The Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Human Nature

Book Review: The Methodology of Scientifc Research Programmes

Philosophical Papers, Volume 1: The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes by Imre Lakatos

Research by Joaquin Sorolla y Bastida

Reading this book gave me the impression of re-reading Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery, or a sequel to it. Lakatos is a student of Popper and the latter's influence on him can be surmised on this book. The title can be misleading as this book is about the philosophy of science, and it synthesizes highlights of history on the development of the physical sciences, how theories are built, replaced or modified, and the surrounding nuances on the scientific establishment. Whereas it discussed the significant differences on the Kuhn-Popper discourse, Lakatos provides an alternative model by proposing the nature/presence of Scientific Research Programs - which are actually metaphysical in nature and that which guides practitioners on how they carry out their tasks on their respective fields, hence, the fate of theories. For me, his proposal of Research Programs are part sociopsychological, cultural and part epistemological that enables science practitioners develop theories that build and guide them on their respective specializations. This book is a part of a two-volume series, the second however deals with philosophy of mathematics.

Interview: Karl Popper

Book Review: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn

I can understand why probably the author thanked his family for their consideration of the author's efforts towards this book, because it must have demanded a lot of painstaking effort not to mention time. I would have given it 3 stars for its complicated way of delivering its points, the language is highly complex that it tends at many certain points throughout, that the arguments contradict each other. Five stars, however for its complexity and taken as a whole it is actually coherent. The contradictory statements can be attributed to the fact that in science or fields of science, there is a particular paradigm that practitioners adhere to. However, this paradigm at specific points in history, encounter change brought about by new discoveries, anomalies or crises that can disprove it or demand that it be rejected or replaced. In this process, as what this book points out, there are resistances by scientists whether they will discard this paradigm or replace it - and thus, the phenomenon of Paradigm Shift will occur or whether practitioners will stubbornly cling to the original paradigm.

This historical process is nuanced and subtle because scientists even though they are eager to discover new phenomena on their field or contribute something original - are prone to protecting that particular paradigm that they follow. But crises and anomalies do certainly have to occur and be encountered, thus earlier theories have the potential to be discarded or new theories modified in such a way as to reduce contradictions with earlier theories. The gradual process of resistance and/or acceptance is highly nuanced and complex, hence the nature of this book. The presentation of analyses of the author can also be the reason why the book received critical comments particularly by philosophers of science, for instance, there was a comment whether 'he believes in reality?' Towards the end part, there is also the question of the evolution of human knowledge, whether it has a telos or whether, as compared to Dawinian concept, it evolves by itself towards a certain progression of which the goal is unknown.

No theory ever solves all the puzzles with which it is confronted at a given time; nor are the solutions already achieved often perfect. On the contrary, it is just the incompleteness and imperfection of the existing data-theory fit that, at any given time, define many of the puzzles that characterize normal science. If any and every failure to fit were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times. On the other hand, if only severe failure to fit justifies theory rejection, then the Popperians will require some criterion of "improbability" or of "degree of falsification". In developing one they will almost certainly encounter the same network of difficulties that has haunted the advocates of the various probabilistic verification theories [that the evaluative theory cannot itself be legitimated without appeal to another evaluative theory, leading to regress].

The author also contrasted his analyses with Karl Popper's method of falsification and demarcation of knowledge, and stated that this method as espoused by Popper, needs a certain criteria as where to base the falsification of theories, and what qualifies that criteria? Or if that criteria were to be stated, an infinite regress is inevitable. "Truth" is not the criterion of scientific knowledge, because it will have a tendency that once that "Truth" was discovered, that will mean the end of scientific search for knowledge - this is where Kuhn and Popper meet. However, whereas Kuhn would propose the concept of "Paradigm Shift" (he actually used the perceptual psychology concept of "Gestalt" in this sense), Popper proposed the method of falsification of scientific theories. Kuhn's concept can be regarded in the sense, that it is what actually happens in the enterprise of science (it is the actual event), but Popper's falsification even if it is used by practitioners remains an ideal method and the question arises, as to what specific criteria will that 'falsification' be based upon? That will have to be addressed, and I hope will be clarified on my reading of Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" or "Logik der Forschung".

