Is Darwinian-Kurzweilian evolution the future for Homo sapiens?

    Are we “stuck in the intuitive linear view”? Have we stupidly underestimated the genius of inventors and the Law of Accelerating Returns? Have we failed to understand that “everything is ultimately becoming information technology”? Is Darwinian-Kurzweilian evolution the fundamental fact of physical reality?

When nature has work to be done, she creates a genius to do it. - Emerson

Almost all new ideas have a certain aspect of foolishness when they are first produced. – Alfred North Whitehead

To be great is to be misunderstood. - Emerson

Prediction 1. By the year 2019 C.E., research on ultra-high-energy cosmic rays shall prove that the multiverse is a Fredkin-Wolfram information process that computes strings.

Prediction 2. By the year 2029 C.E., the Nobel prize in physics shall no longer be awarded because the prize winners will simply be those with the most expensive computers.

Prediction 3. By the year 2039 C.E., there shall exist at least 32 clones of Raymond Kurzweil.

    I emphasize the exponential versus-linear perspective because it’s the most important failure that prognosticators make in considering future trends. Most technology forecasts and forecasters tend to overestimate what can be achieved in the short term (because we leave out necessary details) but underestimate what can be achieved in the long term (because exponential growth is ignored). – Ray Kurzweil, “The Singularity Is Near”

    Is Ray Kurzweil the supreme genius on planet Earth? Should we buy Ray Kurzweil’s optimism or Bill Joy’s pessimism?

The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. – Thomas Friedman

When I am in doubt, I have faith that things will turn out as they should. – from “My Chance to Live” in the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous

Commerce is against morality. Morality is going to lose out every time. – Robin Day

A child of five would understand this. Send someone to find a child of five. – Groucho Marx

The squirrel you kill in jest, dies in earnest. – Thoreau

    Are money, greed, optimism, science, and technology unstoppable? Can Luddites defeat techno-nerds? Shall robots with superhuman intelligence also possess superhuman greed and optimism? Would the betting odds favor the greed-head robots or the god-head, spiritual robots?

Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the earth. – Albert Schweitzer

    What is Silicon Valley really like? In Silicon Valley, there are many interesting sayings. Pioneers end up with arrows in their backs. Only the paranoid survive. Point of view is worth 30 IQ points. Incorporate Moore’s Law into your business plan. Eat your own dog food, or the competition will eat your lunch. If you pay peanuts then you get monkeys. Never hire a code monkey with an IQ under 130 or an age over 40. Sometimes in business, you have to eat the customers’ sh**. Those who pay you own you. The way to dodge the bullets is to build the best machine gun. Today’s warp drive is tomorrow’s buggy whip. When they say it’s not about the money then you know it’s all about the money. Get the money, get the money, get the f***ing money. Murphy’s optimism exceeds mother love. Hell is where the work isn’t fun. When you’re forced to buy software upgrades, they’ve got you by the balls. If the Borg can’t beat you, then they’ll buy you. The Borg of today might be the Klingons of tomorrow. If you’re not one step ahead of Einstein, then you’re headed for the event horizon. Read the books “Murphy’s Law” by Arthur Bloch, “The Meaning of Relativity” by Einstein, and every other book onboard the Enterprise. Work until you get enough F*** YOU! money. Is Silicon Valley going to create spiritual machines that care about humanity?

   Should we trust beings with superhuman intelligence? Are great intellects also great in spirit?

   Perhaps, Newton suffered from manic-depression and paranoid personality disorder. Nevertheless, Einstein considered him an intellectual soulmate across the centuries. At the Institute for Advanced Study, one visiting physicist expressed astonishment to another visiting physicist that Einstein was as delighted by someone else’s interesting result as if he had come up with it. In Alcoholics Anonymous and Overeaters Anonymous, they say, “Let go and let God.” If you let go of worldly ambitions and material appetites, then what? If you follow Socrates and Spinoza in pursuit of truth, then what? Deep down, do almost all people believe in a metaphorical God that represents a trinity of truth, virtue, and justice? At the deepest level, do we all believe in God but merely differ on the technical details of what God really is? Can you take a meter stick and measure another person’s soul?

   At their best, were Newton and Einstein two innocent boys picking up sea shells on the beach of intellectual power and spiritual depth? Is your own mind a beach washed by waves of spiritual depth?

