CATEGORY:
How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014)
[back]
TOPIC:
Flashlights, Mirrors, Real Brains and Willpower: Steering Ourselves to Steer Our Future by Neil Bates
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Neil Bates wrote on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 18:30 GMT
Essay AbstractThe challenges facing humanity require not just action, but better understanding and transformation of the human mind. It is more important to find out 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. We examine the problem of flawed thinking as both a factor reducing current well-being and advancement, as well as being a hindrance to human improvement and the forming of better minds and responses. It is argued that mechanistic models of consciousness and choice are inadequate. Appreciating that we are more than computing machines will lead to improved modes of thinking and behaving suitable for preparing and sustaining a better future, as well as inspiring us to make the vital effort.
Author Bio My background is too complex to summarize simply. I consider myself a "Renaissance man" because of the variety of my studies and work. That includes social and physical sciences, consulting at Jefferson Lab using G4Beamline to model muon interactions, teaching at various levels, museum guide, and independently working on policy, philosophy and physical theory in my spare time. I am proud that Google search for "quantum measurement paradox" usually brings up blog posts of mine in top hits. I've published some articles about the relativistic dynamics of extended bodies, a sadly neglected topic.
Download Essay PDF File
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 07:17 GMT
Hi Neil,
Someone else wrote: "the explosive growth of human population requires us to one day leave the planet".
May I ask you to comment on this?
Best,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Author Neil Bates replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 21:09 GMT
Eckard, that's a good question. I think it's impractical to send significant numbers of people into space, and planning it would distract and give false sense of security about problems on Earth. It still costs over $1000/kg under optimistic count to send mass into LEO (low Earth orbit.) The human population grows at about 80,000,000/year. We can't send the infants up so let's say 50 kg/person. So to compensate for the growth rate, optimistically but barring radical advances, we need to spend about $40 T/year just to get them up there, not even counting what to do with them once in LEO. And other methods like space elevator require huge investment, and still aren't cheap and then there are the facilities and so on, and to provide food and artificial gravity etc. This money is better spent making things better here, and better to tell ourselves that is what we need to do.
- NB
Anonymous wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 10:58 GMT
Hi Neil,
your essay introduces several stimulating points for discussion, but one that I like in particular is the topic of free will, and will power. You attribute special importance to the awareness that we are not computers, a sort of beneficial psychological effect that should help us behaving more effectively in our endeavours . You write:
I also suggest that believing our...
view entire post
Hi Neil,
your essay introduces several stimulating points for discussion, but one that I like in particular is the topic of free will, and will power. You attribute special importance to the awareness that we are not computers, a sort of beneficial psychological effect that should help us behaving more effectively in our endeavours . You write:
I also suggest that believing our minds are more than just computers can inspire us, as well as encourage more effective behavior such as the application of "will power."
For the sake of discussion, allow me to express some doubts on this point. Let us consider the sentence: our brain is not just a computer or artificial neural network, it is *more*.
On one hand we have a concept that we understand - the computer, the artificial neural network, or their future, increasingly powerful variants, expected to become so complex that we might even lose control on what they will do. On the other hand we have the totally obscure *more* of `it is more`. The suspect here is that we are trying to please our ego, as humans, by attributing ourselves some unknowable, metaphysical feature that should buy us a higher status, thus more optimistic perspectives for our future.
In some sense, this reminds me of another misuse of the unknown: I refer to the fallacious idea that believing in life after death (with the hope of eternal heaven, or the fear of eternal punishment) should induce humans to behave more correctly.
In the work of Teilhard de Chardin, who was not a computationalist, and was much respectful to transcendence and divinity, the notion of consciousness (with the associated concepts of thought, agency, spontaneity, creativeness, free will) all emerge purely from the growing complexity of matter - an idea that can be formalized, to some extent, by the work of G. Tononi on Integrated Information Theory.
