Categories
01. Do We have Free Will?

Do We Have Free Will?

Introduction

Free will is the idea that we can influence the direction that our lives and those of others will take by the choices that we make. Whether we have free will or whether we live in a world in which our fate is predetermined is one of the unresolved questions of science and philosophy. What we believe to be the answer to this question has profound implications for our personal wellbeing and that of society. I will, therefore, begin this series of articles with a discussion of whether we have free will.

Causality and Determinism

Causality relies on objects and events occupying a region of space-time so that the beginning of one, the cause, precedes the beginning of another, the effect. The region of space-time occupied by the cause must also contain the beginning of the effect.

A deterministic universe is one in which everything, including events and physical objects, has a cause. This implies that everything can be traced back to one original cause, the big bang, and that everything which subsequently occurred, including our decisions, was predetermined at that time.

Acausality and Indeterminism

Not everything in the universe has a cause. Space, time, and the laws of the universe are thought to have originated with the big bang. Thus, the big bang cannot be said to have had a cause. Some other mechanism may have been in play but, although we do not know what, it was certainly not causality.

There are other events which appear to be acausal. The radioactive decay of atoms and the appearance of virtual particles seem to occur at random, without any apparent cause. It may be that these events do result from some, yet unidentified, mechanism, but if anything “beyond” space-time is involved then, in the same way as the big bang, this mechanism is acausal.

Some of these acausal events interact with existing particles creating very small changes. As time passes, these changes can propagate and become magnified to such an extent that circumstances after the interaction are fundamentally different to those which might have prevailed without it. Furthermore, there will be infinitely many consequences of acausal events propagating through the universe. If they are truly acausal, then the result will be a probabilistic and unpredictable universe.

There would be no simple rules from which the state of the universe could be derived. Rather, such rules would be at least as complex as the universe itself. This, in turn, implies either that there is some entity as complex as the universe capable of holding those rules or that the rules and the universe are one and the same thing. The latter is, of course, the simpler and more likely explanation.

So, the existence of acausal events would imply that the universe was not predetermined by the Big Bang but rather by the most recent acausal event of any significance.

Implications

Determinism suggests that, after the point in time called “now”, the state of the universe is already mapped out and may even pre-exist. Indeterminism, on the other hand, implies that the future is uncertain or probabilistic, and, as it becomes ever more remote, increasingly so. Thus, knowing the situation at any point in time, we could only predict the future with reasonable accuracy a very short time ahead.

We cannot visit the future to know whether determinism or indeterminism is correct.  However, if the former, then we are following a path already mapped out and have no free will. On the other hand, if the future is probabilistic and only becomes certain as “now” progresses through time, then it is possible that we do have free will.

There is no proof one way or the other.  However, a popular acceptance of determinism has implications for us as individuals and for society. These include a fatalist attitude and a belief that we are powerless in the face of humanity’s difficulties. They also include a denial of personal responsibility for our actions and the damage that this might cause to society.

In my next post, I will discuss the evidence in favour of free will and expand on the consequences of its denial.

Categories
09. Improving our Knowledge of Human Nature

Improving Our Knowledge of Human Nature

By “our knowledge of human nature”, I mean our communal knowledge rather than our individual knowledge. Most communal knowledge is now held on the internet and provided, by specialists in a particular field, for individuals to learn, if they so wish.

However, the problem with specialisation is, perhaps, best described by the following irreverent, but amusing, adage:

“Q. What is the difference between a scientist and an engineer? A. A scientist knows a lot about a little, and learns more and more about less and less, until he knows everything about nothing. An engineer knows a little about a lot, and learns less and less about more and more, until he knows nothing about everything.”

Research has shown that there may be some truth in this adage. When writing papers, scientists refer to supporting information from other papers, i.e., they make citations. The Eigenfactor Project at the University of Washington, (http://eigenfactor.org/about.php), has carried out research showing the extent to which researchers in one discipline cite work from those in another. The results can be seen as an elegant diagram at http://well-formed.eigenfactor.org/radial.html. Each line represents a citation and, where it is between two fields, it is cross disciplinary. This diagram shows little cross disciplinary citation by researchers in the fields of psychology and economics. If true, this does not bode well for our understanding of human nature, as I will attempt to explain below.