Although both concepts by Kuhn and Popper appear to be antagonistic as written by critics, I'm looking forward that in a way, what they actually proposed as regards their method of inquiry and analysis are reconcilable. After all, scientists and philosophers even though they devise systems of inquiry and discover phenomena, are not that arrogant to claim that they know the "Truth".

Working Memory Load and Distraction: Dissociable Effects of Visual Maintenance and Cognitive Control – An Article Review

*Italics are directly quoted from the article.

For this review, I chose an article entitled, Working memory load and distraction: dissociable effects of visual maintenance and cognitive control authored by Nikos Konstantinou, Eleanor Beal, Jean-Remi King and Nilli Lavie. The article was published on the Journal of Attention, Perception and Psychophysics (2014) and was available online on 2 August 2014 at Springerlink. After browsing through some of the contents, I chose the article entitled above because it is related to my current field of interest, cognitive science – which is also considered to be a vital discipline associated with psychology especially in terms of assessment and research.

The study focused not on a single topic, rather on a combination of interrelated factors which it simultaneously explored while drawing insights from previously conducted studies and experiments. Based from the earlier researches and backgrounds on both cognitive psychology and experimental neuroscience, it formulated a number of hypotheses and a series of experiments, the results of which ‘confirmed load theory predictions that provided a novel functional distinction between the roles of working maintenance and cognitive control in selective attention.’ It ‘enhanced the understanding of how working memory and selective attention interact. Working memory load can be either detrimental or beneficial to focused attention, depending on whether maintenance or cognitive control functions are loaded.’

In order to understand the back-drop upon where the study is based, I quote from the introduction which I take to be its main premise,

The extent to which selective focused attention allows people to successfully ignore irrelevant distractions is central to our understanding of attention and cognitive control.
It is now well established that the ability to ignore irrelevant distractions is not determined just by the intention to be focused or by the separability of the target and distractor stimuli, but also by the level and type of processing load involved in the current task.

Working Memory (WM) is the main theme of the study. It is a complex system of two functions, namely: [a] Executive cognitive control and [b] Visual maintenance. Executive cognitive control functions are typically revealed in tasks related to verbal working memory, while Visual maintenance functions are exhibited through visual and spatial working memory tasks. It is these two functions of Working Memory (WM) that the study aimed to investigate: how can they be dissociated (differentiated, separated) through the opposite effects of load on selective attention?

Hence, it is through this dissociation (differentiation, separation) of the two functions of Working Memory (WM) that a distinct variable had to be manipulated: load on selective attention. The study therefore takes on an Experimental Approach in order to test its presumed hypotheses stated on the introduction and on the beginning of each experiment— and in order to achieve this, had to First: operationally define the two functions of Working Memory (WM) and in what activity can they be exhibited and measured; and Second: in what manner can load on selective attention be performed on each Working Memory (WM) function, and what specific tasks are to be undertaken (or how the load can be manipulated) in order to find the dissociable effects of load and eventually, distraction.

How Working Memory (WM) had been divided into two functions and how the presumed variable would have effect or effects of dissociating or differentiating the two was based on a theory proposed in Lavie’s load theory which ‘applied a capacity approach to selective attention, while taking into account the role of priority-based Working Memory (WM) control. Load on Working Memory (WM) cognitive control functions also plays an important role. Conditions of high Working Memory (WM) load that reduce its availability to exert priority-based control over the task result in increased processing of irrelevant distractors (due to the reduced distinction between relevant and irrelevant information). Thus, Working Memory (WM) load has the opposite effect on distractor processing to that of perceptual load (e.g., Lavie, 2005; Lavie et al., 2004).’

The experiments on the study were divided into two sets, each set containing two separate experiments. Experiment 1 was divided into 1a and 1b, while Experiment 2 was divided into 2a and 2b— all of which were conducted in a controlled manner.

