Tuesday, 9 September 2014

The Science is a subset of the Art

I talked with the prominent chemist Antonín Holý 1936-2012, author of substances to treat hepatitis, HIV, about the science in its relation to the art, society. Trying to show that science is inseparable from art, and its division reflects the power structure of society. Except interview I explain unifying logic of realities, and Edison's economics that I developed in 1999.

The interview was published in 2004 in blisty.cz and Národná Obroda

Antonín Holý, lab, Fleming square, Prague, October 2004                    

Humans consist of the carbon similar to the silicon. Could we be composed otherwise?
We are based on water having various states and reacting with only few instances. Thanks to water we exist. Our composition is optimal. The silicon does not have such properties.

Does it happen by evolution as Darwin 1809-82 said?
I'm not persuaded about that. Our time is too short for evolution. After all Darwin does not answer the origin of life, only transforms it one level further to its transition. And such things are backwardly unverifiable.

May diseases, killing the weaker, evolutionarily 'improve' gene?
What that 'improvement' should be? In practice, it would lead to an ideal of a muscular dummy with high ability to reproduce and low IQ, and a female of similar parameters. Cultural human actively disposes of the handicaps by synthesis of experience, analysis, abstraction and generalization to predict and survive. It is matter of survival, not life extension.

Is AIDS, SARS, ebola result of a devastated environment reacting somehow?
I don't believe in auto-regulative mechanisms, that nature helps itself without us, kind of Pangaea. Sure these problems are partially caused by humans: overpopulation, dirty water, promiscuity, extreme sexual practices, tight contact with animals. Rational people should overcome it.

Is society enough rational?
From its behavior it is clearly irrational, in fact absolutely stupid. No wonder, with such proportion of individuals - dummies. If it really needs what is called 'politicians' or 'celebrities', its inability and stupidity just proves.

Could poverty, dirt induce, by virus mutation, a new malady?
...kind of hybrid infection? The threat rather is that infection rapidly spreads by insects or directly among people. Global warming can establish it in our latitudes Czech Republic, where you can get from the hot countries by plane within hours. It should be monitored.

What do you think of euthanasia?
It is a question of ethics whether and when to switch off devices keeping experimentally life signs of in fact already dead patient. I definitely reject euthanasia, as history shows the abuse of all what could be abused. Like an uneducated person would repair a complex space ship. We can unintentionally cause huge damages, or deliberately abuse new knowledge. It is a play with fire without water to extinguish.

It is related to cloning...
...we and animals are enough. I can imagine just one result: mass production of army of robots in a brainwashed human body reacting to electronic orders of the 'Centre'.

Will computer, decoding genetic codes DNA / RNA, replace chemists?
Computers only hasten unproductive work, but can't replace chemists working with real matter and time, except perhaps quantum chemistry, e.g. molecular modelling, with vast computations. Nevertheless humans must always assess the reality of the result. By the way it was Dieter Söll who resolved 1964 a genetic code, synthesizing all 64 trinucleotides. Only then computers determined series of nucleotides. Söll was too young to get Nobel prize.

What are the greatest discoveries in Chemistry?
Chemistry is a whole system of sciences. Modern chemistry stands on discoveries of Lavoisier 1743-94, Mendeleev 1834-1907, Boyle 1627-91, using findings of alchemists that stood on the knowledge acquired and practiced in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and elsewhere.

Fleming 1928 noticed vanishing bacteria on mold spots penicillin by chance. Is invention accident?
"Accident" is a statistically inestimable option. Once I met my friend in Paris, with whom I had not been long time, and who was a visitor there too. For that you need to create conditions: you had to make a friend, be at the same place. Only then it could 'randomly' happen to meet at same time and space. And you had to look around yet. Also Fleming had to study growth of bacteria, till he noticed... So discovery is not entirely random, it is a different phenomenon than guessing 5 from 64 numbers. In a medicinal chemistry you are more likely to find something, by limitation of a 'leading structure'. Pharmaceutical companies build 'museums' - a collection of compounds for various purposes. If there is a new aim or method, they often successfully use this capacity. There is a whole department preparing a library of substances - mixture of substances of similar structure.

Scheme of benzene appeared in Kekulé's 1858 dream: a snake biting its own tale.
I don't have such fantasy. It happens, I solve scientific problems unconsciously too. In such a half-dream a concrete solution sometimes arises, although not always I recall it.