The ancient Indian religion, Jainism, holds that physical objects and events are infinite in their qualities and, so, cannot be fully understood by the finite human mind. Thus, any individual’s understanding of an object or event is from his perspective or point of view. The latter is limited, and he cannot, therefore, have a full understanding. Today we refer to this concept as “perspectivism”.

Consider, for example, a helix. When viewed from an end-on perspective it appears to be a circle. When viewed from a side-on perspective it appears to be a wave. This is demonstrated by the diagram below.

Courtesy: Commons.wikimedia.org

Only the helix can generate both the circle and the wave. Now imagine that the circle and wave are both theories in different fields of knowledge. When the two theories are compared, they may appear to be contradictory or unrelated unless one is able to recognise that both are special examples of a third more general theory.

Knowledge helps us to survive and procreate. We use it to avoid threats and to seize opportunities. It is likely, therefore, that it is a pragmatic representation of reality. As the science of physics competently demonstrates, reality has structure. By “structure”, I do not mean the way in which things can be categorised like books in a library, e.g., history, geography, thrillers, etc. Rather, I mean “governed by the laws of nature”. However, just like the helix, these laws present themselves to us in different ways depending on the viewpoint of the observer.

I would argue that, to improve our knowledge of human nature, we need more generalists, that is, people who can research existing knowledge in several specialist disciplines, who can perceive the underlying truths that unite them, and who can propose new hypotheses for specialists to investigate. As both the arts and science are human activities, it may even be possible to draw cross references between subjects as diverse as these. This more general approach would have the following advantages.

It is well established that all knowledge which is true is also consistent. One item of true knowledge cannot contradict any other. If we do not consider multiple disciplines, then the risk is that specialists may pursue hypotheses which contradict theories well proven elsewhere.

By theorising from a single perspective, the opportunity to identify more fundamental truths of human nature can be missed. In previous articles, I have shown that the second law of thermodynamics has a very significant bearing on our behaviour. I have also shown that feedback loops have a major part to play. Both are concepts from the science of physics.

An understanding of the way that fundamental truths are structured can also reveal new knowledge. From my work in epistemology and symbolic logic, it appears that our knowledge has a binary structure but that we often overlook one side of the coin. For example, we have needs and their opposite, contra-needs. Although we are intuitively aware of the latter they have not previously been formally recognised. Try “contra-needs” and “opposite of human needs” and “needs antonym” in your search engine.

This concludes the series of articles on knowledge, beliefs, and predispositions. In my next post, I begin a series on human decision making and behaviour.

Categories
08. Knowledge and Utility

Knowledge and Utility

Clearly, it is desirable for knowledge to be as close to objective reality as possible. However, there are practical limits on our ability to achieve this, many of which were explained in previous articles.

This is not something that I advocate, but it is an undeniable fact that people sometimes promote beliefs that are not necessarily true, beneficial to society or to the environment. Rather such beliefs may merely satisfy the personal needs of those who promote them. So long as we have individual volition, rather than a selfless hive mentality, this will always be the case. Again, I do not advocate the latter. Human success is based on maintaining a delicate balance between individuality and collectivism.

There are numerous examples of harmful beliefs in religion, commerce, and politics. They can cause immediate harm or, whilst having a short-term benefit, may be unsustainable in the longer term. Even scientists can sometimes prevaricate if they believe the paradigm on which their status or livelihood depends is at stake. Treating knowledge in this way is an inevitable aspect of human nature that we must learn to accept and manage.

The best that we are capable of achieving is schemata, memeplexes and paradigms that are consistent and have maximum utility. That is: schemata which optimise the individual’s chances of survival and procreation; memeplexes which do the same for society as well as satisfying its members individual needs; and paradigms which accurately represent any known objective truths, and which accurately predict phenomena. Here, the word “utility” refers to Utilitarianism, a philosophy founded by Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832). Utility is the ability of things to act as satisfiers of our needs or to prevent contra-satisfiers. Buddhist belief, for example, includes acting in a way which maximises utility, rather than acting solely out of kindness. This implies that some forms of behaviour must be opposed.

