Dear Jonathan,

I thank you for your constructive remarks on my essay.

Indeed my problem is how to translate ideas in words....

Maybe it is so that our "machines" cannot be brighter as their creators.

But when I say that immediately I am aware that our non caused consciousness is like GOD and can create anything possible , also an entity that has more relations to Total Simultaneity (GOD?) then the limitations of causal beings can be aware of.

In an article that I am preparing for COSMOLOGYI introduced an "Eternal Now Moment Hopper" a way to change time-life/lines , not comparable to time travelling but it has some parallels, I enclose the pre-view.(it is not yet accepted by now, but I await the okay) I wonder if you have some remarks.

I answer on your thread, pls do the sma with your answers on mine. and thank you for your rating.

best regards

Wilhelmus

    Thanks for the nice essay. Play is an important aspect of innovation as you rightly point out. We all seem to know what play is, especially when children play, but what play is for adults is one of those kinds of words. Like defining what a game is, play is something that we seem to know, but then cannot really generalize.

    What is the difference between play and work? Oh, work is not fun...but then what if work is fun? Is it play or is it work? Some people say that what they do for work is fun and some people say what they do for work is not fun.

    The essence of your essay really is that a childlike approach to exploring the world can help us better understand that world. I daresay that I would even push it further and say that the way that we learn before we reach consciousness at 6-7, by play, is just as important as the way we learn after consciousness and the more structured play as we grow older.

    You use the word fun a lot in your descriptions of play since what is fun is usually an indication of what is play. However, some people have fun doing things that bore others to tears, and so the actions are not really the key. It is the desire and motivations that are the key.

    Implicit in your essay are desirability and motivation. It is by imagining futures that are desirable that we decide what is fun and what is play. But hunger and fear are also important determinants for predicting desirable futures. For science, curiosity is a much more important driver than fun or play, for example.

    Is curiosity about how the world works fun? I think so, but most people that I meet simply do not have much curiosity about how the world works. Instead, their curiosity is channeled into movies and books and UFOs and ancient aliens and so on. Is that fun misguided?

    And finally, what about playful behavior that injures others or damages property? Play is a useful allegory for a desirable future, but it does have its limitations. Like all behavior, play can be constructive and enlightening and play can also be destructive and abusive of others. Your doctrine of play should also address the dark side of human play.

      Thank you so much Vladimir!

      I am looking forward to reading your essay, hopefully still this weekend, but I appreciate the warm regard and thoughtful comments. I guess it didn't begin with Einstein, and that Newton and I are on the same page as well. It's nice to be in such esteemed company.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

      Thank you Wilhelmus!

      I will indeed comment further on your essay page, as there is a lot to say about your chosen subject matter.

      Warm Regards,

      Jonathan

      Thanks Steve,

      My biggest gripe, for what it's worth, is that modern society seems fixated on competition - and the competitive play of adolescence is what we must outgrow or overcome. The playful behavior that injures others is mainly an outgrowth of the spirit of competition, that evokes a sense of otherness for everyone and everything except yourself. Neither child-like play nor fully adult play is so oppositional or confrontational by nature, as I explained in my FFP11 Paris lecture, which I already forwarded you.

      But the really sad thing is that adolescent play is considered by many to be superior to other forms of playful engagement. The need for a winner and the spirit of competition this brings are claimed to be what is needed to propel a young person into a successful business career, or whatever. But teaching are young to be ruthless and cunning, with a 'do whatever it takes' mentality, has severe drawbacks. Plainly; it also leads to the notion that hard work is to be rewarded, while things that are fun are not work.

      So our society has made a norm out of the basest kind of play, rather than acknowledging that the play of children and the win-win games of mature adults are superior. Yes adults do compete, but it is more often to exceed their limits and personal best performance - rather than being undertaken to defeat or demoralize an opponent.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

      Sorry,

      That should be 'teaching our young to be ruthless and cunning' above.

