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 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

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

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

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.

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


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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
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

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 4/7/17 at 8:12am UTC, wrote Dear Sirs! Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of...

Luke Leighton: on 4/4/17 at 20:40pm UTC, wrote hi peter - turns out i already did read yours and rate it, some weeks back!...

Luke Leighton: on 4/4/17 at 20:16pm UTC, wrote thanks peter, i'll take a look - even a title "classical quantum...

Peter Jackson: on 4/4/17 at 14:15pm UTC, wrote Luke, Brilliant essay! You really need to read mine! I agree with just...

Luke Leighton: on 4/2/17 at 6:38am UTC, wrote hi edwin, really appreciate your insights. yes different terminology: it...

Edwin Klingman: on 4/1/17 at 23:32pm UTC, wrote Dear Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton, Having read your essay I now know why...

Luke Leighton: on 3/31/17 at 21:31pm UTC, wrote eek what happened? what i wrote got cut off! oh well, the point _mostly_...

Don Limuti: on 3/31/17 at 20:16pm UTC, wrote Thanks for filling the gaps.


Steve Dufourny: "Hi Georgina and Mr Sturm, Mr Sturm , sad that you have a problem with..." in The Present State of...

Deserdi Chapas: "Hi FQXI Members: We found the courage to asymptotically take one step..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "I'd like to share with you a thoroughly revised version of the shorter..." in The Present State of...

Steve Dufourny: "I have improved a lot this theory of spherisation withe quantum and..." in Alternative Models of...

David Vognar: "Quantum physics isn't the end of reality; we just need better rulers that..." in Quantum Physics and the...

algo rrithm: "A digital marketing agency in India is showcasing that happens through Web..." in Dark matter effect on the...

algo rrithm: "A branding agency in delhi is a firm having some expertise in the key and..." in The secret of planets’...

algo rrithm: "Advanced advertising assists brands with arriving at their interest group..." in Dark matter effect on the...

click titles to read articles

The Entropic Price of Building the Perfect Clock: Q&A with Natalia Ares
Experiments investigating the thermodynamics of clocks can teach us about the origin of time's arrow.

Schrödinger’s A.I. Could Test the Foundations of Reality
Physicists lay out blueprints for running a 'Wigner's Friend' experiment using an artificial intelligence, built on a quantum computer, as an 'observer.'

Expanding the Mind (Literally): Q&A with Karim Jerbi and Jordan O'Byrne
Using a brain-computer interface to create a consciousness 'add-on' to help test Integrated Information Theory.

Quanthoven's Fifth
A quantum computer composes chart-topping music, programmed by physicists striving to understand consciousness.

The Math of Consciousness: Q&A with Kobi Kremnitzer
A meditating mathematician is developing a theory of conscious experience to help understand the boundary between the quantum and classical world.

January 29, 2023

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: The Drunken Walk Towards a Goal by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 20:13 GMT
Essay Abstract

This essay begins by endeavouring to ask the question "How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intentions" but quickly runs into difficulties with the question itself (not least that there is an implication that there is no current mathematical law that may be considered to be "mindful"), which requires some in-depth exploration. I then explore what constitutes "Creative Intelligence" - coming to a surprising conclusion that concurs with Maharish Mahesh Yogi's definition.

Author Bio

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton is primarily known as a Software Libre Engineer, Advocate and Reverse-Engineer, specialising and focussing presently on developing Eco-conscious Computing Appliances.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Ines Samengo wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 11:53 GMT
Hi, Luke, I have just read your essay. I believe that the points that you list as the rules of reverse engineering are indeed the base of learning theory. So if you want, the operation that I argue that brains do is, within your framework, reverse engineering.

