Part 4 - The Tripartite Model

I was chatting with a friend, and she asked “Do you believe in God?”

“Yes,” I said.

“Does God exist?”

“I believe so.”

She continued, “How do you prove that God exists?”

Well, as they say in the US, that’s the $6 million question. But not only is it a difficult question, it’s also a delicate, sensitive one for scores of people.

I said, “That’s a tough one. Honestly I don’t know, yet. I’m still thinking about it, and working on it.”

(image credit)

Quandary of science vis-a-vis religion

Science has been hard-pressed to prove the existence of God. I imagine that in some sectors of science, physicists don’t believe it’s a worthwhile endeavor or, if they do, they focus on the physical universe, instead. Here, they have worked centuries to understand exactly how nature works and how it all began.

The announcement from CERN, in July 2012, about the discovery of the Higgs boson is phenomenal, largely because it may well explain not just how matter began (e.g., stars, planets, and life itself), but also more importantly how the universe was created. In fact, some have dubbed the Higgs boson as the “God particle.”

It was well-known physicist Stephen Hawking, who remarked in 2010 that "it is not necessary to invoke God," because physicists could now explain how the wild-and-wooly cosmos began. That is, the physical universe, through physics.

Before I tell you my reaction to the esteemed professor’s remark, let me say that the Wall Street Journal published a well-argued debate between two thinkers, Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins, essentially pitting science against religion.

We all seem to love a debate, and as is the nature of such, we are expected to take clear position and defend that position. Fine. Constructive debate is good. Such discussion allows for a sharper, more enriching knowledge about a subject.

But my question is, Are science and religion necessarily antithetical? In other words, are they innately at odds with one another and maybe even mutually exclusive? 

God expects us to reason

I lived in Dubai for many years, and was coaching a Muslim colleague on her leadership development. In part, our conversation focused on Islam and the expectations of God. Muslims are not just expected to have faith in Allah’s will, she explained. They’re also expected to think, to reason, to analyze and apply logic.

Put differently, both science and religion are critical in the day-to-day lives of many people.

My reaction to Prof. Hawking’s remark about God not being necessary? I took umbrage at it. I thought it was a foolish remark. Millions of people, from all sorts of religion, most certainly believe that God exists and, yes, God is necessary.

Different religions have varying views of God, but many do believe that God created the universe. That humankind began with Adam and Eve, which many Christians believe.

Is this to say that the evolutionary process that Charles Darwin expounded on is suspect or, worse, sacrilegious? Some people would say so.

We can forgive Prof. Hawking, I think, for falling into the common trap of either-or. That is, the common tendency to take a side on something and dismiss other sides. Indeed his work on the physical nature and origins of the universe has been a brilliant, illuminating effort.

But even with a modestly open mind, we may consider the possibility that God indeed created the universe.

(image credit)

Northwestern University, where I studied for my PhD, subscribed to the scientist-practitioner model for clinical psychologists. As part of years of training in diagnosis and therapy, we were duly schooled in the scientific method. So I have a fundamental understanding for how science works and fully appreciate its power to help us understand everything from ourselves to the wider milieu that Hawking and Einstein focused on.

But as any scientist is expected to cover in a publication, limitations are part-and-parcel of writing about their findings. For example, Where were the shortcomings in their methodology?  Up to what point do their findings speak, beyond which more research is required? What questions warrant further studies?

(image credit)

Reconciling science and religion

The Tripartite Model aims to reconcile science and religion. It recognizes the importance and power of both in our day-to-day lives and our professional endeavors. It also reminds us to put these in their proper perspectives, that is, how far they can reach and beyond what point they are limited.

Here’s what I told my friend, with whom I was chatting, more specifically.

Proving the existence of God is outside the purview of science. So how do we prove this?  We have to use religious, not scientific, frames of reference, methodology and language. I believe that faith is one key method for proving the existence of God.

So let me relate a personal story.

I worked for a manager, who was the number two leader in our big department. My younger colleagues looked at her with a combination of disdain and fear. I saw her as a troubled lady, who sometimes acted in an immature, unprofessional manner.

In one very tense episode with her direct boss, the head of the department, she angrily and repeatedly shouted at him. Her voice reverberated past the closed door, and some colleagues were so disturbed that they walked out of the office.

Personally I prayed that she go away, perhaps get fired.

Literally a week and a half later, a good friend of mine in the department called me, and said off the bat, “Ron, there is a God.” In an instant, I knew exactly what she meant, and I exclaimed, “Oh, my God!” That number two manager just resigned, she said. My face felt flush, and I was astounded by the notion of God indeed answering my prayer.

