Theory of Aesthetics for Graph Visualizations

I recently gave a presentation on graph visualization. Visualizing graph data is an important area of study because good visualizations can reveal patterns and insights, and confirm or falsify hypotheses. It turns out there is even an annual conference dedicated solely to the advancement of graph visualization. Without graph visualizations, it would be impossible to gain the same insights if one were just looking at the raw data in a table format. A good visualization of the data should at least try to be readable, usable, and aesthetically appealing. But creating a good visualization of graph data is a non-trivial challenge. In order to create a good visualization, we need theory and a set of principles or heuristics about what constitutes a good visualization.

Let’s take a step back and define graphs and visualizations. A graph is a collection of nodes (also called vertices) with relationships between them called edges. A graph can be represented by an adjacency matrix or an adjacency list and can be directed or undirected. A directed graph is a graph where edges have a direction and are often visualized by showing lines with arrows.

A visualization of a graph is a collection of points within a Cartesian coordinate space representing nodes, and lines between those points representing the edges of the graph. Sometimes these visualizations are also called “graphs” or “graph drawings.”

And, for every graph, there are multiple ways that graph could be visualized.

Visualizations of graphs can be created manually or algorithmically. If the graph has a small number of nodes, visualizations can be created manually in a program like Adobe Illustrator or Omnigraffle. Graphs that have more than a handful of nodes and edges require algorithms to generate visualizations. Manually generated visualizations are tedious to create, but the designer has full control over how to present the visualization. Current algorithmic methods quickly produce visualizations, but sacrifice control and aesthetic quality. To get a bit technical here, there are four different approaches to generating graph visualizations—force-directed layouts, dimension-reduction based layouts, computational improvements like multi-level techniques, and machine learning approaches which are relatively new.

Principles and heuristics for graph visualization aesthetics should be grounded in principles of human perception and cognition. Two theoretical frameworks that are relevant to graph visualization include Don Norman's emotional design framework and Gestalt Theory.

The emotional design framework describes 3 levels of emotional processing that occur when we interact with design artifacts. The 3 levels are the visceral, behavioral, and the reflective level. The visceral level is the most basic level of emotional processing. It is fast and automatic. In terms of visual design, the visceral level relates to our immediate perceptions as well as the attractiveness of an artifact. The behavioral level occurs at the level of most human behavior and is the result of perceptual organization. The behavioral level focuses on how usable, or functional a design artifact is. The reflective level is slow and deliberate, relates to meaning, deeper understanding, and prompts memory and imagination.

Gestalt Theory is a set of principles that describe automatic perceptual processing. These principles map onto the visceral level of emotional processing. A few principles of Gestalt Theory are shown below:

Gestalt principles provide a foundation for specific graph visualization heuristics. For instance, the principles of proximity and connectedness lead to the heuristic that nodes with many shared edges between them (technically called a cluster) should be visually grouped together to convey an appropriate sense of their organization. Similarly, the principles of familiarity and symmetry lead to the heuristic that similarly organized clusters of nodes should share a similar visual appearance within the larger visualization.

The principles that are most relevant to graph drawing are:

• Continuity: Nodes that are plotted in a continuous pattern are grouped together

• Proximity: Nodes that are close to each other are grouped together

• Connectedness: Nodes that are connected to each other are grouped together

• Familiarity: Similar arrangements of nodes are grouped together

• Symmetry: Nodes displayed in a symmetrical pattern are seen as different from other nodes

• Orientation: Nodes oriented in a horizontal or vertical pattern are seen as different from other nodes

Graph visualizations can be improved by heuristics relating to the nodes of a graph, the edges of a graph, and the overall layout of a graph. The following is a list of specific heuristics that can improve the aesthetics of graphs:

Heuristics for drawing quality graph visualizations can also be categorized into syntactic and semantic heuristics. Syntactic heuristics relate to the general organization and readability of a visualization. Semantic heuristics refer to heuristics designed to convey deeper meanings contained in the graph structure. Syntactic heuristics map onto Norman's visceral and behavioral levels of emotional processing. Semantic heuristics map onto the reflective level. Most research on graph visualization is focused on the syntactic heuristics because addressing semantic meaning is much more challenging.

Applying these heuristics to graph drawing is challenging for several reasons. First, when trying to apply the above heuristics to graph drawing, there are inevitable trade-offs. Consider the following example:

One of the most important heuristics is to avoid edge crossings. The visualization on the left follows this heuristic, but the visualization on the right is better. The global symmetry and local symmetry make it much easier to read. Most cases of trade-offs are not so clear. Another challenge with graph visualization comes with using algorithmic methods. Ensuring that there is a minimum number of edge crossings, for example, is what is called an NP-Hard problem in computer science. Basically, this just means that as a graph gets bigger, the problem gets really difficult, really fast such that it would take so long to process that it wouldn’t be worth it to wait. This means that many graph visualization heuristics can only practically be applied to graphs with a relatively small number of nodes.

In conclusion, the emotional design framework and Gestalt Theory form a collection of concepts that provide a foundation for principles and heuristics for graph visualization. Understanding these concepts can help us design graph visualizations and graph drawing algorithms to understand complex phenomena such as social networks and produce better visualizations of data. I recently worked on a project that tried to algorithmically evaluate graph visualizations to improve their quality. More generally understanding these foundational principles and heuristics can apply to a wide variety of problems in graphic design and industrial design.

To learn more check out:
The Aesthetics of Graph Visualization
Emotional Design by Don Norman
Survey of Graph Drawing

AI: Philosophy or Science

Is artificial intelligence more like science or philosophy?

Science and philosophy both strive to increase our knowledge and understanding. But they deal with different types of questions. Science deals with questions that have an agreed-upon systematic method for answering those questions. Conversely, philosophy deals with questions that currently lack a systematic method for answering those questions. However, when a certain amount of progress is made on a philosophical topic, that topic can sometimes shed the label of philosophy and adopt the label of science. This happens when philosophical work is adopted by other well-established disciplines, or when philosophical work develops enough such that we are more confident in calling it a science. An example of this evolution from philosophy to science is illustrated by the fact that scientists used to be called "natural philosophers".

In this respect, artificial intelligence is more like philosophy than science. In the history of computer science, the label "artificial intelligence" has been used to refer to various technical projects. However, once those projects became well understood, they shed the label "AI" and adopted new labels. Examples include object-oriented programming, speech recognition, robot motion planning, facial recognition and other vision processing algorithms used in photography, industrial robotics, security, and cinema. (Examples from Jeffrey Bradshaw). The popular media still refer to some of these technologies as  "AI", but the label of AI has ceased to be useful for professionals working in those fields.

This phenomenon has been called the "AI effect". The AI effect is not new. In 1979, Douglas Hofstadter wrote, 

"It is interesting that nowadays, practically no one feels that sense of awe any longer — even when computers perform operations that are incredibly more sophisticated than those which sent thrills down spines in the early days. The once-exciting phrase “Giant Electronic Brain” remains only as a sort of “camp” cliché, a ridiculous vestige of the era of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers. It is a bit sad that we become blasé so quickly. There is a related “Theorem” about progress in AI: once some mental function is programmed, people soon cease to consider it as an essential ingredient of “real thinking.” The ineluctable core of intelligence is always in that next thing which hasn’t yet been programmed. This “Theorem” was first proposed to me by Larry Tesler, so I call it Tesler’s Theorem: “AI is whatever hasn’t been done yet.”

The technology writer Kevin Kelly, author of The Inevitable, echoed this sentiment: “What we can do now would be A.I. fifty years ago. What we can do in fifty years will not be called A.I.”

AI is more philosophy than science in another way. In both philosophy and artificial intelligence, there is a lack of expert agreement. According to the philosopher John Searle, "The fact that philosophical questions tend to be those for which there is no generally accepted procedure of solution also explains why there is no agreed-upon body of expert opinion in philosophy." The lack of expert opinion on issues related to AI is illustrated by public comments from tech leaders on the dangers and risks of AI.

In one camp, you have those that are so optimistic about our progress in AI that they are pessimistic about what it can become. These include notable figures such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Stephen Hawking. Musk said, "With artificial intelligence, we are summoning the demon," and AI is “our biggest existential threat…The risk of something seriously dangerous happening is in the five year timeframe. 10 years at most.” Bill Gates chimed in saying, "I agree with Elon Musk and some others on this and don't understand why some people are not concerned." The late Stephen Hawking said, "The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race... It would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever-increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn't compete, and would be superseded."

On the other side of this debate, there is Andrew Ng, one of the most respected AI experts in the world who said, "There's also a lot of hype, that AI will create evil robots with super intelligence. That's an unnecessary distraction." He also said that worrying about evil AIs is like worrying about overpopulation on mars." AI and robotics pioneer Rodney Brooks questioned the credentials of those in the first camp: "I think it's very easy for people who are not deep in the technology itself to make generalizations, which may be a little dangerous. And we've certainly seen that recently with Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, all saying AI is just taking off and it's going to take over the world very quickly. And the thing that they share is none of them work in this technological field." Mark Zuckerberg responding to people in the first camp called their doomsday scenarios "pretty irresponsible.”

There currently is no consensus for how to resolve the above disagreements in a systematic way. This means that we need to be even more careful in discerning when these public figures are speaking as scientists and credentialed technologists, and when they are just sharing their opinions for which they have little or no credentials. Examining the philosophical premises underlying claims about AI should empower us to question if these public intellectuals have the relevant philosophical expertise to discuss these issues responsibly. I am sure Stephen Hawking was brilliant as an expert on black holes. Elon Musk sure seems like a genius when it comes to starting tech companies. And, Bill Gates' wealth reveals his business and software expertise. However, their respective areas of expertise do not automatically translate into insightful or authoritative opinions on AI.

While artificial intelligence may be conflated with science, it has often caused more confusion than clarity. Michael I. Jordan—computer science professor at UC Berkeley—recently wrote, “this is not the classical case of the public not understanding the scientists — here the scientists are often as befuddled as the public.” This is because questionable philosophical assumptions hitchhike on the underbelly of scientific progress. According to the AI historian Margaret Boden, "some computer scientists deliberately reject [the] label 'AI'" because the label contains too much philosophical baggage. Even John McCarthy, who coined the term "Artificial Intelligence" in 1955 said that he regretted the term and wished that he had chosen something else. 