Regarding the other aspects of your essay, I am afraid that I am ill equipped to discuss them as a peer. I am not an expert in the foundations of physics, nor quantum mechanics, and even less, of non-western views of the world. I am actually far from being able to respond to your evolved question. But in any case, I enjoyed reading your essay, because the style was relaxed and accessible. And you provided me with new material to think, which is always great. Thanks!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 13:54 GMT
any time, ines. yeah i had a rather unique upbringing that brought me into contact with the TM movement at a very early age, yet much of that stuff i just took as "read" or for granted at the time. the page on wikipedia about advaita vedanta, "epistemology" section is well worth reading: i played with my daughter and established that, aged seven, she clearly knows the different kinds of knowledge listed there, which i find amazing.

also i apologise that i had to cut the essay drastically and on short notice, i'm relieved to find that it's still readable. thank you ines.

Bookmark and Share

James Arnold wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 18:24 GMT
I enjoyed your paper very much. We are not so far apart, as I think you can see when (I hope) mine is accepted and put online.

Points of disagreement:

“No human being is intelligent”, we “are merely riding on the back of an inherent and fundamental property” of "’The Universe’: the ‘Field’ of ‘Creative Intelligence’."

To this I would say that you’ve posited a duality of the finite and the infinite, which of course is characteristic of religion; why not say we are intelligent because the universe of which we are an integral part is capable of intelligencing?

Another point, I think it’s important to distinguish individuals from conglomerates. The planet earth is in its physical substance just a conglomerate, as is a machine, with no organic feature of individuality.

But on the whole, a wonderful, well-written essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 06:19 GMT
thanks james. look forward to seeing your essay when it's available.

i was being deliberate in emphasising a perspective where intelligent life simply "borrows" the core fundamental properties of our universe (its capacity for creative intelligence). not least because i find it so incredibly empowering, to think that there could exist or be brought into existence other forms of intelligent...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Author Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 09:47 GMT
ah! just occurred to me james. i know why i find it important to separate humans from the intelligent framework that the universe provides: if we do not do so it becomes that much harder to imagine the perspective from which *other beings* - or other objects - may also borrow the exact same fabric / property of the universe.

it is most unfortunate that i had to drastically cut the length of the essay by a whopping 50% because examples which illustrated this point (more to the point, showed the *dangers* of believing that intelligence is permitted to us separate and distinct from the rest of the universe) were included in the original.

Bookmark and Share

Mike R McKeen wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 21:34 GMT
Great Essay Luke! Did you save the full extended version?

I have (through less mathematical means) put a lot of thought behind existence, religion, consciousness, etc. and I have come to very similar conclusions. One thought I have recently come to is that in a sense every form of life is simply a vessel for energy to inhabit, your essay has led me to believe that is is more than just life forms, but matter itself is all essentially in the same process, "preserve existence and be part of something larger."

If "Creative intelligence" exists in everything, could it be that "background radiation" from the Big Bang that permeates the entire universe is actually the stream of energy that connects to all matter on some level and drives us as life forms to continue the never ending process of change?

could that also be what so many religions have deemed "God"?

Great read! Thanks for sharing!!


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 06:41 GMT
hi mike thank you for the encouraging words, yes i did, it may be found at

"every form of life is simply a vessel for energy to inhabit... matter included"

hmm, that would indeed seem to be the next logical step, wouldn't it? :)

"if creative intelligence exists in everything"

ah *no*. i take the perspective that...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 11:22 GMT
Hi Luke,

You talk about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi identifying the difference between the DNA of an acorn and the DNA of an oak tree being time. You say in other words there is no difference. You have incorrectly interpreted the not incorrect answer given. As it is known that there are changes to DNA over time, damage from radioactivity and free-radicals, transcription errors, virus insertions,...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 12:50 GMT
hi georgina, many thanks for the comments - all appreciated.

"You talk about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi identifying the difference between the DNA of an acorn and the DNA of an oak tree being time."

yes, in order to keep it simple-sounding. you are correct inasmuch as the *correct* way to put it would be, "the set of all possible permutations of DNA that may be positively identified as...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 21:07 GMT
Luke, thank you for your reply. Re. the acorn I was thinking about the acorn/tree DNA of the individual but you are right that there is a lot of variation among the population of individuals.