I mentioned nothing about my prayers to my good friend, as it was a private matter, really. But the fact that the very first thing out of her mouth was “Ron, there is a God” floored me. It was as though she had read my mind, and heard my prayers, without knowing it!

Now, of course, there can be a host of understandable, logical explanations for this. It doesn’t require a whole lot of thinking to reason that this unprofessional manager was in career jeopardy in the organization and that she was not going to last long in her position.

But this is just one of several instances, where God answered my prayers. So, without diminishing alternative explanations, I can tell you that my faith through prayer is one way I know that God exists.

The Tripartite Model 

The Tripartite Model houses a trinity: Besides science and religion, art is very much part of what we have to take into account to understand ourselves and our universe.  Art assumes the third vertex on the triangle I showed earlier.

Some of us make the choice to devote our lives and our career on one ‘camp.’ This is perfectly well-and-good, of course. They do a ‘deep-dive’ into a particular field, and perhaps assume a singular focus on certain issues.

But regardless of how brilliant and tectonic a discovery the Higgs boson is, for example, this, and the very science on which this was ultimately spring boarded, can explain only so much. That it is, after all, just one explanation. There are other explanations about the origin of matter and life from different platforms of knowledge and learning.

The Tripartite Model aspires to be a complete epistemology. ‘Deep-dive’ specialists, notwithstanding, the more holistic understanding of ourselves and our universe requires, I posit, analytic (scientific) | creative (artistic) | spiritual (religious) perspectives, methodology, and terminology.

For now, let me suggest the following queries to help reconcile these three, and tap into the richness of such an epistemic framework.

Art → Science  ▪  Can the creativity of Mozart or Picasso help shed new light into quandaries that physicists face?

Science → Art  ▪  Can poets benefit from a more analytic, technical review of their verse and a more systematic approach to writing poetry?

Religion ↔ Science  ▪  Can we allow faith and reason not just to co-exist, but also to complement one another and shed light on areas that the other cannot?

Religion → Science  ▪  Can we allow scientists to bring their personal beliefs and religious worships, for example, in some way to their endeavor?

Science → Religion  ▪  Can some religious practices be subjected to the rigors of science and to more systematic forms of inquiry?

Art → Religion  ▪  Can we revise our long-held depictions of God, Jesus, saints and angels, in other fresher, more creative ways?

Religion → Art  ▪  Can painters create works that exalt the religious Zeitgeist of an era, the beliefs and practices of their patrons and neighbors (rf. Caravaggio)?

From the imagined, to the unimagined

As you see, there is quite a lot more to think about and work through. This is an introduction, and The Tripartite Model is a work in progress.

© 2013 by Ron Villejo, PhD

Part 3 - From Split-Brain, to Meta-Brain

It’s often fun to consider, Am I Left-Brain or Right-Brain?



So let’s think about this for a moment. In your day-to-day life, at school, home or work, how do you tend to understand things:  analytically and logically, or creatively and intuitively?

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a popular tool in organizations, as some of you may know, and it measures personality.

• One dimension has to do with what you usually focus on when faced with situations:  facts and information (Sensing) or implications and possibilities (iNtuiting).

• Another dimension has to do with what you tend to take into account, when making decisions: more logic and objectivity (Thinking) or more emotion and values (Feeling).

Which qualities describe you most?

(image credit)

Dispelling simplicity and dichotomy

“Simple and practical” was the mantra of one of my previous managers, and after a while it made me crazy.

“Keep it simple, Stupid!” (KISS) is another exhortation we Americans sometimes hear.

Moreover, we are often schooled to take a stand on an issue. Focus your career on a field of endeavor. Take a side on a debate:  pro or con.

One time my daughter and her classmates participated in a debate at school. She described both sides of the argument, and I asked her “Well, what did you think?” In her thoughtful way, she explained that she could see both sides, and was actually more in the ‘middle’ of the issue.

My wife and I are blessed to have a very bright kid, who has seeds of wisdom already budding in her thinking. She already has the semblance of a Cross-Brain, which rises above the Split-Brain level, so to speak.

Yes, we can simplify the things we face in the world we live in as an either-or. As black-or-white. As Left-Brain vs. Right-Brain.

But in actuality we ourselves and our very surroundings are often more complicated and multi-sided than we would like to believe. Many things in life reside in the so-called gray zone.