Experiment 1 was intended to measure the effects of a manipulated load to Visual short-term memory (VSTM) - a Working Memory (WM) function on visual maintenance. For this experiment, the hypothesis of the study was ‘that loading sensory visual representation capacity by manipulating either VSTM maintenance or encoding would lead to reduced distractor.’ Experiment 2 on the other hand, measured the effects of manipulated load on the tasks exhibited by the executive cognitive control-Working Memory (WM) function. The hypothesis for the 2^nd set of experiments was also the same as in experiments 1, ‘that increased VSTM load through higher set size would increase demands on visual representation capacity, and thus, lead to reduced distractor processing.’

The study is a dynamic exploration of seemingly abstract concepts: working memory, executive cognitive control, visual maintenance, load, distraction. But it was able to quantify and measure and find relationships between the concepts not merely in linguistic terms but on an experimental level which I think is a breakthrough extending to the continuum of the previous studies upon which it was based.

It not only confirmed previous findings (provide a new line of support for the dissociation between Working Memory [WM] functions of storage and cognitive control e.g., Baddeley, 1996; Repovs & Baddeley, 2006; Smith & Jonides, 1999) but extended them, specifically the load theory – to accommodate the effects of different types of Working Memory (WM) load on selective attention.

Based from the results, two conclusions were generated: [1] Loading visual maintenance or encoding by increased set size for a memory sample of shapes, colors, and locations lead to reduced distractor response competition effects; and [2] loading working memory cognitive control with verbal rehearsal of a random letter set led to increased distractor effects.

Aside from sometimes confusing technical terms, I would suggest that the authors to have specifically defined the variables of the study. There is a removal of terms for example, ‘executive cognitive control’ becomes ‘cognitive control.’ There is a tendency for the reader to mistake both terms as corresponding to entirely different concepts. Terms such as ‘distraction,’ ‘load,’ ‘maintenance,’ ‘distractor congruency,’ etc. were all included in the experiments and data analysis and discussion but they were not exactly defined or on what specific context from the previous and present study they are to be understood or how they are made manifest in the experimental activity. Critique aside, the study is a breakthrough.

It is further recommended for future studies like this to utilize brain imaging results that would simultaneously be conducted with the participants during the experiment proper, and the results analyzed and correlated synchronously.

Marie Curie

Science and Islam

Metamorphosis: The Science of Change

This insightful film, though much of its scientific conclusions are based from the evolutionary perspective, proved to be an eye-opener or a review on the concept of metamorphosis. It provided a common ground and reconciliation between the meaning of metamorphosis and the meaning of metaphor, how the two go hand-in-hand, how change is not merely confined to the physical that living things (whether willingly or unwillingly) must go through, but also on what goes beyond that outward transformation: the metaphor or the likening and the meaning behind the change that occurs. What and how does change mean to us as human beings: is it form or in essence, or simultaneously, both?

Metamorphosis – n.

1. process by which certain animals undergo changes in form, structure, or function as they develop from an immature form at birth or hatching to an adult; as the change from a tadpole to a frog.

2. one that which results from such a change.

3. complete or marked change, as of appearance, character or condition.

[Latin metamorphosis transformation, from Greek metamorphosis]

Metaphor – n.

1. figure of speech in which one object or idea is compared or identified with another in order to suggest a similarity between the two.

[Latin metaphora, this figure of speech, from Greek metaphora transference]

- Colliers Dictionary, Vol. 1

In its attempts to understand what metamorphosis implies, drawing from insights on literature, scientific observation and analysis, philosophical and religious explanations, the film addressed the concept of change in a lucid style that makes the observer think about his current condition, even to the extent of prompting him to ask questions and reflect deeply on the reality of how and why he must inevitably face metamorphosis. It has a subtly gentle message far from being harshly dictatorial, thus allowing the observer to think on his own terms and thus be able to understand the process of ‘transformation’ with an open mind; gaining once again a grasp of his own limitation, albeit own humanity.

What is noteworthy on this film is on its style of presentation – its sequencing of the types of metamorphosis among living organisms: from a caterpillar to butterfly, from a larva to sea urchin, from an embryo to human baby, from a tadpole to frog, from a solitary green locust to gregarious multi-colored locust, and finally the change in a person: from lack of self-control, towards exercising choice and free will. Each type of transformation is studied on its own, and then subsequently compared its uniqueness or similarity (metaphorically) to the other succeeding types of metamorphosis; and most importantly, its relevance on understanding our own selves.

