Chapter 8 – What Is Bayesianism Saying?

What is an individual who is really straining for truth to conclude at the end of a careful analysis of the problem of epistemology? The pattern is there; records of centuries of fruitless seeking for a model of “knowing” are there; the conclusion is clear: rationalism and empiricism are both hopeless projects. It appears that whatever else the human mind may successfully cognize and manipulate—in purely symbolic forms such as philosophical theses or in more material-world forms such as computer programs—the mind will never define itself.

A human mind is much richer, larger, and more complex than any of the systems it can devise, including systems of ideas that it assembles to try to explain itself. It makes, and contains, systems of symbols for labelling and organizing its thoughts: the symbol systems cannot, in principle, contain it.

   

                                  IBM supercomputer Blue Gene/P (credit: Wikimedia Commons) 

The model of the human mind and how it works called Bayesianism is workable enough to allow us to get on with building the further philosophical structures we will need in order to arrive at a modern moral code for all humans. The Bayesian model of knowing contains some difficult parts, but it does not stumble and crash in the way that rationalism and empiricism do. Bayesianism will do what we need it to do.  It will serve as a base upon which we may construct a universal moral code. But it does require of us that we agree to gamble on our choosing rational gambling as being the best way of getting on with life.

                                                  

   

                                                                 (credit: Wikimedia Commons) 

Under this model, even consciousness is built on arbitrary, temporary foundations. For example, my concepts of red, round, sweet, crisp, and tangy are descriptor-organizers that help me to recognize and react to things in the real, material world, some of them being fruit, some of these being apples. Such descriptors are not built into some other dimension of perfect forms, as is posited by rationalism. They aren’t even built into the physical universe in some permanent way, as is posited by empiricism. We learn them, usually from our parents. We use them because they’re useful—for now. Our ways of stating what we think are the laws of the universe are constantly being updated.

Once apples did not exist on this planet. Nor did the chemicals that make sweetness. Even round is a constructed concept that exists only in the human mind, only on a provisional basis, and only because it helps humans who use it to sort data, make decisions, and get things done. Like numbers. The caveman who could count could consider: “Were there five wild apple trees in this valley or six? I know I saw six.” Knowing the difference meant that he searched longer, and fed his kids, and they survived to teach the concepts used in counting to their kids.