WEBVTT NOTE Reflecting Upon Knowledge: Hayek's Psychology and Social Science 1 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.360 My subject draws from work in progress. 2 00:00:03.360 --> 00:00:09.120 It is broad and my presentation sets a very wide perspective. 3 00:00:09.120 --> 00:00:16.240 Its title, Reflecting Upon Knowledge, as the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett tells us, 4 00:00:16.240 --> 00:00:25.280 as far as we can tell, man is the only species with the capacity to think about what he is thinking. 5 00:00:25.280 --> 00:00:29.840 The only species to draw values. 6 00:00:29.840 --> 00:00:41.840 My purpose is to show how Hayek's early and highly original work as a research student in psychology in the 1920s 7 00:00:41.840 --> 00:00:50.840 shaped his method for what was to follow a social theory that has considered the nature of originality. 8 00:00:50.840 --> 00:00:58.160 and perhaps I can start with Peter Ustinov and the school report which 9 00:00:58.160 --> 00:01:15.160 stated that he shows greater originality which must be originality is often not 10 00:01:15.160 --> 00:01:27.760 Original ideas by definition they simply emerge in practical terms there is an 11 00:01:27.760 --> 00:01:32.760 infinite regress which is the relevance of my first two citations here the 12 00:01:32.760 --> 00:01:38.800 first from Karl Popper and John Eccles observations themselves would not even 13 00:01:38.800 --> 00:01:45.040 exist if there was no previous knowledge which they could modify and from 14 00:01:45.040 --> 00:01:52.320 From Hayek, we must be able to find all that we can understand in our own mind. 15 00:01:52.320 --> 00:01:56.080 We can understand only what is already familiar. 16 00:01:56.080 --> 00:02:02.320 We can act confidently only when we can take our bearings, when we have a firm touch upon 17 00:02:02.320 --> 00:02:11.360 our base, and this applies as much to oneself in a physical world as to the social interaction 18 00:02:11.360 --> 00:02:18.560 between Individuals, which is the relevant of the third citation also from Hayek. 19 00:02:18.560 --> 00:02:26.240 We all constantly act on the assumption that we can interpret other people's action on 20 00:02:26.240 --> 00:02:30.480 the analogy of our own mind. 21 00:02:30.480 --> 00:02:35.200 We use analogy to understand the behavior of others. 22 00:02:35.200 --> 00:02:39.600 We assume that others are a lot like ourself. 23 00:02:39.600 --> 00:02:44.600 But the use of analogy and metaphor is much broader. 24 00:02:47.600 --> 00:02:52.600 Here I present Jonathan Miller, who draws upon broad experience. 25 00:02:54.600 --> 00:03:07.600 As art historian, comic actor, comedy writer, film director, gallery curator, historian of science, lecturer, 26 00:03:07.600 --> 00:03:08.980 The 27 00:03:08.980 --> 00:03:10.980 Neuropsychologist 28 00:03:11.440 --> 00:03:13.440 Opera Director 29 00:03:13.440 --> 00:03:15.360 Painter 30 00:03:15.360 --> 00:03:17.200 Physician 31 00:03:17.200 --> 00:03:18.920 Sculptor 32 00:03:18.920 --> 00:03:20.920 Television Presenter and Producer 33 00:03:21.760 --> 00:03:23.760 Theater Director and 34 00:03:24.000 --> 00:03:26.000 Historian 35 00:03:26.080 --> 00:03:28.080 I don't know what he did in the afternoons 36 00:03:31.840 --> 00:03:37.400 Here he points to suggested metaphors which he describes as quote the most impressive 37 00:03:37.600 --> 00:03:45.600 evolution provides the most general of metaphors, and arguably it is the biggest idea there is. 38 00:03:45.600 --> 00:03:52.360 to his work as a physician, the pump and the gun turret giving insight into the function 39 00:03:52.360 --> 00:03:59.540 of the heart and muscle movements respectively. 40 00:03:59.540 --> 00:04:07.200 Evolution provides the most general of metaphors and arguably it is the biggest idea there 41 00:04:07.200 --> 00:04:08.200 is. 42 00:04:08.200 --> 00:04:14.240 I give you Richard Dawkins, professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford 43 00:04:14.240 --> 00:04:21.680 University, who asks, if superior creatures from space ever visit Earth, the first question they 44 00:04:21.680 --> 00:04:27.640 will ask in order to assess the level of our civilization is, have they discovered evolution 45 00:04:27.640 --> 00:04:35.680 yet? John Eccles received the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1963 for his work on nerve cells, 46 00:04:35.680 --> 00:04:43.120 describes evolution as one of the greatest conceptual achievements of man and Daniel C. 47 00:04:43.120 --> 00:04:51.120 Henry Dennett, Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, the best idea anyone has ever had. 48 00:04:53.120 --> 00:05:05.120 Evolution is the idea that entities adapt to other entities, leaving themselves better placed, more comfortable and more durable. 49 00:05:05.120 --> 00:05:11.120 Henry Plotkin, Professor of Psychobiology at the University College London. 50 00:05:11.120 --> 00:05:17.120 He argues for an alternative to evolution as a descriptive label. 51 00:05:17.120 --> 00:05:23.120 Namely what he calls, quote, universal adaptationism. 52 00:05:23.120 --> 00:05:30.120 This, he argues, better conveys the idea that everything becomes adjusted to everything else 53 00:05:30.120 --> 00:05:40.120 It is clear that everything becomes adjusted to everything else and avoids the Victorian connotation of evolution as advancement. 54 00:05:41.120 --> 00:05:59.120 Universal adaptationism has the neutral connotation of constant readjustment and Plotkin argues that any end-directive adaptive action constitutes understanding, knowledge in the broadest sense. 55 00:06:00.120 --> 00:06:18.120 Plotkin argues that all adaptations are knowledge, the fleshy water conserving cactus stem constitutes a form of knowledge of the scarcity of water in a world of the cactus. 56 00:06:18.120 --> 00:06:28.120 Lacking a brain of any kind, the cactus has its knowledge built upon a less complex structure of genes and development. 57 00:06:28.120 --> 00:06:43.120 Plotkin's terminology is that a primary heuristic instinct handles events that are repeated within the generational dead time. 58 00:06:43.120 --> 00:06:54.120 The generational dead time is the period between conception and reproduction, between receiving and passing a genetic code. 59 00:06:54.120 --> 00:06:57.120 We are programmed to survive. 60 00:06:57.120 --> 00:07:05.120 The secondary heuristic, intelligence, deals with problems of an unfamiliar future. 