Turil,

It is an interesting, well rounded and thought out entry. I use a similar dichotomy in my entry, of the central nervous system and circulatory(and respiratory, digestive) systems as reflective of our cultural needs and how they might inform us of what the problems are.

While you use the term autopilot to describe the executive function of consciousness, I won't exactly disagree, but think it is more nuanced. What I sense is that biology is inherently conscious, but knowledge is a function of discreteness and static order, so the sense of self, or I, that we all possess, is an isolated focusing of the mind's and the body's general awareness. Consider how thoughts can be 'on the tip of the tongue.' Compare that to someone else trying to get your attention. Just as that other person is obviously conscious, so necessarily is the part of the brain holding the piece of information that doesn't quite rise to the surface. This then goes to the question of why should our sense of awareness not be more general and system wide?

As I see it, definition is limitation and limitation is definition. Perception is a function of lots of limiting factors. Much like taking a picture requires focus, speed, direction, lighting and numerous other contextual factors, otherwise too much, or too little light and thus information will get in. Now consider what happens with too much light; The result is whiteout. Effectively all the extra information cancels out. The signal is lost in the noise. Now consider how much knowledge is just such a process of distilling signal from the noise. What might be signal from one perspective, is noise to another. Logically then, universal knowledge is an oxymoron. If we were consciously aware of all that was going on around us and in our bodies, the effect would overwhelm our senses, or require far more processing power than could be easily sustained by a biological organism. Thus we are a form of swarm intelligence, both in our bodies and as a group.

Now the nature of knowledge being inherently discrete has a lot of other ramifications. Some of which explain political conflict and how groups, and ideas like to dominate each other and otherwise take over the space, which might make us somewhat cautious about entertaining beings from other planets...

Regards,

John M

    Dear Professor Turil Sweden Cronburg,

    I thank you a lot for your encouraging words and, as I see in the paper you wrote, the discovering of how we deeply coincide in many points. I greatly enjoyed reading you, particularly expressed in the diagrams you beautifully presented. However, if you allow me to make a few comments about your ideas, I would like to know how can we pretend to use experience, consciousness, space, time, etc., as we don't even know the real meaning of all that. I understand quite well that, by centuries we have been forced to accept all those concepts as provisory hypotheses, otherwise we would never progressed a bit in science... Nevertheless, I think, we should keep in mind that all the basic conceptual structure of science, including evolution as a model o time developing systems, has to be questioned again and again. In fact, I consider that what we actually call "experience" inevitably is a past reality, an already done structure, good or bad, beautiful or ugly, constructing or disastrous, whatever, but always known in a posteriori manner. Present, instead, cannot be seen or even experienced as such, since in the case of conscious experience, this always happens in a sort of estrangement of oneself, whilst the rest of atoms, not Adams, seem to me as simply being there without a notion of experience. I keep thinking that, even though I ignore what consciousness is.

    Another heavy term you employ in your exposure is purpose; I would have rather utilized the term intention, but it doesn't matter. Indeed what I suppose is really important to tell you is that I don't think we get things clearer by assuming the equation purpose = function. You probably know that one of the main disjunctive topics is the question for what was first, structure or function: does structure make function or is it the other way around? I am sure that as far as we stay on that twofold situation we will never be able to get off the hook. I propose to add a third element, namely, fluctuations triggering and modulating reality. Now yes, we break through the undecidable binomial; instead of the old dialectic one-dimensional relationship structure 竊" function, we get a threefold relationship, not strictly dialectic, an equilateral triangle with structure, function and fluctuations, each one of three on each corner.

    This relationship cannot be purely dialectic because there wouldn't be any possible evolution of such a closed system. Not only does each one of the three moments depend on the other two, but also each one of them has to be opened to new possible conditions. That is why fluctuations play a crucial role in evolutionary perspectives. Don't you think so? I know all that is present between the lines of your text but, perhaps, it would have been very useful to do it explicitly. No doubt, all the factors you mention for a fully functioning Earth are relevant and, in a certain sense, they all are urgent to meet.

    I didn't fully developed the idea of epistemic polyglotism because of the lack of space we counted on for the contest; however, and I am very glad to confirm that you did understand the point, in order to answer a foundational question like how should humanity steer the future, only illustrious ideas like yours and mine can effectively contribute to get a glimpse of an answer. I widely develop the subject of polyglotism in a book I just registered in Mexico, it is written in Spanish, titled "La conciencia de la ciencia: un juego complejo" [The consciousness of science: a complex play (game)]. May be I will think of a translation into English and French.