Just because a question is more philosophical than scientific, it doesn't mean we can't make progress. It just means that we have to be even more precise and rigorous in our analysis. Improving our analysis means making our philosophical premises more explicit. It means breaking apart concepts that are often lumped together but are better understood separately. It means being extra clear about the terms we use and how we use them. It can even mean abandoning terms that create more confusion than clarity. Applying these techniques to the analysis of AI mean separating the engineering and the cognitive approaches to AI. It means agreeing on clear definitions for weak vs strong AI and questioning existing distinctions such as narrow vs general AI. Perhaps it even means joining the computer scientists that reject the label 'AI' given that the label creates more confusion than clarity. As AI hype dies down, more machine learning professionals are spurning the phrase. One machine learning friend of mine recently remarked rather frankly , "The term artificial intelligence is stupid." Perhaps like we are stuck with the label until the next AI winter, but shedding it for good may help advance both clear philosophy and sound science.

---

AI: Cognitive vs. Engineering Approaches

The mathematician John McCarthy is often credited with coining the term “Artificial Intelligence”. He described the problem of Artificial Intelligence as “that of making a machine behave in ways that would be called intelligent if a human were so behaving.” He used the term in a 1955 research proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Conference on Artificial Intelligence which took place the following year. Since the Conference, there have been many comments made by technologists comparing the potential of computers to human abilities. A notable contributor to AI, Herbert Simon, said in 1965, “…machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do.” Marvin Minsky who was a participant in the original Dartmouth Conference said in 1970, “In from three to eight years we will have a machine with the general intelligence of an average human being.”

The human-comparison—expressed as a research project—comes in two flavors. The first approach has been called the cognitive (also 'psychological') approach to AI. The goal of this approach is to create actual thinking machines. This sentiment was expressed by the philosopher John Haugeland in his 1985 book “Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea”: 

“The fundamental goal of this research is not merely to mimic intelligence or produce some clever fake. Not at all. “AI” wants only the genuine article: machines with minds, in the full and literal sense.” 

The second approach has been called the engineering (or technological) approach to AI. This second approach does not claim to literally reproduce human intelligence. Instead it's aim is to use computers to perform tasks with more practical application. Elaine Rich and Kevin Knight wrote in their 1991 book “Artificial Intelligence”, “AI is the study of how to make computers do things at which, at the moment, people are better.” Ray Kurzweil has described AI as “The art of creating machines that perform functions that require intelligence when performed by people.”

According to the philosopher Luciano Floridi, these approaches represent the “two souls of AI” that both claim a single common heritage in the Dartmouth Summer Research Conference on Artificial Intelligence. The cognitive approach to AI attempts to emulate human consciousness. While the engineering approach attempts to only simulate some aspect of intelligent human behavior at best. Strong AI is the hypothesis that the cognitive approach will be successful using computers alone. Weak AI claims that the engineering approach to computer AI is sufficient to simulate intelligent human behavior.

Advances in AI using the engineering approach have been a stunning success. It has given us remarkable technology that makes our lives more convenient such as predicitive typing on our mobile devices. On the other hand, the cognitive approach to AI has been a dismal failure. According to Jerry Kaplan, an AI expert at Stanford University, "Little more than speculation and wishful thinking ties the actual work in AI to the mysterious workings of the human mind.”

The distinction between the engineering and cognitive approaches to AI is not explicit and many suppose that these different research projects are the same. Because of this conflation, it is naturally assumed that progress in one approach means progress in the other, but this is not the case. It is a mistake to assume that there is a natural progression from the current work on computer technology to creating conscious machines. If it is possible to create an artificial conscious machine, a completely different technology than computers will be needed. Trying to use computer-technology to create consciousness will be as fruitful as trying to make a chair out of helium gas. It is simply the wrong approach.

---

Marvin Minsky quoted in LIFE magazine 1970

John Haugeland, Artificial Intelligence: The Very Idea (MIT Press 1985), 2.

Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig , Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (PearsonEducation, 2003), 2.

Luciano Floridi, The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality (Oxford University Press, 2014), 140.

---

AI: Narrow AI vs. General AI

In pop-technology writings, it is common to read about a distinction made between what is called Artificial Narrow Intelligence and Artificial General Intelligence—often abbreviated as ANI and AGI respectively. The terms are meant to refer to categories of machines—both existing and hypothetical. The distinction is problematic and the terms are often used with little precision or consistency.

“General AI” is often described as “human-level AI”. Though only hypothetical, its crowning feature is a general problem solving ability that enables it to learn new tasks across several domains. This feature is emphasized so frequently that those who talk about general AI seem to assume that this is the most relevant feature of human intelligence. Sometimes the term “General AI” is used synonymously with “Strong AI” (not to be confused with its original meaning). The concept of General AI is ambiguous between the simulation/emulation distinction. Is human-level AI human-like in terms of its power to simulate human speech and behavior? Or, is it human-like because it can emulate human intelligence and consciousness? Understanding the difference will be important for future legal, ethical, and social concerns.

When people refer to existing technology as ‘AI”, they often classify it as “Narrow AI”. It is called narrow because it performs tasks that normally require human intelligence, but can only perform tasks in a very specific and narrowly defined domain. The common example is a chess program that can only “play” chess, but cannot learn how to do anything else. “Narrow AI” is often used synonymously with the term ‘Weak AI’ (again not to be confused with its original meaning). The concept of Narrow AI is problematic for 2 reasons.

First, it is a moving target. There are many computer systems that can perform tasks that normally require human intelligence and in a narrow domain, but we don’t consider them to be AI. A simple pocket calculator is such an example. If you compare the speed and accuracy of a pocket calculator to human capabilities, then a pocket calculator is super intelligent. But, we don’t think of a pocket calculator as artificially intelligent even though it fits the above description of Narrow AI. Some may object that current AI technologies are more complex than a pocket calculator. What we currently call AI can process more complex inputs, can do more complex tasks, and have a wider range of responses to more complex situations. So is Narrow AI just a computer system that is more complex than previous computer systems? If so (and how it could be otherwise) then what happens when the technology becomes even more complex in 20 years from now? In 2038, we likely won’t call 2018 technology ‘AI’. Our future view of current technology will be similar to our current view of technology of the past. Added complexity by itself is not sufficient to warrant a comparison between computer systems and human intelligence.

Second, there are many computers systems that people tend to call ‘artificial intelligence’ that perform tasks that people can’t perform at all. For example, a tsunami warning system can detect oceanic changes that are imperceptible to humans. AlphaGo—a go-playing computer—can detect patterns unnoticeable to humans and can make moves in a very un-human-like way. These and other examples of ‘narrow AI’ question the usefulness of comparing computers and humans.

The term “Artificial Intelligence” was coined by John McCarthy in 1955. He described the problem of Artificial Intelligence as “that of making a machine behave in ways that would be called intelligent if a human were so behaving.” My previous 2 blog posts have been about some of the philosophical distinctions that arise the comparison between humans and computers. More than 60 years after the term was coined, it is unclear how useful the human-to-machine comparison has been, at least for our practical development of computer hardware and software. For most practical purposes, the comparison to humans is irrelevant. We have some task or job to be done, and we use computers to help us solve those problems.

The current field of artificial intelligence really isn't about emulating or even simulating human behavior unless you are talking about improving animatronic puppets or making video games more realistic. The current field of AI is really about advances in automation. According to Jerry Kaplan, an AI expert at Stanford University, "Little more than speculation and wishful thinking ties the actual work in AI to the mysterious workings of the human mind."

---

AI: Weak AI vs. Strong AI

This post continues a philosophical examination of Artificial Intelligence started in the previous post.

The distinction between Weak and Strong AI refers to claims about the capabilities of computers. Popular uses of the terms ‘Weak AI’ and ‘Strong AI’ are less carefully defined than their academic uses. The original terms were coined by the philosopher John Searle in 1980. Weak AI is the hypothesis that a powerful enough computer could simulate any aspect of the human mind. Strong AI—in its original intended definition—is the hypothesis that "the brain is a digital computer, and the mind is a computer program". This view implies that if a programmer types the right program into a computer console, then that program would emulate (be equivalent to) a human mind.

Imagine that we created a robot that was built with powerful computer hardware and software. Imagine that the robot was so life-like in appearance that it was indistinguishable from a human being in movement and speech. Those who accept Weak AI but reject Strong AI would say that it is logically possible to create such a computer-powered robot, but it could only ever simulate human intelligence. No matter how much computer technology advanced in the future, it could never literally be intelligence or aware, nor could it have any intrinsic rationality. It would just be a metal and silicon zombie.

Some assume Strong AI and believe that creating consciousness is simply a matter of creating the right computer program (Philosophers Daniel Dennett and David Chalmers). Others reject the view that consciousness is intrinsically computational but accept Weak AI that computers could hypothetically simulate any aspect of human consciousness (John Searle). Others reject both Strong and Weak AI believing that there are some aspects of the human mind that not even a computer could simulate (Mathematical physicist Roger Penrose).

Weak AI	Computer software + hardware alone can simulate every aspect of a human mind.
Strong AI	Computer software + hardware alone can emulate a human mind.

One can reject either Strong AI or Weak AI and still believe that we could hypothetically create an artificial machine that could literally be conscious. However, that machine could not be a computer. It would have to be a machine that is much more powerful than a computer. According to one theory, a machine could emulate the human mind if it reproduced the causal mechanisms of the human brain that cause consciousness (assuming we will eventually understand how those mechanisms work). More on this in later posts.

---

AI: Simulation vs. Emulation

What if we could make a machine that behaved like humans, or even had thoughts and feelings like humans? When we talk about Artificial Intelligence, we often think in these terms. We think about some man-made machine—existing or hypothetical—and we compare some aspect of that machine to some aspect of human beings. This comparison can lead to engaging stories, but it can also lead to confusion about what our technology means and what its implications are for society. This post addresses the first of 5 distinctions that I believe are necessary to discuss AI clearly and responsibly, at least from a philosophical point of view. The 5 distinctions are:

1. Simulation vs. Emulation

2. Weak AI vs. Strong AI

3. Narrow AI vs. General AI

4. Syntax vs. Semantics

5. Observer-relative vs. Observer-independent features of reality.

In one sense, AI is thought to simulate some aspect of human appearance or behavior. ‘Simulate’ as it is used here is synonymous with imitate, mimic, pretend, or ‘give the appearance of’. In another sense people think of AI as doing more than just mimicking human behavior. They think of AI as actually emulating some aspect of human mental life. In this context, emulate means to reproduce or duplicate the functions of system in a way that is practically identical to the thing being emulated.

