Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Jonathan Dickau: on 6/4/14 at 4:48am UTC, wrote I want to add.. I greatly enjoyed the discussion about the newness of...

Jonathan Dickau: on 6/4/14 at 3:52am UTC, wrote Greetings Alex and Preston, I greatly enjoyed your essay, and I agree that...

Anonymous: on 6/4/14 at 1:03am UTC, wrote Gentlemen, The last sentence of your abstract is of the essence: "This...

Thomas Ray: on 6/1/14 at 15:01pm UTC, wrote Alex & Preston, Your statement resonates deeply with me: "The now obvious...

Michael Allan: on 5/31/14 at 10:57am UTC, wrote Hello Preston & Alex, May I post a short, but sincere critique of your...

Flavio Mercati: on 5/31/14 at 1:30am UTC, wrote Dear Preston and Alexander, it would be nice to see whether you have any...

Peter Jackson: on 5/30/14 at 14:33pm UTC, wrote Dear Alex and Preston I'm disappointed, even shocked to read some of the...

Cristinel Stoica: on 5/29/14 at 20:06pm UTC, wrote Dear Alex and Preston, I enjoyed very much the past and future history of...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

John Cox: "Thanks Jonathan, and Georgi, Gary and Steve, good discussion going (pardon..." in What Is...

Gary Simpson: "All, I think I'm with Georgina on this one. Sharing ideas and having one..." in What Is...

Nishant Gaurav: "Want to get free playstation plus codes, Yes now these psn plus codes are..." in Jacob Bekenstein...

Nishant Gaurav: "The best to win among hustle for online live gaming platform, is online..." in Quantum Replicants:...

Nishant Gaurav: "When it come to paypal user look for various information and also look for..." in Retrocausality,...

Nishant Gaurav: "yes this is an appropriate blog. bingo bash nice information thanks for..." in Our Place in the...

Nishant Gaurav: "This is what I was looking for http://bingobashchips.online thanks a lot..." in Our Place in the...

thuy lien: "Good article, thanks for sharing. ..." in The Complexity Conundrum


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.


FQXi FORUM
December 13, 2017

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: The Leverage and Centrality of Mind by Alexander Hoekstra and Preston Estep [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Alex Hoekstra wrote on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 18:14 GMT
Essay Abstract

Many imposing challenges face humanity. Some grow relentlessly in seriousness and complexity: declining quantities and quality of freshwater, topsoil, and energy; climate change and increasingly unpredictable weather patterns; environmental and habitat decline; the growing geographical spread and antibiotic resistance of pathogens; increasing burdens of disease and health care expenditures; and so on. Some of the most serious problems remain intractable, irrespective of national wealth and achievement. Even developed nations suffer from stubbornly stable levels of mental illness, poverty, and homelessness, in otherwise increasingly wealthy economies. A known root cause of such broken lives is broken minds. What isn’t widely recognized is that all other extremely serious problems are similarly and equally intertwined with the intrinsic incapacities of human minds—minds evolved to cope with a slower and simpler time - emergent from within a paradigm that favored the relative short-term. Yet minds are simultaneously the most essential resource worth saving, and the only resource capable of planning and executing initial steps of necessary solutions. There is hope for overcoming all serious challenges currently facing us, and on the horizon, and there is only one most-efficient strategy that applies to them all. This strategy focuses not on these individual and disparate challenges – which ultimately are only symptoms – but on fixing and improving minds.

Author Bio

Preston Estep III, PhD, and Alexander Hoekstra are directors of the Personal Genome Project at Harvard University - the world's first “open source” genome project, and aggregator & repository for human Genomic, Environmental & Trait (GET) data. Estep and Hoekstra are also founders of the nonprofit Mind First Foundation, which seeks to expand the understanding and the capacity of the mind, to enhance the human condition.

Download Essay PDF File




Denis Frith wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 03:59 GMT
The statement that “all other extremely serious problems are similarly and equally intertwined with the intrinsic incapacities of human minds” is a typical anthropocentric view. The technological systems of civilization irreversibly use up limited natural resources, produce immutable material waste and devastate the environment. That is the stark reality. It is an extremely serious problem that human minds seem unable to grasp!

The statement that “Yet minds are simultaneously the most essential resource worth saving, and the only resource capable of planning and executing initial steps of necessary solutions.” That view has no foundation in reality. Society is totally dependent on irreversibly using natural material resources. Human minds have little impact on that as it is the stark reality.

report post as inappropriate

Author Alex Hoekstra replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 13:05 GMT
"It is an extremely serious problem that human minds seem unable to grasp!"