61 00:07:05.120 --> 00:07:11.120 Intelligence tracks events that are too rapid for the primary heuristic. 62 00:07:11.120 --> 00:07:18.120 And the tertiary heuristic is the guidance we receive from a cultural inheritance. 63 00:07:18.120 --> 00:07:27.120 Now it seemed to me that Plotkin's characterization parallels that made in the opening chapter of Hayek's Fatal Conceit. 64 00:07:27.120 --> 00:07:32.120 The chapter title is Between Instinct and Reason. 65 00:07:32.120 --> 00:07:41.120 And between instinct and reason is located the received wisdom of custom and practice as it's handed down. 66 00:07:41.120 --> 00:07:42.620 as it's handed down. 67 00:07:45.620 --> 00:07:53.620 Of course, my particular focus is Hayek's application of universal adaptationism, 68 00:07:53.620 --> 00:07:57.620 but that is a clumsy word, so I will stick to evolution. 69 00:07:59.620 --> 00:08:08.620 Hayek's application of evolution to a theory of the mind and to a theory of human society. 70 00:08:08.620 --> 00:08:10.620 And the two are linked. 71 00:08:11.120 --> 00:08:25.120 In regard to my own energies, a paper on Hayek's sensory order was published in the journal Theory and Psychology almost five years ago. 72 00:08:25.120 --> 00:08:39.120 And that has become the basis for the first new chapter of a rewrite of my book on Hayek's economics published in 1993. 73 00:08:39.120 --> 00:08:49.120 And that book was published last month, and my publishers, had they been reliable, would have provided some flyers with a discount offer. 74 00:08:52.120 --> 00:09:00.120 But if anybody is interested, they can let me know of their interests and I'll make sure that they receive a flyer in due course. 75 00:09:00.120 --> 00:09:10.120 Hayek's Sensory Order is a seminal work, which is another word for original. 76 00:09:10.120 --> 00:09:16.120 It is a work that only recently is receiving due recognition, 77 00:09:16.120 --> 00:09:21.120 but which is central to understanding Hayek's work generally. 78 00:09:21.120 --> 00:09:34.120 The sensory order anticipates developments in neurology, psychology and in artificial intelligence research and it is relevant to social theory. 79 00:09:34.120 --> 00:09:48.120 Hayek's mind theory contrasts with that of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional detective Sherlock Holmes. 80 00:09:48.120 --> 00:09:56.120 Sherlock Holmes refuses to clutter what he assumes to be the finite capacity of his brain space. 81 00:09:56.120 --> 00:10:06.120 He has a self-imposed ignorance in order that he should not overfill what he regards as the pigeon holes of his brain. 82 00:10:06.120 --> 00:10:14.120 Sherlock Holmes' concept of the human mind is analogous to the memory store of digital computing. 83 00:10:14.120 --> 00:10:18.120 and computing. The file space is limited. 84 00:10:22.120 --> 00:10:28.120 Sherlock Holmes' theory of the mind invokes the notion of the grandmother cell. 85 00:10:28.120 --> 00:10:34.120 The grandmother cell is a parody for arguments against one-to-one coding, 86 00:10:34.120 --> 00:10:40.120 against the idea that a unique neuron represents a unique object, 87 00:10:40.120 --> 00:10:47.480 that one's grandmother and the memory of her, rather, is stored in a single location in the brain. 88 00:10:47.480 --> 00:10:52.760 That is my grandmother. 89 00:10:52.760 --> 00:10:56.200 On her 18th birthday in 1899. 90 00:10:56.200 --> 00:11:00.120 I don't know what she'll say to me. 91 00:11:00.120 --> 00:11:07.000 Hayek's first crucial insight came in rejecting the notion of the grandmother cell. 92 00:11:07.000 --> 00:11:11.160 And he writes at the beginning of the Sensory Order, 93 00:11:11.160 --> 00:11:14.280 What I had from the beginning been unable to swallow 94 00:11:14.280 --> 00:11:20.840 was the conception that a sensory fiber could carry or a nerve cell store 95 00:11:20.840 --> 00:11:30.520 those distinctive attributes that we know mental phenomena to possess. 96 00:11:30.520 --> 00:11:36.920 Even so, recent work sets a place for grandmother cells of a kind. 97 00:11:36.920 --> 00:11:41.920 as a theoretical limit to what is known as sparseness. 98 00:11:41.920 --> 00:11:51.920 This is the idea that at later processing stages, neurons become increasingly selective to combinations of features. 99 00:11:51.920 --> 00:11:57.920 But I'm going to leave that to the psychologists. 100 00:11:57.920 --> 00:12:01.920 So we might recognize two paradigms. 101 00:12:01.920 --> 00:12:19.640 The Sherlock Holmes Theory of the Mind, Digital Computing, and Friedrich Hayek's Theory of the Mind, two paradigms with mutual compatibility with the former Sherlock Holmes and the Grandmother Cell as a limiting form of the latter. 102 00:12:19.640 --> 00:12:30.640 So we have Hayek's mind theory, which introduced the paradigm which is known as connectionism. 103 00:12:30.640 --> 00:12:36.640 And the idea is that neural connections are strengthened as they are used. 104 00:12:36.640 --> 00:12:43.640 And particular connections are used with greater frequency when they serve a purpose. 105 00:12:43.640 --> 00:12:53.640 in leaving an individual better placed, or more comfortable, or more durable, his survivability. 106 00:12:53.640 --> 00:13:05.640 Connectionism has very wide and general application. Gerald Edelman's work on artificial intelligence is especially notable. 107 00:13:05.640 --> 00:13:19.640 Gerald Edelman acknowledges Hayek's seminal thesis, as he says, the essence of his analysis still remains with us. 108 00:13:19.640 --> 00:13:25.640 Missed my cue there, I apologize. 109 00:13:25.640 --> 00:13:39.640 Edelman's analogy, the metaphor that he chooses to put across the idea, is that memory is more like the melting and freezing of a glacier. 110 00:13:39.640 --> 00:13:58.640 Edelman's Glacier metaphor admits to no distinction between our memory of past events and our continuous mental engagement with present events. 111 00:13:58.640 --> 00:14:08.640 Past events set our understanding of the present and present events alter our understanding of the past. 112 00:14:08.640 --> 00:14:12.640 There is no beginning and there is no end. 113 00:14:12.640 --> 00:14:21.640 And it strikes me that these features are akin to Otto Neurath's metaphor for the development of knowledge. 