The difference between simulation and emulation can be clarified by another distinction between the 2 ways in which we use the word “Artificial”. In one sense, the word “artificial” refers to something that is not real, only an imitation. For example, artificial butter is not real butter but only an imitation of the real thing. In this sense ‘artificial’ is contrasted with ‘real’. ‘Artificial’ can also refer to something that is real but produced by artificial means. For example, artificial diamonds, also called synthetic or lab-grown diamonds, are real diamonds. They are identical in terms of being made of the same material (pure carbon) and having the same structure (crystallized in isotropic 3D form). They just aren’t produced via natural geological processes. In this sense ‘artificial’ is contrasted to ‘natural’. So artificial can either mean “not real” or “not natural”.

AI that simulates intelligence is “not-real intelligence”. Used in this way, the word “intelligence” is only figurative or metaphorical. AI that emulates intelligence is “not-natural intelligence” but it is still real. This is a literal usage of word “intelligence”.

Simulation AI	Artificial in the sense that it is not real, only an imitation.
Emulation AI	Artificial in the sense of being real, but not produced by natural means

Imagine that we created a machine that is literally intelligent in sense of being practically identical to a human in terms of intelligence. This would be an Emulation AI as described above. Such a machine would also include whatever is necessary for literal human-like intelligence to exist such as conscious awareness, desires, intentions, rationality and perhaps even emotions. By contrast, those intrinsic features would be missing in a Simulation AI even though we may talk as if it had awareness or rationality. This distinction shows that the Turing test is no help in identifying whether or not a machine is truly intelligent. For the test provides no criteria for identifying whether a machine that could pass the Turing test is an emulation of true intelligence or merely a simulation.

---

What is consciousness?

In his biography of Leonardo DaVinci, Walter Isaacson points to a theme that Leonardo returned to often—understanding how human beings fit into the grand order of the universe. This theme was made most explicit in Leonardo's drawing of the Vitruvian man. Leonardo studied art and science with the most intense curiosity to understand the connection between our own nature and the universe.

Our knowledge of art and science has grown immensely since Leonardo. And yet the same question is still with us. How do we fit in with our conception of the universe? We think of ourselves as conscious beings possessing rationality, creativity, meaning, and free will, while we think of the universe as purely mechanistic, consisting wholly of mindless, meaningless, physical particles in fields of force. 1 The question of 'how we fit in' is one of the central questions of contemporary science and philosophy. The key to making sense of how we fit in with the universe lies in understanding the nature of consciousness.

There are many theories that attempt to explain what consciousness is, how it works, and how the mental relates to the physical. These theories go by the following names: substance dualism, property dualism, materialism, physicalism, computationalism, functionalism, behaviorism, epiphenomenalism, cognitivism, eliminativism, panpsychism, biological naturalism and more. There is currently no consensus among experts about which theory is most correct, and there are many unanswered questions about consciousness. Some even argue that we can never fully understand it. 

Currently, the study of consciousness is more of a philosophical issue than a scientific issue. Philosophy differs from science in that science tries to answer questions for which there is a systematic or agreed-upon way of answering those questions. Philosophy, on the other hand, deals with questions for which there is no systematic way of answering those questions. This doesn't mean that consciousness can never be a scientific issue. All issues that are now scientific were once philosophical issues and all scientific question rest on philosophical premises. We currently do not have a scientific definition of what consciousness is. We only have a common-sense definition. To illustrate the difference between scientific definitions and common-sense definitions, consider water. A scientific definition of water is that it is H2O. A common-sense definition of water is that it is a colorless, tasteless, liquid. We can still understand a lot about water with just a common-sense definition. It is the same with consciousness.

In my experience, people often resist defining consciousness. In some cases, it seems that they assume that if there is no scientific definition then you cannot meaningfully talk about consciousness at all. I think this is mistaken. We can make a lot of progress even if the concepts we are using are not fully understood. This is more common in science than many people think. I believe that we can give a definition of consciousness that is a useful starting place even if it is not perfect or fully complete.

A common-sense definition of consciousness goes something like this: Consciousness is our everyday experience of awareness or sentience. It is our experience of reality as well as our own 'inner' states such as dreams or pains.

Consciousness is often described by what we experience through our senses—hearing a bird singing, looking at the sky, feeling rain on your face, touching a rose, etc. Consciousness involves feelings and emotions or bodily sensations such as a tickle or a toothache. A specific conscious experience can be pleasant or unpleasant. 

Consciousness is also subjective, meaning that it is experienced by a subject or agent. In technical terms, consciousness has a 'first-person ontology'. Just because it is subjective does not mean it cannot be studied by science. There can be an objective science (in an epistemological sense) about a domain that is subjective (in an ontological sense). Even though we can have a science of subjectivity, it is the greatest challenge to a scientific understanding of consciousness.

Consciousness is not limited what is sometimes called self-consciousness. One can have a basic form of consciousness without being self-conscious, though one cannot be self-conscious without having basic consciousness. Consciousness is not limited to humans. Most people find the claim that animals have consciousness to be uncontroversial. But we don't know if every creature has consciousness. Elephants, Dogs, and mice are conscious, but what about termites and ameoba? Until we have a scientific explanation for the biological basis of consciousness, we won't know where the cutoff point is for a creature having conscious experience. 

• What are the features of consciousness? (in addition to a few mentioned above)

• Which theory of consciousness is most accurate / best explains our scientific understanding?

• What is the connection between consciousness and the brain? How does the brain cause conscious experience?

• Is the brain a digital computer? Is the mind a software program? Can a computer be conscious?

• How do we understand the concept of the 'self'?

• How do we explain our experience of free will? Do we even have free will?

Everything that we value in life—science, art, society, etc.—depends on the existence of consciousness. Consciousness is the most important thing in our lives because it is a necessary condition for anything to be important to us at all.

1. Freedom and Neurobiology 2007

Value-based New Year's Resolutions

I have set new year goals for most years of my adult life. The years that I did not set goals, I thought that I probably would not follow through or that I should be setting goals more consistently anyway, not just at the beginning of the year. However, when I have set annual goals, I have mostly found them to be helpful especially when I review them regularly throughout the year and keep track of my progress. Aligning goals to an annual timeframe helps me reflect over longer periods of time than I think I normally would.

In 2017 my goals were mostly uninspiring. I only fully completed about 30% of my goals and about 50% of them I didn't complete at all. The rest were only partially completed. Toward the end of the year, I realized that they were uninspiring to me because I did not do a good job of aligning my goals with my governing values.

My governing values reflect what matters most to me. They should guide my decisions more than any other factor. When I was younger and first read Stephen Covey's The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, I wrote down what I thought my values were as prompted by the book. I lost the list however and don't remember what I wrote. Since 2014, I have kept track of my own values in the form of value statements. Here is one of my value-statements:

Clear Thinking:

• Remove distraction
• Avoid confirmation bias
• Maintain perspective

For me, it has not always been easy to identify my own values. Benjamin Franklin famously had his 13 virtues which he wrote when he was 20 years old. He originally started with 12 but added humility as a 13th later. Unlike Franklin, mine have evolved more dramatically over time. For instance, I add new ones as I reflect on what I enjoy doing and thinking about. Sometimes I combine a few similar value-statements into one to simplify my list. Other times I remove a value-statement from my list because it was something that I thought I should value, but ultimately was not very passionate about. At the beginning of this 2017, I had 11 value statements in my “official” list. A recent revision left me with only 7.

I am much more excited about my goals this year compared to last year because (1) My recent revision of my value-statements is much clearer than it has ever been, and (2) I have tied those values to my 2018 goals. I did this in a list where I wrote down each value with specific goals that I feel connect to that value. Here is one example:

Clear Thinking:

• Write 12 blog posts
• Write down big decisions and identify what I think the expected outcome of that decision will be. Compare my expected outcome to reality every month
• Develop meditation habit (meditate 14 days in a row)

I have added the worksheets that I made for myself on my Downloads page. You can print them out and keep use them for your own value and goal setting activities. 

---

The Expectation Problem of Human-like Interfaces

For more than six decades, many researchers and designers of computer programs have been inclined to make their computer interfaces appear intelligent and human-like. One of the assumptions behind this temptation is that since people already know how to interact with other people, then making a computer program act more like a person will improve the user experience. However, the experience of creating human-like computer programs together with research from the fields of design and computer science have presented challenges to this assumption.

Designing computer programs to look, sound, or behave more like humans is often talked about in terms of personification, humanization, or anthropomorphization. (These are separate concepts  but they are often conflated.)There are many pitfalls associated with such approaches, but one of the most well-documented affects is that it causes users to expect that the computer program is “smarter” than it really is.

I have captured a few quotes and references from specialists in the field and in academia about this effect:

The Reprentation of Agents, Anthropomorphism, Agency, and Intelligence by William King and Jun Ohya presents data from one of their experiments which suggests:

Anthropomorphic [Human-like] …forms may be problematic since they may be inherently interpretted as having a high degree of agency and intelligence.

In the book Make It So, authors Chris Noessel and Nathan Shedroff write:

Anthropomorphism can mislead users and create unattainable expectations. Elements of anthropomorphism aren’t necessarily more efficient or necessarily easier to use. Social behavior may suit the way we think and feel, but such interfaces require more cognitive, social, and emotional overhead of their users. They’re much, much harder to build, as well. Finally, designers are social creatures themselves and must take care to avoid introducing their own cultural bias into their creations. These warnings lead us to the main lesson of this chapter.

Lesson: The more human the representation, the higher the expectations of human behavior.

In the MIT Press bestselling book Software Agents by Jeffrey Bradshaw, Don Norman wrote the following:

If the one aspect of people's attitudes about agents is fear over their capabilities and actions, the other is over-exaggerated expectations, triggered to a large extent because much more has promised than can be delivered. Why? Part of this is the natural enthusiasm of the researcher who sees far into the future and imagines a world of perfect and complete actions. Part of this is in the nature of people's tendency to false anthropomorphizing, seeing human attributes in any action that appears in the least intelligent. Speech recognition has this problem: develop a system that recognizes words of speech and people assume that the system has full language understanding, which is not at all the same thing. Have a system act as if it has its own goals and intelligence, and there is an expectation of full knowledge and understanding of human goals.

The problem is amplified by the natural tendency of researchers and manufacturers to show their agents in human form. You can imagine the advertisements: "Want to schedule a trip, the new MacroAgent System offers you Helena, your friendly agent, ready to do your bidding." As soon as we put a human face into the model, perhaps with reasonably appropriate dynamic facial expressions, carefully tuned speech characteristics, and human-like language interactions, we build upon natural expectations for human-like intelligence, understanding, and actions.

