I still hope you'll comment, George. My policy was only meant to dissuade anodyne comments and veiled offers of vote trading. In any case, I promise to rate all my reviews by D-Day.

Your historical introduction is a good frame; it puts the steering question in perspective. Your prose is pleasant and effortless to read. I think you fail, however, to come to grips with your thesis. We should "create fitness landscapes that select for cooperative ... behaviors", but this you avoid stating till page 4. Then immediately you plunge us back into history (where you move confidently) to circle the thesis for the remaining pages. I'm a sympathetic reader who agrees we need some kind of unifying counterbalance to modern society's tendency to fragmentation, but, like Robert de Neufville who "would have liked to hear more about how [society] could change to foster mutual empathy" (May 23), and John Hodge ("The question is how?", Apr 15), I'm ultimately left unsatisfied. Your answer to Hodge that "that's a question for the next century... [and] will be difficult" misses the point. We don't necessarily need a blueprint that we can execute immediately, but rather a vision of the goal that convinces us that a blueprint will someday be possible.

Mike

Mike - Fair enough critique. To be honest: I feel confident in how I frame the problem and draw out the lessons of history (and pre-history), but not at all confident about how to implement a universal solution. At the personal level, I am very comfortable with a theistic worldview (one that embraces science) and confident in the guidance that provides - it is a solution for me and for others that share my faith. But faith is not something one can impose - on oneself or anyone else.

One thesis that I did not address directly in the essay does impose a constraint on the nature of a solution to humanity's problems and the prescription for their solution - and that is that empirical science has ineluctable limits that will never be resolved empirically. The solution to correctly steering the future of humanity will thus require a spiritual integration that reaches beyond the physical. My essay points in that direction by placing love at the tip of the spear, but I did not attempt to tackle that issue directly in my essay. I also felt that a direct attack on the limits of empirical science and proselytizing on the need for a spiritual integration would have fared badly in an FQXi contest. I'm still puzzled as to why the first person to score my essay gave it a 1.0, but suspect it had something to do with the nature of my message.....

Much obliged for the excellent critique. I hope my response is helpful.

-George

George,

You were right that we share a lot of common ideas when you responded to my essay. I like your use of the notion of developing suitable institutional behaviors! Good essay!

Cheers,

Randal

    Dear George,

    It was an opportunity using the time of extension to go through your coherent essay. Probably work load of other commitment prevented me from reading it earlier. I scored you high to further boost your visible article.

    Your idea of steering the future is a job well done. I observed some unique similarities in our essays which I will want you to explore before this contest is over. STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM is the title of my article and can be directly assessed here http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2020

    I will anticipate your comments and rating after reading.

    Thanks and wishing a bumper reward for your labour.

    Regards

    Gbenga

      Hi George,

      Thanks for your comment on my essay.

      I enjoyed reading your entry. You've made good points about the importance of empathy and cooperation in trying to overcome our challenges. Recommending that scientific advancement continue is unlikely to be challenged by this audience either.

      Is there any particular ideas you would like to discuss or get feedback on?

      Cheers,

      Toby

        Thanks, Randall. Yes, the trick is to figure out how the individual components can intentionally influence the behaviors of the complex systems which they comprise!

        Cheers - George

        Hi George,

        I thought your essay was beautifully and persuasively written.

        We tend to forget, but you reminded us that "cooperative enterprise" "trust, honesty, mutual respect and shared commitment" and humility are "the qualities that propelled humanity and its institutions forward".

        But "Competitive or conflicting responses create frictions that can undermine or destroy". And, in a similar sentiment to that in my essay: "Science does not always serve in an empathic capacity... in fostering particular ideologies such as determinism and materialism...Has science as an institution contributed to existential alienation, the rise of unfettered commercialism or declines in social capital and shared moral frameworks " ?

        So I must agree that we must "design the fitness landscape for humanity's future in ways that reward cooperation and collaboration and discipline cheating, dishonesty and other moral defections".

        Re "the theory of evolution through natural selection has a strong consensus in the scientific community, but debates continue on some of the specifics":

        I recently read 2 reviews of a new book "Mutation-Driven Evolution" by Masatoshi Nei , Evan Pugh Professor of Biology at Pennsylvania State University and Director of the Institute of Molecular Evolutionary Genetics since 1990. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3814208/pdf/evt150.pdf and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ede.12062/pdf ).

        According to the reviews, and if I understand correctly, Masatoshi Nei is saying that there is no actual evidence that a selection component drives evolution: there is only evidence for a mutation component driving evolution. One of the reviews says:

        "To suggest that selection "shapes" new genes out of the "raw material"...of new genes - is an absurdity...Because we now know that the role of generative processes in evolution is not limited to supplying raw materials, we now know that evolutionary theory is incomplete without a theory of form and variation. Incorporating such a theory will require us to rethink how we invoke causation and explanation, and to reject the false metaphor of selection as a creative agent that builds from passive raw materials."