114 00:14:21.640 --> 00:14:26.640 That it is possible to rebuild a boat whilst it is at sea. 115 00:14:26.640 --> 00:14:31.640 But you can only rebuild that boat one plank at a time. 116 00:14:31.640 --> 00:14:37.640 And there is no hint in regard to the origin of the boat or to its eventual configuration. 117 00:14:37.640 --> 00:14:39.640 It seems to me the analogy is there. 118 00:14:43.640 --> 00:15:00.640 Edelman's description of memory as a form of constructive recategorization during ongoing experience fits Friedrich Hayek's own representation of mental properties as, 119 00:15:00.640 --> 00:15:08.640 as, quote, the place of an impulse in a system of relations between neurons 120 00:15:08.640 --> 00:15:24.640 and Hayek's representation of the central nervous system as, quote, a process of continuous and simultaneous classification and constant reclassification. 121 00:15:24.640 --> 00:15:32.920 The description that Hayek gives, a process of continuous and simultaneous classification, 122 00:15:32.920 --> 00:15:38.520 parallels Edelman's description of a network that, quote, 123 00:15:38.520 --> 00:15:45.520 recreates and revises past and present associations. 124 00:15:45.520 --> 00:15:53.920 The implication that can be drawn from these descriptions is that whenever familiar items are revisited, 125 00:15:53.920 --> 00:16:06.920 The re-presentation is never the same. A thought is always unique. It is never recalled in precisely the same way. 126 00:16:10.920 --> 00:16:18.920 Hayek's Sensory Order was published in 1952 and it originates from a student manuscript, 127 00:16:18.920 --> 00:16:24.920 which I understand is to be published in the next volume of the Collected Writings of Friedrich Hayek. 128 00:16:27.520 --> 00:16:34.920 Hayek explains the circumstances of his work in the introduction to the sensory order. 129 00:16:35.920 --> 00:16:43.920 He found himself working during a period of university shutdown during a bleak winter in the laboratory of a brain anatomist. 130 00:16:43.920 --> 00:16:52.920 And he describes himself as having felt that he'd found the answer to an important problem, 131 00:16:52.920 --> 00:16:57.920 but that he could not explain precisely what that problem was. 132 00:16:57.920 --> 00:17:04.920 25 years later, he identified the problem in the questions, 133 00:17:04.920 --> 00:17:12.920 what is mind and what determines the difference between different sensory qualities. 134 00:17:12.920 --> 00:17:25.960 By Hayek's own recognition and judgment, the sensory order is at the center of his social 135 00:17:25.960 --> 00:17:28.240 theory. 136 00:17:28.240 --> 00:17:35.680 He regarded it as, quote, the most important thing I have yet done. 137 00:17:35.680 --> 00:17:40.420 More important to be among the more important contributions to knowledge, the insights I 138 00:17:40.420 --> 00:17:55.420 So it must have been extraordinarily disappointing to him, as Ralph Harris reports in writing Hayek's obituary, that Hayek should have felt that nobody understands it. 139 00:17:55.420 --> 00:18:02.180 Extraordinarily disappointing to him as Ralph Harris reports in writing Hayek's obituary that Hayek should have felt that 140 00:18:02.900 --> 00:18:04.900 Nobody understands it 141 00:18:09.580 --> 00:18:12.180 The general relevance of the sensory order is 142 00:18:13.380 --> 00:18:15.380 that in psychology and 143 00:18:15.980 --> 00:18:17.980 in social theory 144 00:18:18.100 --> 00:18:20.540 the same metaphor is applied in 145 00:18:20.540 --> 00:18:32.540 in describing the structural processes that constitute the mental order of the mind and the social order of mankind. 146 00:18:33.540 --> 00:18:45.540 And in describing the evolutionary dynamics of neurological processes, the psyche and mutual changes of all kinds, our society. 147 00:18:50.540 --> 00:19:16.540 Both for an individual mind, both for an individual mind and for society, order emerges from interaction between constituent elements. 148 00:19:16.540 --> 00:19:26.540 Order is, quote, determined by the regularity of the actions towards each other of the elements of a structure. 149 00:19:26.540 --> 00:19:32.540 Order emerges from interaction between constituent elements. 150 00:19:34.540 --> 00:19:42.540 The further relevance of the sensory order to social theory shows in Hayek's discussion of scientific method. 151 00:19:42.540 --> 00:19:50.340 Method, publication in the same year as publication of The Sensory Order, The Counter-Revolution 152 00:19:50.340 --> 00:19:55.220 of Science. 153 00:19:55.220 --> 00:20:01.140 Hayek's discussion of scientific method points to the fact that physical science is independent 154 00:20:01.140 --> 00:20:03.140 of history. 155 00:20:03.140 --> 00:20:09.340 The speed of light is not contingent upon historical context. 156 00:20:09.340 --> 00:20:24.340 By contrast, memory is critical to all evolutionary systems, to psychology, to social theory, to all aspects of the human condition. 157 00:20:24.340 --> 00:20:28.340 History is relevant. 158 00:20:28.340 --> 00:20:34.340 I collect cartoons, mostly political cartoons. 159 00:20:34.340 --> 00:20:39.340 I invite their victims to sign their cartoons. 160 00:20:39.340 --> 00:20:44.340 And the general positive response that I receive supports the observation 161 00:20:44.340 --> 00:20:49.340 that it is better to be lampooned than to be ignored. 162 00:20:49.340 --> 00:20:57.340 A good cartoon says a great deal with very little. 163 00:20:57.340 --> 00:21:03.340 This is a good cartoon. It was chosen for a Royal Mail postage stamp. 164 00:21:03.340 --> 00:21:06.340 The cartoonist is a man called Mel Kalman. 165 00:21:06.340 --> 00:21:10.340 Doctor, do you have something for the human condition? 166 00:21:12.340 --> 00:21:14.340 If only it were that simple. 167 00:21:18.340 --> 00:21:26.340 I need to make a brief side comment to take note of the important differences in evolutionary time scales. 168 00:21:27.340 --> 00:21:31.340 Biological evolution is protracted. 169 00:21:31.340 --> 00:21:58.340 Some would argue that it's now stationary. Social evolution is rapid and this means that our deep-seated psychological dispositions are the result of natural selection against events and conditions that are long-pathed, so that our behavioral characteristics are largely atavistic. 170 00:21:58.340 --> 00:22:04.340 They are a legacy of evolved traits that are no longer relevant. 171 00:22:07.840 --> 00:22:14.340 This has been described, Henry Plotkin, as the thesis of ancient provenance. 