There are some who believe that it is wrong — immoral even — to offer artificial systems in the guise of human appearance, for to do so makes false promises. Some believe that the more human-like the appearance and interaction style of the agent, the more deceptive and misleading it becomes: personification suggests promises of performance that cannot be met. I believe that as long as there is no deception, there is no moral problem. Be warned that this is a controversial area. As a result, it would not be wise to present an agent in human-like structures without also offering a choice to those who would rather not have them. People will be more accepting of intelligent agents if their expectations are consistent with reality. This is achieved by presenting an appropriate conceptual model — a "system image" — that accurately depicts the capabilities and actions.

In section 12.7 of the popular HCI textbook, Designing the User Interface, the authors write:

The words and graphics in user interfaces can make important differences in people’s perceptions, emotional reactions, and motivations. Attributions of intelligence autonomy, free will, or knowledge to computers are appealing to some people, but to others such characterizations may be seen as deceptive, confusing, and misleading. The suggestion that computers can think, know, or understand may give users an erroneous model of how computers work and what the machines’ capacities are. Ultimately, the deception becomes apparent, and users may feel poorly treated.

Because users naturally expect that human-like program are “smarter” than they really are, designers and marketers should be cautious when creating human-like interfaces. Some interfaces such as chatbots or voice interfaces make it impossible to avoid personification. In these instances, designers and marketers should set clear expectations to avoid user dissatisfaction. For example, one popular communication program "Slack" comes with a chat program called "Slackbot". Before users use Slackbot they are told "Slackbot is pretty dumb, but it tries to be helpful." Similarly, it may be in the best interest of tech companies to refrain from marketing their products as "smart" or "intelligent" to avoid making the problem worse.

As a designer, I personally gravitate toward the principle 4 of calm technology as a means of avoiding some of the problems stated above. Principle 4 states that machines shouldn't act like humans, and humans shouldn't act like machines.

Theism, Atheism, and Mormonism

In the 1990s cartoon show Animaniacs, there was a carefree toddler character named Mindy. She would often annoy other characters by repeatedly asking "Why?" until the characters became flustered and gave up trying to answer. She was annoying because she wasn't asking "why?" to gain understanding, but because she enjoyed pushing people's buttons. Unlike Mindy, genuinely curious people ask "why?" to arrive at an explanation. To explain something is to show why certain effects follow from certain causes. If we ask why enough, we will eventually arrive at an explanation that does not have any explanation itself. It seems all explanations bottom out in some cause that itself did not have a cause. Some have referred to this final explanation as the uncaused causer. "Who or what is the uncaused causer?" is the same question as "Where do all explanations end?" Atheism gives one answer, Traditional theism gives another. Mormonism seems to give an answer that is a hybrid of both atheism and traditional theism.

Volitional vs. Non-volitional explanations
There are two ways to answer the question, "Where do explanations end?" Traditional theists such as Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that all explanations end in a volitional explanation. I am using the word "volition" to refer to that which is caused by some being or agent.

Atheists, on the other hand, believe in a non-volitional explanation. Explanations end in something like the laws of physics, or nature in general, (or even just gravity according to Stephen Hawking). Some atheists say that they simply don't know how to explain existence in general, but still hold that no volitional being could be the uncaused cause of the universe.

For example, if we ask the question "why is the sky blue?". We will come to some explanation that describes the behavior of lightwaves when they interact with particles in the atmosphere. After we come to that explanation we can ask, "Why do lightwaves behave that way?" Describing the laws of quantum electrodynamics might constitute an explanation for that question, but then we could just ask, "why are the laws of quantum electrodynamics like that?" An atheist will answer that nature is just that way and that is where explanations end. A traditional theist would answer that God created the laws that way and that is where explanations end.

Where do explanations end for Mormon theology?
According to Mormon theology, some explanations end in non-volitional causes and some explanations end in volitional causes. How can this be? Mormon theology agrees with both Aristotle and Plato who argued that the world always existed and that God organized the world out of pre-existing unorganized matter. That pre-existing matter was not created out of nothing. It has no cause. It has always existed and therefore has no explanation. On this point, Mormon theology agrees with the belief of most atheists.

The first prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith, taught that God did not and in fact could not create the universe:

God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end. (King Follett Discourse)

According to the LDS scholar Sterling McMurrin who wrote Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion:

“It is a basic article of Mormon theology that God is related to a world environment for the being of which he is not the ultimate ground and by which he therefore is in some sense conditioned. This means that God is a being among beings rather than being as such or the ground of being, and that he is therefore finite rather than absolute.” (Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion)

Orson Pratt who was an early Mormon church leader wrote:

“God [in LDS thought] is described in non-absolutistic terms as a being who is conditioned by and related to the world of which he is a part and which, because it is not ultimately his creation, is not absolutely under his dominion … God’s environment is the physical universe, the minds and selves which exist but are not identified with him, the principles under which reality is structured, and perhaps even the value absolutes which govern the divine will,”

“There are some things that cannot be performed, although we had the power of working great and mighty miracles; indeed, the great God Himself who has power to control the heavens over our heads, and the earth upon which we stand has NOT the power to do that which would be naturally impossible, or in opposition to the great, necessary, and fundamental truths of nature, which are eternally unalterable, and cannot be otherwise than they are,” (JD 3:300).

There are many other quotes that confirm the Mormon belief that these explanations do not end in God, but instead end in the elements and principles of nature. No volitional being did or could have created them.

However, according to most accounts of Mormon theology, volitional beings (spirits or intelligences) also were not created. All volitional beings are coeternal with the elements that have always existed. According to Joseph Smith:

I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement. (King Follett Discourse)

If volitional beings are also uncreated, then their actions cannot themselves be reduced to non-volitional causes. Volition is simply part of uncreated nature. Therefore, some explanations end in the choices of volitional beings. For example, when we ask why a painting of the sky is blue, it is not satisfactory to appeal to the laws of  quantum electrodynamics. Any explanation for why a painting is blue must account for the intentions of the painter who organized the paints on the canvas. The painting is blue because of the laws of nature AND because of the intentions of the painter. In Mormon theology, the answer to the question "where did matter come from?" ends in a non-volitional explanation. And, the answer to the question "why was matter organized in a certain way" can end in a volitional explanation. Concerning the latter question, God organized the pre-existing matter that we experience on this earth to fulfill His eternal purposes. On this point, Mormon theology sides more with theism than atheism.

Conclusion
Traditional theists believe that all explanations end with a volitional being such as God. Atheists believe that all explanations end in non-volitional causes. Mormon theology is a hybrid belief system that asserts that some explanations end in God and some do not. Because of these beliefs, members of the Mormon church are in a good position to resolve many contentions between atheism and traditional theism.

Apple Watch Dimensions Diagrammed

The new Apple Watch was announced last Tuesday and so far Apple has not released any materials identifying its dimensions, so I spent the afternoon today analyzing Apple videos and Apple's PR photos to try to derive it's dimensions.

The only front facing photo of the watch on Apple's site is the watch next to an iPhone 6. It was clear that it was a 6 and not the six plus because of the app icon to phone ratio. Knowing the dimensions of the iPhone. I was able to estimate the size and dimensions of the new watch as shown below:

If you exclude the crown, the dimensions end up being about 36 x 42 mm (1.4 x 1.6 inches). The inner screen appears to be about 40 mm (1.5 inches). 

From the side, the dimensions are 9 x 42 mm (.37 x 1.6 inches) without the sensor ring at the bottom. Counting the sensor ring, the total height is about 11.5 mm (.45 inches). That means that the Apple Watch is approximately 67% wider than the new iPhone 6. I suspect that the rounded corners should make the watch seem much thinner than it actually is.

In order to better understand the size of the watch, I have compared it to a credit card, an iPhone 6, and an iPhone 3g. 

What makes a great designer?

Tomorrow, I start teaching an intro to graphic design class at my Alma Mater — Brigham Young University. I was thinking about the class outcomes and the lasting influence I want the class to have on the students. The ultimate outcome of the class is to help the students become great designers. A great designer is not only good at their craft, but he or she is also a good person. All of the stated class outcomes ought to create a path to become a great designer. 

But what makes a great designer?
I am sure there are many ways to answer this question, but I just thought about a few fundamental attributes that all designers must develop to become great.

Resources
A designer is only as good as his or her resources. Good designers constantly collect physical and mental resources. Physical resources include the tools of the trade as well as collections of inspiring things. Access to quality paper and drawing instruments, and high performing computers and software, and printers are the basic tools of the trade. Great tools don't make good designers, but great designers need great tools. A great designer will constantly seek after the most inspiring and uplifting designs in order to learn from them and to be inspired by them. Sites like Pinterest can be a great resource for filling the mental and spiritual well.

Mental resources include pure talent, inspiring ideas, or a natural intuitive eye for beauty. Some people are born with more innate talent than others, but as long as one has some innate talent, he or she can nurture that talent through hard work.

Hard Work
One will not be great without a lot of hard work and a willingness to stay up late and work on weekends. The designer Bradley Munkowitz, whose work I admire, finished every work week by working Friday night until sunrise on Saturday morning for a year. 

The great inventor Thomas Edison is reported to have said that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. This is a great quote that can help procrastinators gain perspective. But, for those who have mastered the habit of being proactive, they may gain more inspiration from Edison's rival, Nikola Tesla, who said,

If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.

So even though hard work is a necessary habit of a great designer, one will progress faster if they combine good practice with good theory. Both are necessary. One's resources are worthless unless one works hard to put them together in new and inspiring ways.

Passion
I don't think a designer will ever learn to work hard unless he or she is passionately motivated to constantly improve themselves and their communities. A satisfied person is an unmotivated person. Only unsatisfied needs and desires can truly motivate a person to do whatever is necessary to progress.

In the book Built to Last, Jim Collins analyzed visionary companies and found that they did not focus primarily on beating their competition. According to Collins,

Visionary companies focus primarily on beating themselves. Success and beating competitors comes to the visionary companies not so much as the end goal, but as a residual result of relentlessly asking the question "How can we improve ourselves to do better tomorrow than we did today?" And they have asked this question day in and day out - as a disciplined way of life - in some cases for over 150 years. No matter how much they achieve - no matter how far in front of their competitors they pull - they never think they've done "good enough".

Just like the visionary companies in Jim Collins study, designers must always have a bit of dissatisfaction with the results of their work. If a designer wants life satisfaction from their craft, then they should not focus too much on the results of their work, but they should focus on the process of design. Paradoxically, the calm of constant improvement comes with a bit of dissatisfaction that fuels personal progress.