I see clearly now the the difference between 'intelligence' as used in general parlance; to describe an entity that has characteristics such as reasoning, comprehension, ability to learn and more, compared to your use of the word as a synonym for 'self organisation' applicable to processes and inanimate matter. Clearly they are very different meanings of the word intelligent. I agree that the higher mental function intelligence requires the organisation of matter that can be reduced to individual particles. I think it is misleading to put the word intelligent on the organizing which happens via mindless physics and chemistry. Self organisation is not a standard definition of 'intelligent'. No problem with 'creative self organisation' as a description though.

I like that you have thought about the question and how it can or can't be answered, and how it might be usefully modified.

Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 04:47 GMT
"Guest Room\ Dr.Alex hankey"you tube video

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Theophanes Eleftheriou Raptis wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 12:51 GMT
Hi Luke

Good effort which also gives me the opportunity to play the devil's advocate for a while. I will try avoiding all such emphatic terms like "interesting" or worse, "fascinating" that have recently being called to attention as being entirely devoid of meaning (S. L Garfinkel, "whatever you do, dont call this an interesting idea", aeon e-magazine) It is yet intriguing that starting...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 00:01 GMT
Dear Theophanes Eleftheriou Raptis,

i think you are right here. If one believes in a personal God and not just in a first source, this problem - the problem of evil - has to be answered.

Fist possibility: Its all a game, a kind of tour of souls away from their creator - to experience how it feels to be separated from God. Then we did choose all the evil by ourselves. Being separated from the realm of God does mean to be separated from his/her values and properties. This would explain the lack of such properties in our world.

Second possibility: Souls have been entrapped to be separated from God (in christian theology this was due to Lucifer who entrapped a huge part of souls in the heavens). Since every soul is made like the father (in some aspects), it is eternal and has free will (can choose).

In both cases the evil is not due to God, but due to the decisions of the souls. Personally i believe in Jesus Christ, i do not go to Church, i do not read the bible, but believe that Jesus lived, died and was resurrected from the dead. I am finished with all the esoteric nonsense i read and heard over the years. This stuff does not safe a single soul, neither here on earth from its problems, nor in the world after. It is just a kind of seducement, mixed with some real metaphysical experiences, a mix of lies with some truth to think one is just like God.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 05:36 GMT
thanks theo :) yeah the unabridged version makes it clearer why i have a problem with the idea of scientists being able to understand consciousness sufficiently as to be able to implement it to bring about machine-conscious beings (... and then torture them). the lack of understanding *is* precisely why humanity would consider it perfectly ok to do that.

if we were not at a critical juncture where the power and money of one person could have such a dramatic impact on our ecosystem, in effect become a surgeon operating *on themselves* with neither knowledge or anaesthetic, risking killing us all in the process, i would not have written the conclusion that i had, because there would be no need.

much as i would *like* to get involved in the development of machine consciousness.

interestingly, that same high-level powerful group that has got together to collaborate to create Arrogantly-Artificial-Intelligence has *just* funded a think-tank on how humanity should cope if all goes to hell in a handbasket.

Bookmark and Share

Geraldine Ewan wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 17:59 GMT
I am interested to see the similarities between Luke's train of thought and reading that I have been doing recently concerning the nature of the Christian concept of the Trinity, particularly focussing on the work of Fr. Richard Rohr, a Franciscan priest at the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque. He and his colleagues promulgate the idea that Trinity is as much part of creation's...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 23:01 GMT
Dear Geraldine Ewan,

what you wrote about Trinity is very interesting to me. I do not know to work you cited, but will take a closer look - if available in germany. If you are interested in some thoughts on trinities in the physical world, please see my comment to Steve Dufourny at my essay page (Feb. 16, 2017 @ 17:09 GMT).

Thanks for your comment and the citation! And if you want to read something about the problem of evil, please read my comment to Theophanes Eleftheriou Raptis, right above of your comment here.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 05:49 GMT
"Scientists and contemplatives alike are confirming that the foundational nature of reality is relational, and everything is indeed a holon, a part that replicates and mimics the whole."

