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

      Ross - Thank you for the link to Arbor Vitae! Not only is it my favorite tree - but the content on the website is fascinating, and the connections to the concepts in my essay are very, very deep. I have added the site to my priority reading list and will be spending time with it in the weeks ahead.

      I have cited a number of sources in my essay on recent research on the mechanisms by which evolution led to altruism (Wilson, Wright, Haidt, Nowak especially). As I point out, my sense is that all emergent phenomena share this feature - cooperation among component units leads to strategies which succeed and thrive in the fitness environment.

      I do have a website, The ISAS Forum, where I post articles on topics at the interface of science and spirituality, and I would welcome review and comment of any of the discussions or news items.

      Thanks for the kind words. I look forward to additional conversations! - George

      George,

      A very well written essay brimming with human compassion.

      One point of difference between us is that I have grave doubts whether we or other intelligent civilizations have any natural tendency to move into the stars. I'll quote from a comment I made on Stephen Ashworth's essay:

      What I will say here is that I recently read Lee Billings' Five Billion Years of Solitude which has shaped my view on these issues. Billings quote a scholar Tom Murphy who calculated that if the world would grow at a meager 2.5 % per year our energy requirements would demand the entire Milky Way galaxy covered in energy capturing Dyson Spheres. He quote Murphy: "We know in some detail what human beings were doing 2,500 years ago. I think I can safely say what they WON'T be doing 2,500 years hence".

      Our current path is unsustainable over the medium term, and the explosion of growth since the industrial revolution may prove shorter than many expect.

      Maybe that's why we have yet to encounter intelligent life elsewhere. That those who don't destroy themselves get stuck in a kind of technological valley?

      Again, great essay. You've got my vote.

      Best of luck!

      Rick Searle

        Rick - Thanks so much!

        I don't have a firm position on the probability of actual first contact - it is probably way out on a very long tailed distribution. But it is useful to think about as an example of a rare event with profound consequences. Let's talk about a meteor strike - perhaps a more realistic example - how do you think our world would respond?

        Also, I avoid putting much credence in exponential projections - they are good approximations over very short ranges for what are probably logistic curves. And then there are the more profoundly un-knowable features of complex systems..

        Cheers - George

        Dear George,

        I agree wholeheartedly with how you would direct the "tip of the spear," with love and compassion. The simple reason -- indeed, the necessity -- of this is contained in two of your concluding lines:

        "The fitness landscape is no longer determined by the natural world but by the

        human one. In order to survive and thrive we need to identify and promote institutional behaviors that satisfy our human needs and aspirations."

        Like you, I believe that humanity is entering a new phase of evolution, one based in the cultural rather than the natural world. I am optimistic that this change ultimately will occur over time. We see signs of it all the time, and throughout history. There are regressions, of course, but overall things seem to be changing for the better. And the near future raises even greater possibilities. It is among the young -- especially those who will come of age in the next 10 years -- that I most see a reason for hope.

        I am not sure that we would agree on another question -- whether the qualities necessary for development of concern for others and cooperative ventures are part of a natural selection process. I believe that these very well could be universal values, and that we do not create them as much as decipher them.

        Respectfully yours,

        Walter

        Had a look at your site its very impressive (more visuals would be great)! Though my perspective on these kinds of topics is not spritual like yourself, I get strong sense in your work of a desire to aid humanity that I hope is also a part of my own work. And your perspective is clearly informing a great analysis of humanity's future if you're essay is anything to go by! Keep it up!

        Walter - I do indeed believe the values are universal and woven into the fabric of the universe. I allude in the essay to the concept of quantum Darwinism - ultimately I think we will find our universe has been shaped in an evolutionary process through which mutual attractions yield competitive success through all levels of the fitness landscape - up to and including conscious human life. An alternative intuitive pathway to this theory can be found in spiritually transformative experiences. For example, Swedenborg's explanation of creation is quite metaphysical: Divine Love (the act of willing) is the essential motion and Divine Wisdom (the framework of truth, e.g. spiritual and natural laws) the form in which that Love proceeds. Life at all levels is the result - it's motion/purpose derives from love and the structures it creates derive from truth (including mathematics, by the way).

