Joe - You offer an interesting perspective, one that is far more counter-intuitive than even quantum physics. What I find most interesting is that we can measure scientific theories by testing their accuracy against nature itself - those that describe and predict nature best are the winners. But we have to trust that nature itself was, is, and always will be, consistent.
Cheers - George
Thank you Tommaso - I'm afraid my knowledge of TdC is limited. What I recall seems consistent with a recognition of the distinction between physical / mental / spiritual levels of existence, but until I read your essay I was not aware of his grasp on the concept of emergence. Indeed, back when I read him that concept (and the Internet!) was quite undeveloped. I am curious what he (and you) would have to say about the correspondence between levels - does the lower level cause the emergence (supervenience) - or is there a drawing out of the higher level from the lower (top-down-causation). I would suspect that his theology would lead to the latter?
Respectfully Mr. Gantz,
We can do no such thing. Perfect straight lines, perfect triangles, perfect circles, perfect squares, perfect pyramids, perfect spheres, and perfect cubes are completely unknown in nature. As you will find out if you read my essay, REALITY, ONCE, reality is unique, once. Far from being in any way helpful, the only thing the scientists have done is to attempt to drown us all in an ocean of unnatural absurd abstraction. The only thing the technicians have done is bury us in mindless anti-natural fabricated sameness.
With regards,
Joe Fisher
Hello George,
I greatly enjoyed your essay, and I agree on several fundamental points. Though by itself love may be weak, without love the qualities of the intellect fail to give us wisdom. I also agree about the need for cooperation to foster advances in Science. I have attached the slides I used and the proceedings paper for my FFP11 talk "Learning to Cooperate is Essential for Progress in Physics."
The talk and paper were inspired by a comment Gerard 't Hooft had made in a lecture at FFP10, where he stated that many of the looked for advances in Physics will never come, unless we see a marked increase in cooperation, not only among physicists of various disciplines, but also with mathematicians, programmers, engineers, technicians, and even philosophers. So you see, you are needed.
These documents are also among the references for my essay which is about recognizing the value of play, and I think you will enjoy it. I wish you the best of luck in the contest.
Warm Regards,
JonathanAttachment #1: 1_JDickauFFP11.pdfAttachment #2: LearningtoCooperateforProgressinPhysics.pdf
George and John, you ask HOW we create a landscape where cooperation is encouraged and cheating is discouraged, and the answer, as I've seen it, is to first tell others that we care about them and know that they need to get their basic needs met, unconditionally, so that they can be their best possible selves (self-transcendent, as Maslow called those higher levels of human motivation). Then we invest our resources only in those things that actively support the needs of ourselves and others, rather than wasting so much of our precious time, energy, and materials on "earning a living" and "keeping up with the Joneses" so to speak. In other words, we focus on what really matters to us, what we really want to get and do in life, and use our time here to make those things happen, rather than falling for the scams of mainstream media, corporations, and government of what we "should" want and do in life.
Once we eliminate all the waste and invest wisely in our own best selves, then we'll have naturally created an environment where we and all the other social animals we share our planet with will automatically function as well as possible (meaning as pro-social as we can be). We just need to stop letting the artificial crap get in the way of nature doing what it does best!
(The only laws and regulations that might be helpful here are positive ones, such as laws declaring the UN's Universal Human Rights, which say that all humans have a right, unconditionally, to the food, water, shelter, outlets for active work, and basic health care that they need to take good care of themselves and their families. That's a totally valuable law/regulation. Anything that is negative (violence/threat/harm) is, obviously, harmful. That's why my own policies for governance speak only of what a government is for - and that's serving the needs of the people.)
Turil - Thanks for the comment. Many of the essays have focussed on the importance of "knowing thyself" and then learning to act accordingly. I agree our basic human empathic qualities (caring) will guide us to do good things in our relationships. Beyond that, we also need to answer the need posed in my essay - creating a fitness landscape that influences the institutions that now control our lives and our future. We have to build feedback loops with our institutions and provide for a competition between them that rewards empathic behaviors and penalizes negative ones.
Joe -
I do agree that the only reality we possess is the one we are in now, and that it is unique. But that reality has a history (past) and a range of possibilities (future), and part of the fun of being human is to navigate between the two. In this process of navigation, empirical science is profoundly helpful - using information from the past to help explain/predict/steer into a future that is more desirable. Remarkably, mathematics (which I find quite beautiful) and its abstractions facilitates that process with "unreasonable effectiveness", a fact for which I am quite grateful.
At the same time, the directions that we choose for our future need to be shaped by our values / wants and desires. If these are unknown or inconsistent, the results can be disastrous, but if they are based on love for ourselves and fellow humans - our human empathic qualities - then our future will be more connected and more satisfying. This is where the problem lies, not with science itself.