172 00:22:15.840 --> 00:22:20.840 We have inherited dispositions and phobias whose relevance is long gone, 173 00:22:21.840 --> 00:22:27.340 not only in regard to our fear of open spaces or to dark places, 174 00:22:27.340 --> 00:22:47.340 but also in our natural sense of social justice in terms of outcomes and the practicality of this notion of social justice, as Hayek argues, is limited to small groups and we are no longer actors within small groups. 175 00:22:47.340 --> 00:22:56.340 As Daniel Sidenat says, we notice things that mattered most to the reproductive success of our ancestors. 176 00:23:00.340 --> 00:23:12.340 In this context, Hayek notes that many of our innate psychological dispositions are incompatible with an extended socio-economic order. 177 00:23:12.340 --> 00:23:17.340 And so, those innate dispositions must be constrained. 178 00:23:20.340 --> 00:23:26.340 Although we still share most of the emotional traits of primitive man, he argues, 179 00:23:27.340 --> 00:23:33.340 the obedience to learned rules has become necessary to restrain those natural instincts 180 00:23:33.340 --> 00:23:38.340 which do not fit into the order of the open society. 181 00:23:42.340 --> 00:24:00.340 In focusing upon human understanding in its psychological dimensions and in its social dimensions, Hayek's ontological presumption is that a material world exists, of which the mind is a part. 182 00:24:00.340 --> 00:24:21.340 He describes three orders. There is a physical order, there is the neural order of the brain, which is part of the physical order, and there is the central order, which is the mind, our psyche, who we are. 183 00:24:21.340 --> 00:24:48.340 And drawing upon analogy, I would suggest, and have suggested in the article I referred to, that these three orders might be viewed as analogous to a composer's vision, which we can categorize as the inaccessible truth, only the composer has direct contact with his vision. 184 00:24:48.340 --> 00:24:55.340 Then we have the orchestra with its musical score, which are the media of communication. 185 00:24:55.340 --> 00:25:03.340 And then we have the symphonic performance, which is a subjective experience unique to one listener. 186 00:25:03.340 --> 00:25:12.340 And within this, the instrumental notes might be seen to parallel the individual neural engagement. 187 00:25:12.340 --> 00:25:27.580 For a man, in a society, the basic questions are, how does our knowledge grow? 188 00:25:27.580 --> 00:25:31.620 How do we anticipate the reactions of others? 189 00:25:31.620 --> 00:25:41.500 And how do we decide upon our reaction to others? 190 00:25:41.500 --> 00:25:50.300 So the answers are that we use any method, any method that conveys information. 191 00:25:50.300 --> 00:25:57.300 Just like the melt and the freeze of the glacier, our minds are altered continuously by our 192 00:25:57.300 --> 00:26:07.100 presence in a material world, as sensory phenomena are continuously updated as responses to sensory 193 00:26:07.100 --> 00:26:14.940 Reinformation, as their usefulness is tested by experience and as neurons and the connections 194 00:26:14.940 --> 00:26:22.860 become differentially strengthened through their repeated use. 195 00:26:22.860 --> 00:26:28.140 But there is no asymptote of definitive knowledge. 196 00:26:28.140 --> 00:26:36.060 Although we drive towards the truth, we are constrained by inherent capacities. 197 00:26:36.060 --> 00:26:42.120 We have no way of knowing what it's like to be a bat. 198 00:26:42.120 --> 00:26:49.860 The knowledge of every species is species specific, is relevant to its own survival 199 00:26:49.860 --> 00:26:53.140 in its particular environment. 200 00:26:53.140 --> 00:26:58.160 We cannot know definitively what it's like to be another person, though we have reason 201 00:26:58.160 --> 00:27:03.720 to believe that introspection gives keen insights. 202 00:27:03.720 --> 00:27:10.800 And we cannot know definitively how our mind functions because we have to use our mind 203 00:27:10.800 --> 00:27:14.240 in order to understand our mind. 204 00:27:14.240 --> 00:27:25.580 So our knowledge is necessarily speculative, partial and problematic. 205 00:27:25.580 --> 00:27:35.820 Our knowledge derives from our genetic makeup, from parental guidance, from formal instruction, 206 00:27:35.820 --> 00:27:45.940 from established science and from successful existence. 207 00:27:45.940 --> 00:27:56.940 Human understanding is embodied in an analogous fashion by the mind serving to protect an 208 00:27:56.940 --> 00:28:04.960 individual and by the social framework serving to protect individual. 209 00:28:04.960 --> 00:28:09.940 The mind creates is an individual. 210 00:28:09.940 --> 00:28:15.940 The social framework creates, is, culture and society. 211 00:28:15.940 --> 00:28:25.140 Culture, the social framework, coordinates our decisions, inhibits our decisions and 212 00:28:25.140 --> 00:28:31.540 informs our decisions. 213 00:28:31.540 --> 00:28:40.540 In setting the matrices of spontaneous developments, mutual adaptations shape categorizations and 214 00:28:40.540 --> 00:28:48.860 associations as they are embedded in the mind as its response to sensory stimuli and as 215 00:28:48.860 --> 00:28:59.260 they are embedded in social institutions as they incorporate rules for behavior. 216 00:28:59.260 --> 00:29:11.420 The mind and the social framework are self-organizing, spontaneously involving open adaptations. 217 00:29:11.420 --> 00:29:19.380 A sensory experience is defined, is categorized by neurological relationships. 218 00:29:19.380 --> 00:29:21.740 This is the sensory order. 219 00:29:21.740 --> 00:29:28.340 An individual is defined, is identified by social relationship. 220 00:29:28.340 --> 00:29:33.180 This is the social order. 221 00:29:33.180 --> 00:29:43.300 Both the mind and the social framework economize upon, make best use of, incomplete information. 222 00:29:43.300 --> 00:29:48.620 The mind has evolved to know what it needs to know. 223 00:29:48.620 --> 00:29:53.620 So for example, eating is better than not eating. 224 00:29:53.620 --> 00:29:56.980 Sleeping is better than not sleeping. 225 00:29:56.980 --> 00:30:03.560 Gerald Edelman's explanation is in terms of a deep-seated neurophysiological structure, 226 00:30:03.560 --> 00:30:10.600 which he calls the value system, which he argues projects over the entire cortex. 