Is eco-civilisation compatible with democracy?

[mr brightside]

Four myths need to be busted: that metaphysical materialism is true, that reality is subjective, that Christianity's history of itself is true and that growth-based economics can be sustained. Those four myths support civilisation as we know it. Blow them up and a viable route to ecocivilisation may well open up.

When you say metaphysical materialism do you mean material realism? For example the idea that subatomic particles are solid, omnipresent, and have an identifiable location.

[UndercoverElephant]

Four myths need to be busted: that metaphysical materialism is true, that reality is subjective, that Christianity's history of itself is true and that growth-based economics can be sustained. Those four myths support civilisation as we know it. Blow them up and a viable route to ecocivilisation may well open up.

When you say metaphysical materialism do you mean material realism? For example the idea that subatomic particles are solid, omnipresent, and have an identifiable location.

Not quite, though that is a related concept. It is very important to distinguish between metaphysical materialism, scientific realism and local realism.

Scientific realism is the claim that our best scientific theories work because they reflect something in a mind-external reality -- that they are tending towards "truth". That mind-external reality does not have to be material, or local. It could just be a massive bank of information. Provided science is investigating something that really exists in the structure of that information, scientific realism can be true.

Local realism is the claim that not only is that mind-external reality real, but that it is material and local -- it's actually there, where we think it is, and it is what we think it is. This view has recently been strongly challenged by research in QM (some would say conclusively refuted), though it has been in serious trouble ever since Bell's theorem. Local realism makes no claims about anything other than the material world.

Metaphysical materialism goes beyond local realism in claiming that this mind-external reality -- this local material world -- is the only thing that exists. It explicitly denies the existence of anything else -- eg souls, Gods, minds or non-physical observers.

"Material realism" is not a term I use, but it sounds a lot like local realism. Can you be a material realist and also believe in non-material minds? If so, it it would appear to be synonymous to local realism. If not, it's metaphysical materialism.

[Potemkin Villager]

Local realism makes no claims about anything other than the material world.

Metaphysical materialism goes beyond local realism in claiming that this mind-external reality -- this local material world -- is the only thing that exists. It explicitly denies the existence of anything else -- eg souls, Gods, minds or non-physical observers.


To rude mechanicals like my self the urge to philosophical hair splitting is difficult to understand.

Climate destabilisation and environmental degradation seem pretty brutally real enough to me. These happen out there in our only world
and are as real as the effects of, say suffering concussion or braking a limb. Do philosophers argue if these things are real and if they do why?

The big issue to me is the total absence of realism and total denial in many folks minds about any aspect of how they might helpfully respond to the shit storm which might discommode them in the least. I guess you would call it chronic mind-external fantasy. It seems the dominant mode of discourse for many as it supports the notion of being entitled to lots of goodies whist believing the impacts are someone else's problem.

[Ralphw2]

We are all animals with brains evolved to survive in a physical world filled with lions and spiders. The surprise is not that most people cannot see beyond their next sensory fix. The surprise is that, with adequate education, many of these organic blobs of matter can comprehend and philosophise (or take physical action to help offset) the ecological collapse that is happening all around it.

My autistic daughter lives almost entirely in a fantasy world in her own bedroom, facilitated by technology she cannot begin to comprehend, let alone implement. I am trying to put in place some level of social structure that stands a chance of supporting her after I am gone in a society that is likely to implode is it continues to exceed its biophysical limits in the coming decades.

That was not the future I envisioned for her when I adopted her 18 years ago, but I feel responsibility to help her as best I can, at the expense of minimising my own impact on the environment.

Most intelligent people end up making these moral compromises.

[UndercoverElephant]

Local realism makes no claims about anything other than the material world.

Metaphysical materialism goes beyond local realism in claiming that this mind-external reality -- this local material world -- is the only thing that exists. It explicitly denies the existence of anything else -- eg souls, Gods, minds or non-physical observers.


To rude mechanicals like my self the urge to philosophical hair splitting is difficult to understand.

I realise this. But that is because you don't have any sense of how history and philosophy have evolved together. "Philosophical hair splitting", or the lack thereof, has had monumental real-world consequences in the past. This stuff feeds through from philosophy into wider culture, and once established there it has led to wars, revolutions and counter-revolutions. And sometimes, when the dust finally settles, the world has changed in some fundamental way.

Climate destabilisation and environmental degradation seem pretty brutally real enough to me. These happen out there in our only world
and are as real as the effects of, say suffering concussion or braking a limb. Do philosophers argue if these things are real and if they do why?

Some have in the past, yes. And the inheritors of their ideas are the ones who are attempting to utterly subjectify western culture, so that if a person with a penis truly believes they are a woman, then a woman they are. A very similar philosophical wrong turn in the 18th century ultimately led to the rise of German nationalism.

