Humanity is much more than the sum of humans by Tommaso Bolognesi

Tomasso -

I should have said that I disagree with Wittgenstein. I am also an optimist. While I believe there are fixed limits (e.g. Godel's Theorems, Turing's Halting Problem, Planck space and time, non-locality, ...) to the scientific enterprise, these limits can be approached using different modes of understanding. Life is deep and complex - transcendent experience is part of being human - this is something we need to honor and explore.

Thanks!. PS - I am looking forward to a vacation in Italy in another week.

Ciao! - George

Hi Tommaso,

I have read your essay. An interesting presentation style. Lots to think about.

You wrote "It is well known that, due to a malicious antipodal butterfly, the possibility to accurately forecast the weather - let alone controlling it - is severely limited. Why should it be easier to predict and steer the future of humanity?" My immediate though was that human behavior is not chaotic and so is a lot more predictable. However a quick Google search and I found "Chaos in human behavior: the case of work motivation." Universidad de Barcelona, Spain. j.navarro PubMed Commons, 13th May 2010 Quote: This study considers the complex dynamics of work motivation. Forty-eight employees completed a work-motivation diary several times per day over a period of four weeks. The obtained time series were analysed using different methodologies derived from chaos theory (i.e. recurrence plots, Lyapunov exponents, correlation dimension and surrogate data). Results showed chaotic dynamics in 75% of cases. The findings confirm the universality of chaotic behavior within human behavior,......" Which I find really surprising.

I still don't think people are as hard to predict and steer as the weather. With training and/or conditioning they can become highly predictable. The work of Derren Brown hypnotist, illusionist, mind reader shows how easily ideas can be planted into people's minds which they then regard as their own thoughts. I don't have overt mind control in mind but subtle political -social engineering that drip feeds the desired behaviours. Smoking- not our future Its then a matter of deciding what direction will be promoted as desirable. The lesson of low fat diet advice leading to more heart disease and obesity should be heeded as cautionary tale. It shows that what we think is best for the people may not be.

Good luck, Georgina

Nice, Tomasso!

I am also a big fan of Chaitin's metabiology and I think you hit it dead on: "In his book Chaitin mentions Wolfram and his New Kind of Science [9]. Well, one of the messages from that book is that the emergent properties of the computations of simple programs - software - might explain the complexity and creativity of the physical universe at all levels. Spacetime, before anything else, must be creative! And discrete! And algorithmic! Spacetime as a causal set [4] - an algorithmic causal set!"

While you seem to doubt that Chaitin's program either includes or can include consciousness, though, I think it is implied as an inherent characteristic of matter. (As you say, even a stone has a small soul.) This idea is formalized in Murray Gell-Mann's IGUS (information gathering and utilizing system) model of complex adaptive systems.

My own essay should be up soon. Looking forward to dialogue!

Tom

Here my answer to your question:

Hi Tommaso,

thanks for your interest and sorry for the delay (Easter travel with my family and no internet connection...)

No, Lem is not at the origin of this idea. In his book, Lem wrote about the theoretical limits of human development. Here he discussed also the direct change of the human body (or the brain) also in the direction of genetic engineering but also as combination of technology and biology. But the main part in his argumentation is the evolutionary development of all kinds (technology, humanity and society). For me it was the first time that someone mentioned such a unifying principle and this was the main influence of Lem for me. (Quantum gravity is also such a unifying principle but this is another story....)

In the second part of your question, you mention a two-way process (technology influences humans). Yes, you are right that there is such an influence.

As model I would propose a coupling of the two evolutionary processes (also by a special rate, so not deterministic but probabilistic). Years ago we developed this strategy (and call it diochotomic strategie). Unfortunately we never published something and it is only contained in a PhD thesis (but in german). The corresponding equation was later found to be comparable to the Dyson equation in quantu field theory (but now with imaginary time, a usual trick to change from quantum field theory to statistical physics).

But your question reminds to make some work in this direction again.

Best Torsten

Dies ist, was Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz Höhle tut. Das ist nichts Neues.

Hello Tommaso, May I offer a short appraisal of your essay, a little on the critical side? I would ask you to return the favour. - Mike

I liked your essay a lot Tommaso..

I did not know about some of the musings of Teilhard de Chardin before reading your essay, but his message resonates very strongly with me, and I am glad you brought it to my attention. As it turns out; he lived not far from here for a time late in his life, and his final resting place in in the same township where I reside. Of course, everything has changed; the St. Andrews monastery is now the campus for the Culinary Institute of America, but some folks still remember TdC's Hudson Valley connection.

I find the insights you discovered through de Chardin are similar to the views expressed by Arthur M. Young in his "Reflexive Universe" book. Young details how the evolution of consciousness and the cognitive faculties follows a similar pattern as the evolution of form in Physics and Biology, and unfolds in seven stages. I have attached a document supplementary to my essay, which details my adaptation of this theme to the playful process of learning, but it also speaks to the work of de Chardin - as I cover the entire evolutionary spectrum of the learning experience, or the grand arc of all learning.