Is idea in science and in art, same?
They are close. Many scientists have an active attitude to art, but modern style of education excludes it. Like artists experimental scientists are good artisans. Idea is a logical synthesis of thoughts leading to a new quality, knowledge. The idea is first, then an accident can take place.

Is a talent for science and art same?
There is a parallel. Many artistically oriented people are physicians. There are some though less, among chemists and technicians. In history, there was a broader perspective, today tendency is to specialize. Among arts and sciences are also principal differences. Artists immediately or at least soon may realize their ideas, for scientists it takes years. 

Some artworks took long time...
Maybe novels, but sculptor can realize its idea at once. In science it is slower. A difference between art and science is indeed real. Music, singing is not a real thing, although it utilizes real means. 

Centuries ago your job was unreal too.
We always stand on the predecessors. You can't discover all from Pythagoras to nuclear reactions. 

Newton 1642-1727 defined the basics of physics, when few considered it real.
True, but art depends on politics. Science not.

Politics, society indirectly determines scientific subject. High morals would halt spread of HIV.
Aids is really a consequence of promiscuity, but also depends on hygiene of genitals. There are also convincing studies of positive influence of TBC cure on HIV transmission.
Those above, those below
Old Greeks Plato, Aristotle.. sought universality. Intelligence g factor correlates across various types. Why we then tend to think artistic and scientific talent differ? Rising knowledge, population (scale effect) explains specialisms, but why to split art and science?
Foucault: exclusion of fools in Enlightenment 17th century was to get rid of undesirables, regulate jobless, wages. The split of science and art reduced competences for those below not to challenge those above. Be an expert ONLY in one thing: chemistry molecular, organic.. music jazz, pop.. law, medicine, bakery..
Rousseau: art and science corrupt morality in favour of those above. The rich backed Renaissance, ballet.., the poor started jazz,
flamenco. Art can be so independent of the power: art for art. Or we can say: 'corrupting art' isn't art that must reflect morals as well as effort potentially contributing to a strong character.
Freud: art is a higher form of sublimation transferring sexuality. But motivation in itself can't create art that needs talent. Successful artists don't need to sublime, i.e. other motivation except sublimation exists. Schopenhauer praised art as an escape from the meaningless world. Nietzsche thought art manifested the will to power.  
For Rousseau Nietzsche flattered those above to support him superhuman as a marketing. For Nietzsche Rousseau misunderstood slavish morality of those below. The reality has various asymmetrical combinations statistics. Talents occur across social groups incl. poor: Fitzgerald, Whitman, Warhol, Mucha, having a disadvantage in spite of on average stronger incentive. Some wonder why many great artists were politically leftists: Picasso, Chaplin, Brecht, Hemingway.. The best are statistically less afraid to compete, less motivated to erect barriers curiosity prevails, market rises tending so to support at least verbally those below.
Foucault 1926-1984 claimed discontinuity is more typical for society than progress being an ideology justifying the upper class
Rousseau 1712-78 criticized modernity, progress, ownership, author of social contract: trade-off between rights and duties
Freud 1856-1939 author of a non-linear model of personality: id-ego-superego, enabling to interpret irrational behavior.
Fitzgerald 1917-96 one of the greatest singers, living in poor environment till her success
Whitman 1819-1892 American national poet, using a free verse, struggling for money in his youth
Warhol 1928-1987 son of indigent Slovak immigrants, most famous pop-artist with one of the most expensive artworks
Mucha 1860-1939 Moravian artist once got a chance to make a poster of actress Bernhardt, he became famous in Paris. 

How would chemist define the matter?
It is unnecessary, basic laws of matter is enough. Chemistry is based on the transition of the matter, knows its limited stability at the molecular level.

Is there anything new, or synthesis with other field is inevitable?
New options still exist, big reserves are in materials. Many areas just start: exploration of new alloys, divisions of proteins in weightless state. Physics and chemistry overlap in materials, devices.

