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

      Doug, thanks for your comments. It is interesting that we are mostly unaware of all the information we tend to put out there!

      And yes, there are so many different species that are clever and able to solve complicated problems, in addition to humans. We simply seem to have that extra dimension of being able to preserve information/communication for long stretches of time, using media, which allows us to be able to have many more options for problem solving than all the other species we know of.

      As for your comment about implementing the solution of bottom-up, emergent, evolutionarily-developed governance of our society, as I see it, it will simply happen, because it's what we're made to do, genetically. Certainly it will take effort to stop trying to force change from the top down, but you can see how humans continue to reject that approach. And as we finish up the experimentation phase of governance, you can see large chunks of humans look for something better, healthier, more efficient, as they look to form collaborative groups, communities, coops, and NGOs that seek to serve the needs of the people (flora, fauna, and otherwise), directly, instead of hoping/demanding that some big-parent government does it. And, you even see folks working hard to use robots/computers to do the sorts of jobs that are vast wastes of human resource, freeing up humans to do more important, interesting, creative things with their lives, while serving the humans' needs for basic quality of life stuff. And, you also see humans working to escape from the zero-sum, competition-based, quantified monetary system, and instead find ways to solve their communities' problems with readily available resources, directly, rather than being forced to go through the middleman of banks and for-profit corporations. It's all a very slow process right now, and it might stay moving at that rate for a while, or it might suddenly have a shift into high gear in the near future. We'll just have to wait and see.

      And in the meantime, we can focus our own individual resources on making progress on one or more of those specific structural elements that appear in the Pascal's triangle of a healthy, functioning, fertile planet. (My own work is mostly aimed at creating those community hubs, at 011, with a little directed at creating the global think tank, at 111.)

      P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

      10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

      9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

      8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

      7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

      6 - slightly favorable indifference

      5 - unfavorable indifference

      4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

      3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

      2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

      1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

      After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

      The following is a general observation:

      Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)

      Your conversation reminds me of a passage from Loren Eiseley's The Immense Journey: "I have long been an admirer of the octopus. The cephalopods are very old, and they have slipped, protean, through many shapes. They are the wisest of the mollusks, and I have always felt it to be just as well for us that they never came ashore..."

      Aaron, I've been generally using the contest guidelines' "Evaluation Criteria" to rate essays, rather than making up my own. So I've been using a 1-6 scale (roughly 2/3) for "relevancy", which is mostly made up of the questions that they listed:

      - Is it positive rather than pessimistic/dystopian?

      - Is it the best state that humanity can realistically achieve?

      - Is there a clear plan for getting us there?

      - Does it give an idea of who implements this plan?

      - Does it speak of specific technology that we can use, and include the problems and benefits of said technology?

      - Does it focus on FQXi's general category of thinking/problem-solving, bringing in math, cosmology, complexity, emergence, and/or physics in some meaningful and novel way?

      Then I give another 3 points (roughly 1/3) for "Quality". Which basically consists of whether or not this is something better, more original, and more novel than something I'd find in Scientific American, while also being directed at a broader audience than an academic paper. (In other words, if something is too hard to understand on one end, or too simple to understand and similar to your average blog post on LessWrong.com, I give it a 0 for Quality.)

      Then I've got one point left (since the weirdos who made the rating system haven't considered the fact that you can't get whole number ratings when using thirds) to play with, and I usually use it for relevant innovation, since that's kind of a crucial element in problem solving. If I've read something similar before, in a variety of places, and/or it doesn't really answer the question of where we want to go and how we might want to get there most effectively, then it's automatically going to need to be rated lower than an essay that is novel and highly relevant.

      6 days later

      Hi Turil,

      Your essay was a great read. I am still spinning a bit, but the germ of novel is appearing that goes into all the passion and heartbreak of the earth looking for its mate.

      Looks like you have a new book.. Dragonfly

      Wishing you all the best,

      another geeky bicyclist,

      Don Limuti

        Hi Don. Thanks for the comment, and appreciation!