It is important to be critical of the knowledge we are presented with. It is also important to be critical of knowledge and beliefs we already hold, including unconscious ones. This can be achieved by asking the following questions of any item:

  • Is it consistent with everything else I know?
  • Is it consistent with other information I can research?
  • Is there evidence to support or refute it?
  • How reliable is its source?
  • What are the motives of the individual or group promoting it?
  • Would accepting it satisfy its advocate’s needs to my detriment, to the detriment of society, or to the detriment of the environment?
  • What would be my motives in accepting it?
  • Would accepting it satisfy my personal needs?
  • If so, does this over-ride my need for truth?

It is also important to be critical of our personal beliefs and attitudes, including those that we are not necessarily aware of. We can unearth them by questioning our actions as follows:

  • What need made me want to do that?
  • What belief or attitude made me choose that satisfier?

The more frequently we identify an unconscious belief or attitude in this way, the more likely it is that we hold it. However, we all carry a self-image and will vigorously defend it using various strategies described by Bartlett. For example, we may alter details, shift emphasis, include rationalisations, and make cultural alterations.  Some of the beliefs that we unearth may come as an unpleasant surprise, therefore. To challenge them, it is necessary to develop a degree of objectivity about oneself and to recognise that such beliefs and attitudes are an inevitable aspect of human nature.

Unconsciously held beliefs and attitudes can be positive, of course, but are not necessarily so. Having unearthed one, it is, therefore, sensible to question what type of satisfier it is. For example:

  • Is it a singular or synergistic satisfier that is benefitting me?
  • Is it an inhibiting or pseudo-satisfier that is not benefitting me?
  • Is it a violator that is causing me harm?

We can also assess whether it is harmful to the environment or those around us and for this I would refer the reader to a future article on ethics.

Categories
07. Hereditary Predispositions, Personality and Beliefs

Hereditary Predispositions, Personality, and Beliefs

It is well established that heredity influences personality. Although we all share 99% of the human genome, 1% is the variable genome that marks us out as individuals. Some of this variable genome influences our brains and thinking or cognitive functions. Were this not the case then our large brains and our social behaviour would not have evolved. Studies of twins suggest that identical twins, who share the same variable genome, also share 50% of the same personality traits. On the other hand, fraternal twins, whose variable genome differs, share only about 20%. We are a social species, and our personality affects our chances of survival and reproduction. It seems likely, therefore, that those genes which affect personality are subject to natural selection.

But what is personality? There are many models, all of which are simplifications, but currently the one most widely used and accepted is the Big Five Model. This comprises five traits each of which lies on a scale from low to high. They are:

  • Agreeableness, which comprises pro-social behaviours such as trust, kindness, and affection;
  • Conscientiousness, or a tendency to be responsible, hard-working, thoughtful, committed to goals, and to adhere to the rules;
  • Extroversion, which includes stimulus seeking behaviour such as sociability and talkativeness, together with excitability and assertiveness;
  • Neuroticism. A person with a high level of this trait has a tendency towards sadness, worry, and emotional instability; and
  • Openness, or abstract thinking, creativity, and a willingness to try new things.

You can take a free Big 5 personality test at https://bigfive-test.com/.

It has been shown that these traits are not each influenced by a single gene but rather by many. Depression, for example, is thought to be influenced by around a thousand. The number of relevant genes that a person has affects the extent to which they may exhibit the trait. In a similar way to tosses of a coin, probability theory implies that most of us will be somewhere in the middle of the scale with just a few close to the low or high extreme.

It can be seen from their descriptions that what are referred to as “personality traits” are, in fact, behavioural traits, i.e., repetitive patterns of behaviour which characterise an individual. The focus of research has been on behaviour for the simple reason that it is observable. However, behaviour is caused by a combination of our needs, contra-needs, and beliefs about satisfiers and contra-satisfiers, some of which are unconscious. So, it is likely that heredity influences these latter causes rather than impacting directly on behaviour.