... after all, that would be the simplest, most efficient and most elegant way for things to end up - or more to the point "emerge". thank you.

Bookmark and Share

Geraldine Ewan replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 15:44 GMT
Thanks Stefan. I'll do that.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

sridattadev kancharla wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 20:45 GMT
Dear Luke,

Universe is an i-Sphere and we humans are capable of interpreting it as 4 dimensional dual torus inside a 3-Sphere, which consists of Riemann 2-sphere as Soul as depicted in S=BM^2 diagram in the attached doc. Soul is the simplest of the complex manifolds with in the 3-sphere, Mind and Body constitute the remaining complexity. Soul, Mind and Body are in a toroidal flux in human beings, exactly at the center of the 3-sphere one can experience the unity of the trinity and that is the now moment we experience. As there are 4 dimensions required for a 3-sphere, the regular 3 dimensions of space and the fourth dimension of time, it is obvious that the 2-sphere (Riemann sphere) of consciousness with in us is with out the time dimension and hence the saying "eternal soul". Poincare` conjecture implies that consciousness is homeomorphic (same or similar) in all beings manifested in all dimensions of the universe, as i have shown that Riemann sphere can serve as the fundamental unit of consciousness.



attachments: 3_zero__i__infinity.docx

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 05:45 GMT
utterly cool, sridattadev, and beautiful to know that you are gaining such insights. perhaps an additional insight for you:

if we may define a soul as being simply a MASSIVELY high order solution (and i really do mean exceptionally high) of Laplace's Y(theta, phi) spherical functions, our soul *may* develop without a body, but, like the surgeon that may need to operate on itself, it is necessary to maintain self-coherence - a coherent E.M. field - *at the same time*. this of necessity limits both the rate (and type) of self-development that may occur.

a body therefore provides an anchor for the E.M.-field-that-is-the-soul whilst allowing and supporting *cognitive dissonance* and subsequent fragmentation of the laplace solutions. in other words, the soul's attachment to the body *may* allow it to support states that would otherwise causes its complete collapse and fragmentation if it was not so attached. thus, birth (and life) provides the (risky!) opportunity for fast-track development.

cool, huh? :)

Bookmark and Share

sridattadev kancharla replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 15:59 GMT
Dear Luke,

You are absolutely right and we concur fully, Soul can exist independently on it's own. Consciousness or Soul is fundamental and can further manifest Mind and Body if it chooses to. In a simple geometric evolution, a 2-Sphere (Soul) comes first and then evolves to a 3-sphere (Soul, Mind and Body). Also please see There are no goals as such it's all play.



Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 19:24 GMT
This is a very pleasant essay to read. I resonate with the idea that consciousness is defined as a "Critical Instability Point." This matches with my conclusion that the laws of physics are a collective behavior at a critical point of universality. Consciousness only exists when connected with this through senses. That's my view. It's good to see that people are keeping the TM movement going.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 06:24 GMT
thanks philip. so... extending what you say, logically (regarding consciousness): to *deny* the evidence of one's senses - or mind - would be the beginning of pathological states. we cannot *possibly* say that we are moving towards a goal, with aims or intent, if we seek at the same time to *deliberately* refuse to acknowledge certain input or conclusions. how could we? under such circumstance the adjustments needed to create the required corrective feedback cannot possibly be successful.

regarding TM: i feel that it's... kinda... well, it was one of the pioneers of what's now become much more prevalent, so now kinda "blends into in the background noise". but, more than that: you never *needed* to "support" the TM "movement", you just needed to do it :)

Bookmark and Share

Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 17:12 GMT
Dear Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 14:41 GMT
hi joe,

yes i've used "it really should be simpler than this" many many times. also however in the field of software engineering i have learned that sometimes it really does have to be complex in order to cover "all the options" shall we say. but even there, there is no need - no call - for wasting time "over-engineering". in complex systems this is especially true, where it is hard enough to understand what's going on *without* having "over-engineering" in the mix as well :)


Bookmark and Share

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 05:14 GMT
Wonderful essay Leighton,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent. It is first time I met a reverse engineer and I am lucky to see his skills are used in neuron sciences and our brains. Best wishes.

