The Leverage and Centrality of Mind by Alexander Hoekstra and Preston Estep

Hi Alex,

Thanks for your question on my page, I'm sure our exchange will provide clarification for many. I've responded, and have added the intriguing essay you and your colleague have prepared to my list. All the best to you both!

Warmly,

Aaron

Dear Alex and Preston,

Your collaboration has resulted in a fantastic essay! I especially liked the following statement: "The most efficient and generalizable solution to all human problems is to enhance our fundamental abilities to solve problems." That is an exciting approach to helping our species, and I believe that your genetic work could very well eventually play a key role in that lofty goal, provided certain technological hurdles are overcome and legislative questions are answered to everyone's satisfaction. I found your website and I am intrigued by the scope and importance of your contributions.

I have rated your essay highly and I wish you both continued success!

Sincerely,

Aaron

Hi Alex and Preston,

Thanks for the interesting essay. I agree with it, except for one aspect - I think that intersubjective effects need further attention. From some perspectives people are a result of the cumulative effects of all their interactions with others. So it is the interactions themselves that are critical (mental health can be improved with "talk therapy", just by interacting with another). Just as weightlifting, running, and shooting baskets by yourself cannot make you a "good" basketball player, improving the function of the brains in a society cannot solve the larger ills of that society which result from collective dysfunction. Individual work is necessary, but not sufficient for the benefits.

You might be interested in my essay on computationally intelligent personal dialogic agents. A prototype was developed as part of a National Science Foundation CAREER award to investigate approaches to team training. The prototype can deliver guidance, education, and interventions with an android device, in the moment of action.

I'd appreciate a rating on my essay, if you can do that, since I am a bit short on ratings. I'm also interested in collaborators to further develop the dialogic web. If you know of someone that might be interested, please give them my contact info. My gmail username is my first name, then a period, then my last name.

Thanks,

Ray Luechtefeld, PhD

Dear Alex and Preston,

I enjoyed very much the past and future history of human mind you presented. Your essay is very well written, profound and well documented. Your arguments that better minds are what we need are very convincing. Good luck with the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Dear Alex and Preston

I'm disappointed, even shocked to read some of the comments on your perceptive and very well written hypothesis. I agree with Watson, and find you case proved beyond all reasonable doubt; "Better minds are indispensable to our survival." Or better use of the brains we have.

I propose the same but try a more subtle approach, taking Bob and Alice well away from Earth centric thinking and demonstrating the results of far less constrained use of what I term our 'on board quantum computers'. Even that term has drawn objections. Finding the 'new ways of thinking about familiar things' (Einstein/Bragg/Wittgenstein etc) works, but still fails as too few others even see the need. Our whole approach to teaching must change; less cramming in doctrine and maths and more conceptual flexibility.

My last 3 essays have similarly tried (all top 10 scores) but with no lasting effect. They show I've also had cause to consider paradigm change carefully. I liked your analysis, and have chosen to try to 'familiarise gradually' in stages. I estimated (fqXi; '2020 Vision' ) that it'd take 10 years at least (I'm an optimist! Our intellectual evolution is still at the stage of clinging to myth and beliefs. I agree; "conventionalism, rather than religion per se, is the more fundamental problem." I had to go off and train as an Architect to re-learn how to think, then read 20 papers a week to 'understand the present' at all!

I've discussed with Judy Nabb who agrees that different education not eugenics is needed. I have no compunction in scoring your excellent work highly even though it may leapfrog mine (you can't quite do the same as I have too many '1' scores!) I hope you pick up my methods and let me know if you think they may work. Any insights or advice on how to shift a paradigm without being burned at the stake would be appreciated. Well done and thanks.

Very best of luck in the Judging.

Peter

Dear Preston and Alexander,

it would be nice to see whether you have any idea on how to get started with this enormously complex topic. For example, what is it that makes a mind good at science? That is a fascinating topic, to me...

best,

Flavio

Hello Preston & Alex, May I post a short, but sincere critique of your essay? I'd ask one of you to return the favour. Here's my policy on that. - Mike

Alex & Preston,

Your statement resonates deeply with me:

"The now obvious wasn't at all obvious a short time ago, and the completely non-obvious will soon be obvious -- that is, once someone has done the difficult work of overthrowing the conventionalism apparently innate to the human mind."

It is a nice restatement of Bronowski: "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses."

I agree, the scientific mind takes work, not just in thinking about "reality" ... it takes work in reconciling the abstract creations of the mind with physical phenomena. For if reality is not objective, rational science has no point, and mind has no meaning.

Thanks for dropping by my forum, and for your kind comments. High score from me, and best wishes in the competition!

Tom

Gentlemen,

The last sentence of your abstract is of the essence: "This strategy focuses not on these individual and disparate challenges - which ultimately are only symptoms - but on fixing and improving minds." True. You and I and many others agree that it is not enough to just propose "actions" in a vacuum. We need to enhance the minds that would be carrying out those proposals, or they won't really work. Our minds developed to deal with mostly short-term immediate problems, and small-group cooperation. We need more, more awareness as well as more will to be able to carry programs through even if there is no immediate payoff. I deal with the same basic issue of the ultimate nature of minds and how to make them better in my own essay. Best.

Greetings Alex and Preston,

I greatly enjoyed your essay, and I agree that the mind is the central issue, with the capabilities of the human mind being our major road to salvation, and the expansion of the mind's capacity an essential component of implementing solutions to pressing problems adequately. I deal with one root cause of the brain power shortfall in my essay, which talks about how playful exploration and experimentation is essential for learning about the universe. I think the human brain has plenty of 'headroom,' but only if young brains are encouraged to develop to the full extent nature's developmental template allows. Researchers have observed that infants are like little scientists, but we need to nurture that quality from the time it first appears - if we want to make full use of it later in life. The very young are naturals at Science, but very few have the mind or mindset for it later in life, and part of this shift is from societal pressure or inhibition.

The same has been observed for Music, where the very young are uninhibited and willing to sing out - and it is mostly melodious though a little rambunctious. For groups of an early age, almost everybody sings out. However; groups of older youngsters tend to feature only a few strong voices, a handful of the timid but willing, and a bunch of non-participants. What I've learned seems to indicate that where the activity is tolerated or nurtured, it persists and/or develops, but otherwise it tends to be replaced by other activities that are accepted or rewarded by elders and caregivers. Part of the larger problem is that knowledge is too often treated as a collection of facts, or is taught that way, and this cuts short the playful exploration that leads to the ability to solve problems. But I am also painfully aware of how modern society fails to provide for those adults who could solve the world's problems with human brain power, and forces them to deal with mundane matters instead.

So while I agree with most of your essay, and endorse its central thesis, there are a few points of variance with my philosophy and experience.

All the Best,

Jonathan