Art is Science is Language Kant criticized the pure reason and pure practice. Wittgenstein had said philosophy meta language points to nothing, only confuses, then left his claim. Understanding needs an interface of idea and experience: meta language logic that led with experiments to spaceship, opera, computer, jazz... Logic has its own inner laws, dynamics, evolution. Before Mendeleev chemistry was chaotic, prior to Newton physics didn't express gravitation, movement, light. Newton and Da Vinci read Euclid. Is so Euclid's geometry art or science? Both need creativity to reflect or change a reality. This way they are one. Rousseau's natural man had no incentive to split art and science, as nothing was to split. The power structure divided art and science to subordinate humans by their specialisms justifying itself: it is as it is. Art and science differ as Chinese 中國, Russian русский, Arabic العربية ... Arts, sciences, languages express samE differEntly.
Kant 1724-1804  thought there was 'thing in itself' like Plato's pure idea - we can't understand or experience it.
Wittgenstein 1889-1951 once thought philosophy (or pure notions) is a byproduct of misunderstanding of language.
Mendeleev 1834-1907 properties of elements periodically repeat with their weights and can be organized accordingly
Newton 1642-1726 calculus, optics, gravitation / motion laws. Inspired by Euclid, Descartes...
Da Vinci 1452-1519 Painter, inventor... Inspired by Euclid...
Euclid 400-300 BC Mathematician, father of geometry...
Rousseau 1712-78 Modern man wants to impress others not to satisfy himself (natural man did). Science, art corrupts morality.

Is science given a-priori objectively, or it projects human factor?
Human factor always exists in communication, agreement about meaning of notions, common vocabulary. That phosphorus is phosphorus denoted as P, its atomic weight is 31.04 times of weight of atom of isotope of hydrogen 1H, etc. It is about terminology, units' definitions, names, their taxonomy. Name of abstract notions (like name of colors) are agreed. Science does not exist objectively. It is a method of exploration of objective realities and their relations, and logical synthesis for higher knowledge and potential utilization. For that the "language" is necessary, which leads to practical problems. Japanese translate all scientific and technical non-japanese literature to their letters. But there are things given in advance too, like life asymmetry: proteins consist of  only L amino-nucleotides. It could be opposite. Unity and its consequence can be understood, given things harder.

May society exclude the best scientist?
Rather in socialism (i.e. before 1989). I avoid to participate in grant commissions in case my acquaintance would apply. One juror reproached us why we having so much funds, applied for grant. Able person doesn't need to be lucky, or occasionally is unable to formulate its aim.   

Science needs a material or social background. What would have done Edison, Einstein if he could not develop his talent?
I can't identify with it. People can't think about science under such circumstances. They must leave, as Moroccans or Algerians moving to France, England. Hard to do science, if you can't feed your family.

Some surgeons deciding about life, have God complex. Chemist changing matter can have similar feelings.
K Čapek wrote about it in Krakatit 1922, J Verne in The Begum's Fortune 1879. If you label 'chemists' people from the Japanese sect, that prepared gas to kill in Tokyo metro, then perhaps yes. It is always matter of the perverse logic.

Will other substance replace oil in future?
People often think oil is replaceable, while it contains organic compounds not producible. It is not about cars, but rather chemical and pharmaceutical industry, which needs oil. That fear of exhaustion is justified.

What was a difference between research before and after 1989 in Czecho-Slovakia
According to my experience in my field, which could be perhaps generalized for all experimental natural and technical sciences, there were much less means, but were guaranteed. Much less bureaucracy and obstacles, possibility to focus on work. The young appreciated to work in science, only the best could be chosen. They were much cannier, inventive, less focused on money. They were not so predatory or did not reveal their ambitions. Except quality of the work, there was at least one barrier - relations among people were easier. As they did not care of money, did not need to cheat. Why would anybody fraudulently usurp someone's else work, whose author was not? That all can be contrarily applied after 1989. Moreover before Westerners had considered us sort of 'freaks' having so advantages in everything or at least special position. Today we are members of the painfully hobbling clan of wolves hurtling for a vision of money, unfairly hindering, and ruthlessly attacking each other. We still assess ourselves, count publications, scores, quotes, doing ranks... It seems to me we lost the sense for the meaning of science. Social appreciation of science, already before not high, has downgraded more. Much richer enterpreneurs, new riches, pop stars have moved before the science. For politicians and government (left, middle, right) education is unimportant. Why it should be? In spite of all declarations, they literally care a damn about science, with a mockery.

  The Science is a subset of the Art
Reality is a sum of:

1) existing prototypes: p chair + p wheel + p magnet + ... p i
Intricate prototype includes others e.g: p car = p wheel + p engine +... + p xy   
Prototype occurs with probability: 1/a. The more intricate prototype, the lower its probability. 1 /  a spaceship < 1 /  a wheel
What are the smallest prototypes? Is there a prototype of all prototypes? The first prototypes are logical series. The wheel is wheel because it rotates, so it includes rotation + something: p wheel = p rotation + ... + p xy.  In my master thesis, I developed a test to create (not solve) logical series on patterns. Tested persons drew 20 distinct logic (plus their combinations): adding, decreasing, rotating, alternating, diminishing, increasing, repeating, analogy etc. In a given period: a) the more series and more intricate series, the higher intelligence, b) the more distinct series, the higher flexibility, c) the least frequent series, the higher originality (e.g. diminishing is rarer than adding).

