Books to read (from Ian)

daniel dennett - darwin's dangerous idea
stuart kaufmann (1993?) - ?

On the degree of freedom (statistical concept)

Hypothesis1: For every (complex) closed system, the degree of freedom equals 0.

Hypothesis2: Observing any system from within itself (i.e., open system with one subject as the intervening variable), the degree of freedom equals 1.

This in effect means that the degree of freedom depends on the (subjective) epistemological interpretation of reality. It can range from 0 (absolute determinism - the entire complex system can be defined by one finite set of equasions (what kind of matrix?)) to infinity (when interpreting all others as subjects (undeterministic), or objects/god as subjects/actors with 'free will'). Thus, the degree of freedom in the real world depends on the (subjectively interpreted) number of variables that can change independently of each other.

Hypothesis3 (general theory of evolution): The optimal behavior of an actor within a closed system considers the degree of freedom to lie somewhere between 0 and infinity. Either of the extremes are unsustainable from an evolutionary (long-term) point of view.

From Godel to Hegel

so, basically, what i am up to was already done by Godel and Hegel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegel#Evolution_through_contradictions_and_negations

Prologue

(Habermas writing in 1971)

Almost nine years ago, Adorno answered the question "Does philosophy still have a purpose?" as follows: "The only philosophy we might responsibly engage in after all that has happened would no longer make any pretense of being in control of the absolute. Indeed, it would have to forbid itself to think the absolute, lest it betray the thought. And yet it must not allow anything to be taken away from the emphatic concept of the truth. This contradiction is its element."

(T. W. Adorno, Eingriffe, Frankfurt am Main, 1963, p. 14.)

Live Out the Entire Truth

Originally, I had in mind titling this 'Live Out the Half-Truth'.

Let's not talk about truth, (not even an intersubjective one as Habermas does), let's speak about persuasiveness.

There are, most possibly, certain principles of persuasiveness - determining what is more and what is less persuasive/convincing. These principles can be the cause of virtually universal persuasions/convictions - in the fields of mathematics, logic, probability theory or rationality. Persuasive? It is possible to admit this is true? I would think so..

Belief is sensible only as a belief in persuasiveness (notice: persuasiveness~truth). In convincing arguments. "Because of Golden cow" is, unfortunately, not any longer a convincing argument in today's society. A belief that acting pro-socially is meaningful is, after disclosing some agrument of game theory, much more convincing. It would be interesting to trace the evolution of principles of persuasiveness throughout history. Anropology? Or Foucaults 'history of madness'?

Agnosticism and relativism are based on the knowledge (conviction-belief) of the impossibility of absolute persuasiveness. A little paradox, indeed (conviction about the impossibility of conviction). Gödel proved in 1931 that no logical system can be both consistent as well as complete at the same time (with his second theorem, however, he proved that an inconsistent logical system can prove everything, even itself being right - I call this 'interpretation (of the world)'). Then, only a half-truth is possible, and that can not fulfill one entirely, for there remains always a space for doubt (not being convinced). Itentity - in sense of identity of thoughts, feelings and action - can no longer exist. Belief in (otherwise) half-truth (in what is right or wrong, for example) can, however, have a great meaning in specific period's of one's life, even thought it can change 180% (i.e. from yes to no) degrees over time. That will most probably be the fundamental and final status of self-reflection in the general theory of evolution.

It makes no sense, however, to doubt about the core of oneseld. Okay, it might make, from a longer-term perspective (learning effects, weakness of will, metapreferences). In a static analysis, and we truly do live only in the present, however, it really makes no sense. The world does not necessarily have to be true, because it might be fake (made-up). Feelings, however, have to be true because they can never be possibly fake - they are us and we are them. Alienation from emotions would be distancing from the very oneself, from life (see the identity problem above). After "i think hence i am" comes the "i feel hence i am", "i am hence i feel" (equivalence).

So please live the entire truth, you are the truth, live out emotions, convictions if you are convinced about them, and live out also doubt - because if there is doubt, it is part of yourself and so it is true. It is true because it is convincing - it would be unconvincing to believe that doubts, if you have them, are untrue, unconvincing/incommunicable.