(image credit)

The Cross-Brain

We may be inclined to think more analytically than creatively. Conversely we may be more inclined to think intuitively than logically. Either way, the two hemispheres of our brain actually work in conjunction with each other more than we may know.

Iain McGilchrist, for one, emphasizes that we need both hemispheres for reasoning, imagination, language and emotion. He therefore debunks the common notion of the Left Brain as the seat only of language and logic, and the Right Brain as the seat of only creativity and intuition.

So I ask, What if we can promote greater ‘porousness’ between the two hemispheres? At any given moment, in any given situation, can we not have the best of both brains at our disposal? If so, then, we can cross from one hemisphere to another, consciously or deliberately, and face issues with a better integrated, more fully functioning brain.


So I suggest that we dispense with the either-or notion, and draw on the best of our analytic and intuitive sides, regardless of our preferences, especially when we’re faced with more unusual, complex problems.

Artistic sorts, for example, may read up on neutrinos and the Higgs boson, and grasp why they are important developments in physics. Conversely, scientific sorts may visit a Picasso exhibit or attend a Mozart opera, if they’re stuck in solving a research problem.

Michael Merzenich speaks about our brain’s lifelong plasticity, that is, ability to adapt, learn, change, and evolve, for greater functionality. So it’s well-within our abilities to cross between both sides.

The Meta-Brain

What is The Meta-Brain?  It’s what I call the ability of our brain to examine itself, essentially to function as a mirror for itself.



When I meditate, for example, I reflect on myself meditating, and ‘watch’ calmly as thoughts pass my mind and gradually slow and settle down.

It’s the ability to step back, and take a ‘helicopter’ perspective, so things can be considered more holistically and completely.  Beyond the divisions of the brain hemispheres, beyond the simplicity and dichotomy of more conventional view of things.

This is like lifting ourselves from walking on the forest floor, and looking at its entirety above the treetops.

This is the essence of emotional intelligence, which Daniel Goleman expounded on and popularized. It’s a specific aspect of EI, which is self awareness. Psychological mindedness or mindfulness are other related terms.

The Meta-Brain is also able to reflect deeply on things. To see what lies below the surface, to see things that are not so visible or discernible. To my point in Part 1 - A Beautiful Matter, John Nash is able to peer through things and extract the algorithms.

Why is this important?

There will be people who prefer to stick with either Left-Brain or Right-Brain, whichever may be their preferred style. But to grasp, analyze and solve problems more effectively and fully, whether simple or complex, we have to develop our Cross-Brain and Meta-Brain.

Later on, I will offer ways to strengthen our abilities in these respects, and extend our thinking however far we can.  At the present, though, how well can you navigate this transition?

1. Go from Left-Brain vs. Right-Brain
2. To Cross-Brain, i.e., crossing back-and-forth
3. To Meta-Brain, i.e., rising above, reflecting on itself

© 2013 by Ron Villejo, PhD

Part 2 - Every Problem Has a Solution

Your friends, colleagues and family like you and care about you. When you run into trouble, when you have some issue or need, they're keen to help. They're keen to advise, and solve your problem. They may even expect you to take their advice and solution, and they get annoyed if you don't.

All this, sometimes, without really grasping what your situation is or without knowing what you want to do with it.

How many times have you been in this situation? 

Jumping ahead, without knowing

(image credit)

One time, I engaged a web developer to work with me on an important internet project. We had really good conversations over several weeks. So when we agreed to work together, it was exciting.  He got cracking on the logo design, first, and eagerly sent me his first "cuts." They were clever, well-created designs.  Of squares and cubes.

The issue? The shapes that fit my style best are circles and spheres and also triangles and pyramids. My conceptual models reflect more of these shapes, not squares and cubes!

The web developer pushed forward to solve a problem (i.e., how to represent my project symbolically), without grasping more specifically what I wanted.  In fact what I wanted for this particular project was an entirely different shape:  ∞ (the symbol for infinity).

We lost valuable time on the project, and it was very aggravating.  It was only one of many difficulties in his project delivery, and it was clear I had to dismiss him.

(image credit)

Letting the problem speak

Let the problem “speak” for itself.  It's delving enough into a problem to understand what it's all about.

One senior manager asked me, What problem are you trying to solve? I was so excited about a program I was working on, for which I sought approval, that I neglected to clarify for him what I was actually trying to accomplish.  He needed to understand what the problem was, and more importantly he wanted to make sure I myself was clear.

So letting the problem speak means paying attention to, and reflecting on, the problem (i.e., issue, situation, or difficulty).

