Post script: your title includes a classic belief, that having it too easy ("smooth seas") keeps people from doing their best. Surely much truth in that, and I think that challenges also stimulate and build up willpower (for one reason, since we have to keep plugging away at something and can't give up - yet must remain flexible if things change. Being able to do both is the essence of power of mind.)

The planet is in itself like a unit cell in biology,humanity just makes a menial bit of biomass in that we're animals,insects outnumber us,yet their destructive footprint is meagre.why can' t we have ants & bees as models.

Dear Neil,

Self-regulation of bio-system is much obvious while universe itself is a Real-time control system. In this aspect, biosphere is a part of the control system of the universe whereas Humanity is external to it and this is causal for the impact on the control system of the universe that effects climate change. Thus Humanity needs predeterminations for its regulations to minimise its impact on the control system of universe, in that I agree that individual self-determination is imperative.

While the measurement problem in quantum mechanics implies with the restructuring of atomic analogy, in that ascribing matter as eigen-rotational string-matter continuum rather than in Corpuscularianism, seems to be empirical.

In this scenario the nature of substrate and the substrate dependency of mind are described with the string-length variability on eigen-rotations of string-matter segments, in that continuous random variable to discrete random variable defines quantisation of string-length.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

4 days later

Hi John,

I think you do have a great mind. I just disagree with your views. Where does that put me? :) We did agree about the worth of this essay. I saw that, after it was raised up, it declined in rating for a while, but, it has successfully rebounded and is in the vicinity where it belongs. The '1'ners failed. I have had to overcome four '1's and two '2's. My essay is a little lower rated than Neil's, but I think that the ratings now reasonably reflect true values. You are doing well in the contest. Good luck to both you and Neal.

James Putnam

7 days later

Hi Neil,

It is a pleasure to re-meet you here in FQXi. Congrats, this is a nice and particular Essay. Here are my comments:

1) Asking "why so many have trouble with lifestyle and cooperative issues (obesity, lack of sleep, employment and economic problems, increasing controversies and tensions between groups, etc.) than it is to design ever more clever cell phones and "pads" and so forth" it is really a fundamental point.

2) It was intriguing that encounter of trying flashlights "opened" your mind.

3) I agree with your statement that people lack an appreciation of paradox and irony".

4) The nice issue consequently to your question "do plane mirrors reverse left and right?" recalled me the famous issue of the Feynman sprinkler in Feynman's book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!", in which a sprinkler-like device is submerged in a tank and made to suck in the surrounding fluid. The question there is how would such a device turn?

5) I do not know how rational is current clunky tax policy in your country. I assure you that, sadly, it is very crazy here in Italy.

6) Your statement that "Thinking We Are More Than Machines, And Doing More" recalls me a famous aphorism of the greatest Italian poet Dante Aligheri: "Humans are created to obtain virtue and knowledge rather than living as brutes.

7) David Lewis' concept of modal realism, asserting that all possible worlds are equivalently existent, is the opposite of the String Theory's concept that the world must adapt itself to String Theory.

8) I completely agree with your conclusions that "We can only steer the future if we can better steer our own selves, and we will only passionately care if we think we are truly alive".

You wrote a very interesting Essay. I give you an high score.

I hope you will have some time to read also my Essay.

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.

    Christian,

    I'm glad you liked my essay. Yes, it is rather jarring to think that a simple manufacturing issue illustrates a big problem in human thought, but such pivot-point insights are in the fine tradition of James Burke's "Connections" and works by Jared Diamond, et al. My position about mind in nature is somewhat like Searle's biological naturalism, in that something about brains and there deep nature is required for genuine consciousness, not just interchangeable AI programming protocols. And yes, modal realism as a purely logical concept is quite different from the string theory idea that there is a fundamental physical reality with its own specific nature. I'm glad that you and several others appreciate that just throwing proposals around is not enough - we need to think we have the will do make them happen, and feel like our minds are more than machines, to consider it a worthwhile enterprise that we can control. The future is not determined, we can make it better.