Some of your words…

Those Reverse-Engineers that I have encountered in the Software Libre field have a rough time: their expertise allows them to foresee outcomes and make...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 08:04 GMT
hi Satyavarapu thank you for the comments and the introduction to your work. it occurs to me to mention that a friend of mine made me aware of his work as well (into 4-momentum: a perspective where you consider everything in terms of TIME x y and z), and he said to me that part of the base laws is that 4-MOMENTUM is conserved.

now, we're taught that *energy* is conserved but i was struck dumb for several minutes as to the possible implications of 4-momentum being conserved. not only can you derive the law of conservation of energy from that but also it implies that the RATE OF CHANGE of 4-momentum is ALSO CONSERVED.

if i understand your paper correctly, this could be, fundamentally, why you were able to derive the double blue/red-shift results that you did, because you would get a "push-back" from one galaxy onto the other.

i would be interested to hear your thoughts about the implications of conservation of 4-momentum.

Bookmark and Share

Don Limuti wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 23:14 GMT

Boy am I impressed! From your essay I copyed "100% certainty is a pathological state of mind" And when I pasted it into this post I got "✶✵✵✪ ❝❡rt❛✐♥t② ✐s ❛ ♣❛t❤♦❧♦❣✐❝❛❧ st❛t❡ ♦❢ ♠✐♥❞✳"

I am still laughing ......I will read the rest of your essay. I know it will enlighten me. But I do not need to read further to give this essay a 10.

Feel free to read my essay. It is not nearly as good as yours!

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 06:15 GMT

Just finished your paper and agree completely with:

Preserve existence and become part of something larger.

✧Pr❡s❡✈❡ ❊①✐st❡♥❝❡ ❛♥❞ ❇❡ P❛rt ❖❢ ❙♦♠❡t❤✐♥❣▲❛r❣❡r✧✳

FYI: Your essay has some similarity with William's essay:


Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 12:32 GMT
ha, hilarious :) appreciate you bringing william's essay to my attention. hmm, it explores bell's inequality.... have you seen joy christian's disproof of bell's theorem? very interesting battle going on there (which was sponsored by fqxi).

Bookmark and Share

Don Limuti replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 18:26 GMT

I did follow the battle in the blog. I did not have a dog in the fight...and it was over my head. However, the battle was furious. I have not seen such emotions, expressed by grown up people with advanced degrees! And it went on and on and on and on. I do think Joy Christian was treated unfairly (no matter if he was right or wrong).....Come on guys it's just physics!

Oh, and thanks for visiting my essay and your generous remarks.

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Rajiv K Singh wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 13:02 GMT
Dear Luke,

I note, "Thus, it is emphasized that goals are needed. If there is no goal, there is no means by which efforts may be focused."

Dr Alex Hankey's work to construct a new formulation of QM remained unstated. So, one is not in a position to infer whether there could be a mindful laws. While it is understandable that creating an empirical demonstration of such laws that...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 13:46 GMT
hi rajiv, thank you so much for your kind words and insights.

*deep breath*... it's time for me to mention, sadly, that the rules of this essay contest, being completely ambiguous (and unfairly applied) meant that i was forced to drastically cut the essay's length to 25,000 *keystrokes* where brendan was in fact measuring the size of a MICROSOFT WORD document as being under 25k in length as...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share

Domenico Oricchio wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 10:45 GMT
Ok, I have read all the essays in this contest.

I must say that your is the more interesting among all, initially you have disgressed a little, but the content is worth reading.

It is interesting the theory of Alex Hankey (that the next months I must read), but I think the definition is right in some parts, but as you show could include each material point because of the critical point is not a stastistical point: if you use a statistical definition, naturally you get a definition of intelligence that is a macroscopical definition, and there is a clear demarcation between intelligence, and no intelligence, macroscopical matter.