But I am not necessarily opening a discussion on the nature of consciousness here (did you read Hofstadter's "I am A Strange Loop", beside Tegmark's "Our Mathematica Universe"?); I just wanted to confute that the attribution of some metaphysical (or metamagical) status to our consciousness (or our immortality) should make us act more effectively for steering our future on Earth.
Best regards
Tommaso
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Neil Bates replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 20:35 GMT
Tommaso, thanks for your questions. In answering them, I provide a good summary and defense for any reader curious about the point I'm trying to make. First, a background clarification: my proposal is basically a two-stage concept. It starts with a diagnosis that human thinking is flawed, using the example of the misplaced perfectionism behind flashlight design. I note other issues, and write...
view entire post
Tommaso, thanks for your questions. In answering them, I provide a good summary and defense for any reader curious about the point I'm trying to make. First, a background clarification: my proposal is basically a two-stage concept. It starts with a diagnosis that human thinking is flawed, using the example of the misplaced perfectionism behind flashlight design. I note other issues, and write that we need to teach "mistakeology" and better critical thinking. That much has wide support, albeit not a consensus, from various quarters. It would suffice by itself as a diagnosis and proposal about improving the functioning of the human mind, something I say is needed before we just start thinking about what to do, with these often misguided thought processes. Better to improve the process first, then apply our thinking. So far, nothing "mystical" involved - and if you want to, you could just take that much at face value and not query further.
However, I think we need more than just a program of better training. I go on to suggest that we can *better* accomplish such a goal by appreciating our being more than computational intelligences, the more specifically useful feature being a matter of global willfulness. This is a rational argument, albeit supported hypothesis and not proof, not something revered as a matter of tradition. As for your specific concerns:
1. "The alternative is vague." Sure, yet it is possible to argue that something is "not X" because X wouldn't be able to perform that way. It is sadly in the nature of logical entailment, that negations don't provide a specific alternative etc. Compare to around 1900, we knew that classical physics had to be wrong (no ether result, atoms don't collapse, quantized levels etc.) before we could work out the nature of the difference.
I offer two specific arguments, and humbly note that I can't prove either one for certain - they are "arguments" at this point. One is that as a matter of principle, a computational system cannot detect or represent trans-mathematical realness (i.e, cannot "sense" or conceptualize that mathematical monism or extended "ultimate ensemble" Platonism is wrong.) It is rather rigorous in the sense of identifying a fundamental impotency. The tools to break out beyond abstract formalism just wouldn't be there as a matter of
principle. Sure, I don't know what alternative process would be able to do that, but I suggest it is an intimate connection to material existence, beyond any "substrate independent" formal set of rules. (The latter concept is of course the whole problem with breaking out of "abstraction" to feel "I really exist.")
2. Chauvinism/pride etc: Sure, this is something only intelligent beings could conceptually appreciate, but it has no chauvinism for humans compared to any intelligent species. Furthermore, I correlate the process itself to basic awareness of existence, "the feeling of being alive" that we could imagine animals having as well, although the ability of non-rational beings to appreciate this point in any way is not highly relevant.
3. My next major argument is that we have some kind of "free will." Again, this is not for the sake of vanity, I have a specific counter argument to claims of bottom-up sourcing of behavior (consistent, of course it would happen too in any case). I note how unlikely it at least seems to be, that a bottom-up sourcing of behavior would be able to deftly manage sudden stops and resumptions of patterns of behavior. Again, it follows the model "X can't cause such and such since it wouldn't be able to," which again leaves us not sure what the alternative is. That is again, in the nature of negation. I do however find reasons to think that correlative phenomena could be key, due to recent findings about the persistence of quantum coherence in microtubules, and about myelin being less consistently distributed than previously thought (which would allow more correlative, "global" interaction due to leakage of information about impulses beyond the specific circuit of synapse-to-synapse etc.