        Thanks - George

        Hello all - I will be out of town for a week, but will respond to all comments when I return. Thanks for your interest! - George

        George,

        The link I was making between Dyson and Ellis is this: Dyson speculates that cultural evolution has replaced biological evolution whereas Ellis demonstrates that culture and society act down, causally, on biology, hence, if culture evolves so too does biology. I just find the idea that human biological evolution has ceased to be absurd; if anything it has accelerated (or soon will) due to our propensity for genetic and biologic engineering - many futuristic but not farfetched examples, such as Brain Computer Interfacing, are included in the H book I linked to. If we manage to engineer biological based Neural implants as discussed by BCI researcher, Alexandra Elbakyan, do you not think this would alter the trajectory of human biological evolution? Based on your essay it would seem that Dyson does not . . .

        That's all I was implying . . .

        Regards,

        5 days later

        Well there is certainly a mind boggling array of ideas in the competition, I am still trying to digest them all, but yours has been among the best so far. Don't forget to rate my entry if you have a chance. Good luck!

        5 days later

        Dear George

        You wrote a good article. However, there are few fundamental things in which I disagree with you. At this point of space-time, no institution has the answer to a single fundamental question. Conjectures and faith should not be interpreted as knowledge. Due to its empirical limitations, empirical science will newer reach zero or infinity. Hence, apart from describing, it would never understand anything. Those ideas can be grasped only conceptually, by thinking. Paper and pencil are sufficient tools. Pressing a button of a billion euros worth machine in which the collided worlds are forced to reveal their secrets... is flourishing of technology, but the degeneration of thought. Gathering data is not understanding data. Science is about prediction, not surprise...

        Future is dreamed by individuals, not institutions. Institutions are non-living, inert systems, purpose on its own. Although created and fed on the idea of the individual (cell), institutions are the negation of individuality. Institution is not an organ of an organism. Hence, the future steered by institutions is neither the future of a cell, organ or an organism. It is not the future of "I am".

        P.S. Instead of preparing for the close encounter with extra-terrestrials, maybe we should prepare to meet tomorrow I, arriving from the future :)

        Regards

        andrej

          Andrej - Thanks for the comment. I agree with you that there are significant limits in science - including hard limits to the ability to predict. Data, mathematics AND contemplation (paper and pencil) are critical to improving our understanding, but they will not eliminate surprise.

          I think the evidence shows that emergent, higher-level system behavior (whether you are talking about an ant colony, or multi-celullar organisms, or consciousness) is very much "alive". Whether we like it or not, our institutions have a life of their own, and their behaviors are shaping our choices and our future.

          Regards - George

          George,

          That was a wonderful and inspiring read. I have growing concerns about selflessness and honesty, within science in particular. I wonder if Nobel really did science a great favour.

          Your comment above about "emergent, higher-level system behavior" has just also caught my eye, as well as;

          "we have to trust that nature itself was, is, and always will be, consistent." also "It is essential that our human civilization remain committed to the pursuit of empirical knowledge" and;. ."Do we have the technical tools, the creative ideas..."聽

          These are thoughts I bring together uniquely in my own essay, deriving a logical explanation of QM which allows convergence with SR and might release us from a 100 year old 'rut' in understanding. Quite different to yours! but 'quantum Darwinism' is just one of many coherent consequences. But I feel a lack of mutual respect and ability to accept new ideas in physics means the hypothesis remains subjugated however self apparent.

          Thank you very much for that.

          Something slightly bizarre happened yesterday, I wrote this and thought I'd posted it then scored you a 9 (up to 5.5), but retuning to cha eck and reply my post isn't here! Luckily I saved it. I do hope you get to read my essay too. It even includes a little bit of romance, but it's important science.

          Very best wishes

          Peter