I am using novelty in a way that is not entertainmnt. We can entertain ourselves to death but novelty is a much bigger paradigm shaking event and thinking process. I have seen glimpses of novelty in MOAB over the years while it is mostly absent in the rest of threads.


Yet, this pre-occupation with ‘game’ rules (for this is what evolutionary psychology comes down to) is manifestation of a curious and unacknowledged one-sidedness. Physics, as we all know, is a search for fundamental laws, laws that apply across the board, laws that are intrinsic to the nature of the universe itself. Why do we assume that there are no such equivalent laws to be found in psychology? As we have just said, contemporary psychology thinks only in terms of extrinsic laws, i.e. rules that are arbitrarily imposed. One reason that immediately comes to mind is that we do not see mind / consciousness as being fundamental in the same way that we see matter as being. We are, as professor of physics Amit Goswami (1993) says, confirmed material realists – we believe that only matter is real. BULLSHIT without the Higgs there is no matter/masss. This, of course, is a pretty big assumption on our part, although the fact of the matter is that we are now so caught up in this assumption that we don’t actually see it as such; the truth of the matter (pun intended) is that we have chosen to go down this road a long time ago, and we certainly aren’t showing any signs of wanting to question that choice now. Our predisposition to see the universe we live in this way leads to some rather peculiar, if not down-right contradictory conclusions, however. The inevitable conclusion of material realism is that the only meaning to be found in life is that meaning which is conditioned by natural selection, i.e. we only find stuff meaningful because it suits the game of ‘survival of the fittest’ that we do. Philosophically, this is the same as saying that, in the final analysis, everything is meaningless, which is in keeping with the important Western tradition of philosophical pessimism. The problem with this conclusion has been pointed out quite often, however: if everything is meaningless, then so too is our assertion that ‘everything is meaningless’ meaningless; it is a null-statement. We think that when we make this statement we are saying something meaningful, but if that meaningfulness is ‘meaningful’ only because of the way in which the arbitrary rules of natural selection have caused our brains to be designed, then it is not meaningful at all, in any real sense of the word. If such is the case, then it is inescapable that anything we say must be tautological, i.e. incapable of referring to anything outside itself. This notion of ‘tautological meaning’ is, as we shall shortly see, central to our understanding of psychological entropy.