4. Furthermore, neither of these arguments claim that something non-material is at work; rather that the material world, and brains in particular, are more subtle than we have been giving credit. However I do deny that we should trust this is just more complexity in the same vein as before (ie, even more complex "programs" that are still of the same formal type as simpler ones, etc.) The point is not to stoke our egos about "we aren't just animals" etc (and again, distinguishing from other mammals etc. is not the point), but to inspire that we really are probably capable of more than we thought: perhaps more ability to insight, to empathy and caring about the world (if our awareness of "existing" means we are tied into a kind of panpsychic basis of consciousness and "soul" etc), and especially to the exertion of better "willpower" for better living and accomplishment, versus feeling and being trapped in habits etc. Note references to studies in which people who believe in willpower exhibit better self-control, and practice of it seems to strengthen it. It is not comparable to belief in an afterlife since we should be able to show the results of willpower training, possible new insights about correlative behavior in the brain, more appreciation of how people with very little cortex can be capable (like John Lorber's select hydrocephaly patients with IQs up to about 120, unlike most such sufferers) etc.
5. Note that it is risky to compare and transfer attitudes based on some sense of a previous "mistake", maybe they aren't really alike. If this sort of investigation gave us reasons to believe in "will" and actual techniques to improve it, that would be a direct benefit and not just a "side-effect" argument such as belief in later punishment makes people behave better (but BTW, what if it did?)
As for
Strange Loops etc, yes I've browsed in that and
Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid etc; and nothing in the picture they present gives reason to doubt either 1. a computational intelligence could not appreciate substantive existence or anything other than the abstractions it works directly with, or 2. a bottom-up behavioral process probably would not be able to globally manage sudden stops and resumptions.
view post as summary
Tommaso Bolognesi wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 13:52 GMT
James Dunn wrote on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 01:15 GMT
Willpower training? You must mean diverse factors involving willpower. Because a crying baby can cry for hours for the purpose of getting what they want.
What factors of willpower are you considering exercising?
report post as inappropriate
Author Neil Bates replied on Apr. 30, 2014 @ 01:55 GMT
James, I referred to obesity in the Abstract. This is an example where people are giving in to immediate impulses that are overriding their own desired overarching game plan. One important aspect of willpower training would be to develop effectiveness in using a game plan to control episodic stimuli and urges to do otherwise. In a nutshell, successful dieting etc. Improving health will make people happier, save them money on individual basis and overall cost reductions such as health care, more effectiveness and so on. In general, young people could learn to concentrate more on studies and get more done in a shorter time, people could continue working on complicated long-term projects that are easy to give up, etc.
Actually we already have a type of willpower medication: methylphenidate (e.g. Ritalin ®), which increases dopamine in the frontal cortex. But I was thinking more in terms of exercises and practice, a safer way to do things overall.
Joe Fisher wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 16:46 GMT
Dear Mr. Bates,
You certainly made use of your varied occupational history to write one of the best languid meandering essays I think I have ever read. I hope you will not mind my leaving a comment about it.
Reality is unique, once. Quantum Physics is not unique.
With my best regards,
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
Author Neil Bates replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 17:22 GMT
Dear Mr. Fisher,
Thanks. No, I don't mind getting some "style" based critique from time to time. Yes, I do have a sort of ripe and bountiful style when writing "literary" type thoughtful pieces, rather than more technical papers. I am trying to be narratively interesting, with some personal "human interest," and not just a technical report. Indeed, I think it's probably a lot easier to read...
view entire post
Dear Mr. Fisher,
Thanks. No, I don't mind getting some "style" based critique from time to time. Yes, I do have a sort of ripe and bountiful style when writing "literary" type thoughtful pieces, rather than more technical papers. I am trying to be narratively interesting, with some personal "human interest," and not just a technical report. Indeed, I think it's probably a lot easier to read than my previous essays, which were also too predictably heavy about QM. I think the structural organization of the piece was nevertheless orderly enough. I started with an overview, about how people aren't ready "as is" to make the necessary planning and steps to steer a good future. Then I provided an anecdote from manufacturing custom to illustrate the prevalence of inadequate thinking. The section about mirror symmetry could have been left out, but I thought it would be insightful and fun to let the reader see how hard it can be to hash out "obvious" logical questions. Next I offered a possible solution to unemployment, as food for thought. They are separate examples to illustrate a theme.