        And yes, my new book is out, and it has some large themes in common with my essay here. The third part of the book (of three parts: past, present, and future) deals with what I see as a possible future for us, as we Earthlings expand out into more dimensions.

        And Yay! for bicycling!

        Turil,

        The time grows short, so I am revisiting and rating. You say in your response, "First, I have to say, I wasn't always optimistic. Not in the least. But having researched patterns of growth for nearly a decade now, in addition to being a teacher, who saw the ways human children naturally grow, I've come to the conclusion that there must be something in the laws of nature/physics that makes things flow in a certain way, expanding into more and more "dimensions" (in the sense of directions that things can move)"

        I have taught, done aerospace and business. Teacher usually tends to make you more hopeful, perhaps. My solution in my essay relates to the capacity of the brain, as Einstein mentioned, to transcend.

        Have you had a chance to read my essay?

        Jim

          Thanks for explaining, Turil, and for reviewing my own essay. I'll be rating yours (and all the others on my review list) some time between now and May 30. All the best, and bye for now, - Mike

          Hello Turil ~

          "All matter "gives off" information, or perhaps, is information itself, if we consider information to be some kind of indication of a pattern of variability in the state of something. Whether you're an atom or an Adam, you are naturally going to propagate information on some level as you emit radiation, gravitation, and nuclear forces...."

          Wow !!! In my opinion that's superb.

          Although I've long held precisely that position myself, I've not yet met anyone else who also does. I like that ! Nice to meet you, Turil !!!

          Of course we not only 'give off' 'information' - at all levels of being - but we also 'give off' real solid bits of ourselves all the time too, & nature has arranged it so that we have evolved the capacity to shape & mould some of these bits of 'detritus' (!!!) into eggs & sperms which when combined & under the right conditions, will turn into a brand new one of us !!!!

          I'm just trying to put back into your own excellent 'give-off equation' the fact that we not only replicate information but ourselves too.

          I would love you to read & rate my essay "How Should Humanity Steer the Future ?" by Margriet Anne O'Regan - as in it I focus on the 'reproductive' component of our circumstance of living & being in this unbelievably fascinating universe of ours.

          As 'information' is also one of my most favourite subjects I entered last Fall's FQXi essay competition with an essay called 'INFORMATION AT LAST !' - by Margriet Anne O'Regan - in which I suggest that 'pattern' is 'information' - & that it is not in point of demonstrable fact any amount of 'bits' & 'bytes', which latter are merely 'counting' aids & that computers can't really 'think' because all they are is glorified, automated abacuses !! They can count well enough, but not think - & most certainly not 'understand'.

          You might be interested in that other essay too.

          I loved your 'Planetary Procreation'

          Thank you

          Margriet

            Margriet, thanks for your comments! It's always nice to hear from someone who looks at the universe from a similar perspective.

            And I somehow missed your essay! I will read it as soon as I get a chance. Thanks for suggesting it.

            Jim, I think if you have fun teaching, it probably is guaranteed to make you more optimistic!

            And I started to read you essay, but I think I got overwhelmed at the time (because I see that I haven't rated it yet), and must have stopped reading. I'll take another look at it!

            Turil,

            Anyone for tea?

            Thanks for any enjoyable experience built around the same fundamental truth I try to expose in mine but exploring aspects that really couldn't be more different. I find in a way that to be the most convincing proof of the absolute connectivity and harmonious oneness of everything. We also both include a touch of humour with our original approaches.

            If your groups look like reaching 'old' England look me up. I already have a small community support network giving professional input to enable non commercial projects. I't's proven very productive, for example producing youth sport facilities and event.

            I hope you may enjoy reading my slightly allegorical tale as much as I enjoyed reading yours. I've taken a positive and direct route in showing that current science, a disparate and disconnected jumble of ill fitting puzzle pieces, is in fact all one harmonious whole. Removing the spookyness from QM and unifying with relativity is the 'leap'. See the 'classroom experiment' in the end notes; how to teach 10 year olds how nature really works!

            But well done for yours. Clearly worth top mark on any scale. Very best wishes.

            More tea?

            Peter