    My essay deals with the issue of real human minds versus machine-minds. One of the classic attempts to show that AI protocols don't produce real thinking and consciousness is John Searle's "Chinese Room." In it, an operator has a mass of notes describing how to output "reasonable sounding" (pass Turing Test) answers in Chinese, to questions in Chinese. Searle and "mysterians" such as myself say, no the CR does not really understand Chinese. (It's a separate issue, which I tackle in my own essay, whether simulating the neurons directly - rather than the overall process - can actually be done to create real consciousness. I say no to that, as well.) I thought of some further refinements about the Chinese Room which readers should fine interesting. Anyone heard of anything like the "Addition Room" below?

    Searle says, the CR doesn't really "understand" Chinese because of course, he means something more than just producing the output - why else emphasize the alternative way the CR does its job? (Again, it is "the system," the virtual mind, that is claimed not to understand. We knew the human operator doesn't know Chinese - let's put that straw man to rest.) His critics say, yes it does, because they (in simple essence) define "understanding" as performance. Searle's objections have little chance against a near tautology, built for convenience rather than insight. Any challenge involving "it produces X, but ...." will be taken as "understanding," yet the "but" will be ignored. Even Ned Block's similar "blockhead" xxx is absorbed. But being able to do things is ... being able to do them. You can't force coverage or co-option of other intended meanings or phenomena through announcement or circular definitions. Instead, let's reconsider afresh whether such behavior should always be taken as "understanding."

    First, it is too easy to let the CR give only generic answers. Ask the CR personal questions about itself, and seek elaboration, such as (in translation): "what is your favorite color? Are your feelings easily hurt? Do you approve of GMOs? Do you have a religious faith? What were your unspoken thoughts a minute ago? Imagine an animal, what does it look like?" Ah, now what? Answers would be lies in effect, or at least empty falsehoods. The process designer needs to construct a plausible but imaginary subjective "self," with a history, to go with "understanding Chinese." Isn't that more to do, with deeper implications? Who decides what is credible - the educated public, or canny psychologists? Then, what about describing noises, external things - that can't be programmed into the CR. Understanding Chinese means being able to talk about what you're looking at, or a theorem you just thought of.

    The functionalist critique is wearing thin. What if we defenders of the CR say: really understanding Chinese means capability to give honest answers to all questions? (To keep the "game" game, we can exclude direct distinctions etc.) Yes, "how can we tell," but it's also game to pose this conceptual distinction and to show where one is coming from. Perhaps the following is the ultimate refinement: can we teach French to the CR? It seems the programmer would have to include all possible languages, since the CR cannot pick them up "naturally." That final task looks truly undoable, at last. And a real mind that can understand Chinese, can learn French or a newly invented language. This gets sticker and stickier for functionalists once we try harder to make their job harder.

    Now consider something simpler and perhaps decisive: the "Addition Room." The AR stores all answers to integer addition questions like, 7 5 = ? (within some range.) It does not do any computation. So, someone inputs A B. The AR operator (a Chinese peasant who never learned Arabic numerals) just looks up the question on a table, finds the answer stored by it, and sends that out. "Look, I put in 7 plus 5 and got 12. This thing can add." Really? Sure it gives you the answer, we stipulated that - but should we accept "addition" being literally defined as just coming up with the answers? How about defining "doing addition" as truly calculating the answer, by computational summing of the inputs. The system does not know how to add. It provides the answer without "doing addition." It comes down to: if either A or B can produce C, I get to pick which of the first I mean by "doing X." (For overall meaning, priority wins.) Now the irony: the AR isn't even a true computational intelligence. How can you agree, "the Addition Room doesn't really do addition"; but say "the Chinese Room really does understand Chinese" - ? Delving deeper, what if we imagined that real computation produced some kind of "experience", that just looking up answers did not?

    Neil,

    Another great essay extending your important insights yet further in exposing our flawed thinking methods and poor use, even abuse, of the great potential of our grey matter. You'll recall we closely agreed last year and I find we do so again.

    I love your idea that "...we need to teach mistake avoidance. Our educational institutions are not tackling this, but continue to act as if imparting knowledge and positive specific competencies is enough." and; "...we need to train minds to think in intrinsically less fallacious ways, to be more creative, to be less intimidated by practical custom".