2) imitations of prototypes: p chair:1 + p chair:2 + p wheel:512 + p magnet:4 + ... p i:x, where x is order of imitated prototype (p chair:2 = 2nd imitation of  the chair). Imitation is the first attribute of intelligence: ability to reflect (imitate) reality. Each imitation has something new or unique, different from its prototype. Speculatively, everything is a prototype: first red chair, first oval chair, first plastic chair, etc... Even mass produced things have unique time of creation, location etc. But attributes (time, location) unique to all, are irrelevant to prototype. E.g. a chair is to sit, independent of its color, shape, time, location... So first red / oval / plastic chair isn't a prototype, but imitation of prototype (first chair). Imitation of reality is inevitable for art, science. It may be hidden: cubist image of repeated decomposed face. If imitation is absent like in e.g. abstract art - supposed to reflect mental states, it results in too many indistinguishable variations (millions of ink blots) devaluing such art.

3) potential prototypes: mental qualities materialized if there is opportunity, motivation. New prototype (invention) changes (adds new functionality) and imitates reality. E.g. Dalí's melts (changes) and imitates watch (watch looks like watch). Or Newton / Leibniz imitated the space of non-linear curves to add a new method (calculus) to compute it. Imitation may be imperfect: Dolly the first cloned (imitated) animal died young, but still imitated real sheep (considering complexity of cloning). Invention may occur independently in different environments, times: e.g. shoes appeared in ancient Australia, Europe, Asia... Some could be unique spread from one place (steam engine). The intricacy of invention is product of environment (opportunity) and mental quality (intelligence, motivation): a wheel in a jungle can be bigger invention than a new model in a car factory.

4) power structure (politics): imposes limits on prototypes via ideology, religions. Duchamp's Fountain (1917) - a urinal, showed a marketing power may define anything as art. Politics may limit inventions, especially if rulers are afraid of undermining their authorities. Soviet Union promoted socialistic realism of workers' life, Hitler liked Renaissance and banned 'decadent' avant-garde... Liberalism tends to promote subjectivity without limits (abstractions, obscenity) at the expense of high art - which can arise only within the limits.

Personality model
What requires higher intellect: launching rocket to space (cosmonautics) or creating tricky puzzles? Is a parallel logic (e.g. Descartes's XY) possible, or all is phenomena in themselves? Are systems (philosophies) explaining realities, valid, reliable, useful?
Each product (Picasso's painting, Tsiolkovsky's rocket, Newton's formula...) is a sum of prototypes, mental qualities, environment. Probability of a product is a multiplication of probabilities within all independent prototypes that create the product. Example of product =  p rotation + p repeating & analogy + ... p i. The lower probability, the higher intricacy . The probability depends on environment: a wheel is less likely in a jungle than in a city.
All products including inventions of Picasso, Edison, Descartes, Mendeleev, Newton etc are comparable via their probabilities. Like a mental figure skating: products are variously combined jumps, pirouettes. Because thinking is not physically limited, the mental figure skating has more options, variations. Other question is: what happens with intelligence (inventions) which can't be materialized (no opportunity). Will be non-utilized intelligence lost in environment, or transferred to mental disorders: paranoia, neurosis, psychopathy, psychosis? Mental disorders are then also a product: composed of logical series creating disillusions (because of no opportunity or deficient intellect). Example of disorder  =  p rotation + p repeating & analogy + ... p i
Can personality model explain things more complex than itself? It is possible to break down complex things to simpler, and also people may assess (understand difficulty) somersaults, pirouettes, even if they are unable to perform them. So a complex thing (or its attributes) can be understood by simpler systems. After all, people often believe in oversimplified systems: religions, ideologies, economics, evolution.

Edison's Economics
Kultúra, 1999
1) Edison carries hammers from the ancient factory. He thinks to easier his work. It slows him, so he is less paid and risks to be fired. What utility Edison maximizes?
2) Edison's boss sees Edison is slow. It reduces his profit, so he should fire him, but he waits - thinking why Edison is slow. What utility Edison's boss maximizes?
3) Edison invents a vehicle radically raising the output.