Joe - Apologies - the prior anonymous post was from me! - George
Jonathon -
Thanks for your comment and the papers you attached. I very much enjoyed your essay - one of several that are far more "playful" than my own.
What a wonderful world it would be if we could all be more "child-like" (sense of wonder / openness to new ideas / collaborative / playful), as opposed to "childish" (petulant / self-absorbed / demanding / close-minded).
I also agree with your focus on "fair play" - fairness is one of the key moral perceptions of children ref: Haidt) and is critical to the empathic qualities at the heart of my essay. We all need to work to inculcate these qualities into our institutions - like physics! - and I hope your efforts have been favorably received.
Cheers - George
Hi George,
I really enjoyed your well written essay. You have clearly set out what you regard as the major challenges of the future and the solution. Glad to see altruism highlighted. Altruism is a characteristic of human beings that needs to be taken with us and not forgotten, as people become increasingly separated from each other in real life and more connected online. Young children especially have to learn all about social interaction and not just how to navigate in the cyber world and vegetate in front of the TV.
IMHO As practice for meeting ET and because it would be good, respectful inter- species communication, cultural exchange and symbiotic development should begin with learning to communicate well with the many cetaceans of our own planet. We already have contact with other intelligent life but they don't have technology. Wisdom and technology are different. Both can be valuable but wisdom is unlikely to be dangerous. We can then taking great precautions to avoid alien disease, predation, parasitism and domination apply the same inter-species diplomacy and respect we have learned on our own planet, should intelligent alien life be encountered. We ought as a species to learn respect for non human life before we meet ET.
You have picked some really important human values that need to be treasured into the future.Your essay deserves to do well. Good luck, Georgina
Thanks for the comment, Georgina -
I've been interested in research (Gopnick, Barrett, Haidt and others) indicating that children are born with the capacity for agency detection and moral judgement - these are shaped and the details filled in by parents, teaching and culture - but it's reassuring to know that empathy and altruism have been built in by evolution.
I like the concept of trying to improve communications with cetaceans - most of the research I've read about has been about communicating with primates, which are, of course, more accessible. Cetaceans pose more logistical problems for researchers - but it would help the process if we could de-instrumentalize our attitudes towards them...
Cheer - George
Dear George!
I welcome your well worked out essay, bolstered with such human high values and your positively formulated high requirements, which are undoubtedly and inevitably needed living in a higher evolutionary platform based on moral, mutual respect and acceptance, and cooperation.
It has a message sounding similar as I, and many ones here promote likened the operation of a social, economic organization to a healthy natural organism.
Unfortunately, while the development threads, and trends you mentioned and exerted them from a respectfully positive insight show a truly considerable increasing claim, both in business and institutional systems, however the hard fact is our present state has been yet far from to be collectively achived based on those estimated high values.
I think, and hardly experience too in my life time, unfortunately neither the empathy nor love and trusted mutual respect, approximate fulfilling laid high estimations in several of religious doctrines are enough without a satisfactorily applied - where are the frontiers - knowledge which goes without self-interest.
Unfortunately truly not the money itself is an 'evil', as you and John Brodix Merryman argue and agree. Turil's claim about ...a governance system is serving for the needs of people.. seems me a little naive yet, however considerably expectable.
The problem is all present institutional systems, even the inventive propelling forces for a successfully enough and required technological and scientific, moral development are yet mostly established and owned and ran by 'individuals' who own the tremendous money to finance the evolutionary system development and keep that in anyhow working . What kind of interest for and with how much empathy and love for our common survival and best health which is our natural right? It is under question yet.
In my essay, albeit it may be a bit far going and exoteric, even there is a question buried deeply inside - Whether how much money can be worth being invented for ones to build a virtual surviving system to keep up a false reality trial to overcome the natural one and what will we tax for this development?
It is also a question yet, who is in the Prison, truly? Who can't free itself from a game, or one albeit who is sitting in a cage, nevertheless he is free from this game.
As far as I can understand our present hard reality situation.
Kind regards,
Valeria
George, my suggestion is that we naturally create a healthier landscape when we, ourselves, have both the high quality information about what kind of environment we need to function well in, and when we are able to get our basic needs met for at least reasonably healthy functioning. In other words, the output is dependent on the input. The better quality (relative to our needs) the input is, the better quality the output will be.
And I agree that we have to build feedback systems, but in this case, that feedback needs to be the highest quality possible, so that we can use that information to make better choices.
Harm, on the other hand, through threats, competition for needed resources, penalties, etc., only causes us problems, since it means that people aren't getting the high quality things they need to function well. Punitive/violence/harm based approaches only make people sick. Bad input leads to bad output. That's a basic biological and mechanical understanding, which we've somehow been brainwashed to discard. That unempathic theory alone is perhaps the worst quality input humanity has so far been subjected to, leading to our exceptionally bad output in the form of war, incarceration, abuse, and so on. Instead, we can use science/engineering to see how individuals (animal, vegeteable, or mineral) function well, and do our best to provide those needs, unconditionally, and when things don't function well, we can look to whatever lack of need is getting in the way.