If you are asking why I am splitting hairs about this now, it is because the failure to split these particular hairs has led to a large number of people confusing science with metaphysical materialism. They believe the claim that reality is made entirely of matter and that humans are essentially meat robots is supported by empirical science -- they think it is as true as climate change and ecological degradation. This mistake doesn't just underlie the one-dimensional philosophical outlook of people like Richard Dawkins. It also underpins the capitalist economic system which actually treats humans like meat robots. It's all linked together ideologically.

This stuff is very hard to explain to anyone not familiar with the general course of western history and the key turning points in western philosophy. It's not just that the subject matter is arcane, but that unless you understand how one thing led to another, in a chain of events going all the way back to ancient Greece, then you will not be able to understand why the world is the way it is now, and how it might be different in the future.

The big issue to me is the total absence of realism

I wouldn't say this is the only issue, but I agree that it is of absolutely central importance. But this question is right at the heart of what happened in western philosophy after the scientific revolution. It was abundantly clear that science ("the new natural philosophy") worked. The problem was that nobody could explain how it worked. This all reached a head with the work of David Hume, who was the first person to ask the right questions, and who was also intellectually honest enough to admit that trying to find the answers had driven him to the edge of madness:

But what have I here said, that reflections very refin'd and metaphysical have little or no influence upon us? This opinion I can scarce forbear retracting, and condemning from my present feeling and experience. The intense view of these manifold contradictions and imperfections in human reason has so wrought upon me, and heated my brain, that I am ready to reject all belief and reasoning, and can look upon no opinion even as more probable or likely than another. Where am I, or what? From what causes do I derive my existence, and to what condition shall I return? Whose favour shall I court, and whose anger must I dread? What beings surround me? and on whom have I any influence, or who have any influence on me? I am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, inviron'd with the deepest darkness, and utterly depriv'd of the use of every member and faculty.

“Most fortunately it happens, that since reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation, and lively impression of my senses, which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I play a game of back-gammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends; and when after three or four hour's amusement, I wou'd return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strain'd, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther. “

It was Hume's work that prompted Kant to write his Critique of Pure Reason, which is to philosophy what Newton's Principia is to science. This is the point that science and philosophy parted company. Unfortunately, having parted company, they disappeared off in opposite directions and lost contact with each other. And we are suffering the consequences of this today.

and total denial in many folks minds about any aspect of how they might helpfully respond to the shit storm which might discommode them in the least. I guess you would call it chronic mind-external fantasy. It seems the dominant mode of discourse for many as it supports the notion of being entitled to lots of goodies whist believing the impacts are someone else's problem.

Yes. We need to completely rethink the way western civilisation works, and that rethink is going to have to involve all sorts of stake-holders. Anyone who actually cares about the future, and wants to participate in the ideological rebuild. But the first step in doing that is to find an epistemological foundation that can legitimately bring all these different parties together. What can we actually say about the nature of reality and truth? How do we know what is real and what isn't? This looks like an impossible job, because what currently exists is an unbelievable mess. I am writing a book which argues that it is not impossible at all, because there's a major paradigm shift waiting to happen. And right now the biggest obstacle to that shift taking place is not all the anti-realists. It's the scientific community, which is still committed to defending a concept of reality which should have been condemned to the history books a century ago.

Materialism is false. But scientitic realism is true. Mind-external reality is not local, and not material. It's made of information, and it corresponds to the uncollapsed wave-function in QM. Schrodinger's cat is not simultaneously alive and dead, but only because it is conscious (if it is alive). If there is nothing conscious in the box, then it will remain in a superposition until opened. All of this may sound like philosophical hair-splitting, but the consequences are potentially enormous.

I cannot explain it any better than that in less than 200,000 words.

[johnny]

Materialism is false. But scientitic realism is true. Mind-external reality is not local, and not material. It's made of information, and it corresponds to the uncollapsed wave-function in QM. Schrodinger's cat is not simultaneously alive and dead, but only because it is conscious (if it is alive). If there is nothing conscious in the box, then it will remain in a superposition until opened. All of this may sound like philosophical hair-splitting, but the consequences are potentially enormous.

I cannot explain it any better than that in less than 200,000 words.

The difference between philosophy and science perhaps.

E=mc^2 changed the world, and certainly didn't require things so imprecise as WORDS to do it.

[Potemkin Villager]

"I cannot explain it any better than that in less than 200,000 words."

There is a lot to think about there and you certainly cannot be accused of being too unambitious! I particularly liked the Hume quotation that seems very fresh and apposite in today's world where the consideration of "what is truth?" is more important than ever.