Introduction to some philosophical principles

The philosophical study of reality is called metaphysics. The philosophical study of knowledge is called epistemology. One cannot have an epistemology—or systematic view of knowledge—without a metaphysics—or systematic view of what reality is like. Epistemology and metaphysics therefore cannot be separated. Together they form the foundation for every other belief we may hold. Metaphysics and epistemology form a foundation for ethics—(how people should act). Ethics in turn forms a foundation for politics (how people should act with the context of society) and aesthetics (the study of art and what constitutes good or bad art). A complete philosophical system will integrate all of these branches of philosophy. 

Aristotle said, "The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold.” Since metaphysics and epistemology are the foundation of any philosophical system, if one makes a metaphysical or epistemological mistake, they will also make mistakes in the areas of ethics, politics, and aesthetics. In other words, mistaken premises lead to mistaken conclusions.

To validate a conclusion we must identify and validate the premises. How do we validate a premise? By identifying and validating the premises that support that premise. Here we can see a potential problem. Either,

1. each premise will have its own premise going down an infinite chain of premises, or

2. eventually we will find a stopping point—a foundation. That stopping point would be an irreducible premise that can stand alone.

If option (1) is true, then knowledge would not be possible because there would be no grounding on which to base our beliefs. If option (2) is true then knowledge is possible.

Knowledge is possible because irreducible premises do exist. I am going to call these premises "Axioms". An axiom is a foundational premise that is self evident. A belief is self evident when one must assume that belief even when they try to reject that belief. For example, if I try to argue against X, and while I am arguing against X, I am forced to assume X, then I will know that X is an axiom.

Knowledge and the ability to think rationally are dependent on the following axioms:

Axiom 1
Reality exists. This is a self-evident truth because if a person tries to deny it through argumentation, he/she must first appeal to reality in order to defend their position that there is no reality to appeal to. It is clearly a self-contradictory statement. Reality is the widest of all concepts. It includes all that is known and unknown.

Axiom 2
Consciousness exists. It is the awareness of reality. It could have been the case that a universe could have existed without consciousness, but we know that it exists because anyone that tries to deny consciousness through argumentation must appeal to reality to defend their position. And the very process of "appealing to reality" assumes that one is aware of reality. Axiom 1 and 2 combined show us that reality exists independently of our representations of it.

Axioms cannot be proven. The concept of proof is not irreducible. It relies on axioms. For example, the concept of "proof" assumes that there is an existence or reality that exists independently of consciousness. The concept of proof is meaningless without the concept of reality/existence by which beliefs can be compared. If we compare a given belief to reality and the belief does not match reality, then that belief is false. A belief can be proven when it is shown to match reality. This is why the existence of reality itself cannot be proven, because the concept of proof requires a belief in reality. In other words trying to prove that reality exists would result in a circular argument. Even though Axioms cannot be proven, they can be validated. Validation is a larger concept than proof. Axioms are validated because they are self-evident.

If one rejects these axioms, one necessarily undermines their own ability to think correctly. That is why the axioms are so important. If you come across any idea that tries to argue against these axioms, then you know it is false, because that idea is necessarily self-refuting. The axioms are sentries that guard our mind against confusion and ignorance.

---

Is Economics a Science?

Many people debate the question about whether economics is more like science or philosophy. In my own opinion, science and philosophy deal with different types of questions. Science deals with questions in which there is a systematic method of answering those questions. Philosophy on the other hand deals with questions in which there is not a systemic method for answering those questions. On this view, much of economics is a science because it provides a systematic way of answering many questions about the world. But, there are also parts of economics that are perhaps closer to being philosophy. 

Recently, a Harvard economics professor, Raj Chetty wrote the article, "Yes economics is a science"  in the New York Times. Chetty argues that economics is a science even though many economists disagree with each other. Chetty writes, 

It is true that the answers to many “big picture” macroeconomic questions — like the causes of recessions or the determinants of growth — remain elusive. But in this respect, the challenges faced by economists are no different from those encountered in medicine and public health. Health researchers have worked for more than a century to understand the “big picture” questions of how diet and lifestyle affect health and aging, yet they still do not have a full scientific understanding of these connections. Some studies tell us to consume more coffee, wine and chocolate; others recommend the opposite. But few people would argue that medicine should not be approached as a science or that doctors should not make decisions based on the best available evidence.

Chetty gave several examples of how economics provides a scientific picture of reality. But he also jumped to policy recommendations as if the economic studies naturally lead to those policy recommendations. When Chetty was explaining the scientific observations from economics, I was in agreement with him, but when Chetty jumped to making policy suggestions, I became more skeptical. The economics was science, but the policy suggestions based on the economics was more like philosophy.

As I was thinking about this article and randomly surfing the internet, I found this excellent criticism of Chetty's NY Times article by the "Anonymous Commentator".

The Anonymous Commentator basically agreed that economics is a science and agreed with the scientific conclusions of the economic studies referenced in Chetty's article. But he showed how one can easily arrive at opposite policy recommendations from Chetty. According to the Anonymous Commentator,

Economics certainly can be seen as a science when it comes to making observations about the world, but when it comes to recommending certain policies, economics is only as scientific as the biases of the economists allow it to be.

One who makes policy recommendations based on economic conclusions are often— though not always—engaging in philosophy. Philosophy is not inferior to science. It just focuses on different questions—questions like "What is the good society?" or "How should we conduct ourselves in society?" for example. We need to make more room for honest debate about those questions even though there may be less room for debating the facts of economics.

True Individualism vs. False Individualism

Every fourth friday, I meet with a philosophy group. In our August philosophy discussion, we discussed the essay Individualism: True and False by the social theorist and economist Friedrich Hayek. According to Hayek, there are two opposing ideas about how to understand individuals and the society in which they live.  Hayek calls these ideas true individualism and false individualism. These ideas permeate all social and political thought. They apply to beliefs about reason and knowledge, economics, justice, equality, power, tradition, marriage and family, and government. In this post, I will briefly introduce the concepts of true and false individualism and discuss how they relate to ideas about reason and knowledge.

True Individualism and False individualism
True individualism is a social theory that says that individuals cannot be properly understood without understanding the social processes that surround him. As people make individual decisions they contribute to a social order that is not the result of human design. According to Hayek, “if left free, men will often achieve more than individual human reason could design or foresee.” (individualism: True and False pg 11) Hayek associates true individualism with Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and John Locke.

False individualism on the other hand asserts that individuals are best understood as existing independently of social processes. And, it seeks to understand society as existing independently of the individuals that compose that society. False individualism assumes that reason "is always fully and equally available to all humans and that everything which man achieves is the direct result of, and therefore subject to, the control of individual reason.” False individualism seeks to free individuals from social constraints in order to promote liberated self-expression. This view has been expressed by John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, René Descartes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and, William Godwin.

Reason and Knowledge
According to true individualism, any individual's own knowledge alone is grossly inadequate for social decision making. Knowledge comes primarily from experience which is “transmitted socially in largely inarticulate forms from prices which indicate costs, scarcities, and preferences, to traditions which evolve from the day to day experiences of millions in each generation, winnowing out in Darwinian competition what works from what does not work.” (Conflict of Visions pg 36)

In another work, Hayek wrote that, “man has certainly more often learnt to do the right thing without comprehending why it was the right thing, and he still is better served by custom than understanding.” There is thus, “more ‘intelligence’ incorporated in rules of conduct than in man’s thoughts about his surroundings.” (Law, Legislation, and Liberty pg 157)

In his essay on individualism Hayek argues that since man’s reason is inadequate to intelligently design society, individuals are justified in following, and ought to follow, social conventions that have evolved over time.

...the individual, in participating in the social processes, must be ready and willing to adjust himself to changes and to submit to conventions which are not the result of intelligent design, whose justification in the particular instance may not be recognizable, and which to him will often appear unintelligible and irrational.

Thus according to true individualism, knowledge for how to act in social contexts comes from mostly from experience. It is systemic and dispersed in the many, and is expressed through social norms and customs.

False individualism rejects these ideas in favor of what Hayek calls “Rationalism” which accepts only what can “justify” itself to reason and evidence. One proponent of rationalism—the philosopher William Godwin—expressed this view when he said that “Reason is the proper instrument, and the sufficient instrument for regulating the actions of mankind.” Traditions and social norms are looked upon with skepticism and disdain unless they are validated via specifically articulated rationality. This is because knowledge is viewed as, “conscious, explicit knowledge of individuals, the knowledge which enables us to state that this or that is so-and-so.”

Implicit in Hayek’s view of rationalism is that it can lead to both socialism and extreme forms of libertarianism. Rationalism can lead to socialism because according to Godwin, “persons with narrow views and observation,” readily accept whatever happens to prevail in their society. (Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, Vol II, pg 206) It is only the “cultivated minds” who can deliberately see past the social norms and traditions of the masses and deliberately design a society that will benefit all. Rationalism thus sees knowledge and reason as concentrated in the few who see themselves as surrogate decision-makers on behalf of the masses. This is why Hayek believes that rationalism often leads “directly to socialism” which assumes that society can only improve if it is deliberately designed by the wisest most cultivated minds. Taken to another extreme, rationalism can also lead to forms of libertarianism which seeks to reduce all social interactions to deliberate contract making between individuals as if they could deliberately design their lives from scratch apart from society or government.

According to Thomas Sowell who wrote extensively about Hayek, “Rationalism at the individual level is a plea for more personal autonomy from cultural norms, at the social level it is often a claim—or arrogation—of power to stifle the autonomy of others,” on the basis of assumed superior wisdom and articulated rationality. (Knowledge and Decisions pg 103)

Summary
Another way to understand true and false individualism with respect to knowledge and reason is to contrast how each side answers the questions, “what is the locus of discretion?” and, “what is the mode of discretion?” as shown in the graphic below:

According to true individualism, individuals should be left free to make their own decisions within a framework of systemic rationality. Systemic rationality refers to the experience of the many as expressed in social norms, customs, traditions, and even price signals within an economy. According to false individualism, individuals should be free from the constraints of social norms and traditions. They can only be free if they are liberated by experts who exempt themselves from social norms and make social decisions on behalf of “society”. False individualism thus assumes that man can comprehend society enough to design it.

---

1. Friedrich Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order

2. Thomas Sowell, Conflict of Visions

3. Friedrich Hayek, Law, Legislation, and Liberty

4. William Godwin, Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, Vol II

5. Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions

Notes:
Compare to Conservative Rationalism vs. Enlightenment Rationalism

Books on the Political Divide

Political debate is often unpleasant because most people are blind to the reasons and assumptions of the other side. I believe that understanding the deep assumptions behind political beliefs will minimize political conflict and increase respect for each other. It might even help us make political progress. Here are 4 book recommendations that enlighten the deep assumptions that fuel the political divide.