This attention to taking good care of ourselves, and looking to fix problems (rather than trying to cause more harm to the individual through violence, physical or mental) is the only way I've ever found to create an environment more fitting to our needs as a planet.
A well-argued essay, George; I'm happy to find someone other than myself who realizes that religion must have evolutionary fitness. I wrote a paper a few years ago, "Dedicare Omnimodus: A New Ontology of Introspection", which explores that subject. Although it's not 100% accurate it's close enough to count. You may find it interesting.
I don't agree with Freeman Dyson's speculation regarding biological evolution at all. George Ellis has written a really nice paper exploring top-down causation, "Top-down Causation and Emergence: Some Comments on Mechanisms", which you may find interesting. It includes a couple of references to works which show how society and culture act down on biology.
Also, Ben Goertzel, the editor of Humanity + magazine, recently compiled a number of H+ interviews into a book, "Between Ape and Artilect". It includes a really nice interview with Francis Heylighen, founder of Principia Cybernetica and the Global Brain Institute, and the last six interviews all generally relate to what I would term futurist spirituality.
With regards,
Wes Hansen
Valerie - I agree our current state is far from ideal. Many of our institutions are failing to live up to the cooperative behaviors that allowed humans to successfully advance from the pleiostene to the anthropocene. Of course, the institutional evolutionary process, as well as the human one, is essentially a competition where the "super-cooperators" survive - the process can be an ugly one with many missteps and considerable destruction on the evolutionary pathway. Our task is to re-cast the fitness landscape for our institutions so the good ones succeed and the bad ones change for the better or are destroyed. This will require all of us to adhere to and promote high moral standards - something which I believe humanity is capable of doing - if not we shall perish.
I read your essay with interest and posted a comment for your consideration.
Cheers - George
Thanks for the comment, Wayne. On the topic of religion and evolution, I have found the works by Sloan, Wright and Haidt cited in the essay to be quite compelling - I look forward to reviewing the link you provided. I'm not sure I see the connection (if you are trying to make one) between Dyson and George Ellis. Ellis' work is interesting. This is a track I didn't take in my essay because of its complexity, but I find the positions claiming higher order as mere epiphenomenon, or as supervenient on the causation of the lower level, to be inadequate. For example, I don't consider it sufficient to claim that the effects of conscious decisions (freely willed) are supervenient on the deterministic biology of the brain. You might find Ian Thompson's book Proof of God to be quite interesting - he provides a full theistic explication of top down causation and multiple generative levels.
Cordially - George
Dear George!
Thank you for your answer, and I'm waiting for your post on my essay with much interest. (That I couldn't see yet there at that time when I just had been writing my answer here to you)
You radiate lot of positivism, faith in the good, values and man. Which is my faith and claim too. Thus, I can basically agree with you in that required high standards you represent, and your expectation for us to survive.
I'm not a pessimistic one I'm rather realistic. I've been trying to understand (somehow I was steered to follow and consider) much things what run behind not so obviously given even so covered and emerged publicly in the past 25 years. I find all those concerns are also parts of the present - as is - reality big picture.
I ought to think, the expression - humanity - need to be clarified first. Whether that is true or not, it seems to be a fact (as James Lee Hoover writes in his essay and Turil also brings forth a very diverse extra-ultra brains database conception) our species and population here on our present Earth are quite diverse, even may be intentionally genetically engineered either for a kind of betterment, or conveying lowered capacity being kept under a direction of some ones in charge. My very personal opinion is, all tremendous speculation about this huge topic is not an extra terrestrial matter of things at all. I had found someone's indication in his comment - we may be the creators of our own evolution even conceptualizing GOD or GODs. I can feel similar, therefore I conclude much rather we need to finely discern the operating of Natural evolutionary processes, and a probable consciously and intentionally engineered steerable evolutionary mechanism.
I like, you finely expose a difference between - fitness landscape - and the - stronger will - conquer or survive 'law'. That means for me, while in the wild nature the evolutionary processes can run unpredictably missing steps what are logically expected when those are consciously examined and tried to be modelled - due to the Nature is able to keep a healthy balance between the destructive and building forces in a possible changing of Her stratum, either consciously apprehended or not by ones - but that is unfortunately wrongly interpreted by ones' conclusion or deduction that is so, because the - stronger will - conquer. There is a big difference, in the Nature naturally balancing herself evolutionary mechanism and how much we learned from that to consciously steer to build a 'fitness landscapes'. I feel, this may be a so called consciously steerable ability for a creation process given for 'a mankind' who is factually initially (and hoped finally) the sum total stratum of the never created unconditioned NATURE! I feel, this is our creation power given in-inbuilt and encompassing for us being lived both as individuals and group structure of a natural organism and organizations. We should name that community as godlike MAN as his own nature or natural organism or organization. I suppose, there may be experiments running of which positively charged goal is to recognize the working of the NATURE and applying those gathered and learned knowledge for our best invention. But, because of the natural processes also contain destructive forces, I suppose too, the are set counterfeit effects too, for an examination.
