In search of Bigfoot

My dear friends,

What am I doing? People claim knowledge of statistics that say at any moment everything will change.

Life is not static. It's relentless. The millions of years of history prior to human consciousness and every moment since has been in a state of perpetual flux. Nothing is permanent. Everything dies.

Through observation of the cosmos we have glimpsed at the birth of galaxies, the death of stars. Forces so beyond our capacity for understanding that they almost scoff at our attempts at comprehension. The sequences that occur in the skies are played out through the rise and falls civilisations to the nth degree.

Human existence is so fleeting it makes a mockery of how seriously we take it.

So why do what I do? And by "what I do" I mean; think, discuss and write about all sorts of subjects. I do it, like many others, because I want to know. I hate not knowing. A criticism I have faced many times, even as a child, is I have an answer for everything. Some of you may agree with that I'm sure. However, not surprisingly, I have a more sympathetic interpretation of my perceived Smart Alekary. I don't have the answers, but I can assure you, no matter what the subject, I will have a lot of questions.

It has been my good fortune that, despite many attempts, I have yet to succumb to any mainstream world view. I am neither religious nor atheistic and I'm definitely not agnostic, whatever that means. I don't belong to any political parties, nor do I ever want to. I don't even vote (more on that in a future weblog, so hold your grumbles.)

As such I have a deficiency in my cognition of the world. I have no Denial-Reflex. When I hear of a new concept, or version of history, or remarkable discovery, I don't have that little gremlin in my head saying "That's impossible, according to my world view, and therefore must be some deception/hoax/fraud/illusion." It is a burden that I must bear and it is a burden. Some can so easily dismiss an idea before it is even fully formed and get on with their lives as if they were never privy to the paradigm shifting information that is being presented to them. I cannot.


Arthur C. Clark once wrote three laws:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

In recent history, the above laws, when applied to scientific advancement, have been proven true in sometimes comical affect.

Radio has no future. Heavier than air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax. William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, 1899

Why is it that people have such a vehement denial reflex? Why is it one's perception of the world must be set in stone? Why do learned members, of any field make such absolute predictions? 

Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction. Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology, Toulouse, 1872

There is a comfort in believing that the smart guys and gals who are at the forefront of their fields know what they're talking about.

Everything that can be invented has been invented. Charles H. Duell, Commissioner US Office of Patents, 1899

Yet what if what we think we know is just a fiction? An agreed upon fable that fits the current level of evidence for not yet fully discredited theories?

There is no likelihood that man can ever tap the power of the atom. Robert Milikan, Nobel Prizewinner in Physics, 1923

What if the people put in front of us as the last bastions of knowledge, the guardians of truth, are winging it? Not because they are deliberately trying to mislead necessarily, but because they're just making it up.

There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will. Albert Einstein, 1932

They know more background on the subject than anyone else, they have been appointed "expert" so why shouldn't they give their two-penneth? It's likely to be more correct than anyone else's.

Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics Yale University, 1929. Later that year the Wall Street Crash occurred leading to a decade of the Great Depression.

But what if they aren't "expert?" What if the comments they make are only there to protect the fragility of their world view? The fragility of their psychology?

The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. Admiral William Leahy, US Atomic Bomb Project, 1940s

Imagine that everything you thought you knew, your entire life's work, is being challenged by some upstart. Some young buck, muscling in on your territory. Making wild accusations and predictions, which if true, would consign you and everything you "know" to be true, into obsolescence.

Young man, I am afraid you are wasting your time. If there were any more planets, they would have been found long before this. Visiting Astronomer to Clyde Tombaugh, before he discovered Pluto, 1930. (This means you Neil deGrasse Tyson.)

It is difficult for seasoned scientists, or anyone else for that matter, to admit being wrong, or misguided, or just plain foolish.

Space Travel is utter bilge. Sir Richard van de Riet Woolley, Astronomer Royal, 1956

Until a time is reached when the facts become irrefutable. Often the world will be a decade, or maybe even a generation older, before what was considered impossible, becomes ubiquitous and mundane.

There is no reason why anyone would want a computer in their home. Ken Olson, founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

And even those whose vision has transformed the world have been made to look unambitious in their foresight.

640K ought to be enough for anybody. Bill Gates, 1981

So... What am I doing? I suppose what I am doing is justifying to myself and to a lesser degree to you, the reasons why I study the topics I refer to as High Strangeness but what most would call Anomalistics. Things that are there, but shouldn't be. They shouldn't be there because we have no model to explain why they are, yet there they are.

Over the next few months I will, from time to time, take you along with me, on voyages to distant lands and forgotten epochs to discover, rediscover and uncover many mysteries. It will challenge your understanding of both history and science, modern and ancient. It will leave you with many more questions than before the outset, but it is my sincerest wish that it will, in the very least, amuse you. I make no guarantee that what I present to you will be true, whatever your definition of "true" is, but that is not the point. Remember this...

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it. Aristotle

And why do I do this? Because...