It seems we are in agreement, then, that the mind as is, is insufficiently capable of grasping - let alone solving - the problems at hand (and the threats around the corner).

"Human minds have little impact on [society {being} totally dependent on irreversibly using natural material resources] as it is the stark reality."

Minds, we argue, are at the foundation of the overconsumption, pollution, waste, destruction, and otherwise unsustainable depletion that has so far fueled civilization. Minds, we argue, are at the root of society; society manifests from the working of minds.

Minds with inbuilt conventionalism, shortsightedness, irrational self-interest, and self-delusion (not to mention a propensity for aggression), have yielded and will - if left unchecked and unaided - continue to yield societies and civilizations rife with waste, pollution, poverty, corruption, separatism, inequality, violence, and the many branches from which suffering blooms.

Mr. Frith, please do not overlook our fundamental position: That resolving the insufficiency of our thinking machines must made a highest priority if it is our intention to protect the survival of our species (and the myriad species we impact) over the long-term.




Tommy Anderberg wrote on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 11:10 GMT
I am all for getting smarter. Would have liked to learn more about how to actually go about it, though...

report post as inappropriate

Preston Estep replied on May. 8, 2014 @ 20:38 GMT
Dear Tommy,

Thank you for reading our essay; we're glad you're in agreement with the main premise. How to go about making better minds is such an enormously complex topic that we thought it best to simply begin by making the argument we did, i.e. that it is the most efficient way to approach humanity's many disparate problems. As your comment affirms, this would seem to be fairly obvious, but our essay appears to be the only one in this competition to explicitly advance this proposal (although a few others focus on better thinking).

report post as inappropriate

Member Flavio Mercati replied on May. 31, 2014 @ 01:30 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate


Turil Sweden Cronburg wrote on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 18:29 GMT
In my own research the best way to make our brains work better is to focus on serving our basic needs (as first introduced by Maslow), with the highest quality inputs and outputs possible. Everything else just wastes resources, as far as I've seen. Our brains are biological systems that need certain things to work properly, but I've yet to meet a human being who's even getting their first two levels of physical needs met well enough, though most folks aren't even aware of the deficiencies and toxicities that they're suffering from (which only exacerbates the problem...).

So, health care is indeed the core solution, IF we include all the basic needs for human health, unconditionally, in our universal health care! That means high quality food, water, air, warmth (including shelter), light, information, and outlets for freely expressing our body's excess solids, liquids, gases, and energy. Only then will we have well functioning human beings, mentally and physically, so that we're operating at peak capacity as a planet.

report post as inappropriate

Preston Estep replied on May. 8, 2014 @ 20:51 GMT
Dear Turil,

We agree that many people are operating at low efficiencies on multiple levels. But we also believe that people functioning at their peak aren't either necessarily or sufficiently able to sustain humanity's current trajectory. People's brains (and general biology) have been selected for a slower and simpler time, and are maladapted to the complex world we have created. We simply don't have the rational foresight to manage this complexity. To survive and thrive we need to design and engineer minds specifically for this purpose.

report post as inappropriate

Turil Sweden Cronburg replied on May. 11, 2014 @ 21:34 GMT
Indeed, and I see that the way to design more effective minds is to focus on how to give them the resources they need to grow healthfully. We have yet to have healthy brain development because we've either been suffering from deficiencies or toxicities, or both, but once we look to supporting our biology in getting the food, water, air, warmth, light, information, and ways to express excess stuff, we'll start to see both individual and collective brains truly achieve greatness. And yes, some of that will involve technology, both adding to our biology internally, and connecting our ideas externally with some artificial intelligence sort of element, I imagine. But again, at the core of all this is supporting the biology, so that it no longer is held back by low quality crap mucking up the system, and getting in the way of our brains honestly functioning at their peak, and able to do all sorts of things that no one imagined humans might be able to do.

report post as inappropriate


Ross Cevenst wrote on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 11:18 GMT
Hi Preston,

You eloquently describe in detail how the broad ability of the human mind is the underlying driver behind our ability to deal with virtually all modern problems. In particular I found very interesting the part where you mentioned how we may tend to defer direct access to information and rely on social information when confronted with certain resource constraints.