In integrating that kind of understanding, a person is able to know, differentiate and reconcile the two kinds of metamorphosis that he is facing: the physical and the metaphorical. All people undergo transformations throughout the course of their lives, but the most deceptive of all is the physical change. One might look into the mirror and in a sense of horror or fascination, mistakenly sum up the totality of ones own being to what one sees as an image of oneself in the mirror, and even make a conclusion that the image which is being projected in the mirror is exactly who one is. But no matter how or what manner one appears from the outside, whether physically pleasant or unpleasant, bears little or even no bearing at all on who one really is. In attempts to discover oneself, the outside appearance most often betrays the essence of who one really is: the quality of inner self.

As a person progresses through life, both physical and inner transformations take place and the totality of a person is not entirely based on only one component, but rather, a balance of both, or even a better and progressing condition of the inner self: which is transformed into maturity through wise and knowledgeable perception and handling of life experiences. Thus, if one looks into the mirror and sees an entirely different person, one reconsider what he sees from the outside and take a deeper view and be able to see the inner self which, through the progression in life seeks to metamorphose into maturity.

Unlike the insects and animals whose bodies are especially designed to change into entirely different adult forms, a person is facing two kinds of metamorphosis: the changes which he has to confront over which he has absolutely no control (aging, illnesses, or accidents for example), and changes that he can face where he is equipped with the freedom of choice and ability to use his innate faculties of thought, observation, emotion, perception, language and course of action.

Another factor which sets a person different from animals and other creatures is his ability to recall and remember who he was before, and in that process of recalling, can feel a sense of regret or pain on seeing his old, unchanged self transforming into another completely different being, or feel vice versa. The process of recollection can be emotionally arduous. It can be compared to mourning for the loss of an endeared object of compassion, for instance, the experience of death and grief.

But why it is that this detachment of libido (love) from its objects should be such a painful process is a mystery to us and we have not hitherto been able to frame any hypothesis to account for it. We only see that libido (love) clings to its objects and will not renounce those that are lost…Such then is mourning.

 …how ephemeral were many things that we had regarded as changeless.

- Sigmund Freud, On Transience

In this process of recall, change occurs not only in the collective minds of humanity, but also in altering the course of history, changes in society, and which will eventually return to the individual himself. The person can be said to be ambivalent when it comes to this reality: while he considers change to be an integral part of his identity and existence, ironical as it seems to be, something holds him back equally as well - that he may look back and experience the pain of remembering, and thus feel regret of what one has or will become.

Because of the freedom of choice, a person’s perception of change becomes ambivalent, uncertain and without any clear-cut definition, unlike that of the caterpillar to a butterfly whose metamorphosis is simple and straightforward.

Change and why in varied ways our nature of humanity responds to it thus, is an open-ended question that the presenter of the film asks by the end of his reflection and analysis. “Maybe,” he said, “that’s being human is about.”

A person’s metamorphosis can occur, not only because there is a destiny that awaits him with forces which are beyond his control, but also because he has freedom to choose, to decide, and to change. He is the same with the animals and insects in the aspect of physical change, but at the same time, his difference from them stems from the fact that he has the ability to metamorphose, to transform his very own perception, thought, emotion, mind, behavior, and character (his inner self) into something, into someone completely different.

Later on, looking towards the fading sun, he reflects or even has the choice to return to the earlier condition of his being and truest essence. Such then is metamorphosis. Such then is transformation.

Projection Limitation

I found this anonymous quote while I was browsing through some blogs yesterday and it read,

‘I’m always struck by the irony that the behavior I dislike most in others, is the same behavior I dislike in myself— perhaps the reason I react so strongly when I see it in others is because I am reproaching myself.’

