MAKING SENSE OF THE WORLD

MAKING SENSE OF THE WORLD

Mahendra Gonsalkorale 27^th November 2024

Mahendra's Musings no: 9 

Most human beings are aware of their emotions which are broadly a) pleasant b) unpleasant or c) Neutral. Emotions are inextricably tied up with past memories and future anticipatory thoughts affected by the experience of the present moment (which by the way is a misnomer as the passage from moment to moment is so short lived that it is better described as continuing experience of time). 

Humans also have an expectation that there is some sort of moral law/s which operates in life so that life lends itself to “purpose “or “meaning”. Purpose has no universally agreed definition as it is mostly associated with religious thinking. God created this World with a “purpose” and we are all acting within this stage with expectation of rewards for good behaviour and bad rewards (punishment) for bad behaviour. There is “good” and “evil” in this world. This makes sense to many people as it seems intuitively reasonable to have order and harmony over which we are at least partly responsible. (There is is a debate about this on whether we have “free will” or not, but I won’t go into that) . This strengthens those who believe in moral principles that ought to determine how we live. The place of random events has never been well described or explained in a moral context especially how random events fit in this scheme of “cause and effect- (the Buddhist concept of paticca samupada at least in part), be it through a supernatural power or through the Buddhist concept of karma (actions) and vipaka (effects). There is no easy, plausible explanation for how random events can lead to a big change in the “destiny” (or future life events) of a person in a “fair” manner. Random events cannot be judgmental or deterministic unless randomness itself is redefined as deterministic through poorly understood means. Maybe through cultural conditioning but this concept of “fairness and unfairness” keeps creeping up. 

Evolution offers some insight into this but not in a moralistic way, but through the concept of the main driver for evolution: the propagation of the gene (through which expressions are made). If we consider behaviour in human beings and how human beings developed into the most sophisticated animals on Earth, we cannot escape from the fact that individual animals had a better chance to survive and adapt if they cooperated with common goals. This is not an all or none approach. There are enough examples of humans who behaved frankly selfishly and still managed to advance their place in Society. Societies themselves can become corrupted with selfishness but history tells us that in the long run, such societies did not flourish. This is to be expected in a process which is not governed by moral principles. Moral principles are not absolute but have evolved to help the survival of the gene. It can, therefore, work both ways. There is no judge to pass judgment. When a gene mutates, it has no idea of the result. Those resulting in advantageous characterstics will survive and pass it on. It can be explained by pure logical thought and does not rely on faith or belief systems. 

For Physicalists who believe that all and everything, including obviously tangible physical things and even more intangible things such as emotions, empathy, appreciation of beauty, love, hatred, and compassion have a physical basis, they will find it hard to explain why we should indulge in moral behaviour. They could use a pure Darwinian model as I have done. Those with more bimodal explanations will have either a totally dualistic view or a somewhat ill-defined view that there “is something other than the physical”, with some resorting to the get-out clause of "spirituality" (which remains vague). Those who do that are perilously close to the creation myth although I admit that I may have got that wrong. 

The other big problem is the methods we use to understand and explain. The most logical and appealing method is the scientific method. This, however, always carries the caveat that Science is not about absolute truths but about providing the best explanation for observed and validated phenomena by a rigorous method. Science also has the immense advantage of showing concrete examples of the emergence of various technological aids to make human existence more palatable. These are what we call “visible validations”. Science is never the kind of purely empirical enterprise it is generally reputed to be. Ontological as well as epistemological presuppositions do inevitably play an essential role. 

Philosophers are just thinkers- pouring over thoughts, concepts, beliefs and offering their own explanations which can never be truly validated. No philosophical belief has ever been validated by an empirical finding. They remain the view of the Philosopher/s which will appeal to the logic of those who study them. But Philosophers to their credit, also recognise that their concepts are dynamic and subject to change. 