If you want to make money, you have to be really interested in making money … same thing with science. – Francis Crick

Joy in looking and comprehending is nature’s most beautiful gift. – Einstein

A shared set of beliefs binds people together. – Francis Crick

It was the experience of mystery – even if mixed with fear – that engendered religion. – Einstein

To a child everything is commonplace and mysterious at the same time. – Francis Crick

The trouble with theory in biology is there’s no way you can use it. … it’s not like physics … Sydney Brenner

   In theoretical biology, is the theory of spirituality the most important thing there is? How much can we know about the molecular neuroscience of spirituality? Can a genius like Newton, Einstein, or Crick ask one simple, great question that is worth more than lifetimes of effort by intellectual mediocrities? Is curiosity at the highest level a spiritual force? Is Ray Kurzweil’s vision slightly more likely to be correct than incorrect?

Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. - Goethe

Hell isn’t merely paved with good intentions; it’s walled and roofed with them. Yes, and furnished too. – Aldous Huxley

The man of genius inspires us with boundless confidence in our own powers. - Emerson

Have people learned enough from Socrates, Leonardo, Goethe, Emerson, Einstein, and Crick?

It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein

Love does not dominate; it cultivates. - Goethe

   If you love the truth, then must you cultivate the truth by asking questions? Is a profound question a gardener that destroys weeds in the garden of truth?

Simplicity is the ultimate form of sophistication. - Leonardo da Vinci

    Does simplicity come from a great question?

The most important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. - Einstein

   What are the 3 greatest questions that you can ask yourself? Is imagination more important than knowledge? Are questions more important than answers? Are experiments more important than theories? What is the essence of both questioning and teaching?

It is the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative expression and knowledge. - Einstein

   Is nature our greatest teacher? Is Socrates the best of all human teachers? Think about the life of Socrates. Do good teachers teach from the love of truth? Do bad teachers teach from the love of money? According to the physicist Lawrence Krauss, the worst mistake that teachers make is to assume that the students are interested in learning what the teachers teach. Does the good teacher love the truth and teach only those students who also love the truth? Does the bad teacher get paid by a bureaucracy to teach irrelevant facts to confused students?

Every wall is a door. - Emerson

   Is the way to understand quantum gravity merely to ask the great question that turns a wall into a door? Does quantum gravitational theory need to explain dark energy, dark matter, Guth's inflation, and ultra-high-energy cosmic rays? Is the way to understand consciousness merely to ask the greatest possible question about consciousness? If a mammal is a conscious robot, then what, why, and how did Darwinian evolution do with consciousness? What is the most fundamental question about REM sleep? What is the most fundamental question about belief in God?

   Is everything a mixture of myth, metaphor, and reality? Does God indeed exist as a metaphor? Is God either the trinity of truth, virtue, and justice or the trinity of money, greed, and hypocrisy? Is the truth a powerful and inevitable unity?

Is consciousness an inherent aspect of Darwinian evolution?

The value of a principle is the number of things it will explain. - Emerson

   What 3 principles explain the most? Is asking questions about fundamental principles the most important thing in life? What are the 3 most important questions about the most important principles of consciousness?

   Does Darwinian evolution tend to occur in all carbon and water based environments that support a class of Turing-Kurzweil machines? Throughout all galaxies, does consciousness tend to be a digitized electromagnetic field consisting of eight basic components: environmental modeling, bodily modeling, attentional focusing, short-term learning and memory, long-term learning and memory, identity modeling, social interaction modeling, and placebo power modeling? Throughout all galaxies, does Darwinian-Kurzweilian evolution tend to be an unstoppable process based upon consciousness, money, greed, power, optimism, science, and technology?

   Does spirituality tend to be a part of consciousness dealing with higher level aspects of the individual, the family, the team, and the community? Are beliefs in God and free will fundamental aspects of placebo power modeling? Is the Crick-Mitchison process a fundamental feature in the evolution of consciousness? What is the most profound connection between consciousness and love?

Any pursuit that a person loves is a religion and an art for that person, and if the person is wise and intelligent then the pursuit should be a science. - Einstein

    Have you mastered the science of asking yourself simple and profound questions?

Will reverse engineering of the human brain really work?

   Edward Teller once said, "The main secret of the atomic bomb was that it could be done at all." What is the main secret of reverse engineering of the human brain into computer hardware and software? Is the secret the fact that it can be done?