    I think your essay's certainly worth a high score and have such pencilled in on my modulation sheet. That's not just because we 'mirror' each other views (no, not reversed!!) but it was also well written and argued, and importantly right on topic (as well as plain 'right'!).

    I do hope you get to read and score mine. I take our shared views and apply them to find how it's possible to resolve the 'measurement paradox' nonsense of QM with a classical mechanism. Read with my last 3 essays the way to logical unification of SR and QM is cleared (see also reproduced end note experiment). I think you'll like Bob's subtle(ish) thoughts about thinking, and results.

    Unfortunately the way we train scientists means most turn away or run away screaming from such unfamiliar thinking and solutions. Are we bashing our heads against a stone wall?

    Should we keep going anyway in case it crumbles one day to show the way ahead?

    Peter

      Peter,

      Thank you for liking my essay and finding it worthwhile and interesting. Yes, we do need to teach "mistake avoidance" - this is not just abstract critical thinking, but specifically geared to uncover the sorts of things that actually go wrong due to institutional inertia, psychological hangups like inappropriate idealization, etc.

      As for your own essay, yes I am interested in the measurement problem in QM (indeed, type "quantum measurement paradox" into Google and see my posts in top several hits.) I already scanned your paper, think it's charming to have a sort of story involving Alice and Bob, the famous entangled couple, in space flight and testing strong correlations as also a tribute to the twin paradox (not the very same physical issue, but the idea of comparing such travelers. Yet relative simultaneity does play a role in these QM arguments.) Your argument is rather deep and complex so it will take a bit of time to hash it out, but I admire your careful attention to detail and the creativity I already see.

      Dear Neil,

      Thanks for your kind reply. I appreciate that you agree with my criticism on string theory.

      I hope you will take a change to read and comment my Essay.

      All the best,

      Ch.

      Neil,

      Thanks. I hope you get into it before the deadline. It's only really 'deep' because QM is a bit deep in detritus! The solution is simple;

      1) Electron spin flips with detector field direction so the 'finding' also flips, and

      2) When bodies interact (measurement) the OAM transfer varies with the latitude of the tangent point (varying with EM field/setting angle) and the rotational speed varies by the COS^2 of the angle with the (common) emitted particle equatorial axis - that's all the 'entanglement' then needed.

      Shocking I know, and won't be countenanced by mainstream however true as it's not 'familiar'. That's why understanding can't advance any more!

      C'est la vie (for a little while anyway). We both seem to have slipped a lot Your score gong on now. Well done. I hope it gets you back into the final cut.

      Best wishes.

      Peter

      Peter, thanks for commenting again. I'm working out your argument and will have more specific things to say later, and I will assess and do that before the deadline. I will rate according to effort, creativity, and strength of argument, even if not sure I am yet convinced. (These wrangles about QM often go on and on, with no clear resolution - note the back and forth bickering over whether and how Born probabilities can be derived out of continued evolution of superpositions in MWI. Personally, I don't think that will work, and am as appalled by many worlds as I suspect you are ...) Let me ask a preliminary question: does your argument work as easily for photon polarization as for "genuine vector spin" of say, electrons? Yes, both have two degrees of freedom in principle (Bloch sphere compared to literal expectation value of spin direction, at least when v

      Something went wrong, my comment was truncated. Here is what I intended in full:

      Peter, thanks for commenting again. I'm working out your argument and will have more specific things to say later, and I will assess and do that before the deadline. I will rate according to effort, creativity, and strength of argument, even if not sure I am yet convinced. (These wrangles about QM often go on and on, with no clear resolution - note the back and forth bickering over whether and how Born probabilities can be derived out of continued evolution of superpositions in MWI. Personally, I don't think that will work, and am as appalled by many worlds as I suspect you are ...) Let me ask a preliminary question: does your argument work as easily for photon polarization as for "genuine vector spin" of say, electrons? Yes, both have two degrees of freedom in principle (Bloch sphere compared to literal expectation value of spin direction, at least when v