A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles

This is by far my favorite book about understanding the deep assumptions behind political beliefs and it is one of my favorite books in general. The author Thomas Sowell, starts by pointing out the consistency by which people hold political beliefs. According to Sowell:

A closer look at the arguments on both sides often shows that they are reasoning from fundamentally different premises. These different premises —often implicit—are what provide the consistency behind the repeated opposition of individuals and groups on numerous unrelated issues. They have different visions of how the world works.

Sowell argues that the political divide is driven by two separate visions about human nature—The Constrained Vision and the Unconstrained Vision. The constrained vision holds that human nature is inherently limited in knowledge, wisdom and virtue and social arrangements must acknowledge those limits. Those with the constrained vision trust the collective experience more than articulated rationality, they see value in social institutions and traditions that have evolved over time to mitigate the negative aspects of human nature, and they view social causality mostly in terms of non-volitional forces.

The unconstrained vision holds that psychological limitations are artifacts that come fromour social arrangements, and we should not allow them to restrict our gaze from what is possible in a better world. The philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau summed up the unconstrained vision by writing, “Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.” Essentially man is inherently good but man is corrupted by social institutions and traditions. Those with unconstrained trust articulated rationality more than collective wisdom, and view social causality in terms of volitional forces.

These visions cover a wide range of political beliefs on both sides including different views about knowledge and reason, tradition and markets, age and experience, sincerity and fidelity, justice and equality, and power and freedom. In my experience, this way of looking at political beliefs has been so accurate that when I have identified the vision of a particular individual, I can quite confidently predict what they believe about such disparate issues as gun control, markets, abortion, religion, gender issues, education, war, healthcare, and more.

The book treats both sides quite fairly and evenly. It covers intellectual history and gives many examples of specific thinkers that have contributed to each vision. Every reader will gain a greater understanding of the reasons behind their own political beliefs as well as the beliefs of those with whom they disagree.

Here is an introduction to this book by the author (who subscribes to the constrained vision):

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
 This book by the cognitive scientist Steven Pinker details the history of the blank slate which the belief that people are born without any innate dispositions, abilities, or preferences. This belief implies that all behavior is learned from one's environment and that everyone has equal opportunities to succeed if they are raised in the right environment. The blank slate premise leads to conclusions about politics, violence, gender, parenting, the arts, and much more.

Pinker shows how the study of evolutionary psychology thoroughly debunks the blank slate and the linked dogmas of the "noble savage" and "the ghost in the machine". The noble savage is the view that man is born good and is corrupted by society. The ghost in the machine is the view that everyone has a soul that can make choices free from biology. He not only shows how these theories are false, he also shows how the blank slate has been used to justify disastrous political experiments such as totalitarian social engineering.

At one point in the book, Pinker refers to The Conflict of Visions. He wrote, "The most sweeping attempt to survey the underlying dimension is Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions. Not every ideological struggle fits his scheme, but as we say in social science, he has identified a factor that can account for a large proportion of the variance." Pinker refers to the constrained vision as the Tragic Vision of human nature and he calls the unconstrained vision a Utopian Vision of human nature. About the two visions, Pinker suggests, "The new sciences of human nature vindicate some version of the Tragic Vision and undermine the Utopian outlook".

This book is quite profound and a pleasure to read. Pinker weaves in many popular references with dense scientific critiques of the blank slate theory. It was a pulitzer prize finalist and essential reading for anyone interested in understanding the political divide.

Here is Pinker's TED talk about the book:

The Three Languages of Politics

This brand new book is very short and very cheap—only $1.99 on the Kindle store. Arnold Kling shows how different ideologies speak different languages. Progressives, Conservatives, and Libertarians each have an axis of concern:

• The Progressive narrative follow an "oppressed vs. oppressor" axis. • The Conservative narrative follow a "civilization vs. barbarism" axis. • The Libertarian narrative follow a "freedom vs. coercion" axis.

This three-axes model helps us see how and why people demonize those who don't agree with them. For progressives, conservatives and libertarians want to oppress the poor. For conservatives, progressives and libertarians unwittingly encourage barbarism and undermine civilization. For libertarians, progressives and conservatives support policies that undermine freedom.

We can be more charitable to others by speaking their language and showing why a particular axis narrative does or does not apply to a given political situation. Kling makes a distinction between motivated thinking which is based on unexamined intuition and emotion and constructive thinking which is based on logic. Understanding the three-axes model and being more charitable to others will stimulate our constructive thinking. We should try to understand why we think our political opponents are wrong instead of automatically assuming those on the other side are irrational. Our own rationality is called into question when we automatically assume that other people are irrational.

Here is a short podcast where Arnold Kling discusses these views.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion

I just finished this book the other day. Jonathan Haidt uses what he calls "Moral Psychology" to show that human beings evolved certain moral intuitions that influence their political and religious beliefs.

One of Haidt's metaphors that I like is the "Elephant and Rider" metaphor. The rider represents the conscious controlled processes and the elephant represents all of the automatic processes. These two systems evolved for to perform different functions. Our elephant is our primary decision maker and our rider is our press agent. Most of the time, the rider justifies why we did what the elephant did. Only rarely does the rider actually influence the elephant.

Haidt argues that reason is vastly overrated and that intuitions are much better at guiding our political beliefs. I personally think that he pushes this point too far because of course, he has to use reason in his arguments that try to undermine reason. Nevertheless, he makes good points about understanding the relationship between our intuitions and reasons.

Haidt also develops "Moral Foundations Theory" where he talks about 6 moral foundations that inform our intuitions. These foundations include the following:

• Care /Harm

• Fairness/Cheating

• Liberty/Oppression

• Loyalty/Betrayal

• Authority/Subversion

• Sanctity/Degredation

Haidt uses details surveys that measure how sensitive each person is to one of the moral foundations. He found that liberals and those that are left-wing value the care and fairness foundations and tend to minimize or ignore the other 4 foundations. Conservatives on the other hand value all of the evolved foundations equally. Although Haidt is a liberal, he suggests that conservatives have a more balanced intuitional foundation and believes that liberals would be better off if they try to understand and embrace the other moral foundations. Understanding these moral foundations can help us to understand the intuitions of those with whom we disagree.

Try out his moral foundations quiz and see the fascinating results 

The authors
 These 4 authors have greatly influenced my thinking about how to understand political beliefs. These 4 books would make a great foundation for a course in understanding politics. The authors span the political spectrum. Thomas Sowell tends to be more conservative. Steven Pinker is a moderate. Arnold Kling is a libertarian. And, Jonathan Haidt is a liberal. 

Philosophical Analysis of the LDS Sacrament

In this post I want to show how Searle's philosophy of social ontology helps clarify the ritual of the LDS Sacrament. This post will be easier to understand if you read my post on Social Ontology:

Many religions believe in and perform a sacrament ritual which is often referred to as Communion. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints participates in a Sacrament meeting every week during their worship services. During the sacrament, bread and water are blessed and passed out to the congregation who eat and drink the bread and water.

Typically two young men who hold the priesthood (at the level of priests) bless the bread and water in front of the congregation. Before they bless the bread and water they break the bread into small pieces and pour water into small plastic or paper cups. At the appropriate time, one of them blesses the bread by saying the following prayer:

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen. (D&C 20:77)

After they bless the bread, several other young men who hold the priesthood (at the level of deacons) pass the bread to each member of the congregation. When everyone in the congregation has eaten a piece of bread, one of the two young men then bless the water by saying the following prayer:

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this [water] to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen. (D&C 20:79)

Then the water is then passed to the congregation and the sacrament ends.

What does it mean to "bless"? 
To bless means to make something holy. In my last post, I wrote that "holiness" is not a physical characteristic of an object. Rather, "holiness" is a status that is assigned to an object. Therefore, when we bless the bread and water we are assigning a status to them. We are more specifically asking God to recognize a specific status, but we are not asking God to change the molecular structure or physical substance of the bread and water. Catholics on the other hand believe that the physical substance does change. (see transubstantiation)

What is the purpose of the status that is assigned to the bread and water?
 The purpose of assigning a status to anything is to give that thing a function. The intended function of the bread and water is to cause the partaker to remember the Son and His atonement. The bread that we eat for breakfast does not have that function. Even if we did think of Christ every time we ate our morning toast, it would still not count as performing the function of the sacrament, because the assignment of that sacrament function must be recognized by both the partaker and by God. The bread and water are often called "emblems" because they are supposed to act as representations of Christ and His atoning sacrifice.

Why must the sacrament be recognized by both the partaker and by God?
 The Sacrament ritual is a covenant that we make with God. More precisely, the sacrament is a renewal of covenants that were already made when the partaker of the sacrament was baptized. Not only do we make a promise to God, but God makes a promise with us. Therefore, the sacrament must be recognized by both parties.

What counts as covenanting with God? The act of partaking of emblems, or the act of remembering?
 In order to answer this question I need to make a distinction between two types of complex actions. The first type of complex action involves doing something "by way of" doing something else. The second type of complex action involves doing something "by means of" doing something else. These types of complex actions are summarized by John Searle:

 So, for example, if the chairman says, “All those in favor of the motion raise your right hand,” and I raise my right hand, I am not only raising my right hand but also voting for the motion. These are not two separate actions—raising my right hand and voting; rather, they are one action with two levels of description of the two different features of the action. Raising my right hand in that circumstance constitutes voting. I vote by way of raising my hand.

Another type of a complex action is where one intentionally does something that causes something else to occur. For example, I fire a gun by means of pulling the trigger. Here again there are not two actions—pulling the trigger and firing the gun—but only one action with two different levels of description. At the bottom level I intentionally pull the trigger. My pulling the trigger causes the gun to fire. My pulling the trigger does not cause me to fire the gun; in that context it just is firing the gun. But firing the gun is a complex act, where I intentionally achieve the effect that the gun fires by the causal “by means of” relation, whereby my bottom-level intentional movement causes the higher level effect, and the combination is the total action. (Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization p36)

The act of partaking of the sacrament emblems has a "by means of" relationship with the act of remembering of Christ and His atonement. The partaking is intended to be the cause, and the remembering is the effect. Eating the bread and drinking water is also an outward sign of an inward activity.

The act of remembering has a "by way of" relationship with the act of covenanting. The remembering does not cause us to covenant with God. The remembering constitutes covenanting with God. Therefore, the intentional act of remembering is a speech act that counts as promising just as raising one's right arm counts as voting for a motion.