      We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

      Regards,

      Jonathan

      I wanted to share this perspective..

      One of my biggest reasons for writing about play is that healthy play appears to be under attack. It is threatened by folks who believe in hard work and competition, but would rather exert their influence over us - because they are superior competitors - and they feel this means they should be in control. Having young people learn to actually think for themselves, or make their own choices about what is real, important, or proper, gives them too much power in the eyes of despotic leaders - who want to be the ones making such choices. But ultimately; empowering children through play makes them resistant to enslavement and tyranny as adults. But making it OK to play makes good economic sense.

      Being able to convince scientists or FQXi contest participants about the value of play is like preaching to the choir, and the real challenge is to reach folks who fund research or see research only as a tool for developing marketable products, because making it more open-ended can increase the rewards. In fact; some of the most abstract questions are the ones with the richest rewards of all. The payback could be enormous! But unless people exploring the sciences have the freedom to approach things playfully, rather than being compelled to pursue only what allows incremental success, any number of potential breakthroughs will never come.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

        Jonathan, thank you for your essay! You not only offered me some more details about one of the stages of development that I'd never heard about, adding to my own research on developmental growth (you can see my theory of human consciousness, and it's relationship with dimension, relationships, and motivations as they occur at different ages at http://www.thewiseturtle.com - you can see that my own theory places a change in the level of output of multi-dimensional thinking at 27 months), but you also reflected my own discoveries, as a teacher, about the importance of free-learning.

        One of my current goals is to create a network of community centers for open-ended learning and problem solving that merge art and science together, to bring the best of all possible approaches to problem solving to the forefront of our community "government". (In this case I mean bottom-up, emergent, natural government, rather than the top-down, artificial sort we have been trying out for so many years.) I call these centers CREATE Spaces, with the acronym standing for Community Resource Exchanges of Art Technology and Education. I'm looking to find someone willing to donate an unneeded farm or similarly large property where a non-profit could be set up to house artists, educators, and geeks in residence who are given free housing in exchange for working with the local folks to solve problems of how to use locally available resources to serve local needs, so that the community is more sustainable and resilient. I think a network of such centers would very much allow everyone the space and time to play together in the most meaningful and rewarding ways that serve our most important needs as a society!

          Thank you for your gracious comments Turil,

          Your idea for a learning center sounds interesting, and I support you in that endeavor; I might even participate. I see from what I have examined that there are differences in our approach. But it is nice that our work jibes on some level, even if the match is not complete. And I am always interested in learning further details of what others have discovered about the stages of learning. I will be sure to check out your essay soon.

          All the Best,

          Jonathan

          Jonathan,

          I think I put forth a similar concept, in that a spiritual absolute would necessarily be the essence from which we rise, not an ideal from which we fell. Top down theologies inherently validate top down social organizations. If the young were taught their sense of being is the real reflection of the cosmos and social hierarchies are only a dimmer reflection of that, it might compliment a healthy childhood in resisting those who will prey on them.

          Regards,

          John M

          Regards,

          John M

          A very nice essay Jonathan; you emphasize the maintenance and development of that inquisitive nature inherent in the young but often, sadly, destroyed by rote learning. In my early twenties I took a college algebra course taught by Alex Badea. Dr. Badea was from Eastern Europe and was recruited to work on the Superconducting Super Collider; when the project was cancelled he taught low level math courses at the Houston Community College before securing work with a defense contractor in Dallas, Texas. On the first day of class he told us that, in American math classes, too much emphasis was placed on solutions and not enough on concepts. His theory was that if one develops a thorough understanding of the fundamental concepts then solutions naturally follow. By the end of his class, and certainly after learning calculus and linear algebra, I was thoroughly convinced; I believe his theory is applicable to your thesis.

          In the late 90's and early 00's, I volunteered every year with Dean Kamen's FIRST organization. I believe that organization is one of the best things to happen to STEM education in quite some time. The FIRST "coopertition" really hits on all of the points raised in your essay: inquisitiveness; playfulness; cooperation; and unifying all, integrity. I plan to become much more active with FIRST in the near future.

