One consequence of your theories is that we are as human beings a very very rigidly
pre-programmed, there are certain things we can understand, certain things we can communicate and
anything that falls outside that we simply can't, is that so? That's certainly correct
So I mean in a way, this is a rather alarming doctrine
I mean, it certainly contravenes the way we want to feel about ourselves. Well that may be an immediate reaction, but I think it's
It's not the correct reaction. In fact, well, it's true that our genetic
program rigidly constrains us I think the more important point is that the existence of that rich, of
that rigid constraint is what provides the basis for our freedom and creativity and
the reasons I mean
It's only because we have pre-programmed that we can do all the things and exactly the point is that if we really were plastic
organisms without an extensive pre-programming
Then the state that our mind achieves would in fact be a reflection of the environment which means it would be extraordinarily impoverished
Fortunately for us we're rigidly pre-programmed with extremely rich systems that are part of our biological endowment
correspondingly a small amount of
rather degenerate experience
Allows a kind of a great leap into a rich
cognitive system
essentially uniform in a community and in fact roughly uniform..
Which would have developed over complex evolutionary ages through all the basic?
solution represents the basic system itself developed over long
periods of evolutionary development. We don't know how it really
But for the individual it's present, as a result... The individual is capable of
with a very small amount of evidence of
constructing an extremely rich system, which allows him to
act in the free and creative fashion, which in fact is normal for humans we can say
Anything that we want over an infinite range
Other people will understand us, though they've heard nothing like that before
We're able to do that precisely because of that rigid programming
But short of that we would not be able to at all. - What account are you able to give of creativity if we are?
Pre-programmed in the way you say then how is creativity and possibility for us? Well here I think one has to be fairly careful
I think we can say a good deal about about the nature of the
System that is acquired the state of knowledge that is attained
we can say a fair amount about the biological basis the
The basis in the initial state of the mind for the acquisition of this system
But when we turn to a third question namely how is this system used? How are we able to act creatively?
How can how do we decide to how can we decide to say things that are?
New but not random that are appropriate to occasions, but not under the control of stimuli when we ask these questions
We really enter into a realm of mystery where human science at least so far and maybe in principle does not reach
We can say a fair amount about the principles that make it possible for us to behave in our normal creative fashion
But as soon as questions of will or decision or reason or choice of action
when those questions arise
Human science is at a loss. It has nothing to say about them as far as I can
see these questions remain in the obscurity that
In which they were in classical antiquity. We are all very used
I think to the idea that in social life
Each one of us as individuals tends to construct a picture of the world around his own experience and indeed
We it's difficult to see how we could do anything else. We're bound to do that
We've got no alternative, but it does mean but each one of us
Forms, a systematically distorted view of the world because it's in because it's all
Built up on what accidentally happens to be the particular and really rather narrow
Experience of the individual who does it... Now, do you think that something of that kind applies to man as a whole
because of the reasons implicit in your theory that is to say that the the whole picture that
Mankind has formed of the cosmos of the universe of the world
must be
systematically distorted and what's more drastically limited
by the
nature of the particular apparatus for
understanding that he happens to have?
Well, I think that is undoubtedly the case but again, I would question the use of the word limited which carries unfortunate suggestions...
That is, I assume that
one of our faculties one of our mental organs if you like is let's call it a science forming capacity a
capacity to create intelligible explanatory theories in some domain and if we look at the history of science
We discover that time after time when particular questions were posed at a particular level of understanding
It was possible to make
very innovative leaps of the imagination two rich explanatory theories that
Presented an intelligible picture of that sub-domain of the universe, often in wrong theories as we later discovered
But there's a course that's followed
And this gives this could have been the case only because we do have and we in fact share
across the species a kind of a science forming capacity that is
That limits us as you say, but at the same in the same, but same token provides the possibility of creating
Explanatory theories that extend so vastly far beyond any evidence that's available. I mean, it's very important to realize that
there should be some obvious say but it's worth saying that when
When it's when a new theory is created and I don't necessarily mean Newton. I mean even a small theory
What the scientist is typically doing?
First of all, he has very limited evidence
The theory goes far far beyond the evidence secondly much of the evidence that's available is typically disregarded
That is it's put to the side in the hope that somebody else will take care of it someday and we can forget about
so at every stage in the history of science, there's
Even normal science not, you know kuhnian revolutions
There's a high degree of idealization that goes on, so there's selection of evidence, and distortion of evidence, creation of new theory...
Conformation or a refutation or modification of that theory, further idealization... These are all very curious steps and we're capable nevertheless
We can often make them, and make them in a way which is intelligible to others... Doesn't look like some random act of the imagination
And where that's possible we can we can develop intelligible theories. We can gain some
comprehension of the nature of this aspect of the world. Now,
this is possible only because we are rigidly pre-programmed again because we have somehow
developed through evolution or however
This specific faculty of forming very particular theories, of course it follows at once, or at least,
Follow it's reasonable to assume that this very faculty which enables us to construct extremely rich and successful theories in some domain
May lead us very far astray and some other domain
For example, there may be some you know again
I'm a Martian scientists looking at us and observing our successes and errors from a higher intelligence
let's say... might be mused to discover that
Whereas in some domains we seem to be able to make scientific progress, in other domains
we always seem to be running up against a blank wall...
Because our minds are so constructive that we just can't make the intellectual leap that's required. We can't formulate the concept
We don't have the categories that are required to gain insight into that domain