What do we promise to God?
 The partaker of the sacrament promises to (1) always remember Christ, and (2) be willing to take upon the name of Christ, and (3) keep His commandments.

What does it mean to be willing to take upon us the name of Christ?
 According to the apostle Dallin H. Oaks, the phrase "willing to take upon them the name of thy Son" has multiple meanings. In this post I will only focus on one of those meanings. To be willing to take upon the name of Christ is to be willing to accept a certain status that comes with the name. With that status comes a specific function, and with that function comes certain deontic powers such as rights and authorizations, and obligations and requirements. This pattern was illustrated to me a few days ago when my wife took the Oath of Allegiance and became a citizen of the United States of America. She essentially took upon her the name of America and became an American. She swore that she would be willing to freely take upon her certain obligations such as serving and fighting for America. Because she made this oath, she is entitled to all the rights and entitlements that come with being an American citizen.

The difference between the sacrament and the oath of Allegiance is that in the sacrament, we do not take upon ourselves the name of Christ; we only express that we are willing to do so. This implies that at some future date we will be eligible to actually take upon ourselves the name of Christ. According to Dallin H. Oaks,

Scriptural references to the name of Jesus Christ often signify the authority of Jesus Christ. In that sense, our willingness to take upon us his name signifies our willingness to take upon us the authority of Jesus Christ in the sacred ordinances of the temple, and to receive the highest blessings available through his authority when he chooses to confer them upon us. (see D&C 109:26)

This understanding thus connects the ordinance of the sacrament with the ordinances in the temple. This suggests that only those who have been to the temple can understand the deeper meaning behind sacrament because they can understand the rights and authorizations as well as obligations taken when they take upon His name in the House of the Lord.

What does God promise to us in the sacrament?
God promises to give us "His Spirit".

What is His Spirit?
 It is commonly understood that His Spirit refers to the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Why do we make promises in this ritualistic way?
 A promise is a commissive speech act. As such the speaker of the promise commits herself to perform some course of action. In the case of the sacrament, the eating of the bread is a speech act. It is an act of language without the use of phonetic utterances.

The sacrament emblems could be anything because human beings can assign status functions to anything. Instead of blessing and eating bread we could bless gummy bears. Or we could have performed some bodily movement such as a dance. Or we could have simply filled out a check box on a form. But I believe that the activity of eating has symbolic significance that can more deeply and vividly help us understand the meaning behind the sacrament.

Why do we need to make promises at all?
 All institutional facts are extensions of language or "speech acts" that are designed to effect behavior. Institutional facts affect behavior by locking into human rationality by providing "desire-independent reasons for action." The natural desires of mankind are contrary to the will of God. These desires tend to be immoral and promote chaos. Institutional facts can promote order and morality by giving us reasons to act that are different from our natural desires. For example, when we make a promise to do something, we have engaged in a commissive speech act that gives us a reason to do that which we promised even when we do not want to follow through with our promise.

In the LDS sacrament, members covenant to continue to always remember Christ and to obey God's commandments. This gives us a reason to act independently of our natural desires. Thus, making promises gives us added motivation to follow the commandments by giving us desire-independent reasons for acting.

What does holiness mean?

The purpose of this post is to answer the question: 

What is the meaning of holiness? 

Recently, I have been studying John Searle's philosophy of institutional facts. I find that his philosophy answers many interesting questions in a clear and precise way and relates to many different fields of study including religion and theology.

Searle's philosophy shows how new facts can be created by collectively recognizing the assignment of functions to objects that cannot perform those functions by themselves alone. A useful mnemonic device for logically analyzing these social facts is the formula: X counts as Y in context C as in the example "This piece of paper (X) counts as money (Y) in the United States (C). I introduce these concepts in more detail here. I find this philosophy very useful in understanding the concept of "Holiness".

The word holy is synonymous with the word sacred. Holy is an english word that has Germanic roots. Sacred is an english word that has Latin roots. In the scriptures there are several different things that are described as "holy" such as the following:

• Spoken Words and Texts such as scriptures

• Rituals and Ordinances such as the activities performed in the temple.

• Objects such as the Menorah or the Arc of the Covenant

• Art and Architecture such as temples

• Time such as the sabbath day

• People such as priests

• Institutions or communities such as Zion or the Church

Generally speaking, Holy means that which belongs to God or associated with God. Using the language of Searle's philosophy of institutional facts, something is holy if God recognizes it to have a certain status and by virtue of that status, the object can perform a specific function. Here are a few applications of this concept:

Prophets
 A person counts as a prophet when they are recognized by God as being a prophet. The person alone is not sufficient to constitute being a prophet. You need the person plus God's recognition. Someone claiming to be a prophet that is not recognized by God is a false prophet. The status of "prophet" gives certain authorizations and obligations to the rightful bearer of that title. Such authorizations include the right to act in God's name and receive revelation on behalf of other people. Since they are recognized by God, prophets are holy. The Holy Prophets are still prophets even if no one but God recognizes their status.

Emblems of the Sacrament
 The Sacrament is blessed (is made holy) if God recognizes it as being blessed. The bread and water count as a symbols of Christ and the act of eating those symbols and remembering Christ count as performing a covenant with God. The bread and water alone are not sufficient to be symbols of Christ by themselves. You need the bread and water plus God's recognition and the recognition of those engaging in the sacrament ritual. The covenants renewed during the sacrament are holy because they are recognized by God.

Priesthood
 The priesthood is the authority to act in God's name and use His power. A person counts as having the status of priesthood holder when they are authorized to perform specific functions such as blessing the Sacrament or healing the sick. A person only has the priesthood when they are recognized by God as having that priesthood. God recognizes a person's priesthood when they are righteous and have been given the priesthood by someone else who has the priesthood who has been authorized by a church official such as the Bishop.

Temple
The temple is holy because it is God's house. Temples are centers for creating, preserving, and transmitting other Holy symbols. By itself, the physical building that constitutes a temple is not Holy. You need the building plus God's recognition that it is a temple for it to be holy.

I could describe many more religious concepts using these terms. There is a general formula that comes out of these examples:

X counts as something holy if it has a status that is recognized by God in order to perform a specific function that it cannot perform without God's recognition of that status. That status always comes with deontic powers such as rights, authorizations, and permissions, or obligations, duties, and requirements.

Nothing is holy in this context unless God recognizes it as being holy and sacred. And, nothing is holy unless it is assigned a certain status in order to perform a specific function. These concepts should be thought about with an attitude of reverence and we should treat these concepts as God treats them. That which is unholy is that which has a status such that we are obligated to avoid it. God does not dwell in unholy temples. We should likewise not enter unholy places or situations.

Holy objects are different from other social objects (like money) in that an object can be holy even if God is the only person that recognizes them as being holy. Whereas all other social objects exist only if there is a large amount of people that recognize them as existing.

Sources: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/ancient-temples-and-sacred-symbolism-video/ The Construction of Social Reality by John Searle

Human Rights

Many talk of rights without describing them clearly. In this post I will.

1. try to define the concept of rights clearly and describe what type of thing rights are.

2. argue that universal human rights imply universal human obligations.

3. argue that human rights exist independently from rights that are granted by an institution like the state.

Defining Human Rights
Human Rights are rights that a person has in virtue of being human. As such they exist independently from any system of laws enacted by any institution such as a state or government. Some argue that universal human rights do not exist independently of a government. Jeremy Bentham called the idea of human rights, "rhetorical nonsense". Bentham thought that because we do not discover human rights in the same way that people have noses, then there must not be any rights "out there" to be found. While it is true that we do not discover human rights in the same way that we discover that water is H2O, it does not follow that human rights do not exist. 

The existence of human rights depends on a collective recognition or acceptance of their existence. The existence of human rights is an observer-relative fact; not an observer-independent facts. The difference between these two types of facts is that observer-relative facts depend on the beliefs and attitudes of human beings while observer-independent facts exist regardless of what human beings think or believe. 

Let me try to explain the distinction between these two types of facts more clearly. An example of an observer-relative fact is money. When one has a $5 bill, he/she is entitled to buy $5 worth of goods. On a $5 note, we read the words, "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private." If one only believed that observer-independent facts existed, they would naturally want to ask, "How do they know that it is legal tender?...Did they perform some chemical test to see if the $5 bill really was money?" Of course these questions miss the point. We do not discover that a certain piece of paper is money. We declare it to be money. The piece of paper and the ink stains that constitute the $5 bill are NOT sufficient to make it money. We need the actual piece of paper PLUS something else to make it money. That something else is the collective recognition that those pieces of paper count as money. 

Human rights are the same way. When one is a human being, he or she has the right to perform certain actions, but the mere existence of a certain biological organism that we call a human being is not sufficient to ensure that person has rights. You need a certain biological organism (a human being) PLUS collective recognition that they have those rights.

I think that the concept of human rights will be clearer when one understands how institutional facts are created in general. I describe how they are created in more detail in my post about Social Ontology. Here I will summarize some of those ideas:

Summary of Social Ontology
There are at least three things that are needed to create institutional facts. You need status functions, collective recognition, and constitutive rules.

Humans are different from all other forms of animal life because humans can impose functions on objects where the objects cannot perform the function solely in virtue of their physical structure. To continue using the example of money, we can assign the function of money to little green pieces of paper. These pieces of paper have the status of money in virtue of the function that we collectively assign to them. When we create a function by collective recognition of an assigned status, we are creating a "Status Function". Status functions are everywhere. Examples of status functions include money, marriages, touchdowns, sacraments, driver's licenses, presidents, private property, holidays, etc.

Status functions exist as part of a system of "constitutive rules" that are created by language. Constitutive rules create the behavior that they regulate. For example, the rules of chess create the possibility of playing the game of chess. Similarly, status functions are constitutive rules that create observer-relative facts. Constitutive rules of status functions have the logical form "X counts as Y" in context "C". Here are a few examples:

• A certain area of the field (X) counts as an end zone (Y) in the game of football (C)

• Such and such a sound wave (X) counts as a sentence (Y) in the english language (C)

• This piece of paper (X) counts as money (Y) in the United States (C)

The "X counts as Y in context C" formula is not intended to show how people explicitly think about institutional facts. In most cases institutional facts are not explicitly stated. The formula is just a useful way to think about how people are prepared to regard things or treat them as having a certain status.

Status functions are always associated with social power. This power is simply the ability to get people to behave in a certain way. There are positive social powers such as rights, permissions, authorizations, certifications, and entitlements. There are also negative powers such as obligations, duties, and requirements. These powers provide us with reasons for acting that are independent of our inclinations and desires. For example, if I recognize something as your property, then I am obligated not to take it or use it without your permission. Likewise, if I have the status the president of the United States, then I am authorized to command the military.