227 00:30:10.600 --> 00:30:18.480 The social framework has also evolved to make effective use of the partial and dispersed 228 00:30:18.480 --> 00:30:25.840 knowledge of what Hayek frequently refers to as the particular circumstances of time and place. 229 00:30:30.160 --> 00:30:36.400 So we see the general theme in the parallels, in the analogous details 230 00:30:37.360 --> 00:30:42.720 of the respective functions of the mind and the social framework. 231 00:30:42.720 --> 00:30:54.320 So, let me ask you, which of these two citations strike you as the genuine one and which has 232 00:30:54.320 --> 00:30:58.960 been fabricated on the basis of the other one? 233 00:30:58.960 --> 00:31:03.240 Is it the first taken from the sensory order? 234 00:31:03.240 --> 00:31:09.320 Individual neurons are merely the foci in the network of relationships and it is the 235 00:31:09.320 --> 00:31:22.320 There is a multiple interplay of impulses between neurons which forms the recurrent, recognizable and familiar events of the social structure, of the structure. 236 00:31:22.320 --> 00:31:25.320 Now is that from the sensory order? 237 00:31:25.320 --> 00:31:31.320 Or, individuals are merely the folky in the network of relationships. 238 00:31:31.320 --> 00:31:41.320 There are various attitudes of the individuals towards each other which forms the recurrent, recognisable and familiar elements of the structure. 239 00:31:41.320 --> 00:31:49.320 Is that the genuine citation from the Counter-Revolution of Science? Both publications, 1952. 240 00:31:51.320 --> 00:31:59.320 It is only by previous deliberate repetition that I remember that it is the second citation which is genuine. 241 00:32:01.320 --> 00:32:03.320 May be the first. 242 00:32:09.120 --> 00:32:11.120 I assure you one of them is changed. 243 00:32:17.620 --> 00:32:23.920 Hayek's subjectivism is set firmly within this general evolutionary framework. 244 00:32:25.320 --> 00:32:29.320 Understanding is determined by evolved capacities, 245 00:32:29.320 --> 00:32:41.320 by knowing what it is necessary to know in order to survive, by acquiring effective knowledge and by the effective use of knowledge. 246 00:32:41.320 --> 00:32:51.320 In every aspect, what a given species and a given individual of that species needs to know is unique. 247 00:32:51.320 --> 00:33:04.320 There is no definitive knowledge. Moreover, particular material circumstances cannot be matched with particular patterns of behavior. 248 00:33:04.320 --> 00:33:20.320 Hayek's subjectivism recognizes commonalities across individuals that provide us with a rationale for general precepts 249 00:33:20.320 --> 00:33:25.320 for education and for social institutions generally. 250 00:33:25.320 --> 00:33:35.320 Yet there is a uniqueness in each individual and that uniqueness delivers a critical conclusion for a system of justice. 251 00:33:35.320 --> 00:33:47.320 Hayek argues there is no metaphysical self against which we can compare any actual disposition that we have. 252 00:33:47.320 --> 00:33:54.800 and because of that there can be no mitigation of sentencing upon the basis 253 00:33:54.800 --> 00:34:05.080 of extenuating circumstance. Not everyone is brutalized by brutal circumstances. To 254 00:34:05.080 --> 00:34:12.280 admit extenuating material circumstances would, in Hayek's words, destroy the chief 255 00:34:12.280 --> 00:34:25.800 Hayek's subjectivism insists that, in order to understand human behavior, we must understand what an individual thinks about objective circumstances. 256 00:34:25.800 --> 00:34:42.800 Hayek's subjectivism insists that in order to understand human behavior, we must understand what an individual thinks about objective circumstances. 257 00:34:42.800 --> 00:34:49.800 Hayek sets this against what can be known by the objective methods of science. 258 00:34:49.800 --> 00:35:01.800 However, this does raise a problem, because when everything is mediated through a unique brain, everything must be known subjectively. 259 00:35:01.800 --> 00:35:15.800 So there is a difficulty in the distinction between Hayek's an objective fact and Hayek's a subjective phenomena. 260 00:35:15.800 --> 00:35:22.800 between the laws of nature, as they are generally acknowledged in any contemporary society, 261 00:35:22.800 --> 00:35:27.800 and those that figure in the works of the natural scientists. 262 00:35:27.800 --> 00:35:38.800 Hayek writes, if the current scientific knowledge of society which we study 263 00:35:38.800 --> 00:35:46.840 study included the belief that the soil will bear no fruit till certain rites or incantations 264 00:35:46.840 --> 00:35:54.020 are performed. This would be quite as important for us as any law of nature which we now believe 265 00:35:54.020 --> 00:36:02.420 to be correct. But belief in certain rites or incantations does not exclude the possibility 266 00:36:02.420 --> 00:36:10.860 of their Having Material Worth, Action initiated to appease a pagan deity is more likely to 267 00:36:10.860 --> 00:36:19.220 be retained if it is associated with some sign that the gods are pleased, deities might 268 00:36:19.220 --> 00:36:27.760 welcome gifts of fish, subjective belief, fish might enhance soil fertility, objective 269 00:36:27.760 --> 00:36:33.560 in fact, or both, or neither. 270 00:36:33.560 --> 00:36:38.840 The general problem is that there is no objective position. 271 00:36:38.840 --> 00:36:47.800 There is no definitive scientific rigor. 272 00:36:47.800 --> 00:36:55.280 Inescapable problems arise from this absence of definitive criteria for objective scientific 273 00:36:55.280 --> 00:37:04.080 Rigo. Structures and events are accessed through the mind. Objective methods are 274 00:37:04.080 --> 00:37:14.800 corrigible. Data are theory-laden. Theories are creations of the mind. And 275 00:37:14.800 --> 00:37:22.320 there is no sharp distinction between lay and scientific explanation. But this 276 00:37:22.320 --> 00:37:29.480 This is a general issue, it is not a Hayekian issue. 277 00:37:29.480 --> 00:37:36.540 In regard to subjectivism, Hayek's position might be summarized in three parts. 278 00:37:36.540 --> 00:37:42.580 The first is that individuals have a common mental structure. 279 00:37:42.580 --> 00:37:49.960 People perceive the world and each other through sensations and concepts which are organized 280 00:37:49.960 --> 00:37:52.880 in a mental structure common to all of them. 281 00:37:56.360 --> 00:38:01.360 Second, social science must use introspection, 282 00:38:02.680 --> 00:38:05.480 which is irrelevant to physical science. 