The Science of Comprehension
How We Understand Abstract Concepts
Part I
The New 21st-Century Paradigm Shift
Some very exciting recent results emerging from the field of Cognitive
Science. This is big, really big! Our understanding of the universe
has started a major paradigm shift. The new 21st-Century Enlightenment has
begun.
First, to set the stage for this new paradigm shift, a very
brief historical review of previous major paradigm shifts:
Isaac Newton's Principia, published in 1687, introduced a new
branch of mathematics called Calculus. Calculus showed that it was
natural for the earth and planets to revolve around the sun. And the
Catholic Church lost its credibility and political influence.
Here was pure math, undeniable pure mathematics, as undeniable as 1+1=2,
showing the Catholic Church was wrong.1
Then in 1905 Einstein introduced a major change to our Newtonian view
of the universe. Newtonian physics included the assumption that time is
the same everywhere, and that time moves forward at a constant rate. I
have a watch telling me what time it is here, so what time is it over
there at the other side of the room? Newton's physics assumed it was
the same time everywhere. Einstein said no, there's no way to
synchronize two clocks separated by a distance and have everyone agree
they are properly synchronized. Plus, time doesn't move forward at a
constant rate everywhere.2
And now for the new major paradigm shift happening right now. The new
21st-Century Enlightenment:
Pure mathematics, up until now, was thought to exist as an
abstraction separate from the physical world. I can write the number 5
down on a piece of paper, or enter the number 5 into a calculator, or
set the number 5 on an abacus. What is the number 5? The paper itself
is not the number 5. The ink itself on the paper is not the number 5.
The calculator itself is not the number 5. The abacus itself is not the
number 5. The number 5 is an abstract concept, separate from the
physical world. The number 5 here is the same as the number 5 over
there. The number 5 tomorrow will be the same as the number 5
yesterday. All the numbers from 1 to infinity have always existed and
will always exist.
The New 21st-Century Enlightenment says that's wrong. Abstract concepts
don't exist apart from the material world.
Cognitive Scientist Prof. George Lakoff writes,
"It is hard to
underestimate how far the idea that concepts are physically embodied,
using the sensory motor system of the brain, is from disembodied
Enlightenment reason—from the usual view of concepts as disembodied
abstractions, entirely separate from the sensory motor system."3
Science of Comprehension Index
Back to Deley's Homepage
Footnotes:
1.
See Galileo.
2.
What I really like is conventionally Einstein's Theory of Relativity
is only important when you are moving very, very, fast, close to the
speed of light, which is around 3×108 meters/second.
Now, although an electric voltage moves through a wire at about
the speed of light, the electrons themselves in the wire drift at the
extremely slow speed of around 0.728 millimeters/second—less than one
millimeter per second. However, if you apply Einstein's Theory of
Relativity to these very slow moving electrons, you end up discovering
the relativistic origin of the magnetic force!
[Return to text.]
3.
George Lakoff (professor of Cognitive Science at UC Berkley)
The
Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st-Century American Politics with
an 18th-Century Brain, (2008) pg 252. The last chapter, which
contains no politics, is an overview of the New 21st-Century Enlightenment we
are entering. This chapter really is superb, destined to be a classic that
changes our philosophical understanding of the world. And since philosophy
determines government, politics is a natural field to use for examples. This
book, which introduces the new 21st-Century Enlightenment, is like
Isaac Newton's Principia. It's full of new knowledge, not about what
we think, but how we think—how we go about understanding and
reasoning about abstract concepts. It's truly an excellent book. If I tried
to summarize the book I'd end up quoting the entire book.
[Return to text.]