Status functions are always associated with social powers that lock into human rationality by creating "desire-independent reasons for action". In the game of American football, the end zone creates a conditional power, such that when a player makes it to the end zone with the ball, his team is entitled to 6 points while the opposite team is required to recognize that they have 6 points even though the opposite team would rather not recognize those points.

With this brief foundation in place, I can more precisely describe universal human rights. A universal human right is described by an observer-relative constitutive rule such that:

• A certain biological organism (X) counts as a human being (Y) in the context of the whole universe (C).

• The power associated with this constitutive rule is that any organism that satisfies the conditions of the Y term has certain powers (rights and entitlements) such as the right to life or the right to free speech.

Universal Human Rights imply Universal Human Obligations
This framing implies that all universal human rights imply universal human obligations. Rights are always rights against somebody. If I have a right to walk in a park, then everyone else has an obligation not to interfere with that activity. If A has a right against B, then B has an obligation to A. For example, the bill of rights are rights against Congress, they place congress under an obligation not to interfere with the rights articulated in the Bill of Rights such as the right to free speech.

Put more precisely:

• If a human being (H) has a right to perform action (A), then other people (P) have an obligation (O) not to interfere with (H) performing action (A)

Positive & Negative Rights
Human rights can be categorized into positive and negative rights. The formulation of rights above is an example of a negative right. The type of rights found in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are negative rights. The rights laid out in the founding documents of America impose an obligation on everyone not to interfere with certain human activities such as the establishment or exercise of religion, or free speech, etc. In other words negative rights are rights that people have to be left alone.

Positive rights require more than just non-interference. They require positive action in ensuring that everyone receives those rights. The logical form of a positive right would look something like this:

• If a human being (H) has a right to (B), then other people (P) have an obligation (O) to ensure that (H) obtains (B)

A formulation of human rights that can apply to both positive and negative rights can go something like this:

• A Human Being (H) has a human right (R) which generates an obligation (O) for other people (P)

In some situations, the distinction between positive and negative rights is blurred. Nevertheless, I think these concepts can help us to avoid confusion in many cases. For example, if I have the right to life and that right is a negative right, then it is implied that other people are obligated not to harm my life, but it does not imply that people are obligated to provide me with food or expensive healthcare so as to prolong my life as long as possible. Similarly, people in remote parts of the world have a right to life, but since it is a negative right, I have no obligation to provide them with food and healthcare. I think that the right to life can only be properly understood as a negative right in this context. This does not mean that we should not help others, but that it does not make sense to have an enforceable obligation to do so.

Universal Human Rights are Institution-independent
But what happens when other people (P) do not want to fulfill their obligations(O)?  
When other people do not want to fulfill their obligations to other human beings, and those human beings are not in a position to guarantee that their own rights are not infringed, then it becomes necessary for some third party to protect human rights by ensuring that other people fulfill their obligations. That third party could be the government which has the obligation to protect human rights by enacting civil laws that are enforceable because the government can use brute force. Therefore our logical formula that describes human rights can be expanded as follows:

• A Human Being (H) has a human right (R) which generates an obligation (O) for other people (P) which right creates a different obligation (O2) for a third party (G) to protect (H) and his/her rights.

An application of this formula would be something like this:

• A human being (Gavin Jensen) has a human right (right to life) which generates and obligation (do not murder Gavin) for other people (everyone in the world) which right creates another obligation (protect Gavin's right to life) for a third party (the United States government) to protect (Gavin Jensen's) right to life.

When the government creates laws, they are obligated to ensure that those laws respect human rights. If human rights are really universal then that means that governments that protect those rights cannot have a system of pure democracy. If they want to protect human rights, then they must enforce certain laws that cannot be changed by popular vote.

For human rights to be universal, they must exist outside of the scope of any government. They do not come from a constitution or any other legal document. Constitutions and laws are attempts to protect pre-existing human rights. The purpose of civil law is to implement human rights. Thomas Paine wrote in The Rights of Man,

"Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his individual power is not in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection."

Citizens can sometimes create state recognized rights that do not depend on universal human rights. In these cases the obligations created by those rights should only apply to the citizens of that institution. For instance, if same-sex marriage is not a universal human right and a state wants to grant the right of marriage to same-sex couples, then they can do that but that right would only create an obligation for the citizens of that state. But people outside of that institution would not be obligated to recognize that institution-relative right.

Human rights must be justified 
Even though status functions exist because of collective recognition of those status functions, it does not mean that they are arbitrary. Some claims to human rights are valid if they can be justified, while other claims are invalid when they cannot be justified. In this post, I have not tried to justify any specific human right. I have only tried to outline what human rights are and explain the nature of their existence. Justifying specific human rights is a topic for later posts.

Summary of main points

1. Human rights exist just as money exists. Both are observer-relative phenomenon meaning that we do not discover human rights (or money) in the same way that we discover that water is made of H2O.

2. Because human beings have a recognized status function, they have social powers that include rights to perform certain actions.

3. Analyzing human rights in this way makes it very clear that human rights imply human obligations.

4. There are two types rights—positive and negative.

5. Human rights exist independently of laws created within any institution and apply universally.

God, Language, and Reality

In the beginning of the Old Testament, we read "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." It appears in this verse that God caused light to appear through the use of language. How can language cause the world to change? What would reality have to be like for the language to change reality?

Direction of fit
 To explore these questions, I want to introduce the concept of direction of fit. Direction of fit refers to the relationship between words and reality. In many cases, words can be used to fit the way the world is. These cases have a " word-to-world direction of fit". In other cases, the world changes in order to fit the words that we use. These cases have a "world-to-word direction of fit". These distinctions will be clearer as I describe the possible uses of language.

5 types of speech acts
  There are 5 and only 5 things that can be done with language. There are assertives, expressives, directives, commissives, and declarations. These uses of language are called speech acts. Assertives state the way the world is and thus have the word-to-world direction of fit. Assertives refer to statements, descriptions, classifications, explanations, and clarifications. Eg: "The earth rotates around the sun". Expressives do not have a direction of fit but they rely on presuppositions that do have a direction of fit. Eg: "Thank you for passing the guacamole" (which presupposes that the hearer did in fact pass the guacamole).

Directives, commissives, and declarations all have a world-to-word direction of fit. Directives change the world by causing the hearer to do something. Directives include orders, commands, requests and refer to pleading, begging, praying, insisting, and suggesting. Eg: "Go to your room." Commissives change the world by committing the speaker to do something. Commissives refer to vows, threats, pledges, guarantees, contracts, promises, covenants, and oaths. Eg: "I promise to uphold the constitution." Declaratives actually have a dual direction of fit. They change the world by representing the world as being so changed. Eg: "This meeting is adjourned," or, "I now pronounce you husband and wife." A declaration can fail if no one recognizes the declaration. For instance, if I declare that a meeting is adjourned, and the meeting just keeps going on because no one recognizes my speech act, then I have failed to change reality. Therefore declarations are dependent on collective recognition if they are to actually change the world. For a more slightly more thorough introduction to speech acts, check out this post.

Let there be light
 So what type of speech act is the utterance, "Let there be light"? It doesn't have a word-to-world direction of fit so it cannot be an assertive. It does not seem to be expressing an emotion that assumes another fact so it cannot be an expressive. It doesn't commit the speaker to a specific action so it is not a commissive. The only possibilities left are directives and declarations, or it might not be a speech act at all. I will examine each of these remaining possibilities.

Is it a declaration?
 If the speech act, "let there be light" is a declaration, then God is changing the world by representing it as being so changed. However, when human beings make a declaration they can only change social reality. For example, the declaration, "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private" only applies to the status function of money which is a social fact that requires collective recognition. Human beings cannot change the brute facts of reality through declarations alone. For example, we cannot change reality by saying, "I hereby declare that I am a billionaire." Nor can we change reality by declaring something like, "Let there be good weather." No amount of collective recognition is going to change those brute facts because beliefs alone cannot cause anything to happen without physical action. If the utterance "let there be light" is a declaration, then I cannot make sense it for the reasons just stated. It would presuppose a type of metaphysical idealism which I believe is self-contradictory.

Is it a directive?
 Directives are supposed to change the world by causing the hearer to perform some action. The utterance "Let there be light" could be a command to the light itself or it could be a command to an unspecified hearer who is being commanded to create the light through the use of some sort of light-generating technology. If light could be commanded, then that would imply that light has some sort of conscious awareness such that it could understand the meaning of the words and volitionally respond to the directive. In Helaman 12: 8-22, it seems as though Nephi is suggesting that matter obeys God's word which seems to imply that it is conscious. Orson Pratt is said to have more explicitly supported this hylozoistic view. However, I think there is enough room for interpretation to question this interpretation of the scriptures. If light does not have conscious awareness, then some unspecified hearer such as an angel turned on the light after being commanded by God.

Maybe it isn't a speech act at all
 The last possibility is that the phrase, "Let there be light" is not a speech act at all but just a soundwave that triggers a preprogrammed event that causes the lights to turn on. For example, when I ask Siri (on my iPhone) to launch an app, I say something like "launch Angry Birds." But the meaning of my words did not cause Siri to open the app. It was merely the soundwave that caused Siri to open the app. Siri could have been programmed to launch the app when it heard the soundwave, "Do NOT launch Angry Birds". Or it could have been programmed to launch the app when it heard the sound wave, "Boom Shakalaka!" Likewise some light generating technology could have been preprogrammed to respond to God's words. It could have been programmed to respond to a particular vibration of his vocal cords, or some bodily movement, or perhaps the technology could have responded to some form of thought detection.

Conclusion
 In this post, I have not been as interested in what God caused to be with His words. I am more interested in how God uses words to cause things to be. Understanding how words can change reality can give us insights into the metaphysical nature of reality. Using the example of light, God's words could have been a declaration, a directive, or they could have been a soundwave that triggers a non-volitional technology. In my opinion, it doesn't make sense that the words could be a declaration for the reasons stated above. I am also skeptical of the speech-as-a technology-trigger explanation because I am not aware of any example where God's words are used this way. Intuitively, it does not seem Godlike for God's words to not have any meaning in this way. Therefore, I believe that the utterance, "Let there be light" was a directive. Either matter volitionally obeyed God's words or God was commanding another volitional being (or beings) to cause a series of events to take place in order for earth to have light.

---

Scriptures about the power of God's words: Jacob 4:9 Helaman 12:7-21 1 Ne. 17:46