"I'm bored" is a useless thing to say. You live in a great, big, vast world that you've seen none percent of. And Even the inside of your mind is endless. It goes on forever inwardly. Do you understand? Being, the fact that you're alive, is amazing. So you don't get to be bored.  

Louis CK

Yours in strangeness and definitely not in boredom,

the Filosofer

-----

Sorry for the delay in getting this post out. The Christmas period and the time since New Year is a busy one as I'm sure you'll agree. But I'm back now, so you can look forward to weekly-ish updates on the weblog.

I am also going to host a series of interviews on the site over the coming twelve months. Sporadically at first, but who knows, perhaps in time it will become a regular thing. We shall have to see.

To contact the Filosofer you can:

email: xmphilosophy@gmail.com
twitter: @xmphilosophy
facebook: https://www.facebook.com/xmphilosophyblog

I'd love to hear what you think

Mind your Language

My dear friends,

"The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for." Ludwig Wittgenstein

When teaching medical students I use this quote regularly. Seldom has a sentiment been truer to me through my practice in life or in medicine.

During my more contemplative and playful moods I like to occasionally undertake a simple thought experiment. I came across it when reading a book by a modern French philosopher, Roger-Pol Droit. Try it yourself if you would like and you have a spare minute or two. 

Take a simple object. It has to be small and light enough to be held comfortably in your hands, e.g. an apple or pencil. Look at it. Speak it's name. Then repeat. Keep repeating it. The word should be that which most naturally relates to you the idea of the object to hand. Do this for at least one minute. Notice how as you keep saying the word, the object and word begin to separate from one another. The word, which is now just a sound becomes almost silly and is never exactly the same. The object remains static, unchanging. Note how the sound you make becomes partitioned from the idea of what the object actually is. Give the object to someone who does not speak a language you know and they will have the same idea of what the object is, but the sounds they use will be indecipherable.

The point of this thought experiment is to demonstrate how language is more than just letters on a page and sounds one makes. It's about the transference of ideas and thoughts. That example was just using a simple, small, everyday object. Something that can be seen, measured and felt. The idea behind what an apple is, for example, is relatively straightforward. Some ideas are not so simple to relate.

Let's think about how the transference of an idea occurs. An idea comes to mind and an area of the speaker's brain sends a signal to the body. Air is forced through the vocal cords that vibrate producing sound, a series of vibrations travel at a fixed speed towards the listener. The sound reaches the ear of the listener, the vibrations are transferred to their eardrum which move the three tiny bones in the inner ear, amplifying the signal that travels to their brain. The listener's brain then deciphers the signal.

That whole process works well for simple objects or concepts. Things which day to day affect everyone. But when an abstract concept is used there is always an element of trust involved and that trust is not always deserved.

Say a word like "Love", or "Fear", or "God." I know most people have an idea of what those things are, but they won't be my idea. Not exactly. So for language to work at all for these concepts, one must trust that the person listening has some clue as to what you mean when you say "Love" for example.

What do you feel when you hear the word "Love?" What is your idea of "Fear?" What is "God" to you?

I don't know. Nor will I ever truly know. Through years of contemplation and introspection I feel I am closing in on what I think "God" is. I may never get there. But have you taken the same thought journey as I have? Of course not. You've had your own. Just as valid, just as real. Just as all of us have. We experience our lives only through our own perspective, not through anyone else's. Your truth is just that, yours and no one else's. 

"God" is just one example. No one but you knows exactly what you mean when you use thousands of other abstract words. You may casually say that you are "Starving", when you're merely hungry, but you probably (I hope) do not really know what "Starving" is. You might say that you're "Terrified" about a job interview or a public speaking engagement. Yet that word might stir different feelings in a Holocaust survivor, or child soldier in the Congo.

It's all relative I know. I am not trying to belittle peoples emotions, but it is important to understand that language is not dead and the words you use are actually ideas and thoughts you are trying to express. Words are not just letters or sounds. 

A professional needs to know the words they use, because everyone in that profession will expect them to. It is required to make the transference of ideas to be as seamless as possible. Complicated matters will take an age to relate if every other technical word needs defining and agreeing upon before moving on. A doctor may know all the technical words they need for their profession, but should they eavesdrop upon a group of structural engineers discussing the construction of a bridge, they will probably find it difficult, if not impossible to follow the discourse.

It's not enough to think you know what you mean when you use a word, you need to actually know it, because sooner or later your ignorance will be found out. Again I am not preaching to anyone from a pedestal. Everyday I have to reference a word or phrase I thought I knew from childhood, learning its meaning and its origins. I do it to learn about my work and about our history.

I do this because I think what Wittgenstein said about language is true. Even if I have thoughts and ideas which transcend my limited language, what use is it to be unable to relate it?

I'd love to hear what you think.

Yours in words,

the Filosofer

-----

You can contact the Filosofer at: xmphilosophy@gmail.com or twitter @xmphilosophy or on Facebook www.facebook.com/xmphilosophyblog