          I found your "Playful Learning Landmarks" section quite interesting. Something that Sabine Hossenfelder pointed out on her blog, there seems to be an apparent correlation between the emergence of perspective in Art and the emergence of the scientific method as the proper method for conducting inquiries into the nature of nature. I find it interesting that the Pythagorean Theorem was known almost universally and long before Pythagoras but perspective, in two-dimensional artworks for instance, doesn't really make an appearance until the Renaissance. And then, of course, shortly thereafter it was deconstructed once again and called progress, Ha, Ha, Ha . . . Now that's playful . . .

          So what are your thoughts on mathematics? Are you a constructivist and think mathematics evolved with the human mind or are you a Platonist? I know you stated in your comment on my section of the forum that reality computes but I'm curious, do you look at compute in the sense of Max Tegmark or, say, in the sense of Steven Wolfram?

          With regards,

          Wes Hansen

            Thanks greatly Wes,

            I am glad that my essay meets your approval. I hadn't heard before about Bee's comments on perspective in Art, but that link is most welcome. You are absolutely correct about teaching fundamental concepts, and how learning solutions naturally flows from understanding them. This is sadly left out of many curricula, but it was one of the things Alfie Kohn stressed the importance of, in his lecture at the James Earl Jones theater - up the hill from me. Lately I've been conversing with a retired local Physics prof, Greg Kirk, and he also extols the virtue of that approach.

            Unfortunately; this is not always easy. In a conversation with (then active, now retired) RPI Chemistry professor John Carter; he told me of trying to deliver the conceptual basis - and having his students complain, asking 'is this going to be on the test?' and urging him to go directly to the next equation they could memorize. I told this story to UNAM Physics prof, Jaime Keller after FFP11 in Paris, when he asked me "Why at an international symposium, with Nobel laureates and other top experts presenting, were there so many stupid questions?" But comments like that are part of my motivation for this essay.

            As to the Maths; I am an oddball, both a Constructivist and a Platonist. And my purview admits the outlooks of Tegmark and Wolfram equally well, while positioning me somewhere between them. Much more can be said on that later, on the FQXi forums or in a private exchange, or you can look at my work cited in the references and previous FQXi essays for some details.

            All the Best,

            Jonathan

            Dear Jonathan ,

            I am pleased to read your essay. Your ideas are very close to me. You write:

            «But before that; to properly educate our young people for careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math, we must encourage them to playfully explore ideas and concepts - and not to merely memorize facts - because this is what helps them develop the mental acuity and problem solving ability which will allow them to succeed and excel .... One way we can create a better future is to encourage playful engagement with Science and Math, and make it fun for all. If we can nurture the playful spirit all humans have as infants, and scientists need to advance human knowledge; this is how humanity can shape the future most positively .... We should be celebrating scholarly achievements to as great a degree as we do those of athletes on the field! Perhaps more importantly; we should revere new knowledge once it is received, where seeing great scholarly accomplishments like Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture shows us the inherent worth of such scholarly pursuits. Of course; full appreciation of the importance of that work would require a much more well-educated general population. "

            I totally agree with you. In order to more reliably manage future need for a revolution in education , and a new attitude to knowledge.

            The big question for Humanity - how to build a holistic Man : Homo sapiens sapiens + Homo sapiens ludens + Homo sapiens faber? How to make a single picture of the world for physicists and poets?

            "We do not see the world in detail-

            Insignificant all and fractional.

            Takes me sadness from all this ... "

            Vvedensky Alexander (1930)

            And how to steer the Future fragmented World?

            With kind regards and best wishes,

            Vladimir

              Jonathan,

              I think I can do no more than set your philosophy aside the sentiment of Robert Frost from "Two Tramps in Mudtime":

              "But yield who will to their separation,

              My object in living is to unite

              My avocation and my vocation

              As my two eyes make one in sight.