Upon reading, it brought about some things which had been sitting at the back of my mind for quite sometime, things which had been achingly hoping to be expressed. This experience or insight came to my attention when I first encountered it when I was on college, and eventually since then, I often use it as a basis for analyzing my actions and thoughts— something which cause me to be alert or conscious whenever I think or am doing something. I also use it on gaining insights from observing people which became a habit I had been doing since I became interested in studying human behavior. Although from this point of view, this is not a matter of a judgmental attitude, because I use it to gain insight and educate myself and others on the nature of interpreting behavior and adapting to situations. By this habit of forming insights, I learned ways on adapting with people and situations while keeping my character and principles intact. Adapting and then keeping oneself intact is something which requires balance and ability of discernment. Nurturing both is something very much needed, at least from my point of view. 


Psychoanalysis and Change

The matter of disliking oneself, criticizing others, judging others negatively, etc. has been studied in-depth on a theory in psychology which is called Psychoanalysis. This theory was founded by Sigmund Freud, a Viennese psychiatrist around 1887, and which later on, was expounded by his students and subsequent psychologists. It was considered a science, a cornerstone of modern-day psychiatry and psychology, although research conducted on this theory were mostly not validated within the scientific method of trial and error experimentation. Until this day, its basic principles, if not rejected, remained open to debate by scientific circles in the study of human behavior. It is being used on assessment and treatment, but it remains largely, as a field of thought bordering between philosophy, science, and literature.

Under Psychoanalysis, there is this subject matter called the ‘Defense Mechanisms’. To understand the nature of these Defense Mechanisms, let us take a brief look at the background or basis of why these Defense Mechanisms are being studied under this theory. Psychoanalysis states that human behavior is being motivated by two forces: the life force (eros) and the death force (thanatos). The self is divided into three components: the id (instinct), the ego (the conscious self, mediator), and the superego (conscience). Between the life and death forces, the three components of the self struggle to balance and compensate one with the other, and usually, it is the ego component which mediates. This so-called ‘struggling’ and ‘compensation’ inevitably results in ‘anxiety’ because there is a continual need of the self to balance the two conflicting forces.

Due to this resulting anxiety, a person consciously or unconsciously uses the Defense Mechanisms to ‘defend’ himself or ‘ward-off’ the unpleasant feelings of anxiety. Thus, the Defense Mechanisms are being put to action. The psychological make-up or character of a person has an influence on what kind of defenses he will use. One of these Defense Mechanisms is one which is called ‘Projection.’

Projection – Attributing ones own unacknowledged feelings to others. It includes severe prejudice, rejection of intimacy through suspiciousness, hypervigilance to external danger, and injustice collecting. Projection operates correlatively to introjection, such that the material of the projection is derived from the internalized configuration of the introjects. At higher levels of function, projection may take the form of misattributing or misinterpreting motives, attitudes, feelings, or intentions of others. 

- Synopsis of Psychiatry, 6^th Ed. 1991

Going back on the anonymous quote, it can be said that the person who wrote it is aware of his own thoughts and their occurrence (which is called ‘metacognition’), and perhaps, the kind of ‘defense’ he is using to protect himself. It may be that seeing from the outside, the person who wrote it will not acknowledge that the behavior he dislikes in others is a projection of his own disliked behavior. But he is aware of his own thoughts, and based from his own insight, he is not misattributing to others what he dislikes; rather, he acknowledges it within himself. It is then sufficient to infer that the anonymous quote is in direct opposition with the meaning of projection which is ‘attributing ones own unacknowledged feelings to others,’ because he is acknowledging his own feelings.

Based from this example of insight making, I became more aware of how important it is to be conscious of our own thought processes and actions. It is not something to be taken negatively like ‘judging others’ or ‘criticizing others’. If a person is aware of his own thoughts and actions, he will be careful on doing or thinking something which will be taken against him or put him on a defensive stance. As there is a particular saying that goes, ‘be your own worst critic.’ This goes against some mainstream ideas which promote deluding oneself with false hopes or ideals which are against reality.

Although I had mentioned this theory of Psychoanalysis and the nature of Defense Mechanisms, it does not exactly mean that I am advocating in favor of this theory. When I was still a student, I would spend hours at the library reading various books which explain and expound about it and I had found that it has a lot of critics as well, most of whom were its former adherents. They eventually slipped out of it and formed their own schools of thought and theories such as Carl Jung and Alfred Adler, while at the same time, citing criticisms and its controversial aspects. I don’t exactly know if it is still widely used today in actual practice in psychology, although there probably would still be practitioners who use it.