This leaves the Theists who firmly believe that the “Truth” has been revealed and it can only be one. Either one religion is correct or ALL are incorrect. Their systems are not open to intellectual scrutiny (as science is). They either rely on texts handed down through centuries (or verbal records before that ) , with no consistency and a large amount of variation and interpretation of “what has been said by the Lord or Religious figure”. The other claim is that human beings are somehow born with the innate capacity to “self-realise” the truth with no safeguards on whether this is a “self-delusion” instead of an enlightenment. The fact that many of these people who claim to be enlightened have seen or experienced (depending on their faith), Jesus Christ, Allah, the Buddhas and other religious figures supports my view. I also ask the question why these enlightened souls did not then proceed to teach and help all of us poor mortals who are blind and thus help us to know the Truth. You may counter that by pointing to famous powerful religious figures who apparently do that but again they use Faith as their instrument, and not reason. 

Of course, some facts are always true, such as 2+2 is 4, the square root of 9 is 3, a triangle has 3 sides, etc. These are material truths and not “mind” truths; they do not deal with questions of morality, emotions, behaviour, etc.and I doubt whether they can be considered in the same way. When Roger Penrose says that consciousness can be located in microtubules in neurons, we are no closer to understanding the real nature of consciousness. 

So, what are we left with? It boils down in my view as to make a decision on how best to spend our time between birth and death with least discomfort, maximum comfort (or non-discomfort) . It helps if you realise this can be truly achieved by considering three important elements in this scenario. Firstly your concept of self identity, ego etc (probably impermanent), secondly that you live in a society or group which includes apart from your immediate loved ones, other humans (and animals) and lastly that the first two exist in a material Universe (a material reality) which in not a figment of our imagination although the true nature of it will remain somewhat illusory because the interpretation of our world “outside” which is also part of our world “inside” will always be a slave to how we recognise the world outside though the very apparatus we are questioning. The fact that we cannot truly “know” in an absolute empirical sense the outside material world is interpreted by some, wrongly in my view, as that what we sense is an illusion. But like Einstein famously said, “the moon is there even when I don’t look at it”, and I challenge a believer who thinks that all this is a virtual reality, to close their eyes and then walk in a space they are taken to without being given any information about it. You can then witness him/her it walking in this unreal workd till he stumbles on an obstacle he cannot see and therefore according to him, does not exist! The only way he won’t stumble is if he is given some information about the space he has visited before (and obstacles he could expect) and has a visuo-spatial concept of what it is like. 

I invite my blog readers to please comment and come forward with their own views. I extend my apologies to those patient ones who arrived at this point for some elements of repetition

The importance of being open and humble Mahendra's Musings Part 8

The importance of being  open and humble

Mahendra's Musings Part 8

Mahendra Gonsalkorale 22.11.2024

In my younger days, one of my most significant weaknesses was not just having a strong view ( e.g., whether there is or isn't a God, a soul, rebirth, whether Communism/socialism is the best form of governance etc), but once I formed my opinion (after due consideration of the "facts"), I thought I was right, but more importantly, I also inferred from this that those who had opposing beliefs were wrong. This led to unhealthy (and arrogant views) such as the view that  people who believed in God were plain stupid and ignorant. When I reflect now, I became aware that these attitudes were at least partly due to my respect for some of my close uncles who harboured such views. The consequences of cultural influences in shaping a young mind are often underestimated or unrecognised. This realisation leads to greater understanding and greater tolerance.

I have changed that way of thinking completely. My view is not to believe in absolutes and to accept that human beings are very fallible, impressionable and hugely influenced not just through genes but even more so through culture and upbringing. The perfect “all-knowing” person is a figment of imagination ( “I” think!).

I very much doubt whether a Human being who knows everything exists; many “think” they know! Everything boils down to beliefs, which are either based on the scientific method of observing phenomena, devising hypotheses to explain them, and testing them with rigour, or acceptance based on Religious or other forms of Authority or simply on what they are most comfortable with at the time of belief. Human beings are, by nature, curious, and that innate curiosity has evolutionary origins related to survival.

My stance now is to form an opinion based on what appears to be reliable evidence but to accept that other equally logical views can be held by others, and one must respect them, listen to them, understand them and have empathy, and cultivate the admirable quality of humility. There are limits, of course, e.g., I cannot accept that stoning a wife who has been unfaithful is a reasonable way of dealing with the issue! But on the whole, form your opinion/view, be able to explain it (I don't like to use the word "defend" it) and do your best to understand opinions that are different and for your sake and that of others, do not get emotional and appoint yourself as the saviour set on a mission to convert the whole world to your way of thinking. The benefits? You will be calmer, happier, and an easier person to associate with. You will become a humbler and better Human being. You will be more comfortable dissolving your “self” within a community of minds and contributing to a happier society.