For example, heredity may influence the strengths and relative priorities of our needs and contra-needs. It may also predispose us to certain beliefs. That is, heredity does not create the belief but rather a predisposition to accept beliefs which are consistent with it. Depending on environmental factors such as upbringing, culture, role models, socialisation, traumatic experiences, etc., we may or may not come to hold a belief consistent with our predisposition and, thus, display a particular personality trait.

The priorities and beliefs which affect personality form schemata. They can be established early in life and be resistant to change, but are not cast in tablets of stone. Environmental factors can influence us at any stage in life, and either alter our personalities or reinforce them.

A hereditary predisposition and an environmental trigger can also cause a personality disorder to develop. Personality disorders are repetitive patterns of behaviour which stray too far from the socially acceptable norm. In practice, this means personality traits which are unusual by virtue of being high or low on their respective scale. In turn, this means extreme beliefs about satisfiers and contra-satisfiers, unusual strengths or weakness of needs/contra-needs, or unusual ways of prioritising them. In some cases, this can lead to behaviours that are socially harmful.

Categories
06. Why Consistency of Knowledge is Important

Why Consistency of Knowledge is Important

Consistency within Personal Schemata

Schemata, paradigms, and memes are essential references when we are motivated to act and, together with unsatisfied needs, govern our behaviour. When all the information we have access to is consistent, we can make quick and easy decisions. Inconsistencies on the other hand result in ambiguities, confusion, and uncertainty.

It is perfectly possible to hold information deemed to be “false” or “uncertain” if its probability is flagged accordingly. However, the less certain the information, the more cognitive processing needed to arrive at a decision, and the more delayed that decision will be. In the natural world, delaying a decision to act can reduce our chances of survival. Therefore, we tend to regard information as being either true or false.

The simple propositions “Peter likes Jane” and “Peter does not like Jane” contradict one another and are therefore inconsistent. To give another example, “Dogs have wings” is inconsistent with the image of dogs that most of us hold. Usually, however, inconsistencies are far more complex than these examples suggest, and complex reasoning is often needed to reveal them. They can also be detected by the unconscious mind, which gives us a sense that “there is something wrong”. However, the process involved in this is unknown.

Unresolved contradictions make us more vulnerable. They can lead to uncertainty, anxiety, stress, and, in the extreme, mental ill-health. Thus, internal consistency of the information we hold can be regarded as a basic need. In turn, this need drives us to understand the world in which we exist. It is, quite simply, a survival mechanism.

Consistency between Personal Schemata and Social Memes

Every society has a core social ethic. In large complex societies, this is often based on its main religion, albeit, in some cases, its historical religion. In the West we have the Christian Ethic, in China the Confucian Ethic, and in the Middle East obedience to the will of God. This core social ethic is not necessarily stated explicitly and can be intangible. However, it is the basis of our social norms and values, and we learn of it through them. This process establishes our External Ethical Schema, i.e., our understanding of why society holds some things to be good and others to be bad. Errors of interpretation do, of course, occur and for this reason our External Ethical Schema can differ from the actual social ethic.

We also develop an Internal Ethical Schema, i.e., our personal understanding of what is good, what is bad, and why. This is equivalent to our super-ego or conscience. However, it is not necessarily the same as our External Ethical Schema for the following reasons:

  1. Differences of opinion between oneself and society as to what is good or bad. We can find ourselves in situations where it is necessary to hold a particular belief to satisfy our basic needs even though this may be inconsistent with objective reality, for example, if we live in a dogmatic and authoritarian society.
  2. Differences in the way that individuals balance personal and social interests.
  3. Behavioural predispositions (see next article).
  4. Effort after Meaning when relearning the social ethic in later life, for example after migration or when changing jobs.

There can, therefore, be contradictions between the beliefs that we hold, and the beliefs acceptable to a group or society to which we belong. This too can cause stress, anxiety, and in extreme cases, mental illness, as we struggle to reconcile the need for internal consistency with those for social acceptance, positive regard, and even our existence needs.