Psychoanalysis, as a whole, is a school of thought— like branches of philosophy which can be debated at, studied, disproved etc. At some point, there are some aspects or ideas which can be derived from it which can be used in understanding of human behavior, but as a word of caution - it should never be treated or taken as an absolute truth. The same is true with the rest of the branches of psychology like Cognitive, Experimental, Behaviorism, Gestalt, etc.

Science is always changing— researches are continuously conducted, new discoveries are being made, old theories are discarded and then replaced by new ones, new inventions are being designed, and new opinions or insights are being formed. All is in a constant state of change.

Everything that changes can never be taken as ‘absolute’, what is relative can never be absolute. And therefore, what is dependent on change can never be relied upon or accepted as the absolute truth. Even our own formed insights can haphazardly change through the passing of time, since we do not know that there might be a situation in the future which will alter the way we perceive and understand things. In other words, there can be insights, a way of understanding— but if what we base our thoughts and actions from is something which is relative like psychology or science, how can we have certainty? Could we be content or simply depend on this constant change which is always happening? How do we strike the balance? How can we remain intact if we rely on something which is not certain?      

Projection

This brings me on thinking about an incident that happened, again, at college. We were attending a talk which was being delivered by a human resources practitioner. He asked us to get a piece of paper and then write a list of things which we hate about other people. It is quite surprising to notice that this activity has something in common with the situation stated on the anonymous quote which was pointed out earlier. So I wrote, and looking back, I can’t remember exactly what I put on that paper. Then, after we had finished, he said that what we wrote on those papers are exactly who we are. In other words, the things that you say you hate are exactly you— yours. What you wrote reflects who you are. What you hate about others ‘is’ you. And then, I heard my seatmate saying in a surprised manner, ‘that’s true.’ But how could it be? Can we say that the speaker told the truth, or was it that he was able to play a trick on his audience? I was left wondering and thinking about it. Yes, what I wrote are exactly the things that I hate on other people, but it does not necessarily mean that I am what I hate. I know myself, what I like and what I hate. When I hate something, I stay away from it. It does not mean that what I hate is who I am— I stay away from what is hateful to me.

For example, a person who upholds the values of honesty and honor will not tolerate or accept any false accusation that he is a thief or a criminal. It is either that he will stay away from his accusers or simply ignore them. A person who likes to be clean stays away from dirty things which are hateful to him. These are two practical examples. And so, through the back of my mind, what the speaker said was not in accordance with what I uphold as a person. There is no place for me in twisting the straightforward truth to make it appear crooked.

I realized then, that the activity was a form of trick, of playing with people’s minds to convince them what they are truly not. This is called ‘Psychological Manipulation’ a form of deception. It involves suggesting and injecting ideas into people’s minds and then convincing them that it is theirs or them. This is a widespread phenomenon of deceiving people and twisting the truth. It is widely being used in the media, entertainment, advertising, and even on law enforcement agencies. It alters and damages people’s perceptions and modes of thinking and seeks to control them, through various means of deception, speech and visual trickery.

If we are to look back at the definition of ‘Projection’ which is, attributing ones own unacknowledged feelings to others… At higher levels of function, projection may take the form of misattributing or misinterpreting motives, attitudes, feelings, or intentions of others, we might infer that severely criticizing the activity or statement of the speaker as a form of Psychological Manipulation can be taken as a form of projection for my part. But if we are to look into the facts and into history, we will see the proofs and drastic results of Psychological Manipulation which were done in the form of activities similar to what the speaker told us to do. To generalize it under the exclusivity of ‘Projection’ will be to reduce all forms of constructive criticism and observation under its umbrella and then use it against the well-intentioned observer.

Psychological Manipulation

There are many lives which were affected due to the adverse consequences of entertainment and advertising. Innocents were made to believe and confess crimes that they never committed, through psychological trickery and injecting false information on their minds. The media contributed all throughout history the spreading of lies, misinformation, prejudice, suspicion, racism, and hatred. It dictated unrealistic and false standards for people to follow, and these standards had destroyed many lives and minds. This is outright unfair and unreasonable. This definition of Projection is too general and not everything falls under its criteria. Which is why, we need to be aware of our own thought processes and examine what we perceive around us and the degree to which our environment influences our attitudes, behavior, and actions. Once we are caught on our unawares, we might not realize that we might be unknowing victims of manipulation and control.