I suppose too, the intent of those creation experiments initially may be set and equipped with such high standards you are mentioning and expects those values, and I quite agree. However, some kind of failure should have happened and we can see presently those process cannot be or very difficult to turn them back into the right tracks.
We also should not be unobservant in that of an actual group or social consciousness is mainly determined at institutional levels and may be conditioned by lead forces consisting individuals with service to self or service to others interest being unbalanced in them and even they may be also a kind of groups too. However, mainly they are who own yet presently those peculiar technologies (high energy or subtle energy manipulations with which possible to encroach into the natural matter and energy flowing and allows reality and consciousness manipulations) and more closed released ones to the nowadays using.
So, I'm not afraid of the believing of the average 'hu'man (coming from an originally naturally arranged genetic which is inherently can be balanced by the nature either apprehended consciously and voluntary steered or not - this is what from Joe Fisher talks about I think, and I agree with him) capability to fulfil those high standards. I'm pretty much afraid of them who are in charge presently to engineer of steering of the evolutionary processes into a beyond reason direction what they should have to have already overseen. Very because using their peculiar equipments looking into the future - What should be the total annihilation and destruction of the natural life ending eventually the artificial machine life too, into which they try to escape and save themselves existing in a kind of virtual heaven? It is totally beyond reason, and I'm afraid of how to stop them by ones who are able to apprehend and can do those high standards you wrote.
This is not an off-Earth or out there extraterrestrial topic. It is running here and NOW! We need to realize it and somehow stop it. Unfortunately I'm either not in charge or knowing more how.
Kind regards,
Valeria
Valeria - My apologies as I may have failed to hit the "post" button for my comment on your essay and will respond here. What I had observed is that I like the analogy of the form of the human body being reflected in the form of greater humanity. Just as the cells of the body cooperate in creating and supporting the whole of a human being, all human beings participate in the creation and support for human civilization. One can also take the analogy the other way: the discrete chemical processes in each cell all participate in creating and supporting the whole of the human cell; the discrete physical particles within each chemical reaction participating in creating and supporting the whole of the reaction; the discrete quantum components participating in the creation of the whole particle.
I also agree that increasing diversity is essential to the evolutionary process at all levels. Diversity represents innovation - innovation is necessary to the exploration of potential pathways through the fitness landscape and the more diversity the more growth and progress we will experience.
Regards - George
Hi George,
Very nice essay! I particularly enjoyed the big-picture approach you take, providing perspective on the profound changes in humanity and its institutions. Your incorporation of natural history is great!
Do you have thoughts on the specific evolutionary forces that have shaped altruism? I'm extremely interested to get your thoughts on my theories which attempt to explore how humans came to be so cooperative and even altruistic.
http://citizenearth.altervista.org/dynamiccooperation.html
Do you have a web site of your own? There is clearly a group of us here interested in very similar issues it would be great to interact further.
Ross
Dear George!
Thank you for your comment put here regarding to thoughts put in my essay.
And my apology too, loading you with too much in my above comment.
Albeit, I can agree the diversity can entail much positive innovation and also interspecies either coming from natural origin or else way created may be able to achieve a mutual symbiosis based on high standards.
Let me take a copy of my short notes here yet, what I put on John Brodix Merryman too:
Overseeing how a complex natural (or else) organism should work and applying that model for our societal complex organism betterment as you (he - John) likened to - ...are government as society's central nervous system and finance as its economic circulation system - I think, an ageless trial experiment just in time running on many threads for even I truly hope the main thread goal is - let there be balanced.
You (he - John) are just focusing on, quite straightforwardly and goal oriented, which is absolutely right in place and has crucial importance! How 'banking' or monetary system need to be 'edited', or should be put into an else context which better fit to a working of a healthy economical and ecological organism.
Perhaps, there is nobody at the moment giving the right answers and resolutions - How to substitute the money driven inventive presently exorbitant technological, technocratic development, as a blood vessel conveying proprietary laws, for domination over the natural law for every living being.
I'm only afraid of whether this '..re-casting process the fitness landscape for our institutions.." can be so simply reached as you write "..so the good ones succeed and the bad ones change for the better or are destroyed.."
Let there be so! Let there be all right by that simple way. I like your optimism, but I'm not so much.
Kind regards,
Valeria
