A New Science of Mind and Society – Part I
The reader will not meet here with any of those bold journeys that seem to characterize the works of the present era … they generally arise from the mind that brings all his powers to present only one side of the subject, while leaving the other unnoticed.
Charles de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws (1748)
This article suggests restructuring science in a way that promotes human health, happiness and development towards a more adaptable and creative global society. A method of reuniting scientific and spiritual values has been described, and a general plan has been proposed for the transition to grammatical sciences that would avoid crises expected in the 21st century as a result of both technological development and the influence of human civilization. On the Earth’s biosphere.
In December 2011 the American scientific, “Ten Changing Ideas in the World” appeared. The tenth idea is described and discussed by David Weinberger in an article entitled “The Machine that Can Predict the Future”. Weinberger is a senior researcher at the Harvard Berkman Center and co-director of the Harvard Library Laboratory. He is also the author of To To Big To Know (2012).
The “machine” mentioned is actually a computing system being developed at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich under the leadership of Dirk Helping. Many universities and research institutions around the world are supporting the project, and it was once considered the best option for a € 1 billion research grant from the European Union. However, Weinberger’s essay was very important and may have an impact on the EU’s final decision to award the prize instead to two other projects, one of which is the Human Brain Project (EU) which is designed to reflect the architecture of the entire human mind. Henry Markham leads the project in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Here is a brief summary of Scientific American for Weinberger’s article:
“Researchers are planning to build a computing system that will design the entire world to predict the future.
The project will run through the massive data streams now available to researchers.
However, models are not perfect: many researchers believe they will never be able to understand the complexities of the world.
A better knowledge machine may arise about web-like principles such as interconnection and argument. ”
Weinberger’s article is an excellent discussion of the problems associated with understanding and formulating large complex systems, and I use them here as a starting point for proposing new sciences.
Weinberger maintains, I believe, that we do not have (a) a coherent theory of social behavior upon which to build a coherent social science. Suggest one. (B) refers to a dramatic increase in difficulties when trying to understand all classes in a complex system. I basically propose to sort. (C) He mentions the natural limits of the complexity models imposed by “two distinctive signs of unpredictability: black swans and chaos theory”. I’m giving a way to work with unpredictability. (D) describes the tension between a “centralized organization in charge” and “data commons” that anyone can benefit from. “This is a known and solvable system problem. Weinberger raises issues related to (e) a definition of knowledge. I have an opinion here too. Finally, he refers to (f) a version of the uncertainty principle in social models that change the behavior of the system during its design. the challenge.