Consistency between Social Memes

Simpler societies with relatively small populations tended to be local monocultures. One had three options: accept the prevailing values, norms and beliefs and be accepted by others; not accept them and be rejected; or hide one’s personal beliefs and struggle with the inconsistency.

In a more complex society, we can belong to several groups each of which establishes a different External Ethical Schema. In belonging to these groups, we adopt different roles, and the different schemata guide our behaviour. Inconsistencies between them can, of course, arise and it is notable that many occur in connection with employment. We have a range of strategies to deal with those inconsistencies but key among them is the development of a clear Internal Ethical Schema and following it. Further guidance can be found here:

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/consistency-and-ethics/

In a more complex society, there is also wide variety of groups to which an individual may belong. People are attracted to groups they feel may satisfy their needs and this also applies to the need for inner consistency. Thus, people with a particular view will join others with the same or similar views and be able to hold that view whilst at the same time being socially accepted. In this way inconsistency is avoided. However, belonging to such a group does have the effect of reinforcing the beliefs that individuals share, and ideologies can, therefore, develop.

Categories
Admin

Event date change – Ask the Experts: Live discussion on consciousness

This upcoming online event is now being postponed to Thursday 9 December 2021, 5.30pm to 6.30pm. 

Chaired by Sussex alumna, BBC broadcaster and Psychology Visiting Professor, Claudia Hammond. The panel includes:

  • Dr Alexa Morcom, Senior Lecturer in Cognitive Neuroscience 
  • Anil Seth, Professor of Cognitive & Computational Neuroscience, and Sussex alumnus 
  • Jamie Ward, Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience 

Register at:

https://www.sussex.ac.uk/alumni/news-events/events?id=56585&amp%3bid=56585
Categories
Admin

Ask the Experts: Live discussion on consciousness

Thursday 2 December 17:30 until 18:30

This is a free online event hosted by the University of Sussex

Details and registration at: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/alumni/news-events/events?id=56585&amp%3bid=56585

Categories
05. Schemata, Memes and Paradigms (Part 2)

Schemata, Memes and Paradigms (2)

The words “schemata”, “memeplexes”, and “paradigms” describe clusters of mental information in different contexts. Schemata are held by an individual, memeplexes held by a society and paradigms held by a group of scientists.  Unsurprisingly, therefore, the processes associated with them have many features in common. They evolve with time but are resistant to change until a crisis occurs and they must be revised. They generally evolve in a direction which leads to greater success for the individual or community.

Factors which govern the success of a schema, memeplex, or paradigm are as follows:

  1. It must satisfy our biological, social, and psychological needs.
  2. It must satisfactorily reflect the real world, thereby enabling us to take decisions which are in our best interests.
  3. The information it contains must be consistent. For example, “The cheese on the floor is always eaten” is consistent with “There is a mouse in the house”. However, “The cheese on the floor is never eaten” is not. A degree of inconsistency can be acceptable because the benefits of the schema, memeplex or paradigm outweigh the effort of revising it. We have developed social and psychological mechanisms for dealing with such inconsistencies. For example, in the case of paradigms and memeplexes, the silencing or discrediting of dissenters. In the case of schemata, rationalisation, and denial. However, if sufficient inconsistencies accumulate, then the cluster of information will collapse.

Beliefs can also act as satisfiers. They may, for example, enable us to form better relationships with members of our community. To cite another example, a belief in a god can provide a feeling of safety in an unsafe world. However, our beliefs are often a result of socialisation and, as such, we may not be consciously aware of them. They also lie on Manfred MaxNeef’s scale. They can be: synergistic satisfiers which satisfy several needs; singular satisfiers which satisfy just one need; inhibiting satisfiers which prevent the satisfaction of other needs; pseudo-satisfiers which merely claim to satisfy a need; or violators which, in practice, hinder the satisfaction of a need.

An example of a belief which acts as a violator is “false consciousness”. This term was coined by Friedrich Engels (1820 – 1895) to describe the way in which a subordinate social group can willingly adopt, to their detriment, the ideology of a dominant group.