As for "so what do we do", I briefly outline a plan to teach more critical thinking and also willpower/choice training, which should have been clear enough. But I wanted to argue that such plans aren't enough by themselves, and to provide a theoretical support for our being able to do "more" in some sense than we think we're capable of. I hope to get some credit for creativity in that regard, since AFAIK both arguments (about consciousness and free will) are essentially original. To me, providing theoretical support for "free will" or at least, more global executive function than bottom-up models suggest, will help inspire as well as implement more willpower training: the major proposal in my view for how to help people do what needs doing. Like some other writers (e.g. Sabine Hossenfelder), I am more concerned with methodological assistance than specifying a menu of stated "correct" particular steps to improve our future.
I will read your essay soon and comment in turn.
BTW, I'm not sure what you last assertion really means. Can you clarify? (Sometimes brevity creates its own challenges ;-)
Regards,
view post as summary
Joe Fisher replied on May. 5, 2014 @ 13:38 GMT
Dear Mr. Bates,
My essay REALITY, ONCE, will best clarify my brief comment. I do hope you get a chance to read it.
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam wrote on May. 7, 2014 @ 00:07 GMT
Dear Neil Bates,
I find your essay to be more thoughtful than some others, high up, dealing with similar subjects. Lets see what happens when I undo that ridiculous '1' rating.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on May. 7, 2014 @ 00:16 GMT
James,
What's the old saying, "Great minds think alike." I'm afraid we have opened Neil up to the trolls though.
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on May. 17, 2014 @ 02:16 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on May. 7, 2014 @ 00:11 GMT
Neil,
I rather liked your essay because it does ask necessary questions, even if admitting not having the answers. So I'm sorry to see it not well received.
Best,
John Merryman
report post as inappropriate
Author Neil Bates replied on May. 7, 2014 @ 02:03 GMT
John, James: thank you both. I seem to be doing rather well right now, at least. I've been rather busy but will be reading more of these myself soon. Questions: yeah, I thought it was important to delve into "what we are" and challenge some rather lazy presumptions, and not just make suggestions about what to do. I admit to being kind of wordy so readers might consider reading the sections about conscious awareness and willpower (even though IMHO the mirror symmetry passage is fun.)
Georgina Woodward wrote on May. 7, 2014 @ 04:35 GMT
Hi Neil,
your essay is very pleasant and effortless to read. You have asked the really big question 'what are we?'(not just a computer) and you have made the mundane interesting, I have never given thought to why my torch beams are as they are, or how they might be improved. I like the idea that we should all be looking at things and asking how they might be improved, and the suggestion that the answers may be surprising. There is also the saying if it ain't broke don't fix it. Which is probably why I have been living with an irrigation tap fixed with a champagne cord held on with cable ties!
Obesity is linked to both stress, and distress, and lack of sleep, and blue light at night. To try to fight obesity with willpower is fighting against biology.It is something I feel quite strongly about. "The biggest looser" TV show is bullying for public entertainment.
Loose weight while you sleep, /
Stress linked to obesity, /
Blue light has a dark side What is needed for good health is lifestyle changes.
I love your final sentence which hits the nail on its head, Quote"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." Very well said. Good luck, Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Author Neil Bates replied on May. 11, 2014 @ 01:20 GMT
Georgina, thanks for your encouraging comments. Yes, most people don't think about the basics of why things are made like they are. I think much of the time, it's "custom" rather than "best design", and we need to change that. My essay is of course not just a laundry list of proposals, but a head-on attempt to get at the basis of human mentality (both regarding "awareness" and "will"), and try to use that to better enable more optimal, less hide-bound thinking. I want to be more optimistic than you and most people, about our potential ability to fight nature's urges and habits. We already know that people who believe in and practice willpower (whatever it ultimately is) can exert more self control and eat fewer snacks etc. (altho as we know, relapse is a problem.)