In classic utility, Edison's thinking is investment, and the vehicle is expected value. Edison's boss represents society crucial to promote invention: temporary patent should stimulate it. Unpredictability of invention reduces its expected value: thinking is irrational (rarely results in patent). So Edison and his boss think regardless of outcome, having 'thinking in utility'.

Economic formulas of behavior rather justifies power structure, than reflects reality. Newton's calculus is verifiable in reality, while variability of results in economics apologizes anything in politics. Economics has become a 'modern' religion, when obeying 'economic laws' raises expected utility (=karma, heaven...), while disobedience decreases it (=hell...).

Later I generalized 'thinking in utility' to maximization of originality model, enabling to explain any kind of motivation including destructive behavior. Understanding of thinking is in Personality model clarifying the intellect, intelligence, originality, personality, neurosis, psychopathy, psychosis.

从艺术节选 20010-2007
Excerpts from the Art 2010-2007
20010-2007 مقتطفات من الفن

The same reality can be viewed differently.
Cubism Picasso, Braque and surrealism Dalí, Ernst, Magritte look for the deepness of the expression or dreamy reality, Bacon reforms the deepness into malformations, Rothko’s abstractions attack the perception, and Warhol’s pop-art remakes the surface: 15 minutes of fame.
In parallel, there is a philosophical tradition of analysing: searching for the pure idea, thing in itself, authenticity of cognition, Dao (Plato, Kant, Husserl, Lao Tze) or rather the focus is put on dialectics, experience, will, decision, utility, text, study, cogito, society, xxx (Heraclitus, Hume, Nietzsche, Sartre, James, Wittgenstein, Confucius, Descartes, Rousseau, Yyy).
La misma realidad se puede ver de manera diferente. El cubismo Picasso, Braque y el surrealismo Dalí, Ernst, Magritte buscan la profundidad de la expresión o la realidad de ensueño, Bacon transforma la profundidad en las malformaciones, las abstracciones de Rothko atacan a la percepciones, y el pop-art de Warhol rehace la superficie: 15 minutos de la fama.
En paralelo, hay una tradición filosófica de análisis: la búsqueda de la idea pura, una cosa en sí misma, la autenticidad de la cognición, Dao (Platón, Kant, Husserl, Lao Tze), o más bien la atención se centra en la dialéctica, la experiencia, la voluntad, decisión, la utilidad, texto, estudio, cogito, la sociedad, xxx (Heráclito, Hume, Nietzsche, Sartre, James, Wittgenstein, Confucio, Descartes, Rousseau, YYY).
Picasso, Braque pioneered Cubism 1907, showing the object in different angles, evoking plasticity. Its novelty is HOW it is done, not WHAT it shows. Surrealism 1920s randomly links objects, motifs leading to a new curved style, induced by Chirico 1888-1978, mastered by Dalí 904-1989. Surrealism innovates the content altering the form, while the cubist new form alters the content.
Picasso, Braque foi pioneira cubismo 1907, mostrando o objeto em diferentes ângulos, evocando plasticidade. Sua novidade é a forma COMO ele é feito, não o QUE ele mostra. Surrealismo 1920s liga aleatoriamente objetos, motivos que levam a um novo estilo curvado, induzida por Chirico 1888-1978, masterizado por Dalí 904-1989. Surrealismo inova o conteúdo, que altera a forma, enquanto a nova forma cubista altera o conteúdo.
Возможно, самая впечатляющая импрессионистская живопись, по крайней мере не хуже, чем Подсолнечники Ван Гога 1888, или Хокусай Большая Волна от Канагавы 1829. Аналогично кубизм, импрессионизм обновляет форму: фрагментирование изображения, изменяющего иллюминат, окрашивать, изменяют размеры, пятнает... его части, чтобы перекрасить его снова.
Perhaps the most impressive impressionistic painting, at least not worse than Van Gogh's Sunflowers 1888, or Hokusai's The Great Wave off Kanagawa 1829. Likewise cubism, impressionism innovates the form: fragmenting the image, altering illuminate, colorify, resize, blur... its fractions to repaint it again.
Identical things don't exist, not due to manufacture limit (Heisenberg's uncertainty) to produce EXACTLY same things, but because they have different positions, creation times. If probability of the first is 1/a, probability of the next is 1/a²
Choses identiques ne existent pas, non pas parce que la limite de fabrication (l'incertitude de Heisenberg) pour produire EXACTAMENT les même choses, mais parce que ils ont positions différente, autre moments de la création. Si la probabilité de la première est 1/a, la probabilité de la prochaine est 1/a²

No comments:

Post a Comment