Thus, it is not necessarily the truth of information which is of sole importance to people, but rather a consistent combination of information some of which is true and some of which may not be but which, nevertheless, satisfies our social and psychological needs. The implication is, of course, that we should not be surprised if others disagree with us even if this disagreement seems to be irrational, counter-factual, or unreasonable.

Categories
04. The Acquisition of Knowledge

The Acquisition of Knowledge

The French philosopher Michel de Montaigne (1533 – 1592) remarked on our inability to find a satisfactory criterion for knowledge. I will, therefore, define it as information held in peoples’ minds, which may be considered true or false, and which includes our beliefs and attitudes. “Knowledge”, “beliefs” and “attitudes” are essentially different words used to describe mental information in different contexts. This information, in combination with our reasoning processes and our needs, determines our behaviour.

Nurture

The knowledge of an individual is acquired in two main ways: from observation of the world around us and by receipt from others. All children are born with inherited predispositions but no knowledge. If a child had to work out for itself how to survive in its environment, then it would frequently make mistakes and might come to an unhappy end. Parents and other members of a child’s community will therefore provide an initial education which gives the child a working understanding of its environment.

Our early schemata are established in this way. However, as explained in the previous blog, information provided by others may have been distorted by their “effort after meaning”, contain errors of reasoning, and may even be lies. We accept as true any information which does not contradict our existing schemata. Failing that, we would acquire no new knowledge. Much of the information that young children receive from others falls into that category. Once established, the early schemata of the child will be resistant to change. As Aristotle famously said, “Give me the child until he is seven and I will show you the man”. Change can occur, however, if sufficient contradictions accumulate. Thus, our schemata alter in fits and starts. There is a period of rapid change followed by a period of quiescence in which the schema is resistant to change. In cases involving a significant change of worldview, this can be accompanied by an emotional crisis similar to grief at the loss of a loved one. Such crises can last for several years while the young adult goes through the stages of denial/isolation, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally, acceptance. The importance of providing children with reliable knowledge cannot be understated, therefore.

Socialisation and Social Learning

Social rules are necessary if society is to co-operate successfully for the benefit of its members. If we follow them then we will function successfully in our society, contribute to its success and, thus, prosper personally. Again, it is difficult for the child to work out these social rules for itself and, thus, parents and other teachers will provide an initial working education based on the culture of the society, i.e., its norms, values, beliefs and symbols.

Socialisation is the process whereby others reward us for compliance with their culture and punish us for non-compliance.

During the 1950s psychologists developed the theory that we now know as Social Learning Theory. In summary, this theory states that some beliefs and strategies are formed in the following way:

  1. Identification with role models. Role models are usually parents, teachers, peers or people like oneself, and people seen as having advantages such as popularity, wealth, or fame.
  2. This identification leads to imitation behaviour and/or learning through observation. In the latter, behaviours may not necessarily be imitated immediately but may simply be remembered as strategies which can be used in later life. Seeing that a strategy adopted by another person successfully satisfies their needs will provide what is known as vicarious reinforcement and will condition a strategy even when it is not being performed by the person learning it. For example, if a colleague at the office always works through their lunch break and ultimately receives a promotion, then you may unconsciously adopt the same strategy in your next job.
  3. Imitation behaviour is either positively or negatively reinforced by other members of society depending on their beliefs about what is acceptable or unacceptable. These beliefs about social behaviour are referred to as norms. It may, for example, be the norm in your office to work through the lunch break. Through conditioning, norms become internalised or accepted as one’s own, and can be held unconsciously. Thus, the strategies underlying behaviour become conditioned or extinguished through social reinforcement. Highly conditioned beliefs about social behaviour form the conscience, a set of beliefs governing behaviour which cause psychological distress when our behaviour is contrary to them. For example, a socialised person will feel guilty if he steals.

In my next post, I will return to schemata, paradigms, and memes and describe the features that they have in common.

Categories
03. Schemata, Memes and Paradigms (Part 1)

Schemata, Memes, and Paradigms (1)

All knowledge and belief, whether true or false, can be regarded as information. Treating it in this way removes any preconceived ideas or value judgements and enables us to consider it more objectively. Any place where information is held, for example in the mind of an individual or in a book, can be regarded as a medium of information. Again, this removes any preconceptions or value judgements.