If I may presume to advise the need to slow down and explain more and focus on who exactly the book is aimed at and the level of populism vs erudition. It is easy to fall into preaching to the already converted thus easily confusing and discouraging general readers and I get an impression that you may be trying to cram too much in one volume.

I am currently trying to understand the user manual for a fancy solid-state electric guitar amplifier my son has left with me "to look at because I think there is something wrong with it"! The device is packed full of an amazing array of digital features and functions, knobs bells and whistles (and flashing red LEDs) but stubbornly refuses to do what one might reasonably expect it to do when certain controls are operated in what feels like a sensible manner without reference to the manual.

Sadly said user manual only very partially helps the intended readers (musicians) as it is actually written by and aimed at engineers. It assumes far too much prior knowledge and familiarity with some quite specialist and esoteric concepts and is lacking any sort of map or block diagram how the bits fit together as an analogue flow.

Notwithstanding I was encouraged to scroll back to the beginning of your post, to remind me of the subject, before the red herrings and the philosophical debate that caused my eyes to glaze over.

You have taken on a worthy and very challenging subject and I can only wish you good luck and to make sure you take plenty of time out.

[UndercoverElephant]

If I may presume to advise the need to slow down and explain more and focus on who exactly the book is aimed at and the level of populism vs erudition. It is easy to fall into preaching to the already converted thus easily confusing and discouraging general readers and I get an impression that you may be trying to cram too much in one volume.

There aren't very many people converted to the idea I am trying to explain, because I don't believe anybody else has previously explained it as I am explaining it. There are already quite a lot of people converted to various component parts of it (eg the need for degrowth economics, the incoherence of metaphysical materialism), but not to the whole thing put together. Which is why it needs to all be in one volume.

The target audience is people who have already accepted that civilisation as we know it is in the early stages of collapsing, and cannot survive. I am not making any effort to convince the reader of that, which rules out the majority of the population. However, the minority who are collapse-aware are numerous enough to make it a viable project. Within that minority it is specifically aimed at the scientific community and scientific materialists -- people who think like Richard Dawkins, and who therefore believe that religion/spirituality/mysticism are negative factors and that we should be aiming to eliminate them (or "neutralise" them in ways that render them both harmless and useless).

I am assuming the reader has zero knowledge of philosophy and western history. The goal of the book is to explain those things, but with a specific focus on the inter-relationships between religion/spirituality/mysticism, science and the state. The central issue the book is tackling is what needs to happen in western society in order to speed up or enable the transition from the collapsing world-as-we-know-it to a mature eco-civilisation. What it does NOT do is provide a blueprint for ecocivilisation. The book is about the necessary process of getting there. As I am writing it, it is also becoming more and more about the notions of freedom, liberty and choice. I am regularly accused of eco-fascism, but this book is explicitly defending philosophical liberalism and democracy.

The philosophical details are important. Taken on their own, outside of the context of what I am trying to do, they might seem irrelevant and arcane, but I am hoping they will not have that effect when told as part of a bigger story. All the time I am having to guard against being dragged off down irrelevant side-alleys -- I need to deliver all of the information that is needed, while avoiding swamping or confusing the reader.

[UndercoverElephant]

E=mc^2 changed the world, and certainly didn't require things so imprecise as WORDS to do it.

Science is extremely powerful. It attempts to reduce the workings of reality to mathematics, and when it works it works very well. But after 400 years of attempting to do this with a science of the mind, it has not even succeeded in providing a meaningful materialistic definition of "mind". It has made no progress whatsoever. And yet the majority of the scientific community still believes that a materialistic approach to understanding both the mind and quantum mechanics is the only option. Everything else is rejected out of hand. Linking QM and consciousness is nothing short of heresy.

Science is a tool. It just happens to be the wrong tool for understanding what consciousness is or does. Minds cannot be reduced to mathematics.

[johnny]

E=mc^2 changed the world, and certainly didn't require things so imprecise as WORDS to do it.

Science is extremely powerful. It attempts to reduce the workings of reality to mathematics, and when it works it works very well. But after 400 years of attempting to do this with a science of the mind, it has not even succeeded in providing a meaningful materialistic definition of "mind". It has made no progress whatsoever.

Well, it can certainly describe the brain, but I understand that is different than what you probably mean by "mind".

There is not, nor has there ever been, any requirement I am aware of that mathematics describe "the mind". It is no different I suppose than mathematics not being able to describe religious thoughts, consciousness, or feelings.

In describing what you are doing, it would seem you have already arrived at a conclusion similar to this, the bifurcation of science and "all that other metaphysical stuff". Certainly seems reasonable to me. So does this comment from Einstein on the human existence, that probably doesn't seem obvious to all.