Second, letting the problem speak also means suspending our preconceptions about it and setting aside, at least at first, our fine arsenal of methods, techniques, and solutions. So not being hasty or premature in coming up with solutions is important for actually solving that problem.

Put differently, it's emptying our "toolkit," then letting the problem guide us on what "tools" to put in there and to use to solve it.

Some of these tools, which we need to fix a problem, we may have already. But some we may have to get, because we've never thought about it before. Some tools we may have to design and create from scratch, because it doesn't exist yet. 

My seminal thesis

In other words, there is always a solution to a problem.  I shared this seminal thesis with a fellow PhD friend, Hector, and his response was perfectly on-target. He said, "Otherwise, it's not a problem."

The solvability of any and all problems we face now, and may ever face, is a premise at the heart of Theory of Algorithms.  I'm working on the proof for this.  I don't have it completed, yet, but gradually I’m getting there. 

Every day, corporate and worldwide problems - small or large - all have solutions.

(image credit)

An example 

I lived in Dubai, and I had a business meeting in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates. It was a two-hour drive from my apartment to the meeting venue.

Unfortunately there was a serious accident en route, and traffic was badly snarled. Even though I left in plenty of time, it became clear that I was not going to make the meeting. I would have had to ride in a helicopter, and in that situation it was an impractical, unlikely solution.  I was aggravated and pissed off.

But what was the problem? The traffic accident prevented me from attending this meeting.

So, what was the problem, really?  Upon reflecting on this further, I reminded myself that I really wanted to participate in the discussion and the plans we were making.  The more I thought about it, the more I realized that the problem was less about the traffic snarl and more about a missed participation.

What did I do? I optimized an aggravating situation as best as I could, upon hearing the problem speak for itself, by contacting the chair, sharing my thoughts with her, and following up later on.

In the end this solution worked out perfectly fine. I missed the meeting with my colleagues in person, but I effectively solved the problem.  Plus, I saved four hours of driving and a few gallons of gasoline! 

The trouble we run into
  

It took Albert Einstein many years to work out the Theory of General Relativity, more years to correct a problem he discovered, and to arrange for its proof.

The problem? He was working out an alternative notion of gravity, that is, as a warping of time and space, different from that of Newton or Galileo. Obviously this is complex stuff, and he and other physicists have engineered comparably complex theories to help us grasp the universe better.

(image credit)

In contrast, many of the problems we face in our day-to-day lives are probably simple, or at least simpler than physics. It doesn’t mean simple problems ought to be dismissed or ignored, because they can become more serious over time, if left unchecked. 

Rather, the Theory of Algorithms says that simple problems can be solved with simple solutions, but complex ones require solutions of comparable complexity.

© 2013 by Ron Villejo, PhD 

Part 1 - A Beautiful Matter

A Beautiful Mind

 

The American mathematician and genius John Nash said this, as portrayed in ‘A Beautiful Mind.’ I really love this film. I bought the DVD years after the release of the movie, but it was months before I actually watched it again.

It was March 21st 2010, when I did.

I wrote in my journal afterwards: “I crystallized an idea that’s been ‘brewing’ in my head for several months. In brief, it’s to penetrate the surface of things deeply, and extract the algorithm(s) of how these things work.”

It was a kind of revelation on the massive, complicated work that will occupy the rest of my life.

 

‘A Beautiful Mind’ was a dramatization of John Nash’s trials and triumphs - partly factual, partly fictional. But what it moved in me was totally real. It was nothing short of a tectonic shift in my thinking and a forthright advance in my purpose.

I am blessed to have had many years of education and to have built up good confidence in my thinking. I am thankful to my parents for this. So when John Nash said this bit about pigeons (to the snickering derision of his classmates) I knew I could do it, too.

I could look through the governing dynamics of everything, and extract the necessary algorithms.

John Nash, played by Russell Crowe, in 'A Beautiful Mind' (image credit)

What is an Algorithm?

Many people think of algorithms as mathematical formulas for solving problems or as computer code for doing calculations. Stanford PhD students, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, for example, came up with much better search algorithms, and these algorithms underpin the colossal success of the company they founded: Google.

Millions of us take it for granted that when we enter a keyword, Google algorithms will bring a wealth of information at our fingertips and at fractions of a second.

How do I define algorithms?

As conceptual, mathematical, and procedural: in other words, theoretical, numerical, and practical.

It was initially conceived by the 9th century Persian mathematician Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī.

(image credit)

The Latin version of his name is Algoritmi, from which of course “algorithm” was derived.