Coming to the oft-heard lament by the older generation, "In my days when the world was so much better", I can show, using all the available data, that the world now is far better than it ever was. Just look at advances in understanding diseases and their prevention and treatment, the number of people with at least one meal a day, simple housing, safe and available water supply, gender equality, human rights, etc- the list is endless. I am not suggesting that the world is now perfect; far from it. If you care to listen to a recording of a radio discussion in the 1950s (or before), even then, they talk of the "good old days"! This is understandable, but there is no reason to laugh at or ridicule them.

Human beings have agency, which leads to Self-image (regardless of whether there is a self or not!). Self-image is of importance to most human beings and when we understand that, we respect that and behave accordingly.  We become better social partners and community members with a healthy respect for different views and diversity. Advances in knowledge and understanding are on a non-stop conveyor belt moving forward, but they have yet to reach a final destination and are unlikely to do so ever. It is dynamic.  The world would be so much better if one could associate wisdom with knowledge.

In short, we are all fallible; nobody knows everything, and we all have views, opinions, and beliefs. Knowledge is not "knowing". Although some people believe there is one "Truth" (especially the religious-minded), if you subscribe to that, try to accept the possibility that you may be wrong and be sympathetic to those with a different view. This is our only life, which will one day end with death, something that has occurred a trillion times or more in human history! What matters always is the interval between birth and death. Do things now that matter to us and future generations. Consider what we do now that would contribute to the welfare of those around you in concentric circles (Roper's concept), future generations, and our planet.

Unless, of course, you believe that there is life after death, which will bring a whole new dimension to your thinking! But even then, my contention that what we do now would contribute to your welfare and that of those around you will hold true  

CURIOSITY- Mahendra Gonsalkorale

Curiosity......

Mahendra Gonsalkorale

There are many views on the qualities and attitudes that help you to become a good Doctor, such as empathy, skill, a good knowledge base, patience, the ability to work in a Team, modesty, honesty and many more. These qualities are desirable for any aspiring medical student who wants to become a good doctor. I suggest that curiosity is another useful quality.

There are many definitions of curiosity.

The urge you feel to know more about something or someone.

The desire to learn or know about anything.

Curiosity is associated with a strong desire to know about things, from how a machine works to why people fall ill, from why there are storms to how we make decisions on probability.

And there are many aphorisms associated with curiosity. To cite a few.

"Curiosity is the wick in the candle of learning": William Arthur Ward, an American author, said this in the 1800s.

"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious”: Albert Einstein.

“Be curious. Read widely. Try new things. What people call intelligence boils down to curiosity.” Aaron Swartz. American computer programmer associated with the website Reddit.

“If you can let go of passion and follow your curiosity, your curiosity just might lead you to your passion.” Elizabeth Gilbert. American Journalist and Author.

“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.”: Albert Einstein

Curiosity leads to asking questions and seeking answers through reading and other information-seeking methods, leading to understanding and wisdom (rather than mere knowledge accumulation).

I remember very fondly one of my teachers at Royal College, Mr Arulanandan, who repeatedly told us, “Always ask the question - why?” At home, I drove my mother insane by repeatedly asking her why. In desperation, she used to say, “Because I say so!”

Looking back on my days as a medical student in Colombo, I had this persistent desire to ask the question, "Why?" When you study a subject, you need more than simply reading the text to give you a critical appraisal of the subject, and that is why I love books that pose questions at the end of each chapter that you need to answer before you move on to the next one.

When dealing with a patient with a problem, I was intensely curious to discover why he had those particular symptoms and try to explain them. Without curiosity, I doubt whether I would have acquired helpful knowledge. Neurology was especially appealing in commencing a path of discovery with a question followed by a step-by-step dissection of the problem, leading to what more data is needed and, finally, an answer. This, of course, applies to any branch of medicine.