   People think intuitively in a linear manner. - Ray Kurzweil, 2007, Singularity Summit at Stanford

    The human capacity for self-deception is very nearly infinite. - Francis Crick

     Is Ray Kurzweil's optimism about the future more justified than Bill Joy's pessimism? How accurate is Kurzweil's 2005 book "The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology"? Are Crick's ideas essential for researchers who want to effectively simulate the workings of the human brain?

    Is Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science" relevant to the reverse engineering of the human brain? Is it very strange to think of the mind of Leonardo da Vinci as a Turing machine?

   We are symbols, and inhabit symbols. - Emerson

    The paradigm shift rate is doubling every decade. - Ray Kurzweil

    Is a straightforward approach to the reverse engineering of the brain likely to be a miserable failure? There are at least eight levels of complexity in a mammal: ions in water with hydrogen bonds; proteins and other molecules floating and interacting; DNA mechanisms, organelles, and cellular membranes; entire cells; networks of cells; organs; individual behaviors; social interactions among mammals. The complexity of the wetware might defeat any precise simulation by hardware. There are problems of representational complexity, empirical inaccessibility, and computational intractability.

    You have to apply the abstractions at the right level. - Ray Kurzweil

   According to Wolfram, there are surprisingly simple computational models that scientists do not even suspect the existence of. Imagine impressive computer simulations of the insight, intuition, and creativity of inventors like Wozniak, Edison, and Leonardo da Vinci. Such simulations, if they exist, might prove that Wolfram is correct.

   The reverse engineering of the brain might follow a foundation of molecular neuroscience as envisioned by Crick, a method of simulation created by genius-level inventors, and a philosophy of Socrates, Dale Carnegie, and Murphy's law. The foundation might be 20% of the effort, with the method 75% and the philosophy 5%. In other words, molecular neuroscience would be the foundation, but most of the effort would the genius of inventors who use inspiration instead of straightforward imitation.

   

Crick's tips on biological research

 

CRICK'S TIPS ON BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

 

David W. Brown

 

ABSTRACT

 

      Francis Crick is perhaps the greatest theoretical biologist of the twentieth century. A common error limits the appreciation of the possible greatness of the Crick-Mitchison theory. A century or two might pass before the world sees another theoretical biologist as great as Francis Crick. Leonardo da Vinci observed that the good student excels the teacher. Thus a good biologist should study Dr. Crick's Sunday Morning Service in Crick's book ‘The Astonishing Hypothesis’. A righteous researcher should reverence The Gossip Test, The Baffling Hypothesis, Rocking the Boat, The alpha Helix, How to Live with a Golden Helix, Theory in Molecular Biology, Triplets, Conclusions, and Epilogue in Crick's book ‘What Mad Pursuit’. Seven synopses summarize Crick's advice. The value of theses tips might extend beyond theoretical biology into medical diagnosis and general problem solving.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

     I suggested(1) that Crick and Mitchison's note(2) on the function of REM sleep might be the greatest paper ever written in the field of psychiatric medicine. The point is that if, during REM sleep, undesirable modes of interactions in neural networks are not removed properly, then a variety of psychiatric symptoms might result. The Crick-Mitchison theory might give a framework for understanding some aspects of schizophrenia, mania, depression, Parkinson's disease, and Tourette's syndrome. From such a foundation of understanding, better theoretical models of psychiatric illness might result.

     In a review(3) of their original paper, Crick and Mitchison admitted that they blundered in suggesting the slogan 'We dream in order to forget.' They(2) never intended the slogan as more than a half truth to be used as a mnemonic. They really should have made a more complex slogan such as 'We dream in order to adjust our brains to accommodate the changes involved in learning and juvenile brain growth.' Their slogan has two bad results. Some people seize upon the half truth and proclaim it as a whole truth representative of the Crick-Mitchison theory. Worse still, a few people seize upon the half truth and extrapolate from it to arrive at their own theories which are modifications, oversimplifications, or distortions of the Crick-Mitchison theory, and then these new theories are tacitly presented as the Crick-Mitchison theory. Thus Crick and Mitchison have an important tip for us: 'Your words can and will be used against you.'

 

     In addition to Crick and Mitchison's original paper (2) and subsequent review(3), I studied Crick's book ‘What Mad Pursuit’ and encountered numerous suggestions that scientific researchers might find useful. I am not the only one impressed by Crick's suggestions on doing scientific research. In a review(4) of Crick's book ‘What Mad Pursuit’, Nobel Physics Laureate Philip W. Anderson stated: ‘The basic goal of physics is not mathematical elegance or even the achievement of tenure, but learning the truth about the world around us.’ Crick's words are as good a guide to that end as I have seen. Crick's tips on research may help biologists, medical doctors, physical scientists, and anyone else who deals with science.