              Only where love and need are one,

              And the work is play for mortal stakes,

              Is the deed ever really done

              For Heaven and the future's sakes."

              My own essay should be up shortly. Yours is nothing short of excellent, as always.

              All best,

              Tom

                Hi Jonathan,

                a really passionate and convincing essay, If we had been asked to name one thing that would make the world a better place 'play' is not what would have come immediately to my mind but may be it should.

                There can be a problem with expecting children learn through personal exploration because sometimes they just don't get what they are being expected to do.Some personalities thrive on the freedom, others are afraid of doing something wrong or just plain do not know what to do. Speaking from personal memory. Teachers need to facilitate the learning of the children by giving some physical input or suggestions to get the play/learning going if it isn't spontaneous.

                Giving scientific achievement recognition on par with music and sports entertainers sounds nice but the really high earners are just the tip of the ice burg. There is a joke that goes; do you know the difference between a musician and a pizza? A pizza can feed a family of 4.

                Really enjoyed reading your essay, its packed with sensible suggestions. I do hope the world become that wonderful, playful, inovative, knowledge and life long learning valuing future you have presented to us. Good luck, Georgina

                  Hi Jonathan, First, thanks for your nice comments about my own essay. It's because you pointed out some similarities in our themes that I read through your essay just now, and I'm glad I did! It's indeed clear that we are trying to make similar points about the inappropriateness and ineffectiveness of dogmatic, memorization-of-facts type science education. What we need is people who like to, and can, think creatively; emphasizing the "play" aspect of genuinely creative thought is an excellent way to do this. I appreciated your references to Allison Gopnik. My wife is a social psychologist and knew about and liked Gopnik's work. And then when we had kids a few years ago I bought and really enjoyed her book "The Scientist in the Crib". Anyway, I think we agree that what we need is a version of science education that actually celebrates and rewards the kind of exploratory, playful, let's-see-what-happens-if behavior that is a core part of human nature... until our overly dogmatic education system snuffs it out (in most people at least).

                  So, thanks again for the pointer to your nice essay, and I wish you the best of luck in the contest!

                  Travis

                    Thanks so much Georgina!

                    Surprisingly little adult coordination is needed, though indeed some is helpful or perhaps essential - especially once the young become acculturated. In the example cited by Alfie Kohn in his lecture; the primary input of the teacher was to repeatedly ask "what are you trying to do?" and "how do you intend to do it?" then give the children permission to go ahead with their proposed way to attack the "how do we measure it?" problem. The rest, the kids designed for themselves.

                    I've worked with plenty of expert musicians who can't afford a pizza, for what it's worth. Some of those musicians deserve better, but I also know some highly-trained people who should be high wage-earners (by virtue of their knowledge and expertise), and instead find themselves struggling to make ends meet, have a place to live, or even find honest ways to volunteer their talents and have their basic needs taken care of. Genius-level folks should not have to work as store clerks to earn a living, when their efforts could make life better for all of us - if only they could keep their life together.

                    So there is much to talk about.

                    Warm Regards,

                    Jonathan

                    Thank you greatly, Travis..

                    I think our approaches complement each other, and that both a historical account and the method of playful exploration treat Science well - while the teaching methods that favor memorization of facts over concepts tends to leave graduates unprepared for the actual rigors of a scientific laboratory. The trend is to encourage students to incorporate a Business curriculum into their Science studies, and I think this is misguided or wrong-headed too - being based in a fundamental misconception of the nature of Science.

                    Science does not yield to to the paradigm of predictability and control that is the rule in the Business world, especially in the area of Research and Development. The reason for doing an experiment is often that you can't know the results until you do the experiment. So being expected to plot out what your results will be, and then issue a timetable for when you will be able to produce those results is either counter-productive, or in some cases rules out the possibility for breakthrough advances - through the requirement of having to adhere to protocol.

                    More later,

                    Jonathan