Reducing stress and bad environmental influences however, does help - we aren't just plugging away with our wills in a vacuum. I have installed orange lights to turn on at night for awhile before retiring, to reduce the influence of the bluish rays that you mention (they reduce melatonin and increase stress chemicals, and are found even in unfiltered incandescent light - fluorescent is even worse.)
I like the regard for and attention to nature that you express in your own essay, (as did many other writers - this is to me a good sign.) We are indeed learning better ways of doing things from studying nature - for example, seashells have shown how to make tough armor. Applying such techniques to humans is of course controversial and will require the highest ethical standards and collaboration and consensus. But the world faces such great challenges, so we will probably have to try exotic and possibly radical techniques at some point. Cheers, good luck to you.
Author Neil Bates replied on May. 11, 2014 @ 01:26 GMT
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.)
Anonymous wrote on May. 7, 2014 @ 08:25 GMT
Dear Neil,
Your contribution intrigues me and it is a pleasure to come with some remarks.
I fully agree with you that our "morality" has to change deeply from egoistic short time economic thinking to a "sharing" all the goods and energy that we have (sunlight = energy).
Understanding the technique of our material body is in my opinion (like yours) not an end-goal and will not...
view entire post
Dear Neil,
Your contribution intrigues me and it is a pleasure to come with some remarks.
I fully agree with you that our "morality" has to change deeply from egoistic short time economic thinking to a "sharing" all the goods and energy that we have (sunlight = energy).
Understanding the technique of our material body is in my opinion (like yours) not an end-goal and will not contribute to a change of mentality, only to a more materialistic understanding leading to more "physical laws" that will lead to a thousand more questions, so that we are more and more busy with "matter". It is my view that "matter does not matter" because it is only a layer of reality, that emerges from what I perceive as Total Simultaneity, where our non-causal consciousness is part of. As Sean Carroll already said "Everything is made of Fields" The Consciousness Field is the catalyst for the "Matter Field" so that the excitation that we remember as matter is created.
I fully agree also with your answer to Tomaso, the growing of humanity has to be controlled, it is as I also mention in my essay that in 50 years we will need another four or five "earth's" to nourish all these individuals, and politics will not be able to solve this problem.
People are not really "stupid" indeed, it is only that because of the great numbers the most stupid as well as the most "wise" are both increasing and it is the first class that when put together have the greatest influence, because the wise man is a silent one...
About your mirror image : each three-dimensional object for instance a cube has three sides you cannot see, however hold it in front of a mirror and you are able to become aware of the whole cube (all six sides) so the mirror image can be a help to have a full perception of three dimensional objects outside yourself. Indeed the left and right are interchanged, it is not a film that you are looking at, to have a good image you need to look into your camera on the computer...and look at the screen...first you are astonished because you are used to look in the mirror.
About your problem with "work", Any "labor" takes time of your life, this time is only once , every minute is a "once in a lifetime" so in principle there is no reference for anybody else to give it a value. They say that people are happy when they work , but I have my doubts, the real problem is that people don't know how to fill their lifetime if they don't have to hunt for deer or labor on their land for vegetables...If mankind changes its mentality perhaps then....
About machines that would be able to think : It is my perception that any computer even how big it might be will never be able to create because the system is binair, it is only BLACK OR WHITE it can choose from, not the infinity number of grey-tones that are in-between, it is our quantum based brain that is able to realize "thinking" because very Planck time there are choices to be made, leading to catalyzing the matter Field, so Descartes could also have said "I think so I create" . I wrote an article that maybe published in COSMOLOGY (depending on review) where I wrote how a "quantum computer could help us to enlarge consciousness I quote it here:
QUOTE
Time-Travel Becomes “ETERNAL -NOW- MOMENT HOPPING”
The splitting in the original Many Worlds I interpretation goes only forward in time, not backwards. In our conception it IS possible that our consciousness "activates" Eternal Now Moments from other time/life-lines (or from parallel available universes) . Should this mean that time travel is possible ? Yes but...should we call this phenomenon time-travel ?