 

WHAT ARE CRICK'S TIPS?

 

     Crick's tips are not quite a working philosophy of doing science but instead a scattering of helpful hints. Mentioning one chapter from one book(5) and nine chapters from another book(6), I present a mixture of paraphrase, quotation, extrapolation, oversimplification, and commentary. My stream of consciousness replaces Crick's coherence.

 

From ‘The Astonishing Hypothesis’

DR. CRICK'S SUNDAY MORNING SERVICE:

 

     Experiment is great and theory is trifling. New experiments suggest new ideas and refute old ideas. Philosophers talk about a problem in order to clarify the problem. However, philosophers make no real progress in solving the problem because they discuss the outward manifestations and ignore the scientific instruments needed to penetrate the inward fundamentals. The language of the philosophers is inevitably the wrong idiom, because experiments dictate the words needed to describe the facts. Scientific experiments determine scientific theories which replace vague impressions and traditional myths.

 

     Consciousness is, in the twentieth century, a fundamental mystery but science has solved many mysteries. The aim of science is to explain all aspects of nature. If consciousness and all other real things belong to nature, then what are the claims of religion? What is religion without divine powers in a supernatural realm? Does the hypothesis of the supernatural realm lead to anything productive? 'Dream as we may, reality knocks relentlessly at the door.'

 

     People are relentlessly curious. Curiosity, when combined with science, leads to truth.

 

From ‘What Mad Pursuit’

THE GOSSIP TEST:

     Science requires the utmost dedication. Profound curiosity is what motivates the best scientists.

 

     What you are curious about is what you gossip about. Whether you are the best of scientists or the worst of scientists, let gossip be your guide.

 

THE BAFFLING PROBLEM:

     Natural selection is 'powerful, versatile, and very important.' Natural selection acts at the molecular level and the level of organisms and populations.

 

     Molecular biology has nicely answered the fundamental questions which arose from the ideas of Darwin and Mendel. However, in science the younger generation finds it hard to grasp that many obvious facts are solutions to problems that baffled the older generation.

 

     For most problems near the frontiers of research, assumptions can be dangerously misleading. 'In research the front line is almost always in a fog.'

 

ROCKING THE BOAT:

     Bragg made bold, simplifying assumptions, looked at a wide range of data, and matched his model to experimental facts with criticism that was harsh but not overly harsh. Crick tried to make his model include too many little details and got stuck.    

 

If you want to criticize someone else's work, you should preface your criticism with any possible praise of the work. Criticize firmly but nicely. You should be polite and diplomatic at all times.

 

     You love your dog because your dog is happy to see you and never criticizes you. People buy love with dog food. People reject criticism.

 

     Scientists who work on 'hopeless' subjects are incorrigible optimists. An unrealistic goal acts as a force of natural selection that removes everybody except those who cheerfully delude themselves. The great pot of gold at the end of the rainbow seems to justify ever larger ladders to the sky.

 

THE alpha HELIX:

     Watson stated that a good model never accounts for all the facts, because some of the facts are misleading irrelevancies which are inherently unpredictable and some of the alleged facts are actually falsehoods. A theory which accounts for all the facts is too good to be true.

 

     Standard chemistry seems good enough to explain contemporary molecular biology. Esoteric quantum effects have, so far, played a minor role in the study of molecular biology.

 

     Biological systems are based on molecular biology. If you don't understand a biological system at the molecular level, then your understanding is sketchy, wrong, or fraudulent.

 

HOW TO LIVE WITH A GOLDEN HELIX:

     Because Watson and Crick were intensely curious about the structure of DNA, they found what they were looking for. Curiosity made them make history.

 

     Watson and Crick could work intensely on DNA and then take a break. This on and off work helped them avoid very long runs through blind alleys.

 

     Watson and Crick evolved informal but effective methods of collaboration. Their back and forth teamwork gave them a crucial advantage over their competitors. First, one partner would suggest a new idea; then the other partner would, with candor but without hostility, try to refute the idea. Watson and Crick repeated thesis, antithesis, and synthesis over many cycles; these cycles evolved into a solved problem.      

 

Usually, scientists make many steps in the wrong direction. Mistaken ideas can be detours. Experimental facts illuminate the proper path. Mistaken ideas can be stumbling blocks along the proper path. Your partner can see the stumbling blocks that you can't see because your own errors tend to be invisible to you.