This is a clear example of a goal as the context required.

The self censorship can only slow the research in the field (and it is always a political censorship), but in each case the result are achieved, so that I think that one must think about the ethics of the research, to reduce (or eliminate) the deleterious effects of the results: I think the possible results obtainable by an artificial intelligence in the care of the ills of the world.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 13:59 GMT
thank you domenico, wow, that's quite a committment to read every essay! greatly appreciated that you consider mine to be the most interesting.

as i outlined to rajiv just now, purely applying a statistical analysis to a biological system operating at a critical instability point is not enough: you *have* to have a feedback mechanism (based on the statistical average) that lowers and raises the "threshold of detection / reaction" accordingly. osmosis in the case of cells, neural suppression and stimulation chemicals in the case of brains and so on.

the call for self-censorship is not one that i expect to be heeded, simply because, if i am allowed to be truly blunt and honest, i do not have the confidence in the "Arrogantly-Artificial Intelligence" scientific community to comphrehend the nature of consciousness *in themselves*. the feedback mechanism which would allow them to *create* conscious machines is thus entirely missing, such that i would genuinely expect them, like the millionth monkey, to be just as likely to erase the experiment that resulted in machine-consciousness by virtue of them being *unable to test for and recognise its existence*!

the warning is therefore for those scientists that *do* have a working definition of consciousness that they can clearly articulate to others. that's quite a small community at present. it's primarily to these people to whom my warning is directed. they don't have much time: elon musk has just announced his insane intent to create a working commercial neural lace. absolutely no mention WHATSOEVER of whether the operator will be permitted the right to modify the software in order to ensure their own survival and the absolute sovereign right to keep other people *literally* out of their own mind. unbelievable.

Bookmark and Share

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 23:32 GMT
Dear Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton,

Having read your essay I now know why you are so enthusiastic about mine!

We differ primarily in terminology. If you review the definitions I begin my essay with, you will find that consciousness, defined as awareness plus volition, is essentially 'content free'. When one adds logical structure (always reducible to ANDs and NOTs) one...

view entire post

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 06:38 GMT
hi edwin,

really appreciate your insights. yes different terminology: it took me a while to work past the word "agent" to the heart of what you are saying.

regarding being "embedded in" / borrowing / etc. the field of creative intelligence, i am reminded of the recent experiments to test if we are living in a simulation ("The Matrix"). that reminds me of two things: firstly, the film "Men in Black II", and secondly, some work on Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime where it was postulated that black holes event horizons are simply *dividing-lines* between universes.

each "closed universe" would therefore be on the *INSIDE* of any given black hole within *ANOTHER* universe.

thus, hilariously, the answer to the question "are we inside a simulation" could well - potentially falsely if the tests are not carried out properly - be answered YES by accidentally interacting with the universe outside of the closed-bubble of our black-hole event horizon.

regarding the "field of intelligence"... if it exists, it should be possible to (a) quantify it (b) test for its existence (c) put it to good use (d) etc. etc.

more later

Bookmark and Share

Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 14:15 GMT

Brilliant essay! You really need to read mine!

I agree with just about all you wrote so well, a most important part being that, for QM; "Occam's Razor tells us that there has to be a simpler way."

There is.

And it's hot off the press; 'Classic QM'. Yours is about to get a well earned top score and I'm pretty sure once you've read it you'll agree mine as worth that too. (but hurry for the deadline!) Then see the video too.

I am now quite uplifted. Must be M M Yogi!


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 20:16 GMT
thanks peter, i'll take a look - even a title "classical quantum consciousness" is a good sign :)

Bookmark and Share

Author Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 20:40 GMT
hi peter - turns out i already did read yours and rate it, some weeks back! :) i did a more comprehensive review just now.

Bookmark and Share

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 08:12 GMT
Dear Sirs!

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.


Dizhechko Boris

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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