    Finally, I would like to tell that, yes, I would like a hot cup of tea!

    Yours,

    Alexandre de Pomposo

    Thanks for your feedback Alexandre. (Note, I'm not a professor. I've been a teacher in many different venues, but never been a professor.)

    Here's your cup of tea!

    John, I think you bring up an interesting point about when all the perspectives come together, making pure light. I believe that's an excellent way to describe the totality of reality: pure light (or, more accurately, pure energy). All the universe's information added together is the same as all the energy of the universe added together (since energy is information, i.e., patterns of change). It seems to me that the increase in entropy in the universe might have something to do with the increase in diversity (of matter/energy/life) in the universe.

    Turil,

    I think physics has issues in dealing with infinities that it will have to overcome. The concept of entropy only applies to a closed, ie. finite set. In an infinite state, energy being lost/radiated away from one system, is replaced by other energy radiating away from neighboring systems.

    Currently Big Bang theory argues the entire universe is expanding and eventually those distant galaxies will be so far away their light will no longer reach us. Now that means more units defined by the speed of light will be required to cross this space. Presumably then it is being denominated in lightyears, which means the expanded space is the numerator. That's not expanding space, but an increasing distance in stable space, as measured by C.

    So we have this void filled with cycles of radiation expanding and mass contracting. According to theory, this balances out to overall flat space and this is explained by inflation blowing the universe up so far that it only appears flat, but what if it really is flat? When we see light that has traveled billions of years, it has had to thread its way between all those gravity wells of galaxies. Not only that, but it's redshifted proportional to distance. Since I don't see how they can really use relativity to say space itself expands, when the speed of light doesn't increase proportionally to maintain C, so there really is only increased distance, then we would appear to be at the center of the universe. Now we do happen to be at the center of our view of the universe, so an optical effect would explain this quite well. So then the light in a basically gravity free environment expands, much as that in a gravity zone contracts. Think of space as the rubber sheet over water. Then when the ball pushes it down, the water pushes the rest back up proportionally, so that the overall effect is 'flat' and we only see light that travels the 'high ground.'

    Now that is a whole other argument, which I get drawn into quite easily and have argued in the contests and blogs here quite often, but am trying to be more sociological in this contest.

    Regards,

    John M

    15 days later

    Dear Turil!

    At first, welcome you here as an another women in this essay contest arena :)

    I enjoyed your essay, and also the longer conversations posted here by everyone.

    Your point of you very similar as I proposed a renewed model in my essay, seeing the Man's biological complexity as a Universal natural working model for our further development as a societal organization, and understanding all possible information gathering about - the original nature - and the connection with our nature. Basically what I also proposed is for making optimal decision points what kind of deep knowledge and technological improvements are important for us steering ourselves, the Nature, and also our nature.

    I liked your - you're an atom or an Adam :) what is also meets with my view. I glanced over your blog too. You exert and maintain wast amount of information with which you have been dealing with, and those also can meet with my path goes on its way.

    You had gone here some steps further explaining a model offering how to use all of those gathered information.

    As Joe Fisher says the 'Reality Once'(basically agreeing with him, but I call that the original Reality as an undisturbed one Nature) is not complicated truly, only the all possible information gathering and arrangement and using it for a possible sustainable human development can be complicated. However!

    The Man has a higher cognitive function in-built - I mean never created capability - which propels him to understand, scrutinize, his environment - inner/outer both ones! It also should not be ignored! The Man want to know! Surely there were and possibly there will be civilizations (natural organizations of universal arrangements or orders of beings) who never used hard technological inventions overtaking their own nature, used their knowledge wisely. (We should have heard about them as fairydom or ethereal kingdom). Also possibly there were civilizations and there will be who need to equilibrate between the (also Joe says well - using abstractions about a reality interpretation - which is the capability of the mind rendering the sensually gathered information putting them in either apprehensible terms or not using several kind of languages) incorporating between dimensions. (Some parts of them should be meant material some parts anyhow named. See my tiny picture too in my essay)

    As John says ...if we know everything all around us...it really should take lot of processing power to handle. But, whether we know with full awareness all about it or not - even our natural (not genetically modified) human organism can handle all around us. This is why the original optimal sharing between the voluntary and autonomic nervous system can maintain a healthy organism.

