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

Dear Alexander and Preston,

As, Observational science is prime for all scientific developments; your conclusion on science that is young, indicates that the Observational science is not matured enough to proceeds with further scientific developments, though the technological developments is on proliferation.

This is causal for the imperfections in technological developments that effect re-engineering and constant up-gradations, causing environmental degradation, economic impairment and wastage of human efforts.

For the development of observational science, defining the nature and emergence of time is much imperative, in that I agree mind is central to analyse the past with the present for predicting the future.

Thus redefining the nature of matter to describe the emergence of time with the dynamics of the substrate of mind, is fundamental.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

Alex and Preston,

Your focus on improving minds is noteworthy. All needs, problems and changes we face start there. Our current course has taken us closer to an environmental Armageddon. Our attitudes are comfort-based rather than long-term survival based.

Like your essay I speak to the mind as a microcosm of the universe, containing our past, present and our future. That is my "looking within" My "looking beyond" involves an escape from solar-system-based thinking.

The changes we need do start with the mind.

Good job.

Jim

Alex and Preston,

The time grows short, and I need to revisit and rate. Preston, thanks for reading my essay.

Jim

I find that I rated it on the 15th.

Preston and Alex,

Thank you for an interesting essay. I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but my own views are somewhat less pessimistic about the current state of human minds.

For instance, you say that "human minds are not good at science" (bottom of p.2); I would say that they are fairly good at science, but of course not spectacularly good (compared to what more advanced intelligences could achieve). Let us remember, for instance, that we already understand gravity well enough to predict in advance the complex trajectory of a probe to Saturn, and it gets there 10 years later within seconds of the predicted arrival time. (And we haven't even yet unified General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics!)

You say that the proof that humans minds are not good at science is that good science "would be capable of assuaging most or all human suffering", and since there is still suffering, either we don't care or we're not intelligent enough. But I would say that, compared to the often idealized but in practice fairly short and painful lives of our ancestors, we've made significant progress -- even though we've created new problems and the benefits of civilization are not optimally distributed.

At the very end of your essay, you briefly propose that we should start by removing the limitations of the human mind by focusing on eradicating mind diseases, and then proceed to enhance normal minds via mind engineering (but you do not give any specifics). I would say that our minds are already somewhat enhanced by the ability to Google information, the ability to communicate with like-minded individuals without ever having met them (like we are doing right now), and the availability of mind-empowering software like Wolfram Alpha -- for a physicist, it's like having a math co-processor in your brain! To this rudimentary form of AI (augmented intelligence), the next decades may very well add true AI (general artificial intelligence), and the synergy between our limited brains and these new forms of intelligence will hopefully help us to steer the future better.

I completely agree with you when you say that "understanding the present well enough to predict the future with reasonable accuracy is an extremely important type of intelligence, and it contributes to good science". In that respect, any effort that we make to raise our abilites (via the Futurocentric Education Initiative that I propose, or via mind engineering, or why not both) should be beneficial.

I hadn't yet rated your essay, and I just did. Good luck in the contest!

Marc

Hello Alexander & Preston

You suggest that 'there is only one most-efficient strategy' & it is 'fixing and improving minds'.

In my essay "How Should Humanity Steer the Future ?" by Margriet Anne O'Regan, I point out that if we follow nature's laws to the letter the universe will allow us to ascend to its highest existential plane - indeed propel us all the way up there - which high status among other boons would have us well-nigh omniscient - that is to say, having (near) perfect minds in the possession of (almost) complete wisdom including exactly how to fix everything - both our minds & our circumstances.

Nature has been busily 'fixing & improving' our minds ever since life began on this earth & barring the rise of patriarchy (gulp !!!) we humans would have been there by now !!!!!

Please read & rate my essay to see what I mean ????!!!

I enjoyed your essay,

Margriet.

Alexander and Preston,

You and I are totally in sync on "As circumstances change dramatically, so must our thinking". Your references to Copernicus, Galileo and Newton are also in my essay (here).

We also agree on "human minds are the foundation of humanity's past, present and future".

Your essay stops with the point that a change in thinking is necessary while I go on to make the case for individual action on a global scale as the next step.

I look forward to your comments on my essay (here).

-- Ajay

Dear Alexander and Preston,

Wonderful and important essay. Yes I concur that "Minds are central; they are the foundation of humanity's past, its present, and its future." Yes science is the most important of mankind discovery and treasure. Without it, we shall extinct as a species. However, uncontrolled science not governed by Scientific Outlook Rule of Law and Principle would also doom our species because we will create our own final creation, they would cause us to extinct as a species. Just like our previous ancestors of single and multicellular cells created and distributed us, Homo sapiens, we regard our ancestors as inferior species that fit only as our goods and we eat them.

However this gift of abstract thought is threaten by self interested government-religious and even pseudo-scholars alliance. Science could be made as the tool of oppression and it can be silence like it was in the past both in the West and East. We must be alert to this real danger lurking from everywhere. That is why we must eliminate ignorance and scarcity and we must advance wisdom, knowledge and abundance as quickly as possible before the force of darkness reigns supreme again. We must work together to build the force of light reigns not only our earth but also the whole universe. Xuan Yuan's Anti-entropic Operating System 2.0 as the force of light reins all Existence.

From my research in China, science started a very long time ago about 5000-4711 years ago founded by Fu Xi and Xuan Yuan who founded the concept of Bagua that all things are represented by digital eight trigrams (Ôÿ░ Ôÿ▒ Ôÿ▓ Ôÿ│ Ôÿ┤ ÔÿÁ ÔÿÂ ÔÿÀ). Interestingly, Pythagoras similarly stated about two thousands years later: "All things are numbers." Somehow and fortunately, Pythagoras' abstraction of reality despite of up and down took hold in the West. Unfortunately, Fu Xi and Xuan Yuan's science as the abstraction of reality did not take hold in China as was the case in the West. I would add the Aristotle's conception of A = A as a crucial layers of abstraction that help launch the scientific revolution in the West and now the whole world. However, I must note that Aristotle's hypothesis A = A has been overthrown with the discovery of Quantum Mechanics. Now science is facing a great challenge as you put it from "conventionalism" and I would add from special interested group who would like man to be kept in the dark and not able to see the light. They want to keep Humanity in the darkness covered by ignorance and scarcity. So that they will be in charged and would get most of the benefits.

Please look at and comment on my essay. I rated your important essay 10 as it deserved.

Thanks for sharing and hopefully we shall work together in the future to improve the state of Existence.

Best wishes,

Leo KoGuan

Joe,

I am worried, I think you are starting to make sense.

Don Limuti

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