Doctors accumulate vast amounts of data. This data has to be connected and relevant if they want to turn knowledge into wisdom. Curiosity helps in this process, and we develop internal classifications and connections that organise data and help us retrieve it productively.

Some of our teachers who encouraged us to be curious were Dr  Wickrema Wijenaike, Dr Carlo Fonseka, Dr Oliver Pieris, Dr Lester Jayawardena, Dr George Ratnavale and many more.

Curiosity makes learning fun! Food tastes so much better if you are hungry!

If our forefathers had not been curious, I doubt we would have achieved so much in human history.

I hope I have said enough to provoke responses from the Blog's readers. Let us have a healthy discussion. I don’t believe that “curiosity killed the cat”!

I am just curious!

Footnote:

Curiosity is viewed differently in diverse cultures. This is due to many factors, such as traditionally held beliefs that might be threatened by scientific curiosity (e.g., in Sri Lanka, most important events are timed according to astrological beliefs). Curiosity here may be seen as a threat and a subversive influence. Scientific query and openness are more evident in modern cultures and societies. Curiosity also has issues of privacy. Excessive curiosity can be viewed as unwarranted attempts to delve into private and confidential information.

We will serve the needs of our patients by being better equipped to help them. Curiosity also has a chastening effect, as quoted so often: "The more I try to know, the less I know." It was Socrates who said, "I know that I know nothing!" Curiosity, like most things in life, has positive and negative features. To me, curiosity is "the engine of knowledge, the foundation of wonder, and the spark that propels us toward discovery and meaning."

Another cultural aspect I should have mentioned is traditional Hierarchical structures. Curiosity can lead to questioning your elders or teachers and could be seen as disrespectful. Some teachers discourage curiosity to protect their ignorance. Children learn very quickly when, how, and with whom they can dare to be curious.

These are my thoughts on Democracy.

 

I like to separate the problem of ethical and moral behaviour in humanity from the dilemma of how best to select a system to decide how a Country should be “ruled” or managed or “run”. It is sometimes stated that religious faiths of all kinds, if genuinely interpreted, will be a sound basis for a moral and ethical system of governance. True, but…organised religion is very powerful and can produce many deleterious effects, and that is my worry about religion.

 

Whatever system is chosen, the problem of finding how to ensure that those in the system adopt universal moral laws and implement them justly remains a problem. Many have shown how the major Religions are used, and abused not only in Sri Lanka but throughout the world. Being religious has many meanings. A person could label himself/herself as a follower of a particular faith for multiple reasons, and sadly, all too often, the reason does not arise from a proper understanding leading to a true change in behaviour which will benefit that person and also the wider community. We must face the fact that there will always be people who either believe but do not practice or those who do not believe but use it as a tool for selfish gains. That is a fact and has always been so. This must not stop sincere religious leaders from doing their best to spread the message that labels don’t matter but sincerity matters; deeds , not just words.

 

Democracy has many problems. Some have a narrow view of it as a way of ensuring that a majority group in a heterogeneous population are chosen in a fair and open manner to act as representatives of the people. It is implicit that the minority will have to accept that the majority will now act in a way that primarily suits them. This is a problem, as not heeding minority views is highly ethically questionable. In a non-ideal society, this majority may not pay heed to any minority views as they “have been elected by the people through a fair and just process” and their duty is to satisfy their voters. In an ideal society, the majority will do their best to listen, take into account and modify plans where the basic ethos is maintained with some modifications to be fair and “democratic”. They will need to compromise, not dictate, not discard. Various methods have been tried. Proportional representation, a second House, referenda on some key issues etc,

 

But I don’t know of any system that can totally and successfully overcome negative human aspects such as greed (for power and material gain), money, position and nepotism. Voters are often faced with choosing the lesser evil. Voters are also not infallible. Many of them will vote for personal gain, and any expectation that they should think of morality, equality, and fraternity will remain a goal that would probably never be attained. Immoral rulers arise from an immoral society.

 

Setting up an independent judiciary sounds very attractive. It presupposes that this is possible. Do independent, fair, honest, principled people exist? They probably do, but finding them is difficult, especially when their appointment is influenced by those lacking these characteristics.