Accordingly, Theory of Algorithms is a framework for solving problems and completing tasks, and it aims to do so in a better way than we’ve done before.  It is also a way of knowing things in our world more sharply and deeply. So in this regard, it aims to be a complete epistemology, too.

Who am I?

I was born in Manila, grew up in Chicago, and lived in Dubai. I have traveled the US, Europe, Middle East, Asia, and Africa. So ask me where home is, and I’ll tell you, “the world.”

I love to tinker with ideas. I love to solve problems. I love helping people. I do a good job of grasping things, seeing below the surface, and looking at the big picture. They say everything is linked. I draw on these links to get a good sense for people and the world around us.”

That’s how I begin my profile statement on LinkedIn. Please feel free connect with me!

Reality, as is

A central tenet of Theory of Algorithms is this:  It is important to look at reality as it is - to take things as they are - without preconceived notions or judgments about these things and without expectation or desire to have these things be something else.

(image credit)

We get asked, Is the glass half-full or is it half-empty? It often makes for a cool debate. They say that depending on how you see it, you’re either an optimist or a pessimist. But in reality the glass is both half-full and half-empty, isn’t it. Not either-or.  The realist accounts for both optimist and pessimist.  

Let’s take a more complex example.

(image credit)

In The Allegory of the Cave, by the Greek philosopher Plato, prisoners are segregated into a small section of the cave and prevented from looking around.  They’re bound to face only the wall. There is a fire behind them, and there are objects being paraded in front of the fire, including human figures. The prisoners see the shadows cast on the wall.

It is easy enough to determine, and to judge, that what the prisoners see is not reality, but rather mere representations of reality.  It is also reasonable enough to expect that these prisoners will want to be released and, more importantly, want to see the reality behind these shadows. Apparently enlightenment is a presupposition in this allegory.

What does Theory of Algorithms say, instead?

To understand this situation fully and meaningfully, we must look at it, and approach it, first and foremost, from the point of view of the prisoners themselves. Not our point of view. Not even Plato’s or anyone else’s.

In this regard, this play of shadows, which perhaps they’ve seen for years, maybe since birth, is their reality. The circumstances of their imprisonment are very much part of that reality, too. Aside from their fellow prisoners, for them humankind is a dark, feature-less lot that dances on the wall.

Remember what I said at the outset, about my wanting to penetrate the surface, extract the algorithms, and grasp things more deeply and completely. So, if Heaven forbid I were one of those prisoners, I would question, wonder about, and reflect on aspects of my situation.

But, then, not everybody wants the same things I want. This is my second point, Not everyone wants the things I want, and vice versa. There are of course similar ideas and interests among us, but in reality each one of us is fundamentally as unique as fingerprints.

Where does this take us?

Among these prisoners, there may be some who have questioned and penetrated a deeper reality of their situation. They will probably jump at the opportunity to be released, turn around, and confirm their speculations.

However, consider this.

Cypher, in 'The Matrix'

'The Matrix' trilogy is a modern-day, high-technology allegory of the cave. In the seminal first film, Cypher turns out to be a traitor. He betrays Morpheus, Neo and Trinity, essentially selling them out to agents of the Matrix. Given the austerity of enlightened life, he prefers instead the juicy steak that he can eat within the programmed, ‘fake’ reality of the Matrix. There is only horrid slop to eat, otherwise, aboard the Nebuchadnezzar.

So there may be other prisoners who, upon second thought, want to remain bound and sequestered. Perhaps the shadowy humankind they have come to know provides them safe, enjoyable entertainment.

What may be undesirable for one, may in fact be desirable for another.

Theory of Algorithms, in summary

In brief, then, Theory of Algorithms encourages us to (1) look at everything as is, keeping in mind that human reality is part of reality.  It also encourages us to (2) avoid preconceived notions about things and (3) avoid sweeping generalizations about people. Finally it encourages us to (4) understand others and their situation first, as best as we can, before making judgments or drawing conclusions.

Reality is vastly more multifaceted than perhaps many of us can imagine. Not everything in reality is complex, of course, but I believe that we run into difficulty when we take an overly narrow, preconceived or simplistic view of things.

But of course how each of us views things is a matter of personal choice. So once again I say, That is how it is. We start from there, and we go from there.

From John Nash himself

It was Russell Crowe who played John Nash in ‘A Beautiful Mind.’ This is John Nash himself.

John Nash

This is my aspiration with the Theory of Algorithms.

© 2013 by Ron Villejo, PhD