/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11008835
Because in order for science to advance in a radical way from the present requires science looking at what is involved with scientific activity itself. Science has made huge advancements in almost every field it has looked, and created incredible technologies, yet social and cultural technologies are the least developed. Psychology and sociology are at best demi-scientific.

The next huge breakthrough will be a theory of human interaction with the same efficacy as physics. This will be a "science of creativity" that includes human creativity, biological creativity, and nonliving creativity (emergent processes) within a unified evolutionary framework. A prototype of such a theory can be found in the work of philosopher and logician Alfred North Whitehead, who envisioned a "theory of experiential evolution." Whitehead couldn't speculate far enough to form a scientifically testable hypothesis due to the limitations of science at the time, but someone eventually will.

If this topic interests anyone, here's some books that can help one understand this very strange and interdisciplinary conversation. There's many others, these are just among the best I know.

>>10988054
We can demonstrably ask questions about our questions, choices, and actions. So self-awareness is the meta-cognitive process, and this process is applying this basic metacognitive process to it's own elements to improve global epistemological efficacy. When cognitive processes are considered as distinct individuals, this process is that of massive mutualistic co-creativity among these processes. It is cooperation and collaboration that is fundamental to epistemic evolution, not "survival of the fittest memes" in an ever-present war of attention between memeplexes. Richard Dawkins is so brilliant, but his "meme" theory is incomplete by not considering that there are two cognitive replicators: questions (the genes of quests) and memes (the genes of content.) Information has two sexes, and with this understanding, memetics and similar paradigms will be able to describe a true theory of universal evolution - and a physics of human creativity.

If you think I'm a crackpot you're probably right, but if you think there's something in what I am saying, I'd recommend these books, similar ones, and the conversations to be had among them. Psychology will yet become a true science, because the power of science is awesome. The commitments behind scientific activity are absolutely worthy of the highest praise.