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!

            My pleasure Turil,

            It's probably just the unconditional aspect they're reacting to. When I was a child, I needed love (and much else) unconditionally. Now I judge my worth by what I give in return. You too must feel the same, mature reluctance to take without giving, and shrink from any suggestion of that.

            I prefer to appraise your essay as I originally did, as a work of art. When I try to read the text critically, not allowing myself to be carried along by your obvious sincerity and clear prose (you have a talent), then I get stuck on the first page where you reject the premise of the question "how to steer?" You claim there's no need to steer because we're on autopilot. Personally, I have trouble accepting a future that's predetermined or otherwise beyond the grip of practical reason. I feel I'd rather be destroyed by nature than bend willingly to its mindless ways.

            So I didn't reach Pascal's triangle on this reading; hopefully I can comment on it later. Instead I thought of what he wrote in Pensées: "Man is only a reed, the frailest thing in nature; but he is a thinking reed. To crush him it does not take the whole universe in arms: a breath of wind, a drop of water is enough to kill him. But were the universe to crush him, man would still be nobler than his killer. For he knows that he is dying and that the universe has the better of him. But the universe knows nothing of this."

            Pascal was writing in the mid-1600's, long before the modern age. I think our modern fatalism is just an artificial constraint we impose on ourselves, like property-line fences. Here my favourite quote comes from you. "... all kinds of inanimate objects are often allowed free reign in these spaces. You might not be allowed to hang out in your neighbor's back yard, but the bugs, birds, bacteria, and boron are all happily enjoying the space pretty much 24/7." - I like that.

            When you have a moment, Turil, I'm asking you here to clarify your 'clear reason' critique. - Mike

            Yeah, I think people have been conditioned to think that somehow they don't need their needs in order to function well. They have been taught just what you said, to feel guilty for needing things for their bodies and brains to work. They don't realize that, just like any system, the output is entirely dependent on the input. Can you imagine expecting a bicycle to be a great form of transportation if you refuse to maintain it, and never put air into the tires, or oil on the chain? It really gets in the way of a healthy society. Breaking that myth/habit seems to be one of the big hurdles for us to allow our auto-pilot to work well.

            And what I mean by "auto-pilot" is instinct. Evolution has produced a species, in Homo Sapiens, that naturally is motivated to connect, communicate, and explore in all four dimensions (including UP!). But just because you have a course already set doesn't mean you'll get there. So our success clearly isn't predetermined. We could go the way of the dodo, if we don't trust our instincts, and don't take care of ourselves. Also, it's interesting that you say that nature is "mindless", except that nature is precisely what produced mind. The brain, and it's function (mind), is the most complex and adaptable thing in the universe, and it was entirely created by natural laws and the process of evolution. What else would you use to guide your life, if not the laws of physics and the biological systems that have proven successful at moving things forward for so long?

            Ross, thanks for the comment. As to planets being evolutionary entities, I'm not sure I'd say that the biosphere itself is the being, but instead it might be the four dimensional idea of Earth, or Earthlings, as a collective unit of diverse cultures and species all stemming from the same origin. It's a fine distinction, but one which might be important. So, rather than just the planet and all it's life, the being that evolution produces at this level is one of a past, present, and future of all life that began on this planet. But this is certainly open-ended thinking here! As

            And as for sexual/asexual reproduction, I imagine we might do both...

            11 days later

            Hi Turil,

            I just read your nice and thought provoking essay. First in the introduction you talk about the difficulty/impossibility of keeping a secret or keeping information private. This reminded me somewhat of the ideas of Marcel Proust from his novel "Remembrance of Things Past" (or more directly "Recovery of Lost Time") except Proust was only dealing with a social context. He would describe how characters thought some aspect of their life some a complete mystery to everyone, when in fact almost everyone who cared to know knew of this secret they just didn't discuss it with the character who thought they were keeping a secret.

            Also a trivial comment -- a physics friend of mine did in fact name his first son "Atom" so this seems to be a well loved pun (I hope his son loves it as much when he grows up).

            Second, on the 2nd page (the one with the "Levels of Complexity of Information Packaging") you mention various animals (man, some birds, dolphins?) who can think about how things change and react/adapt to them. In this respect a colleague of mine recently told me that octopi are in fact by some measure better problem solvers than people in that if they encounter a new problem in the environment they can solve this more quickly as compared to a person encountering a similar problem (OK these problems do not involve orbiting satellites, or building the LHC). The problems are how to get food out of some crevice or container, etc. But octopi (at least according to my colleague) have terrible long term memories so that they can never build up a "bank" of these solutions, but must resolve every problem a new. The hypothesis was that when octopi were evolving they encountered such a vast array of different problems that they needs to invest (evolutionarily speaking) in being good general problem solvers, but it didn't pay very much to remember a particular solutions since the next problems would be very different. I'm always a bit wary of explanations of evolutionary outcomes, but this did seem interesting.

            Finally if I understand correctly you are advocating that to some extent we better society by improving the individual members both physically and mentally, and that this in turn will improve society as a whole. I agree with this, but there may be a problem with implementing this since this would require a more equitable redistribution of resources which would be strongly resisted by those that currently have more resources. For example, in the US, US citizens have the idea that things are generally fair. If you don't have the resources you think you deserve this just means you need to work harder. However, if you look at the Gini index of various countries (the Gini index is a measure of how wealth resources are distributed in a given country) one finds that the US is much worse in resource distribution compared to European countries. The US I think has a similar Gini index with Russia and Russian is often accused (by the US mainly) of having a skewed wealth distribution, but in fact the US distribution currently appears on par with Russia. Anyway making sure everyone has the necessary resources is important but actually doing this may be hard/tricky. By the way this is a general problem with most of the proposals in the essays here (including mine) -- how does one make a fair playing field in terms of resources.

            Anyway a strong essay with many points to think on. Best of luck,

            Doug

              Hi Turil,

              your essay is very enjoyable to read and the snippets of humour help it along. Talking about information makes it relevant to foundational questions.

              Quote "Obviously, just like the weather, and the next generation's taste in music, are unpredictable at any sort of detailed level, so too are the details of our own global future."Well said.

              I also really like this Quote " We humans need to first have an exceptionally healthy, functioning body (including the brain) that is nurtured by it's environment and supported in fully expressing itself, in positive or at least neutral ways, so that it can then go on to procreate information with other individuals in whatever ways seem appropriate, given the available resources and circumstances."I think a lot of societies ills stem from poor nutrition and lack of a healthy social life. The idea that we should all play at what we love is good and overlaps with the main idea of Johnathan Dickau's essay.

              A very optimistic outlook. If we can get there I don't know, but offering a cup of tea is a good start. Good luck, Georgina