        My interpretation is that, seemingly, organisms are the creative agents shaping their own fates rather than "selection" (which is anything but the organisms themselves) shaping their fates.

        Cheers,

        Lorraine

          Thanks, Gbenga - I will comment on your essay shortly. - George

          Toby - The big question is how to develop a shared culture / morality that will keep "love at the tip of the spear." Historically, building and sustaining a shared morality across many generations is a role that religions have played. In our post-modern, secular, increasingly digitized world, what does that look like? There seems to be a little work going on in this area ( see: Big Questions Online series, or the RSA project on the Social Brain) but the chasm in language and sensibilities between science and religion seems to be incredibly wide..... We need better bridges. (See my website at www.swedenborgcenterconcord.org - The ISAS Forum - for some early efforts in this regard.

          Thanks for asking! - George

          Lorraine - Thanks for the comment and the citation to Nei's book - which I will have to look up! Yes, I think evolution is often cast in very simplistic terms - random mutation / competitive selection / survival and procreation. It sounds like Nei is focussed on the "random" question. Clearly, mutations or innovations in any complex system are constrained (in terms of potential forms and range of variations), and some have argued that there must be a causative or "intentional" factor involved at the generative level. This is something I alluded to in my essay - "Debates continue on the degree to which such cooperative behavior exists in some, or all, emergent processes, and the extent to which it is consistent with reductionism or requires some form of top-down causation...."

          For a very interesting and provocative discussion of the issue, I'd suggest tackling Ian Thompson's - Starting Science from God. Ian's work is quite technical (he is a physicist), and his theistic approach is hardly "mainstream", but his presentation is thorough and consistent. He goes quite deep into that nature of top-dopwn causation from multiple generative levels across all of creation - cosmology - quantum physics - biology and consciousness.

          Cheers - George

          Dear George,

          Thanks. I think it is true that some sort of top-down causation is what is happening. But to me, there is also a question mark over the description "random". Physicists keep on trying to find underlying complex deterministic mechanisms that might explain purportedly random physical outcomes at the particle/molecular level.

          But they can't find anything that explains these physical outcomes, so they label them "random". When asked, they might claim that no further explanation is necessary. But I don't buy it. To me, "random" is a word that covers up something that physics refuses to face about the nature of reality: limited choice/free will/creativity at the particle level.

          Cheers,

          Lorraine

          Well said. In an emergent process, the mutations and pointer states that appear and are labelled "random" are actually being pulled out by a causative principle at the top. That's exactly what Ian Thompson's work (and others) are getting at.

          Cheers - George

          George,

          "Historically the human response to challenge was often violence."

          With our most recent aggression in Iraq, you do communicate hope for us. Even some noted physicists believe that ETs will come with conquest in mind. My belief is that any ET capable of making it here must be too advanced to need our resources, both mentally and spiritually.

          We do make many of the same points, but yours is done well.

          In the short span of time we have, I would like to see your thoughts on mine: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2008

          Jim

          Dear George and Loaraine

          I tried to describe this random quantum process in my essay from 2013 as decisions. But in the new essay this message is included methaforically.

          I try to prove that consciousness is more basic than matter. At least, it disturbs me, that the orthodox science does not stress enough that consciousness is not yet explained. It is enough one sentence in schools, but students do not hear this sentence.

          My essay

          Best regards

          Janko Kokosar

          Dear George

          Maybe you are interested also in my essay from 2013, because I try to physically explain consciousenss and free will. Metaphorically it is written also in the new essay.

          My essay

          Best regards

          Janko Kokosar

          Hi George,

          I read you essay (or rather I scanned your essay -- sorry time is short). First let me say this is a very well researched essay as evidenced by the reference section. You also cited Nassim Taleb's book "The Black Swan" which I also used in my essay (but somewhat too briefly since I was not fully able to weave the idea of the black swan events into my essay to the extent that they deserved. In any case your essay appears to more fully discuss this interesting idea from Taleb.

          In my brief scan of your essay my understanding is that there is a theme of the risky benefit of cooperation -- you talk about the Prisoner's Dilemma and also cite Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene". The conclusion being that a good way to "steer the future" is to employ or encourage this "risky" cooperation.

          Anyway from my brief scan your essay is well researched and well written. Sorry I don't have more in-depth questions/comments, but given the shortening deadline I wanted to at least leave some comment.

          Best of luck,

          Doug

          Hello George,

          I appreciate your remarks from April 23, now well over a month ago. Unfortunately, work requirements have not allowed me to respond here before now. Since detailed comments will not be useful at this time, I will just say that I agree with your idea of seeking an both a larger understanding and a consensus on values. Best wishes in the final judging.

          Laurence Hitterdale

          7 days later