 

Democracy depends on the majority vote, and many believe that the most able and honest are a minority in society, implying that the system does not allow for them to surface. Plato’s solution was to restrict parliament to those with a certain level of education and ability. This is “undemocratic”! There was a time when a registered voter needed to have a minimum level of education. This, too, makes the mistake that morality and high principles are correlated with age and maturity. Age is taken into account to be more inclusive, suggesting that you are necessarily wiser when you are older. There was a time (in the bad old days) when women were not allowed to vote because they were “inferior”. In the UK long ago, only the rich and elite could vote.

 

A person or a group of people could conclude that they know best, and Dictatorships are born. But it is the principle that matters. No one can take on the mantel of a self-appointed saviour. Theoretically, a benevolent, clever, and honest dictator could be a saviour, quite the opposite of the possibility of a psychopathic, dishonourable one.

Fairness is promoted (so some like to think) by limiting the period of rule, and it does work in some ways but leads to difficulties in implementing plans and short-termism. In a classic 5 year rule, the first year or so is spent undoing the “damage” done by the previous government and the last 2 are spent preparing to maintain power in the next elections.

 

I don’t know what the ideal system is, but until such is found, I favour democracy in a manner that is adapted for each country. I think a second House with minority representatives, religious representatives, and eminent, well-respected people in society is a good thing. I would favour keeping priests of any denomination in their temples, churches, and mosques without political prominence. Providing support to them in community activities that lead to justice, equity, and a more balanced society is reasonable.

 

Most importantly, the justice system has to be robust so that nobody with power, privilege, connections, or influence can escape the rule of law. Punishment in the next birth as a suitable deterrent may work for a few but not for most. Reward and punishment from a Deity have a similar appeal.

LIVING....AND DYING

LIVING....AND DYING

Life is possible only because it is inexorably linked with death. Although we recognised death from a very early stage in our lives, it was something that was there in the background, and we didn’t pay much attention to it and indeed tended to avoid thinking about it as it was not pleasant to be reminded that you and your loved ones are transient. I use the word transient in a relative sense. What is transient is a matter of perception. Your life is transient compared to the life of the Universe! and almost eternal compared to that of a dragonfly.

I am of the opinion that although there are many reasons for the arising of religion, one powerful stimulus was the desire to “extend” your life. Some sort of afterlife is part of all religious beliefs. It provides some comfort and a basis for moral laws. We all like to see “good” being rewarded and “bad” being punished. When examining this, Man inevitably sees something extraordinary beyond his capacity to understand how this operates. He sees a possible mechanism for this to operate through a God or Gods or some “spiritual law”. This causes problems such as why so much hardship and sadness exists in the presence of a God who is apparently either choosy, hasn’t got the power, or is non-existent. Any doubt about the power He is alleged to have is overcome by a belief or faith that, although it appears so, we cannot appreciate the true nature of the grand design. What we see as His failure is in fact our failure.

Man requires some sort of “immediate” reassurance when in difficulty. The Buddhist concept of Nirvana is too distant and is of little help in these situations, hence the intermingling of mainly Hindu concepts, such as worshipping deities and inanimate objects, such as statutes, throughout the cultural history of Buddhism. They can postpone the attainment of Nirvana for a future birth but do enough good now to keep their merit score high enough not to stray from the path.

What am I leading to? Firstly, to accept that death is real and without it, paradoxically, life is not possible. Secondly, we cannot take our material possessions with us at the journey's end. Thirdly, if human beings have the capacity to determine what the absolute “truth” is, they have not yet done so. If they had done so conclusively, there would be only one Religion. I think we must recognise the importance of faith (saddha), reverence and the comfort it provides to many. We can debate and form our conclusions on an intellectual dimension, but this is separate from aspects of human need.

The final question is whether we have the capacity to understand reality by mere intuition or through rational sifting of evidence through learning. The Buddhist philosophy implies that intuition is possible.

This leads me to believe we should be humble, understand the needs of others, be empathetic, be nonjudgmental, and think beyond the material universe. Death reminds us of our common destiny, the need to live in the present, and the need to cultivate our minds more than our physical aspects.