    Yes, the conscious processing power to know even more what the nature can handle optimally as in-built, can be increased with technological achievements and improvements.

    It is not the question addressed to the physics only whether the Universe is finite or infinite or expanding or contracting even in many cycles ending in a Big-Bang, or singularity causing either transhuman or something else. Unfortunately the last danger is bigger. Completely losing our humanness!

    The (finite/infinite) questions is addressed to the human purport: What is worth to do with our wast knowledge we want to know and should know, due to all is ready for us all over us? Whether where when is the optimal balance for us as an UNIVERSAL BEING, as a cosmical vast civilisation, as a Planet or chain of planets any how termed by us? Whether what is worth to transmit further for an inheritance for a further review or refinement?

    My question was in my essay - Whether was/is/will there be a kind of thought experiment a.k.a Creation project - for answering these very complicate questions for our best purpose not against us?

    Best of all, for you

    (I sense, we should make some conversations further. If you feel similar, I also have availability in my essay.)

      4 days later

      Hello Turil,

      I wanted to tell you that I greatly enjoyed your essay. You seem a bit more optimistic than I, but sometimes simply getting enough people to believe something is possible is the greatest challenge. I'm glad you focused on the metaphor of play and its role in learning, which you know I also highlight. I enjoyed the light-hearted tone, and I approve of your message, but I hope you are not just being naive about some things - because the success of your endeavor hinges on certain dark and terrible things not happening.

      On the other hand; most people are not aware that combating evil does not create the good, and that this is something that must be given attention too. Your essay seems more directed at expressing that angle in a joyful way. I think I grasp that humans are meant to be - by our creating and exploring - the means by which Earth comes to fertilize other planets with life, but that we earthlings must be good suitors, to get the job. Does that sum up you intent, with the title of your essay?

      I should also mention that I greatly enjoy the work of Arthur Young, and have created adaptations thereof. I'll have more to say later.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

        Hello Gyenge. Thanks for your comment. I'm having a hard time understanding you, but I appreciate your enthusiasm!

        "sometimes simply getting enough people to believe something is possible is the greatest challenge."

        Indeed! Once the mainstream educational system, media, corporate PR, and government get a hold of people's belief systems, it's really hard to make change. That's why I tend to find it easier to work with kids! This is where my realistic optimism comes from. I see human nature closer to it's source, by looking at children. So I know what's to come a little better than folks who don't have young people in their lives. Certainly there are challenges, but the instinctive behavior we all share, even when suppressed so significantly by the artificial anti-social/anti-self silliness of corporate~governments all over the world, shine through enough to guide us to where we really are designed to go, outward and upward. We've been doing it for millennia, and there is no reason to expect it to stop. It might slow down more than some of us want, but as long as there are still some humans around, it seems impossible to stop us from exploring and expanding ourselves.

        Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that horrible things won't happen. I mean I'm generally homeless, often don't have enough decent food, and I'm often harassed by the police and legal system, as well as some of my own family members, but through it all, I see WHY people behave so harmfully/sickly, and can see that people are tired of it, and looking for something different. We just have to find a way to help them believe that things CAN be better, and that we all deserve to be healthy.

        Finally, I'm happy to hear from someone else who's familiar with Arthur Young. He's been quite an inspiration to me, and I'm amazed that he isn't more well known. He's up there with Bucky Fuller for me, when it comes to eccentric, fascinating geniuses.

        Well!

        Thank you.

        But while you're sitting there quietly, would you like some tea? And would you maybe consider thinking about your goals for what you most want in life, and most want to do? And then share your findings with anyone who's willing to listen? (I am, for instance!)

        I'll do that, Turil. Tea sounds great! As for the rest, wish I'd given more thought to life's goals long ago. Guess what I would like most in life is to continue writing. Not necessarily this heavy stuff, though. I like writing stories, mostly fantasy -- often whimsical -- but with a deeper meaning curled up inside. That's sharing, isn't it? Thanks for listening. And if you'd ever like an ear, let me know. You have an intriguing mind.

        Here's your tea!

        And, out of curiosity, what would you like people to get out of your stories? How would you like to improve their lives with your creative efforts?

        I would like for them to be entertained, maybe amused, and then to think "maybe he had something worthwhile to say after all." If they see that as something that brightens their day, and makes them feel they're not alone, and that others share their hopes and fears -- and their dreams -- then all the better. If they were moved to improve their own lives, and the lives of others, as a result of my writing, then I would have succeeded beyond my wildest ambition.