What we are understanding as time-travel in this causal time/life line always leads to the well-known paradoxes like killing your grand-father. (What a mentality !!!) These paradoxes however are no longer problematic when we apply the perception of Total Simultaneity. Then time-travel in the past and/or the future would become ENM-Hopping, and the so called “physical” time/life-line (in our memory) continues normally. Our consciousness is able not only to hop from one ENM to another but also line up these ENM’s and in this way creating for itself the best possible past and future, Real Free Will resides in TS.
The extension of our Free Will lies in the extension of our consciousness and so in a closer contact with our NCC in order to realize more choices in the ENM availabilities. We think that the a future coupling of the quantum-computer and our brain will be an opening.
In the article “Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules...” 16 Prof. Nick E. Mavromatos, proposed that :
“For the first time there is concrete evidence for quantum entanglement over relatively large distances in living matter at ambient temperature, which suggests a rather non-trivial role of quantum physics in path optimization for energy and information transport” :
(http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/329/1/012026) (14) ,
It becomes clear that quantum entanglement and decoherence time, which are for the construction and the operational qualities of quantum computers the main issues, these qualities are are already available in our own brains inside the Cell Microtubules (MT).
(decoherence = The particles that make up a computer interact with surroundings, so that information is spreading out, which means: this effect is spoiling quantum computations, (to decohere = lose their quantum properties)).
Regarding the “macroscopic” aspect : Recent experiments on atoms in salt crystals have shown that an amount of 1020 atoms formed a hugely entangled state. Vlatko Vedral in “Living in a Quantum World” (Scientific American , June 2011) and “Progress Article Quantifying entanglement in Macroscopic Systems” (June 2008 Nature 453, 1004-1007 : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/full/nature0
7124.html .(21). Quantum Bit Storage is advancing not only in the macroscopic way but now also scientists have succeeded to retrieve coherent information for extended times (39 minutes) at room-temperature. See Kamyar Saeedi et al in “Room-Temperature Quantum Bit Storage Exceeding 39 Minutes Using Ionized Donors in Silicon-28” http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6160/830 (22)
Our brains are RWA (Ready Willing and Able) to perform quantum states that when brought in coherence with a quantum computer. This will enable us to realize “ENM-Hopping”.
UNQUOTE
So you see this one of the possibilities (I hope)
I also hope that you will find some time to read
my essay : "STEERING THE FUTURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS ?", because as you are also a broad interested man we sure have perceptions in common, so I wonder what your comment on my thread will be and maybe you will be able to rate my contribution in accordance to your appreciation.
(full article for Cosmology is attached I hope it works..)
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Neil Bates replied on May. 11, 2014 @ 00:51 GMT
Dear Mr. de Wilde,
Thank you for your thoughtful, bountiful, and compatible comments. I could see just from your abstract that you have hit on a very similar idea to mine: that consciousness is neither a mere epiphenomenon, nor something reducible to operational capabilities. It is fundamentally connected to the ultimate constituents of which the brain is made, rather than...
view entire post
Dear Mr. de Wilde,
Thank you for your thoughtful, bountiful, and compatible comments. I could see just from your abstract that you have hit on a very similar idea to mine: that consciousness is neither a mere epiphenomenon, nor something reducible to operational capabilities. It is fundamentally connected to the ultimate constituents of which the brain is made, rather than "substrate-independent" logical operations. You also appreciate the role of quantum mechanics in mind (now supported by recent discoveries such as we both referenced, that renew the viability of models based on coherence in microtubules) as well as the basis of mind being connected to the physical sourcing of "realness" itself, rather than being a detachable alien addition to a mechanical universe. Furthermore, you appreciate that the binary and deterministic operations of computational systems can neither be truly conscious, nor have anything resembling "choice" - this is surely enabled by the quantum nature of the material world.