Knowledge can be held by an individual in a schema (pl. schemata), by a group in a paradigm, or by a society in a memeplex. These three theories are discussed below.

Knowledge of the individual – Schemata

According to the British psychologist, F. C. Bartlett (1886 – 1969) the knowledge of an individual is held in schemata. These are mental structures each of which organises items of information about some aspect of the world and the relationships between them.

Knowledge, including ideas, beliefs, and values, must be remembered but Bartlett showed that the way in which we do so is affected by information that we already hold. So that new information is more consistent with our existing schemata we may omit anything thought to be irrelevant, alter details, shift emphasis, include rationalisations, and make cultural alterations. Bartlett referred to this process as “effort after meaning”. Consistency of the information in our schemata is important to us. If we are unable to reconcile two contradictory items then we experience cognitive dissonance, a form of psychological stress. When this occurs, we do all that we can to resolve the contradiction and reduce our discomfort. For example, we may simply forget information which contradicts that already in our schemata.

The reason we modify information in this way is thought to be the mental effort involved in revising our schemata. According to the Canadian psychologist, Donald Hebb, memory is a biological process involving growth or metabolic change in our neurons which, of course, requires both time and energy. Schemata are therefore resistant to change.

The American psychologist Jerome Bruner, (1915 – 2016), postulated that individuals hold information in three ways: enactively, as a recollection of muscle actions; iconically, in the form of visual, aural, tactile, taste or olfactory images; or symbolically, using symbols such as words to represent physical entities and the relationships between them. Information stored enactively can be communicated to others through training, imagery and spoken or written instruction, but this is a lengthly process. Information stored iconically can be communicated by the production of images, sounds, scents, etc., for example by painting, but this too is a lengthly process. Only information stored symbolically can be communicated relatively quickly and accurately. Hence our dependence on natural languages and formal languages, such as mathematics, for communication.

Knowledge of a Society – Memes

In common parlance, the word “meme” describes a visual image circulating on the internet. However, the term was originally coined by Richard Dawkins, in his book “The Selfish Gene”, to describe a cultural idea, belief or symbol that can be transmitted from one individual to another through language, gesture, ritual, imitation, etc. Memes have a similar role to genes in biological evolution and are thought to be the basis of cultural evolution. They can mutate and their propagation is dependent on whether they improve the likelihood of a culture’s survival and reproduction.

Memes form clusters known as memeplexes which are the basis of a culture, political ideology, or religious dogma. Because of this, individual memes can “hitch a ride” on a broader and more successful memeplex. For example, homophobia might form part of a more generally acceptable system of religious beliefs and practices.

Memes are resistant to change in the same way as schemata. For the individuals that hold them, not only are biological changes in the brain required but negotiation and conflict with others may also be involved.

Knowledge of a Group – Paradigms

An example of a memeplex is a scientific paradigm. This is a generally accepted set of scientific beliefs and practices which prevail at a particular time. Major changes to a paradigm are known as a paradigm shift. In his book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, the American physicist and philosopher, Thomas Kuhn, describes a paradigm shift as following four stages:

  1. Normal Science. A dominant paradigm exists and is universally accepted. However, as time progresses, scientists encounter anomalies that cannot be explained by it.
  2. Extraordinary research. When sufficient anomalies emerge and cast doubt on the veracity of the paradigm a state of crisis results. Research of an exploratory nature is then carried out and new theories and experiments are produced to explain the anomalies.
  3. Adoption of a new paradigm. Competing new paradigms form and gain followers. However, they also gain detractors who are committed to the original. Eventually, a single new paradigm may gain acceptance if it predicts phenomena more successfully than the original.
  4. Aftermath of the scientific revolution. The new paradigm becomes institutionalised and dominant but the revolutionary process, which is not usually recorded, becomes forgotten.

In my next post, I will describe how we acquire new knowledge before later discussing the features that schemata, memes and paradigms have in common.