      Now I know there's a serious problem, I'll have to contact the Admins. So here's the rest:

      ... when v

      Good grief, now I get it: it was my using the less-than sign! It's some ridiculous glitch of their LaTeX commenting system, sorry. Even worse, the preview oddly didn't show the problem. Hopefully this is the whole comment as it was meant to be:

      Peter, thanks for commenting again. I'm working out your argument and will have more specific things to say later, and I will assess and do that before the deadline. I will rate according to effort, creativity, and strength of argument, even if not sure I am yet convinced. (These wrangles about QM often go on and on, with no clear resolution - note the back and forth bickering over whether and how Born probabilities can be derived out of continued evolution of superpositions in MWI. Personally, I don't think that will work, and am as appalled by many worlds as I suspect you are ...) Let me ask a preliminary question: does your argument work as easily for photon polarization as for "genuine vector spin" of say, electrons? Yes, both have two degrees of freedom in principle (Bloch sphere compared to literal expectation value of spin direction, at least when v much less than c) but I'm wondering if the point works out the same way.

      In any case I already get the impression, your argument revolves around (I just can't resist those apt phrases) the Bell tests ultimately being about relative angles of spin detectors/polarizers, whereas the properties of the particles themselves are actual orientations (or at least, that not being accessible or definable in terms of relative angles, and hence not making the same point about local realism that the traditional view of the Bell argument implies)? - which I then found basically stated by you in a sentence on page 6. Well cheers, lots of us are bobbing around in the mid 5.n doldrums, maddeningly near where the cutoff is expected to be. Good luck.

      Neil,

      Your wide interests and accomplishments do not indicate false modesty in your bio. Too many of us rest on stove-piped laurels. The need for "cooperative issues" is more evident to the widely-schooled and the curious -- I believe,anyway.

      A cooperative societal effort (I speak of common good) starts with the individual and "free won't" as you quote, not doing things the same way and looking beyond (the orthodox, as I say in my essay). Steering the future does start with each of us in a united effort. I speak of the swarm intelligence of ants around for over 140 million years).

      High marks.

      I would like to see your thoughts on mine: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2008

      Jim

        James,

        Thanks for commenting. I'll look at your essay. I agree with the sentiments expressed in your abstract, that we need to cooperate - that by itself is a commonplace, but you also express the need to delve into the human mind and not just propose attitudes and actions (I think many authors here, express a need for more understanding and effort directed at our minds and not just taking them for granted as executors of context-free strategies.)

        Dear Neil,

        I fully agree with the idea, direction and conclusions of your essay in a spirit of profound Cartesian doubt. Great job, magnificent eidoses. I like it very close. Humanity can not reliably steer the Future without a deep Philosophy. Unfortunately, Philosophy is out of favor, especially among politicians. Politicians again split the world, a great danger of a third world war. Therefore more important than ever to consider again the full depth of the dialectic «Cogito ergo sum». In connection with your essay I remembered article of the physicist K.Kopeykin in the «Physics-Uspekhi» magazine («Advances in Physical Sciences») with the name "Souls" of atoms and "atoms" of soul: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and "three great problems of physics".

        Today the fundamental science, including the human sciences, need a new deep philosophical synthesis of all the accumulated information in order to more reliably steer the Future. "Freedom is the recognition of necessity"(Hegel). This formula provides the first step towards understanding the dialectical nature of consciousness and dialectical nature of free will. Today, we all need a Great Dream and Great Common Cause to save Peace, Nature and Humanity. Great Dream always go alond with Freedom without fear, Hope, Love, Justice. New Generation says: I start the path.

        Sincerely,

        Vladimir

          Dear Neil Bates

          You think similarly as I. I tried to answer on questions, given by you in the FQXi essay from 2013.

          In short, I defend panpsychism, Quantum consciousness, that quantum randomness is free will and so on.

          Besides, last year happened one experimental leap, because quantum biology is the first time proved firmly. I hope that quantum consciousness will also be proved.

          I hope that you will read my old essay.

          My essay

          Best regards

          Janko Kokosar