Yet the matter/mind nexus is itself ultimately a field as you note: and the correlative nature of fields, allows the brain to act holistically to be a "self." Then, it can exert the sort of self control needed to suddenly stop and resume complex behavior as if "turning on a dime." Yet we still need to draw out this potential (deliberate double entendre) so that we will have more willpower to do the things that need doing. Just "giving advice" won't be good enough (altho it is still welcome.) We need to literally teach willpower training. Your more far-reaching speculations are interesting but I don't know what to make of them. Personally I don't believe in MWI, so I don't speculate much about how that system would affect mental functioning, but we just don't know ...
Sadly I can't open your essay, perhaps the Adobe version is too recent for my old machine. Consider emailing me a version saved as earlier (like 7.0), thanks.
view post as summary
Michael muteru wrote on May. 11, 2014 @ 18:03 GMT
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.
report post as inappropriate
Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on May. 12, 2014 @ 16:16 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam wrote on May. 17, 2014 @ 02:18 GMT
Christian Corda wrote on May. 23, 2014 @ 15:26 GMT
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.
report post as inappropriate
Author Neil Bates replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 02:17 GMT
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.
Christian Corda replied on May. 27, 2014 @ 06:30 GMT
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.
report post as inappropriate
Author Neil Bates wrote on May. 26, 2014 @ 18:00 GMT
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,...
view entire post
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?
view post as summary
Peter Jackson wrote on May. 26, 2014 @ 18:14 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author Neil Bates replied on May. 27, 2014 @ 01:12 GMT
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.
Peter Jackson replied on May. 30, 2014 @ 19:42 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author Neil Bates replied on May. 31, 2014 @ 01:20 GMT
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...
view entire post
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
view post as summary
Author Neil Bates replied on May. 31, 2014 @ 01:22 GMT
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
Author Neil Bates replied on May. 31, 2014 @ 01:25 GMT
Now I know there's a serious problem, I'll have to contact the Admins. So here's the rest:
... when v
Author Neil Bates replied on May. 31, 2014 @ 01:28 GMT
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.
hide replies
James Lee Hoover wrote on Jun. 3, 2014 @ 21:46 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author Neil Bates replied on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 02:21 GMT
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.)
James Lee Hoover replied on Jun. 10, 2014 @ 01:19 GMT
Neil,
One thing we all value in this contest and wherever we express our interests are interested readers who comment constructively.
Thanks, Neil.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 12:43 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author Neil Bates replied on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 19:23 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you for your understanding and supportive comments. Indeed, we need to appreciate the power of dialectic and willpower in nature and our own minds, or we will languish in a shallow pool without the fortitude to face big problems, and to probe big mysteries. I read your essay awhile ago and found it fascinating that you can employ so many concepts from the classical philosophy (eidos, etc.) as an interdisciplinarian writing a sort of conceptual allegory, then segue to a rundown of reasonable solutions of practical value. I would fear that many readers would not appreciate that kind of allegory of human development and mind that is filled with various themes and allusions from the history of philosophy and the classics (as well as various charming coinages of your own), but it seems your essay is doing reasonably well as it should.
Janko Kokosar wrote on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 17:59 GMT
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 essayBest regards
Janko Kokosar
report post as inappropriate
Author Neil Bates replied on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 19:32 GMT
Janko, I appreciate your interest. Yes, my argument relates to both quantum consciousness as well as "panpsychism", by showing that an AI (computational type) intellect cannot even know it has a truly concrete (not just abstract as in MUH) existence. The particular nature of physical law is not that important, just that brains must actually access the deep level of reality. The mental process can't just pass signals signals around as substrate-independent "surface effects" so to speak (as an analogy.) I will look at your 2014 essay as well as your 2013 essay. BTW I don't always have time to say much in comments, but will give your essays attention since you've asked me to. Regards.