283 00:38:06.880 --> 00:38:11.160 Social science is different in that it, quote, 284 00:38:11.160 --> 00:38:15.240 can explain human action in a way we cannot 285 00:38:15.240 --> 00:38:18.160 with physical phenomena, with meaning 286 00:38:18.160 --> 00:38:21.360 that is not applicable to physical phenomena. 287 00:38:23.360 --> 00:38:33.560 And thirdly, subjective implies that a common mental structure permits differences of perspective and opinions. 288 00:38:34.360 --> 00:38:41.760 Quote, knowledge and beliefs, while possessing that common structure which makes communication possible, 289 00:38:42.260 --> 00:38:46.960 will yet be different and conflicting in many respects. 290 00:38:48.160 --> 00:38:56.240 Scientism receives particular criticism from Hayek. 291 00:38:56.240 --> 00:39:04.760 Scientism is the misguided belief that social phenomena may be accessed directly. 292 00:39:04.760 --> 00:39:10.960 It is motivated, he argues, by a fear of subjective concepts. 293 00:39:10.960 --> 00:39:16.840 And it succumbs to the collective prejudice of treating social phenomena 294 00:39:16.840 --> 00:39:46.760 Hayek's theory of complex phenomena catches the 295 00:39:46.760 --> 00:39:54.840 The dynamics of adaptive processes as they relate to the human condition, to an individual's 296 00:39:54.840 --> 00:40:03.720 unique understanding and to the social order that exists between individuals. 297 00:40:03.720 --> 00:40:12.000 The spontaneity of adaptive processes allows inconsistencies to be reconciled so that interaction 298 00:40:12.000 --> 00:40:22.000 is coordinated in respect of the sensory impulses of the mind and of individuals in mutual engagements. 299 00:40:42.000 --> 00:41:04.000 You talked about subjective versus objective fact and it seemed to be that you were talking about fuzzy borders but I wonder if you maintain the position that a fuzzy border means there's no border or just that there is a border? 300 00:41:04.000 --> 00:41:14.000 The question is, is there a distinction between objective and subjective knowledge? 301 00:41:14.000 --> 00:41:21.000 Is that my understanding of what you're saying, or whether the border sort of exists, but cannot be... 302 00:41:21.000 --> 00:41:27.000 I guess my question concerns fact, perhaps, and I know you're using the term knowledge. 303 00:41:27.000 --> 00:41:37.000 I have another collection, which is citations, and I will answer you with one that I cite often from that collection. 304 00:41:37.000 --> 00:41:44.000 It's from David Henderson, who worked as an OEC economist for many years, and he talks about facts. 305 00:41:44.000 --> 00:41:51.000 And the citation, more or less verbatim as I remember it, is, facts do not exist in a vacuum. 306 00:41:51.000 --> 00:41:56.000 They merely embellish the assumptions that we make about reality. 307 00:41:56.000 --> 00:42:08.000 So I think my answer to you is that there is no border, but the methods which we use as objective physical science are not contingent upon history. 308 00:42:08.000 --> 00:42:15.000 So the change is not continuous there in our understanding. There is change, there is scientific revolution. 309 00:42:15.000 --> 00:42:23.000 We have Newton for 400 years and then we have Einstein. But there is the difference that it's not contingent upon history. 310 00:42:23.000 --> 00:42:29.800 whereas social and psychological development is contingent upon events in the past. 311 00:42:34.800 --> 00:42:36.200 Am I picking the questionnaires? 312 00:42:42.000 --> 00:42:48.600 The pioneering psychologist Jean Piaget was a contemporary of Hayek 313 00:42:48.600 --> 00:42:56.300 and his developmental psychology and Hayek's projectivism seem to be elaborations on each other's ideas 314 00:42:56.300 --> 00:43:02.300 and I was wondering if you could comment on the intellectual and even personal relationship between the two. 315 00:43:02.300 --> 00:43:10.300 Can I comment upon the intellectual and personal relationship between Hayek and others of his contemporaries? 316 00:43:10.300 --> 00:43:13.300 The answer is no. 317 00:43:13.300 --> 00:43:17.800 I defer to your professionalism as a psychologist 318 00:43:17.800 --> 00:43:47.800 and maybe you could inform me of one or two facts that I ought to be aware of but what seems to me to be the case I think Donald Hebb published work simultaneously with Hayek's sensory order around the time of 1950 and the question that I have unanswered in my mind is if Hayek had published in 1920 rather than in 1950 whether he would have got more due recognition 319 00:43:47.800 --> 00:43:52.200 as a psychologist than he currently enjoys, which is virtually none. 320 00:44:17.800 --> 00:44:25.800 The question suggests that the work of Richard Dawkins and that of Hayek overlap to some extent 321 00:44:25.800 --> 00:44:31.800 and whether I'm aware of whether Richard Dawkins is alert to Hayek's existence. 322 00:44:31.800 --> 00:44:35.800 Well, I do know that he is alert to Hayek's existence because I've sent him stuff. 323 00:44:41.800 --> 00:44:43.800 I've had little in the way of response. 324 00:44:43.800 --> 00:44:59.800 I greatly admire Dawkins' writing skills, but I find what I would describe as the arrogance of his position difficult at times. 325 00:44:59.800 --> 00:45:12.800 He's not a good communicator, as Gerald was saying to me earlier, who's enjoyed a TV schedule with Richard Dawkins. 326 00:45:12.800 --> 00:45:28.100 but Dawkins I haven't heard that I would not claim to know what his political 327 00:45:28.100 --> 00:45:32.760 leanings are I don't know if anybody in the audience is aware of Richard Dawkins 328 00:45:32.760 --> 00:45:47.760 I just wondered if Hayek's question is, if everything is an interpretation and isn't his own analysis an interpretation, 329 00:45:47.760 --> 00:45:56.760 he seems to be putting it forward as the objective reality of the month. How does he deal with that? 330 00:46:02.760 --> 00:46:08.760 We are always an issue. We always get involved with infinite regress whenever we talk about cause. 331 00:46:08.760 --> 00:46:15.760 And we've all dealt with a child who asks, Dad, why did A happen? Well, because B happened. 332 00:46:15.760 --> 00:46:26.760 And so why did B happen? Well, because C happened. And what about C? Why did C happen? Will you be quiet? 