Psychologists, whether they are students or practitioners, are taught and trained to study the nature of human behavior and to understand and help people in coping with their daily lives. I believe that what we were taught should be used to understand oneself and others, and this understanding is guided according to a very specific goal and purpose— why do we exist and why God created us—that is Ibadah (worship). Psychology or any other science, any field of endeavor or inquiry, should be sought for purposes with what God created us for. It is mentioned in the Noble Qur’an:

“And I (Allah) created not the jinn and mankind except that they should worship Me (Alone).” (Qur’an 51:56)

It is so sad that we are confronted on all sides with all forms of delusions and false information which lead us farther and farther away from the truth. Even though through my quiet observations, my mind is raging in opposition with what I see. I look forward that at some point, these observations will be made known to someone who might understand and views situations with a clear and broad perspective. I am not saying that I am right all the time, but there is flicker of hope that there will be those who are in open opposition with all of these rampant deceptions and adhere to the truth will all certainty and firmness. Human opinion and insight are not safe from mistakes, for consciously or unconsciously, we are influenced by external factors or internal motives which lack the certainty and purity of truth.

Without the guidance and principles of this absolute truth, what then is the sense of pursuing the endeavor of human inquiry, science?

As what was mentioned earlier, how can we rely on something which is not certain? We need to have a firm foundation from which to base our perceptions and principles. Otherwise, if there is too much reliance on things which are subject to change, the inevitable result will be confusion and chaos. It would be argued that change and conflict are crucial for development and progress.

But then, without the firm foundation, all forms of endeavor will be rendered useless and nonsense if they are based only on shifting and shaking foundations subjected to change and conflict.

31st Update

Review Draft (Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind by Gary Marcus)

Arguing that our minds are not as elegantly designed as we might like to believe, Marcus suggests that the imperfections are the result of evolution's tendency to pile new systems on top of old ones - and those systems don't necessarily always work well together. The end result is a "kluge," a clumsy, cobbled together contraption. In a tour of the essential areas of human experience - memory, belief, decision-making, language - Marcus unveils a fundamentally new way of looking at the evolution of the human mind and sheds light on some of the most mysterious aspects of human nature.

- Kluge, Back Cover

The human mind is a mixture of inconsistencies. It can systematically plan and prepare, but it can also disregard those prepared plans in favor of immediate and short-term gratification. It can store and accurately retrieve memories, but it can also hardly absorb readily available information, and sometimes, memories which can be retrieved at one particular time can also be distorted due to subjectively retained external stimuli. In other words, despite its reliability in certain aspects of information processing and retrieval, it is actually a mixture of complex areas which oftentimes seem to work together in an intertwined manner—rational decisions can be influenced with the subjective preferences of emotions.

The human mind is not infinite in reason, but as the book suggests, it is more of a ‘kluge.’

A kluge is a clumsy or inelegant –yet surprisingly effective solution to a problem. The human mind is a fantastic kluge and it is a quirky yet magnificent product of the entirely blind process of evolution.

It was even compared to a brand of paper feeder which was described as

Accordingly temperamental, subject to frequent breakdowns, and devilishly difficult to repair—but oh so clever! It was possible to do better. It is a great metaphor for our everyday acceptance of the idiosyncrasies of the human mind, imaginably impressive, a lot better than any available alternative. But it’s still flawed, often in ways we scarcely recognize. For the most part, we simply accept our faults—as standard equipment. Recognizing a kluge, such as the human mind, requires thinking outside the box. The best science often comes from understanding not just how things are, but how else they could have been.

Nature is prone to making kluges because it doesn’t care whether its products are perfect or inelegant. If something works, it spreads. If it doesn’t work, it dies out. All else is metaphor.

In other words, the human mind as a kluge, is a product of evolution, if some of its functions don’t work effectively, the better functions stay in place and improve, while newer functions are developed to replace the ineffective ones.