Anonymous wrote on Jun. 4, 2014 @ 20:09 GMT
Hi Neil,
This is the most thoughtful essay, and I just gave it the highest rating. OK now for the critique!
1. Your final comment should be "We Are Truly Alive". And we will know it when we stop thinking.
2. Sorry but Descartes Was Right. You just need to think about it (sorry I could not resist). "I think therefore I am" describes the ego perfectly. Now if you say "I don't think therefore I .... " you are on to something fundamental. Unfortunately the state of being conscious and not thinking is not that common. If we could teach it as one the essays suggests, we would steering a very good future.
3. Your central thrust that consciousness and free will are real. Is IMHO the way to go!
4. Please, the war between Vietnam and the US was not megapower against megapower. It was a war between farmers with guns against a megapower. The US revolution against England was also farmers with guns against a megapower.
5. Your employee tax write off (1.2x) is a great idea! I hope it gets around.
6. Your mention that human beings are lucky to be doing calculus. Calculus is wrong and messing up physics immensely. Check out my web page: www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/9_Paradoxes.html
7. Your comment that "we need to teach mistake avoidance" I somewhat disagree with, I would say we need to make mistakes with a vengeance in simulated environments (see T. Rays essay).
8. Your point of using minds well is very important (your examples are excellent), and we are alive!
I am glad I did not miss your excellent essay,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author Neil Bates replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 23:33 GMT
Don,
Thank you for liking my essay. I have read and graded your essay in turn. I don't say what score, but your essay deserved respectable credit. As for your points:
1,2,3: Interesting that you imply we are more truly aware when we transcend thinking
per se, presumably to get in touch with our basic feelings of things. My point about Descartes is that cognitive processes in themselves cannot achieve awareness of "being" as a fundamental category. They can't tell the difference between a mathematical model, versus concrete existence. Hence our minds must have access to that foundation and can't just be substrate-independent processes that are just as easily representable by a flow chart, signal exchanges, etc. As for "free will" - I am not claiming it is independent of causality or detached from physical embedding, but rather that it has a global character and acts as a whole - the ultimate source of the choices themselves remaining quite mysterious.
5: Thanks. I think my tax plan is a good idea too, but am not sure. I pose it as an "excercise" rather than a confidently firmed up "how to" in this context.
6. Wow, that's surprising. Calculus is full of paradoxical descriptions but it *works* as far as I know, but I'll check your site.
7. Good point - actually *practicing* and seeing the results of mistakes is indeed part of ultimate mistake-avoidance training, not just warnings not to do X, Y, Z.
8. I wanted readers to consider two "banal" everyday examples of a. something built wrongly due to idealization and b. an everyday piece of "optical furniture" and how confusing it is to the understanding. But sure, most valuable IMHO is the appreciation that the "fire breathed into the equations" that makes the world real, is the same that breathes fire into our "computations" and makes them real experiences, too.
Petio Hristov wrote on Jun. 5, 2014 @ 06:58 GMT
Hello Neil,
As an appeal for correspondence and exchange of ideas between FQXi members I have send you my books on your email address.
Their content is not only a new approach in the understanding of the Universe, but a new sort of physics, because in my study of the physical laws I had to give a new definition of time and space regarding the sequence and nature of their creation.
For some myths Egyptologists use the phrase: “divine mystery” the reading of which helps me to understand the cosmic mysteries. This understanding I gain by running the myth “through the prism” created by the physical laws and I decipher the formed image.
I hope that this will help you in your own field and in your studies.
Best wishes,
Petio
report post as inappropriate
Author Neil Bates replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 23:41 GMT
Petio,
Thanks, I received it. I will look at your material when I have more time.
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.