333 00:46:26.760 --> 00:46:32.680 I mean, it's an obvious point, but Sir John Hicks articulated it when he says 334 00:46:32.680 --> 00:46:38.920 all cause is down to an exogenous variable that we can't explain. 335 00:46:38.920 --> 00:46:45.400 So all of our scientific theory of cause is founded upon the unknown. 336 00:46:45.400 --> 00:46:50.440 So we always, the infinite regress is something we just have to live with. 337 00:46:50.440 --> 00:46:54.760 It's the riddle of life itself, an infinite regress. 338 00:46:54.760 --> 00:46:57.760 At what point did life begin? 339 00:47:00.760 --> 00:47:05.760 Doctor, your explanation is beautiful and complete. 340 00:47:07.760 --> 00:47:11.760 For me there's an opening there. 341 00:47:11.760 --> 00:47:14.760 What about the human soul? 342 00:47:14.760 --> 00:47:18.760 Is it all an interaction of neurons? 343 00:47:18.760 --> 00:47:20.760 There's no objective truth. 344 00:47:20.760 --> 00:47:26.260 The human mind is not capable of objective reality. 345 00:47:26.260 --> 00:47:33.260 I think there's a big empty space in the highest philosophy. 346 00:47:34.260 --> 00:47:36.760 You've asked me a question about the human soul. 347 00:47:37.760 --> 00:47:41.760 I think that's the most difficult question that anybody could ever be asked. 348 00:47:41.760 --> 00:47:47.760 But I'm currently reading Daniel C. Dennett's most recent text, 349 00:47:47.760 --> 00:47:59.760 whose title escapes me, but it deals with determinism and the argument that everything ultimately must be physically determined and the title has come to me now. 350 00:47:59.760 --> 00:48:14.760 It's called Freedom Evolves, that human freedom, human choice must be set in the evolutionary context as a means by which we enhance our survival propensities. 351 00:48:44.760 --> 00:48:53.760 Jerry, you point out that Hayek's book is one of his most important contributions to knowledge, and yet you moan the fact that people didn't understand it. 352 00:48:53.760 --> 00:49:02.760 But in his later work, it doesn't appear that he characterizes his later work with reference back to the sensory order. 353 00:49:02.760 --> 00:49:07.760 In other words, he doesn't characterize it as an elaboration on or an explication of the sensory order. 354 00:49:07.760 --> 00:49:11.760 I mean, is that true, and why do you think that's true? 355 00:49:11.760 --> 00:49:14.760 He himself dropped the book. 356 00:49:41.760 --> 00:49:47.760 I looked at that original manuscript, I've only had it for a matter of a couple of weeks, but the essence is there. 357 00:49:47.760 --> 00:50:00.760 And maybe he just saw that as a one-off, and then he got on with his political theory, and then maybe in retrospect he saw the influence of the sensory order in his own writings, 358 00:50:00.760 --> 00:50:05.760 without necessarily being consciously aware of that fact as he was doing it. 359 00:50:05.760 --> 00:50:14.000 But it's one question to ask somebody else, why did you do that? 360 00:50:14.000 --> 00:50:19.060 But sometimes when I ask that question of myself, why did I do that? 361 00:50:19.060 --> 00:50:21.080 I don't have a ready answer. 362 00:50:21.080 --> 00:50:28.840 So it is difficult sometimes to find a motivation in one's own actions that is not an ex-post 363 00:50:28.840 --> 00:50:29.840 rationalization. 364 00:50:29.840 --> 00:50:44.840 How would you compare Hayek's theory of money with more recent ones by Daniel Dennett, such as Inconscious Explained, and Stephen Anker, and Al Feinberg? 365 00:50:59.840 --> 00:51:03.840 I don't think that it has the same kind of social structure in mind. 366 00:51:03.840 --> 00:51:05.840 No. 367 00:51:05.840 --> 00:51:07.840 No. 368 00:51:07.840 --> 00:51:09.840 Sure, sure. 369 00:51:09.840 --> 00:51:16.840 Your remarks triggered in me an idea for a new research program or a new initiative. 370 00:51:16.840 --> 00:51:24.840 There is this field called bioeconomics and economics biology, and there is this analogy between biology and economics. 371 00:51:24.840 --> 00:51:41.840 for example, the wolf-year ratio would be equivalent to the ERE or equilibrium of what's in the media classes and the competition between firms in economics and competition between students in biology. 372 00:51:41.840 --> 00:51:47.840 I'm referring to Stephen Walker's point about blocking between officers and socialists. 373 00:51:47.840 --> 00:52:04.840 It seems that the new initiative would be to try to convert all those guys, because they have the ERE and the competition idea, and all they have to do is apply it to an area that they're not used to applying it to, namely economics. 374 00:52:04.840 --> 00:52:33.840 But I think it will be an uphill struggle because I noticed that the sociobiologists are very quickly correct. They don't even dare call themselves sociobiologists anymore. They now call themselves evolutionary psychologists, and the fear of offending feminists. And yet they are fearing and very much undermining all the feministic views that now continue over the same, according to this biology stuff. There's great difference between them and feminists. So I wonder if you have any thoughts on that new initiative idea. 375 00:52:34.840 --> 00:52:43.840 The question is focused upon bio-economics and the similarities that are being thrown up 376 00:52:43.840 --> 00:52:48.760 and the fear of political correctness and so on and so forth. 377 00:52:48.760 --> 00:52:57.560 Well, from Hayek, biology and social theory are dealing with complex systems and so the 378 00:52:57.560 --> 00:53:04.160 same method would be relevant to complex systems wherever they're to be found. 379 00:53:04.160 --> 00:53:18.160 So I wouldn't find it surprising that there are commonalities and there is a place for the exchange of ideas and to see where those commonalities can go together. 380 00:53:21.160 --> 00:53:32.160 It wouldn't surprise me if Richard Dawkins, thinking to the previous question, had socialist tendencies because, as Hayek says, 381 00:53:32.160 --> 00:53:39.840 and as anybody be willing to admit that Richard Dawkins is a very intelligent man and Hayek says 382 00:53:39.840 --> 00:53:48.480 the thing about sociologists is they do as socialists is they do tend to be highly intelligent it says 383 00:53:48.480 --> 00:53:52.760 but the the trouble with intelligent people is that they tend to overvalue intelligence 384 00:53:52.760 --> 00:53:59.760 Gerald, you had a question. 