          In what way would you most like folks to be moved to improve their lives? What would you like to offer folks that isn't available already in the stories and books that you've seen?

          Turil, I'm beginning to feel like I'm on a psychiatrist's couch. Are you analyzing me, or is there some other purpose here? I suppose it would be enough to say I'm gratified if someone reads my books and doesn't think I'm a complete lunatic. But by asking the questions you've asked you have at least prompted me to think more about my work.

          I would like for people to be moved to be more compassionate, which as you may recall was the subject of my original essay in this forum. I think that not only would improve my readers' lives but also would help improve the lives of those around them, and in turn contribute to a chain reaction of love and understanding and compassion necessary to fulfill our common purpose, which is to create -- and, yes, procreate -- and add to the creation that we call our universe.

          I can't say that I can offer ideas that are not already available, but one thing I try to do is offer my own understanding of the way the universe works, and the forces that undermine the peace and harmony that might be found in it.

          Hello Turil, I was charmed. I went on to read much of your blog. Later I wondered why your essay should have this effect on me. The image that eventually came to mind was that of me (the reader) contemplating a piece of art in a gallery.

          With that image in mind, I intend to re-read your essay - a little more critically this time - and try to say something more helpful. Before I start, is there any aspect of the essay that you yourself have doubts about, or feel was inadequately discussed in this forum? - Mike

            Michael, than you for your generous and kind comments!

            And thanks for asking about my doubts and things not adequately discussed. I suppose my doubts involve the best way to be effective in communicating the idea of both hope for a better future, and respect of one's own needs/dreams, to others. Often times I express my heartfelt belief that people deserve to have the high quality things they need to attempt to achieve their greatest, most creative dreams, and people react badly. There are so many defenses that people have had installed in them about "not deserving good things", or at least not deserving them unconditionally, that I think it's not always easy to help people move past those silly roadblocks (to health and creativity).

            The thing that I'd wish was more discussed, I think, is the categorization system I've employed, using Pascal's triangle. I think it's an exceptionally useful tool for understanding large, complex problems, and finding the components that go into the solutions, at all levels of detail, from the basic, general things needed, to the more specific parts. Pascal's triangle is literally the mathematical structure of all possible combinations of a whole, if we are using the evolutionary process of division and (creative) recombination of elements. But this ancient way of breaking things down (and vice versa) seems to be mostly ignored by all. To the point where I actually had never learned about it, even through my years of exploring math, and I had to rediscover it all on my own. Even reading about the mathematicians who work on symmetry and group theory often seem to ignore the usefulness of this triangle, even though it directly defines the groups and their combinations of possible symmetries.

            Well, I am a teacher and counselor and Socratic-loving-philosopher, so I suppose it's not surprising that my inquiry approach might seem a bit like an analysis! My goal is to help people feel the courage and encouragement to explore and better understand their goals in life, and how they might want to try to focus on those goals, eliminating the waste and unnecessary/frustrating other stuff that gets in the way of being successful and feeling good about one's life.

            Inquiry, in my experience, has to go quite deep, for it to be really meaningful, and so many folks don't ever get the support or even suggestion for going deep. Most folks are taught to be satisfied with superficial stuff which leaves them kind of muddy about themselves. So when I ask things like what would you like to offer folks that isn't already available, and how you want that offering to improve their ability to lead a healthy, creative life, it's because I think you do have something unique to offer the world, and I'd love to help you discover it, so that you can accomplish it more easily than you might have before.

            Your unique contribution might not be specifically a new "idea" but it might be a new way to convey that idea to folks who haven't already been exposed to it. In my experience, sharing one's own unique stories about how one has discovered something important in life, be it about compassion one has found for someone one might not have previously had compassion for, or anything else, is one of the ways that an audience ends up most moved...

            A fascinating concept, including some humorous writing that I enjoyed. Conceptualizing planets or biospheres as reproductory entities is quite inspirational, though its difficult to be sure that a biosphere is a refined product of evolution (able to act to self-preserve). Perhaps humanity's deliberate decision to be the brains of the biosphere could result in the ability for Earth to become something greater as you propose!

            I also wonder if a planet/biosphere's mode of reproduction is sexual? Are the forces that cause sexual reproduction in regular species present for planets?

            In any case, thanks for an off-beat and very interesting essay!