I think you're writing is very good, but I feel in a way you are simply saying that 'if we were smarter we would be better at solving our problems'. You're discussion of how that might occur hinted at something interesting, but I feel it didn't really explore the HOW as it might have. Two issues occur to me (1) mental health is sometimes focused around achieving normality rather than improving cognitive functions - how would you change its approach? (2) How would we separate intervening to make someone 'smarter' with intervening to alter a person to agree with a particular social or political agenda?

Thanks for writing a good quality paper I will be giving it an above average rating once I finish reading!

report post as inappropriate

Ross Cevenst replied on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 11:19 GMT
Also I'm interested if you have any thoughts on my paper, particularly in regard to the part on VR. Thanks again!

report post as inappropriate

Ross Cevenst replied on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 11:20 GMT
And apologies for my awful grammar! :)

report post as inappropriate

Preston Estep replied on May. 8, 2014 @ 20:59 GMT
Dear Ross,

Thank you for reading our essay and thank you very much for your kind words. How to go about making better minds is such an enormously complex topic that we thought it best to simply begin by making the argument we did, i.e. that it is the most efficient way to approach humanity's many disparate problems. As your comment affirms, this seems somewhat obvious, but our essay appears to be the only one in this competition to explicitly propose this as a general solution (although a few others focus on better thinking).

You raise two important and challenging issues. First, how to achieve levels of ability beyond normalcy is a key and difficult question. Nevertheless, there are some clues to how such things might be accomplished. For example, see this recent news article suggesting that reconfiguring the brain can release suppressed talents (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/brain-injury-jason
-padgett-math-genius_n_5273609.html). Your second point is potentially even more challenging. We can only say that such questions are best answered at the highest levels with great deliberation. We envision and advocate an open, civilian project that would dwarf the space race. We need an international collaborative effort to tackle these issues, rather than leave mental enhancement to individual secret and military organizations around the world.

We'll take a look at your essay. Thanks again.

report post as inappropriate


Petio Hristov wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 07:01 GMT
Dear Alexander Hoekstra and Preston Estep,

I read your essay with great interest, because it concerns fundamental questions linked with the development and survival of the human race, forced to deal with increasingly more difficult challenges. It is without doubt that the improving the qualities and the independents of the mind is a good suggests a better future.

And although in a relatively short essay a major issue, such as this, cannot be examined in its full complexity and depth, you managed in the smartest way to provoke the minds of the intelligent to think.

Petio Hristov

report post as inappropriate

Preston Estep replied on May. 8, 2014 @ 21:02 GMT
Dear Petio,

Thank you for taking time to read our essay and for understanding the limits of what we are able to address in the space available. Indeed, this is a major and complex issue. And thank you very much for your kind words.

report post as inappropriate


Member Tommaso Bolognesi wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 18:01 GMT
Hi,

it occurred to me that in several observations your very interesting essay overlaps, or tightly relates with the essay by Sabine Hossenfelder. For example, you write:

"Here is a key question: why should we try to cope with modern, complex civilization, using brains provided by nature for use in a simpler time; brains that have been shaped and constrained by forces that are either already or quickly becoming irrelevant?"

This resonates with her concept (at p. 1):

"The root of the problems that humanity faces today is that our adaptation as a species has fallen behind the changes we have induced ourselves."

However, your proposed solution is:

The most efficient and generalizable solution to all human problems is to enhance our fundamental abilities to solve problems.

Her conclusions are rather different, and perhaps more surprising. To know how . . . take a look at her essay! (Sabine, you now owe me a rating :-)

A small question. You seem to prefer the term `mind` over `brain`. Are you implying some important difference between the two?

Best regards

Tommaso

report post as inappropriate

Preston Estep replied on May. 8, 2014 @ 20:55 GMT
Hello Tommaso,

Thanks for taking the time to read our essay carefully enough to detect similarities with Sabine Hossenfelder's essay. We agree that there are clear parallels in our summaries of current problems, although, as you point out, our proposed solutions are very different. We are in agreement that the root cause of human problems is the inabilities of what we call the "mind lost in time," but she believes it can be trained and tricked in various ways by diversions and rote adherence to individual and social constructs. We agree that this works to some degree, but we disagree that this will lead to sustained progress and to our best possible future, since some aspects of the mind are even more problematic than she realizes. We have commented on her essay. Take a look if you are interested.