385 00:53:59.760 --> 00:54:04.760 I asked this question because I have not read the century order. 386 00:54:04.760 --> 00:54:18.760 But, reflecting what you were saying, I was just thinking that, while I appreciate the significance of the general adaptation that was expressed by Hayek at the end of his work, 387 00:54:18.760 --> 00:54:27.760 it seems to me that I see echoes here of the relationship between Hayek and Hoppe, and the Hopperian theory of philosophy of science is coming through. 388 00:54:27.760 --> 00:54:37.760 I would put this to as a possible point of consideration from the point you may hear about set-referential, set-referentiality and it's this. 389 00:54:37.760 --> 00:54:45.760 The very title itself, sensory order, seems to me to bear the distinction between sensation and perception on the one hand and intellection or conception on the other. 390 00:54:45.760 --> 00:54:54.760 Sending you an example. Is it obviously true, I would think, that we perceive perception takes place according to the needs and desires of the receiver? 391 00:54:54.760 --> 00:54:59.320 So, for example, now it's coming up for lunchtime, I'm very sensitive to the smell. 392 00:54:59.320 --> 00:55:08.360 The smell of food is attraction. After I've had my lunch, the smell of food is still there, but now it's an attraction, and you have to eat and nolteate it. 393 00:55:08.360 --> 00:55:11.960 Okay, so that's relevant to my own particular needs as far as I'm interested in. 394 00:55:11.960 --> 00:55:19.160 If you look at conceptual math, for example, if you're a teacher and you're teaching addition to the student, 395 00:55:19.160 --> 00:55:24.600 each individual student's conception is unique to that student. 396 00:55:24.600 --> 00:55:28.600 If so, your teaching can say that 7 plus 5 equals 12. 397 00:55:28.600 --> 00:55:33.600 Every student's understanding is that student's understanding and not another student's understanding. 398 00:55:33.600 --> 00:55:39.600 But the object of their understanding, that 7 plus 5 equals 12, is identity. 399 00:55:39.600 --> 00:55:45.600 It's the same truth which is apprehended. 400 00:55:45.600 --> 00:55:50.600 Now to relate that then to the difference in methodology between Mises and Hayek, 401 00:55:50.600 --> 00:56:00.600 When it comes down to this, the most exciting thing about Mises and indeed the Austrian School, generally, is the open and fractiology field. 402 00:56:00.600 --> 00:56:06.600 That's the thing that gets me excited, right? The first 150 pages. Hey, I have to walk around on the 10th page. 403 00:56:06.600 --> 00:56:14.600 I have to carry that around with a brown paper cover on it, right? That's the kind of work that is. 404 00:56:14.600 --> 00:56:22.600 It's intellectually exciting, and the idea here, the core of the idea is this, right? 405 00:56:22.600 --> 00:56:33.600 This subjectivity, subjectivism is that what I value is unique to me, is specific to me, that nobody can tell in advance what valuations I have or have to be done. 406 00:56:33.600 --> 00:56:40.600 The market is, if you like, the emergent product of the competition and association and all of this sort of thing. 407 00:56:40.600 --> 00:56:50.600 Nonetheless, there is a discernible objective structure, which is permanent and isolatable, so let man act. 408 00:56:50.600 --> 00:56:56.600 As Thomas Aquinas has put it, every human being is different. 409 00:56:56.600 --> 00:57:00.600 Aristotle said that whatever human beings think, they think the good. 410 00:57:00.600 --> 00:57:06.600 And that, again, while the good for each individual is unique and specific, 411 00:57:06.600 --> 00:57:17.600 That they seem to good, and that they must do so, and that it is inconceivable that they should do otherwise, that is the objective fact which necessarily is maintained. 412 00:57:17.600 --> 00:57:23.600 So, to come to the question, how is your business? 413 00:57:23.600 --> 00:57:27.600 Hell, I thought I was going to have to repeat that. 414 00:57:27.600 --> 00:57:31.600 All of that being said, but not again. 415 00:57:31.600 --> 00:57:35.100 I don't see in your presentation, and I'm relying on that because I don't know if it's there, 416 00:57:35.100 --> 00:57:41.600 I don't see in your presentation that Hayek can accommodate what to me are those sort of things in fact. 417 00:57:44.600 --> 00:57:52.600 I hope this isn't meant as a cheap shot, but seven plus three equals whatever you said it was equal to. 418 00:57:52.600 --> 00:58:03.600 That is mathematics and that is not fact, that is like music, that is like a musical score. 419 00:58:03.600 --> 00:58:12.600 It is an instrument by which we can understand, which we attempt to understand objective facts 420 00:58:12.600 --> 00:58:15.600 and physical sciences and chemistry and so on and so forth. 421 00:58:15.600 --> 00:58:24.600 The mathematics per se is not an object, it is a means of communicating about objects. 422 00:58:24.600 --> 00:58:29.600 Now Hayek is strong on there being objective facts. 423 00:58:29.600 --> 00:58:35.600 His ontology is the belief that there is a physical world out there, there are things out there. 424 00:58:35.600 --> 00:58:42.600 But the understanding is there is never ever going to be any direct access to those objective things. 425 00:58:42.600 --> 00:58:49.600 We only have the workings of the five senses and the coordination of those sensory impulses 426 00:58:49.600 --> 00:58:54.600 which creates these networks of neurological connections 427 00:58:54.600 --> 00:58:59.600 by which somehow, and nobody has an explanation of consciousness 428 00:58:59.600 --> 00:59:03.600 and maybe consciousness and the soul go together 429 00:59:03.600 --> 00:59:07.600 but we don't have the explanation of the self 430 00:59:07.600 --> 00:59:24.600 But we have the ontology which says yes we believe those objects to exist and these are the problems which are thrown up when we can only access them indirectly and we can only talk about our subjective truths. 431 00:59:24.600 --> 00:59:31.600 But given that we are from the same culture, we've had a similar kind of education, we talk the same language, 432 00:59:31.600 --> 00:59:41.600 We're more likely to reach agreement than if we were from different cultures, or from different species, or from a different set of circumstances and environment. 433 00:59:41.600 --> 00:59:45.600 That is my understanding of Hayek's position, rightly or wrongly.