We will have to compare notes again later, but for now; good luck!

All the Best,

JonathanAttachment #1: Playful_Flow_of_Information.pdf

May it please you to learn..

There exists an algebraic system in which that progression is already encoded, the octonion algebra. There are seven imaginary dimensions in the octonions, and if you interpret imaginary components as depicting change or motion, it is easy to see this is related to process. In fact; one might even say that octonion algebra is sequentially evolutive.

P.C. Kainen comments "Of course, multiplication in the octaval arithmetic fails to be either commutative or associative, but that could be a blessing in disguise. If multiplication depends on the order of the elements being multiplied together and even on how they are grouped, then at one fell swoop, geometry enters the calculation in an organic way."

This has been a subject of my research for a number of years, and I would be happy to compare notes, save you time by directing you to known results, ... You have already saved me time by summarizing things in your essay that strongly support my work.

All the Best,

JonathanAttachment #1: 2_octophys.pdf

I meant to post here..

But my reply to you ended up below. Sorry for any confusion.

Regards,

Jonathan

Dear Tommaso,

Your essay has a delightful structure, and Tommy comes off looking quite good in it!

In your comment on my essay you ask about non-linear system stability. I suspect that you are addressing, by referring to nonlinearity, the Wolfram automata/Game of Life observation that with a change in one cell or automaton, as you say, "an avalanche of modification causally spreads across the space-time diagram." I do not find the two viewpoints exclusive. In fact, I find it supportive of the system of maximum freedom, and most likely to result in stability, as it is most likely to address threats to existence as they arise.

I very much admire your attempt to "provide some formal foundations to Teilhard de Chardin." I have felt, for 50 years, that his view of reality is the most complete. (Which of course is not to say that he has all the details right, only the big picture.) And as others have noted above:

"A stone has a soul... but a very small one."

My first FQXi essay, Fundamental Physics of Consciousness is compatible with this (somewhat pan-psychic) perspective. As you note,

"Self-modifying code may be an elegant idea, but if you equate the program with the data structure, thus to the physical universe, you end up with a piece of code as big and complex as the universe itself."

There is considerable discussion in the comments on above link, but I will summarize by saying that I distinguish between consciousness-- defined as awareness plus volition -- and intelligence, which adds logical structure. When these aspects of reality are not distinguished, things can become even more confusing. But awareness, per se, is built into the universe globally, whereas the existence of local structure (instantiating logic) provides both higher local 'density' of awareness, and a local, logical framework. My book "Gene Man's World" provides a more complete picture of what, I believe, is a unified theory of consciousness. If Chardin's view is correct, we should find the universe comprehensible, not incomprehensibly mystical.

I find the fact that more physicists are recognizing that understanding the world requires that we try to understand how consciousness fits to be a very positive sign.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Tommaso,

Great essay! I find your presentation style very interesting. I learned a lot from your essay, especially about the philosophy of Teilhard de Chardin and the work of Tononi.

Thank you, and good luck.

Mohammed

Dear Tommaso,

Sublime! I rated it a ten (10. Having self-aware Qbit like you, we have no fear of the future. Our world is Leibnitz's world, the best of all possible worlds.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

Tommaso,

Complexity is also prone to instability and periodic crashes. While we cannot compute the exponential increase in complex systems, other than computing every step, we can, with some perspective of distance, estimate the likelihood of them crashing. Like individual lives, they can crash early, or they can crash late, but they will crash because complexity tends to only compound until it becomes unstable. Like computer programs or old blood, it just gets too much bad code built up to be able to sustain it within the platform.

So you don't necessarily have to view the human situation as completely unpredictable, due to its complexity. There are a number of issues, from finance to physics to population to economic growth, which are all showing signs of imminent crashing. One effect of a crashing system is that it provides a large amount of released energy. So the question I would ask, is there some way which these forces can be directed in an overall positive direction, or possibly one crash used to facilitate a positive direction for others and to be truly optimistic, I think there is.

Regards,

John Merryman

Tommaso -

The comments have slowed down but the scores are heating up. I hope you continue to do well. Not having a direct email I thought I would let you know that we just got back from a fabulous vacation in Italy - 5 days in Tuscany, 1 in Orvieto and 2 in Rome. Fabulous! Here in New England all the villages are in the valleys and the mountaintops are for viewing. Italy is upside down! This simply shows the power of the fitness landscape in directing human behavior - if you are mortally fearful of marauding bands, attacking armies or wild animals, hilltops are a place of safety and refuge. I was also overwhelmed by the sense of common purpose and commitment it took to build all those fortifications and cathedrals - or the aqueducts and magnificent fountains in Rome. If humans can do these things, then perhaps we can also determine how to steer humanity's future.

Ciao! - George

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.)