and also holds degrees in Physiotherapy and Occupational Health. He is a Specialist Sports Medicine and Exercise Physician.

Alta densidad Colesterol contra Pattern A y B

Triglicerides and LDL

Triglicerides divided by HDL

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Health, Science

Reflections on The World’s Toughest Man – David Goggins

The World’s Toughest Man – David Goggins

I like watching interviews like this while I have my feet up on the couch, still in slippers at 4 o,clock in the afternoon and sucking back on a block of chocolate.

That’s when I realise I have reached the top 1% of slackers. I might make my own motivational video one day.

Related Articles:
1. 2 months on the Ketogenic diet. Time to report in.
2. Today’s click-bait BBC article promoting a ‘High-Fibre’ Diet doesn’t stack up
3. Longevity expert Peter Attia is my new hero! Nutrition and health.
4. Readdressing the Dietary Guidelines which have made us fat and unhealthy.

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Health, Reflections, Sport and Adventure

Readdressing the Dietary Guidelines Which Have Made us Fat and Unhealthy

Did you every get that disdainful look on an acquaintance’s face when you said, ‘I consume high fats in my diet’ and soon after enter into a fierce debate about what is good for our health and mostly talking past each other? People can get pretty touchy about what they think they know regarding diet.

So what I suggest is the next time you are about to unload into one of these messy debates is to down-tools and direct people to the following scientific and factual based videos so they can make up their own minds about what is essentially good for them. These presenters are actual doctors and world leading experts on nutrition and health.

Video 1. Dr. Peter Attia: Readdressing Dietary Guidelines

Dr. Peter Attia (ex surgeon and now longevity specialist) discusses the history behind our beliefs about fat and cholesterol’s effects on our body systems and uses scientific data to debunk myths.

Video 2. Dr. Paul Mason – ‘From fibre to the microbiome: low carb gut health’

What is so impressive about Dr Paul Mason’s videos unlike the great majority of videos on such subjects is his presentation of scientific evidence (see references to actual studies and flowcharts). The woohs and ahhs in the audience is something to behold. The other notable aspect is he is presenting here at The University of Technology Sydney, a highly respected place of learning in my home country. This is not some fancy temporary you tube studio where the speak has a clear agenda to sell products, books or receive more likes. Dr Paul Mason obtained his medical degree with honours from the University of Sydney, and also holds degrees in Physiotherapy and Occupational Health. He is a Specialist Sports Medicine and Exercise Physician.

Video 3. Dr. Paul Mason – ‘Low Carb from a Doctor’s perspective’

This doctor like no other I have ever seen armed with a plethora of rigorous factual based research has seriously debunked 50 years of supposedly expert advice presented in ‘official’ dietary guidelines such as The Australian Dietary Guideline.

Video 4. Dr. Paul Mason – ‘Saturated fat is not dangerous’

Lets make no bones about it, Dr Mason’s series of videos at the University of Technology, Sydney is second to none with regards to presenting irrefutable evidence in favour of the low carb, low fibre, and high (healthy) fat diet.

So direct these videos to your friends. No rants, no chants, no virtue signalling…just these videos. If your average person on the pro-typical recommended official diet can’t get the message from these, they never will.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Health, Science

Longevity Expert Peter Attia is My New Hero! Nutrition and Health

Apart from Dr Paul Mason’s highly illuminating dietary myth busting videos at the UTS, I think longevity specialist Dr Peter Attia’s advice concerning diet is second to none. He undoubtedly suffers a kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder regarding his personal dietary habits, which is not a bad thing being a longevity specialist! What I find so interesting is his skepticism regarding various dietary groups. In essence, his knowledge about biochemistry, nutrition and exercise is way beyond that of a prototypical dietary fanatic who swears by a certain way of eating. For that reason I find him most informative because he is so impartial. The podcast above goes a long way to demonstrating just how knowledgeable he is and almost everything he says is backed up my exceptional personal testimony and science.

Ex surgeon, marathon swimmer and now longevity expert Dr Peter Attia is incredibly insightful, modest, and intelligent. He is a lifelong learner in the truest sense. His natural curiosity to learning and self improvement is remarkable as the video above demonstrates.

Interestingly, there is a strong connection between his comments regarding his future self and where he wants to be say in 5 years and Jordan Peterson’s psychological reasoning behind the future self-authoring program.

Also, his interview on Joe Rogan´s podcast is stellar viewing. If you want to get fully immersed into the incredible life and intellect of Peter Attia then pay a visit here…I doubt you’ll regret it.

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Health, Science, Sport and Adventure

Overlooking the Observer – What Buddhism Seeks to Address

The Nature of Reality: A Dialogue Between a Buddhist Scholar and a Theoretical Physicist

Some reflections on Buddhist scholar’s Alan Wallace’s argument.

We left something out…And that is us. A blind spot in the scientific view. Introspection plays no role whatsoever in material determinism. We are more ignorant about consciousness than we are of distant galaxies and the nucleus of the atom. (which is the strength of the west).

We have ignored Asia for 2500 years. We lack methods of rigorous first person inquiry into the mind.

Buddhism is a radical imperial way to investigate the nature of reality from the inside out.

Related Articles:
1. Reflections on ‘The Many-Worlds’ Theory by Sean Carroll
2. Roma – A Latino Cinematic Masterpiece (2018)
3. What is True? The most provocative yet necessary philosophical debate of our time?

 

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Reflections, Science

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 753 other subscribers

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