Good question about mind and brain. Only after we uploaded the essay did we realize we should have defined these critical terms. Try these: The mind is a conceptual construct embodied by the functions of the brain together with the nervous and endocrine systems. We also accept that other kinds of minds are possible, including those consisting of non-biological systems.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 10:20 GMT
Hi Alex,

You framed well the need to change the mind to better address identifying and addressing perceived global needs.

I tend to agree with you that certain mental processes that are common to being human can better serve humanity, but I think a more important consideration is the "collective mind" of people, the social interactions that we can control. We need a diversity of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 15:27 GMT
Dear Mr. Hoekstra and Dr. Estep,

I regret that your inaccurate abstractions filled essay depressed me more than any other essay that has been published at this site.

Real women are only capable of giving birth to real babies that have real brains. Each real baby’s brain is unique, once. Here you are pretending that you “know” what minds are made of and how they ought to work.

James Watson was only partially correct, it is not a case of “most scientists being stupid” all scientists are stupid because they only believe in abstractions. Abstractions are not unique. Abstractions have nothing to do with reality.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate

Preston Estep replied on May. 8, 2014 @ 21:09 GMT
Dear Mr. Fisher,

Thank you for your comments. We're sorry you are so displeased. Since you are already unhappy with our essay, we hope you don't mind much that we refer to your dismissal above and your own essay as Exhibit A and Exhibit B to support our case.

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 21:41 GMT
Joe,

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

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate


Chidi Idika wrote on May. 14, 2014 @ 03:54 GMT
Dear Hoekstra, Preston,

I must say am happy I got to read your essay. It was erudite.

But your view of the human mind is very much that of sabine hossenfelder’s essay. And her’s even goes ahead to show how we may “improve” (meddle) with the brain unlike yours (thankfully).

It seems to me such views as expressed by your two essays stem from putting way too much weight on the present understanding of Darwin’s theory of evolution. This theory is not even “quantized” yet. Here is what I mean, any progression (picture a stair case) can be viewed MINIMALLY in two ways: as an ascendance (in the Darwinian sense that the mind has evolved from lower life and hence will continue to evolve; as negative entropy) or as a descendance (in the sense of entropy in 2nd law of thermodynamics so that the mind is an ideal state like ideal gas which observably degrades into non-life phenomena).

These two views are not choice to be made, they are LOGICAL NECESSITY; any successor function must have this dual property (similar to a wave/corpuscular nature). So Darwin’s theory is only one side of the picture, it is classical; it has yet to be “quantized”.

However, your basic thesis is to me most inspiring namely: to manage the future of man we must manage his mind/mindset. You say, “Minds are central; they are the foundation of humanity’s past, its present, and its future. Human minds are the root cause of all problem-solving inefficiencies, but they are also the only creative engines capable of taking on each of these challenges, and of designing and building a better future.”

I think your essay deserves better rating and am going to give it but I’ll appreciate your own critique of my own approach

to this subject.

Best,

Chidi

report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on May. 14, 2014 @ 06:00 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on May. 15, 2014 @ 18:21 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover replied on May. 21, 2014 @ 03:52 GMT
Alex and Preston,

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

Jim

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover replied on May. 21, 2014 @ 03:54 GMT
I find that I rated it on the 15th.

report post as inappropriate


Member Marc Séguin wrote on May. 21, 2014 @ 04:28 GMT
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...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Margriet Anne O\'Regan wrote on May. 21, 2014 @ 08:27 GMT
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.

report post as inappropriate


Ajay Bhatla wrote on May. 24, 2014 @ 05:55 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 28, 2014 @ 04:03 GMT
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...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Aaron M. Feeney wrote on May. 28, 2014 @ 23:38 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate

Aaron M. Feeney replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 17:30 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate


Ray Luechtefeld wrote on May. 29, 2014 @ 19:48 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on May. 29, 2014 @ 20:06 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 30, 2014 @ 14:33 GMT
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...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Michael Allan wrote on May. 31, 2014 @ 10:57 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 15:01 GMT
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

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 01:03 GMT
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.

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 03:52 GMT
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...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 04:48 GMT
I want to add..

I greatly enjoyed the discussion about the newness of Science in relation to mankind's other pursuits. I think that perhaps some level of scientific knowledge was developed and lost many times, over the course of human history, but in its present form - it is quite a new pursuit indeed. However, there is a need to nurture our ability to actually do Science in the way that pursuit demands. More brain power can only help if it is allowed the freedom to explore nature and figure things out.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.