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


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/discusswinners

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 Fund.
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

James Hoover: on 6/10/14 at 1:19am UTC, wrote Neil, One thing we all value in this contest and wherever we express our...

Neil Bates: on 6/6/14 at 23:41pm UTC, wrote Petio, Thanks, I received it. I will look at your material when I have...

Neil Bates: on 6/6/14 at 23:33pm UTC, wrote Don, Thank you for liking my essay. I have read and graded your essay in...

Neil Bates: on 6/5/14 at 19:32pm UTC, wrote Janko, I appreciate your interest. Yes, my argument relates to both quantum...

Neil Bates: on 6/5/14 at 19:23pm UTC, wrote Dear Vladimir, Thank you for your understanding and supportive comments....

Petio Hristov: on 6/5/14 at 6:58am UTC, wrote Hello Neil, As an appeal for correspondence and exchange of ideas between...

Anonymous: on 6/4/14 at 20:09pm UTC, wrote Hi Neil, This is the most thoughtful essay, and I just gave it the highest...

Janko Kokosar: on 6/4/14 at 17:59pm UTC, wrote Dear Neil Bates You think similarly as I. I tried to answer on questions,...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Stefan Weckbach: "Robert, „Obviously. IT DOES NOT MATTER. Each individual photon is not..." in Grants awarded for...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar..." in Dissolving Quantum...

Robert McEachern: "Stefan, "it can hardly change if the experimental setup changes" It is not..." in Grants awarded for...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, A truncated, FIR filter approximation to an IIR Gaussian filter is..." in Dissolving Quantum...

Angels Vedas: "Throw away all your worries by putting on this handcrafted Azurite bracelet..." in Constructing a Theory of...

EthelL Marquez: "Looking for experienced lawyers Sydney CBD? Visit The Dymocks Building...." in Quantum Physics, Mini...

Acacia hary: "The article on Quantum Reproduction you share is very attractive. With many..." in Quantum Replicants:...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

Constructing a Theory of Life
An all-encompassing framework of physics could help to explain the evolution of consciousness, intelligence, and free will.

Usurping Quantum Theory
The search is on for a fundamental framework that allows for even stranger links between particles than quantum theory—which could lead us to a theory of everything.

Fuzzballs v Black Holes
A radical theory replaces the cosmic crunchers with fuzzy quantum spheres, potentially solving the black-hole information paradox and explaining away the Big Bang and the origin of time.

Whose Physics Is It Anyway? Q&A with Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.


FQXi FORUM
December 17, 2018

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]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Neil Bates wrote on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 18:30 GMT
Essay Abstract

The 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

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share



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


Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share



Member Tommaso Bolognesi wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 13:52 GMT
The anonymous above is me.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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?

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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.)

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share


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.)

Bookmark and Share



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


Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share



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.

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James A Putnam wrote on May. 17, 2014 @ 02:18 GMT
Sorry, Neil!!!

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share


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.

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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


Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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.)

Bookmark and Share


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

Bookmark and Share
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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share



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 essay

Best regards

Janko Kokosar

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share



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

Bookmark and Share
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.

Bookmark and Share



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.