And yet the majority of the scientific community still believes that a materialistic approach to understanding both the mind and quantum mechanics is the only option. Everything else is rejected out of hand. Linking QM and consciousness is nothing short of heresy.

Don't know about heresy, or how anyone else really thinks about QM and consciousness because I don't see the topic out there at all. Not even rejected out of hand, just...unmentioned. So normally I would drop it into the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" bucket and move on, but your lengthy conversation on the topic was interesting in an esoteric sort of way.

Science is a tool. It just happens to be the wrong tool for understanding what consciousness is or does. Minds cannot be reduced to mathematics.

And 4 angels can dance on the head of a pin. Myself I just love disconnecting from the tool of science and kicking into wild speculation mode. So because I believe the answer is 4...the answer is 4.

[UndercoverElephant]

There is not, nor has there ever been, any requirement I am aware of that mathematics describe "the mind". It is no different I suppose than mathematics not being able to describe religious thoughts, consciousness, or feelings.

If people think there can be a materialistic science of consciousness then they need to explain how mathematics could explain the mind. Except they can't, because materialism is wrong.

[johnny]

There is not, nor has there ever been, any requirement I am aware of that mathematics describe "the mind". It is no different I suppose than mathematics not being able to describe religious thoughts, consciousness, or feelings.

If people think there can be a materialistic science of consciousness then they need to explain how mathematics could explain the mind. Except they can't, because materialism is wrong.

See, such a reasonable sounding statement, and I don't have a clue what it means.

"If people think"? Maybe they don't think about materialistic science of consciousness. Following claim negated. Maybe no one cares if math can explain the mind. Following claim negated. You can't prove 2+2=5. Therefore all elephants are an intelligent alien species put on our world to observe us and report back on whether we should be allowed to enter the Galactic Alliance. No requirement whatsoever that B must follow A.

So lets just look at your elephants are an intelligent alien species comparison. Materialism is wrong...and yet folks seem to be seeking it out, enjoying themselves indulging in it regardless of the harm it does the planet. How does one claim it is wrong when most of the species is seeking it out, throwing themselves into it with a hedonistic lifestyle that says exactly THIS about materialism....

[UndercoverElephant]

See, such a reasonable sounding statement, and I don't have a clue what it means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_and_Cosmos

Maybe they don't think about materialistic science of consciousness.

Then they won't object to such a thing being ruled out as incoherent.

How people might be convinced to accept less in terms of material wealth is obviously an important question. I am not going to even attempt to answer it here and now.

[johnny]

See, such a reasonable sounding statement, and I don't have a clue what it means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_and_Cosmos

Excellent reference. And of note, the first two words in the summary....

"Nagel argues..."

The reason why 200,000 words are required to claim a thing I imagine? Math not being an argument. Philosophizing....not so much?

Maybe they don't think about materialistic science of consciousness.

Then they won't object to such a thing being ruled out as incoherent.

But of course. Like elephants being an intelligent alien species sent here to observe us. The beauty of argument, you can argue ANYTHING. And elephants as aliens isn't even incoherent in your frame of reference!

How people might be convinced to accept less in terms of material wealth is obviously an important question. I am not going to even attempt to answer it here and now.

I can imagine. ARGUING against the observable and factual characteristics of human behavior, sounds like you'll need more like 500,000 words to try and convince the reader that who are they going to believe, you, or their lying eyes?

[UndercoverElephant]

See, such a reasonable sounding statement, and I don't have a clue what it means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_and_Cosmos

Excellent reference. And of note, the first two words in the summary....

"Nagel argues..."

The reason why 200,000 words are required to claim a thing I imagine? Math not being an argument. Philosophizing....not so much?

I am not re-writing Nagel's book. I am writing a book about ecocivilisation being the end of history, not just about materialism being false.

ARGUING against "the observable and factual characteristics of human behavior"

That's why it needs a history of western civilisation and philosophy. Human behaviour and the predominant cosmology (in anthropological sense) are inter-linked. Humans today do not think like humans did during 1000+ years when the catholic church defined that cosmology, and they thought differently again during the period of Roman domination which preceded that. What makes us what we are? To what extent is it nature, and to what extent is culture? How was it possible that the average Roman believed unimaginable cruelty was appropriate mass-entertainment? Why did that change after the rise of Christianity? How and why did Christianity replace Greco-Roman paganism and the unchallengeable power of the Roman Empire?

The Romans weren't some alien race. They were just us, then. But the way their civilisation worked was fundamentally different to ours. That was partly because of political-economic systems but also very much to do with what they believed about the nature of reality and humanity.

What has any of this got to do with where we are today? What has it got to do with the metaphysics of quantum mechanics? What real possibilities are there for cultural change? Is western liberal democracy the end of history, and if not, what could replace it?