EVOLUTION, MORALITY, NATURAL SELECTION, ADAPTATION, SURVIVAL. SELFISH GENE

EVOLUTION, MORALITY, NATURAL SELECTION, ADAPTATION, SURVIVAL. SELFISH GENE

Mahendra February 10^th , 2024

Welcome to my first post in 2024. 

The Theory of Evolution is now almost universally accepted as a scientific fact. There are aspects within the general theory that are very clear and unambiguous, but some of the terms used above create some ambiguity.

The use of the term “selfish” is unfortunate as it implies “agency”. Only an agent (a sentient being with an image of self) can be selfish. To say that a gene is selfish implies that it has agency. Of course, it may not have been used in a literal sense, but it has caused a lot of damage as it has made evolution appear to promote selfish societies with no moral values.

The ultimate mechanism for spontaneous variation and evolution of change over time is the random mutations that occur in genes. As I understand it, these are entirely random and can manifest physically (? And non-physically) as a whole range of possibilities. These possibilities are also random and not directed in any way. What then happens is purely a result of those that have a better reproductive or survival value being “chosen”, and not by a thing that chooses but by the simple fact of what is best suited to survive. If evolution is driven directly via mutations which are needed, that implies that the environment somehow dictates the mutation process to follow a favourable path. This is not so. A whole random range is produced, and the winner is the one with the best chance to survive, merely through a perfectly natural process, and those produced which are not suitable just do not survive. This explains why evolution has to be thought of in the context of a massive scale of time. If purposeful mutation has occurred, the whole process would be shortened, but… an explanation is then required on how these purposeful mutations occur, and it will be very tempting to postulate a grand designer. 

Survival must be considered in the context of time (age) and species. In the lowest form, physical attributes will play a large part, such as a long neck (giraffe) or number of limbs, flexibility of joints, skin pigmentation, presence of hair etc. But at a higher level, surely behavioural characteristics must come into play. If that is so, it then implies that behavioural characteristics must also be heritable so that the advantage that promoted survival must be transmissible to the next generation, which is key and central to the theory of evolution. 

It is often mistakenly thought (in my view) that favourable behavioural characteristics have an underlying moral principle. This has the danger of making nature “personal” and possibly the design of a higher power. In my view, it is just basic material sense that drives the process. This explains why “bad” things still happen, as, in a purely mechanistic sense, a “bad” thing could be the best solution. But if we think of survival and its importance, then it is clear that as species become more and more complex, attributes such as cooperative behaviour, empathy, loving-kindness, and generosity will enhance the propagation of a species. “Moral” behaviour then becomes sensible behaviour to be automatically encouraged or supported by the process of evolution. This, again, needs a long-term perspective. We must not think that we can change the nature of future species or our own species by short-term measures applicable to the infinitely tiny time we occupy the universe If behavioural changes are heritable, then they will influence future generations and future species in a direction that we consider “moral”, but as it is a process of automatic selection and not driven by a designed perfect mechanism, there will always be heterogeneity in species behaviour as well as in species physical attributes.

We are also not slaves to evolution as a society; we must understand evolution but not treat it as something we cannot influence. We must not fall into the trap of determinism and inevitability. We must also keep reminding ourselves that to think of Evolution, we must think long-term. The whole process is driven by the need for survival, mediated via genes and natural selection. To murder your opponent sometimes may be a good strategy purely in terms of survival, but our intervention with the moral aspects of such a deed will create a better Society and inevitably, if behaviour traits are heritable, create better societies in the future; but it won't happen overnight, not even in a few generations.

We owe a lot to Charles Darwin for his research and intellectual abilities. But we must not forget the contribution of Alfred Russel Wallace, who almost simultaneously had the same thoughts as Darwin. Until the theory of evolution was propounded, it was not easy to debunk the Designer theory favoured by theistic religions. Evolution provides the best explanation for the blindingly vast variety of life and its progression through so many different stages in the space of millions of years. But in my mind, the emergence of a sophisticated animal which Home Sapiens is, and so different in intellectual capacity to any other animal past or present, quite so late in the scale of time living beings have existed, still needs an answer.