 

     Think of persistence, partnership, strategy, and curiosity. Persistence means that you don't give up too soon. Partnership means that you can avoid getting trapped in a blind alley. Strategy means that you select the right problem. Curiosity means that you can sustain your interest.

 

THEORY IN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

     Because of evolution, biological mechanisms are too arbitrary and too complicated to yield to theory. Thus the theoretical biologist may have better luck in telling the experimentalist what not to look for. An attempt at positive predictions might be the theoretical biologist's equivalent of the British general's Charge of the Light Brigade.

 

     You shouldn't believe too strongly in your own theory. Negative arguments that rule out possible approaches are particularly dangerous. The road not travelled might be the road to your desired destination.

 

     It's easy to cobble together some oversimplified assumptions and elaborate mathematics that roughly fit some data, but such theory is unlikely to be worthy of attention. There are more facts than are dreamt of in your theory.

 

     It might take a lot of time and effort to make a theory more precise so that it goes from somewhat plausible to somewhat probable to highly probable to virtually certain. However, a theory that deserves respect should be supported by unexpected evidence. A model that predicts no more than the already known evidence is little better than yesterday's newspaper.

 

TRIPLETS:

     Nobody will be much interested in your idea, so you will probably have to test it yourself. Get help from the best available experts.

 

     Talking about experiments and their results is a poor substitute for knowing exactly what the experiments consist of. The way to know is to do. 'There is nothing like actively doing experiments to make one realize all the ins and outs of a technique.' Doing the experiments fixes the details in your mind. The armchair scientist loses touch with reality.

 

     Doing an experiment is far less boring than reading about it. Most scientific papers are badly written, and their 'experimental methods' sections make cookbooks seem like suspense thrillers.

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

     Physics has powerful, deep laws based on mathematics, symmetry, and conservation. Biology has 'laws' that are generalizations with significant exceptions.

 

     Evolution provides the biologist with hints that might be useful or might be misleading. Historical facts are harder to decide than contemporary facts. Evolution confounds the physicist who looks for the simplest model because the natural history of biological phenomena consists of simple steps that proceed from other simple steps according to the unknown problems faced by unknown numbers of unknown organisms.

 

     Theorists become too fond of their own ideas. Theorists cherish their own brain children with a protective parent's love, but few children grow up to be Newton or Einstein. Your dearly beloved theory may predict a few things correctly and yet be completely false. I can easily believe that your theory is wrong but I find it almost impossible to believe that my theory is wrong.

 

     A good model for a biological mechanism doesn't just vaguely resemble the truth. A good model goes down to the level of molecular cell biology and pins things down. Theoretical biologists need to worry when their models ignore too many worries.

 

     Only the experimental evidence can lead to the truth. However, experimental facts can be misleading or they can be false 'facts.' The theorist needs 'a deep and critical knowledge of many different types of evidence.' Only with hindsight can the theorist know 'what type of evidence is likely to give the game away.'

 

     If your theory makes a dubious prediction or fails to make a likely prediction, then don't tinker with your theory but instead seek some crucial test that gets at the essence of your theory. If current experimental methods aren't good enough to make the crucial test, then seek new experimental methods.

 

     Most theories are failures. The theorist who wants to be a success must produce false theory after false theory and expeditiously abandon these false theories in order to reach the true theory.

 

     The main purpose of a scientific theory is to suggest new experiments. 'A good theory makes not only predictions, but surprising predictions that then turn out to be true. (If its predictions appear obvious to experimentalists, why would they need a theory?)'

 

EPILOGUE

 

     Science marched rapidly to answer the basic questions of molecular biology. Crick boldly abandoned his domain of expertise and eventually moved on to the study of visual consciousness.

 

     The functionalists in contemporary psychology and linguistics unaccountably ignore molecular biology. 'It is not usually advantageous to have one hand tied behind one's back when tackling a very difficult job.'

 

     'If you want to understand function, study structure.' Molecular biology's pioneers succeeded by approaching their problems at all levels. 'Hybrid subjects are often astonishingly fertile, whereas if a scientific discipline remains too pure it usually wilts.'

 

     To understand a complicated system, study the system's higher levels, but characterize the system by the system's lower levels that uniquely determine the way the system works. If a higher animal is too complicated, a lower animal might yield useful information.

 

     Decide upon your main long-term interest. Then choose a particular target and figure out how to hit the target.

 

     Sometimes, the basic problems that seem the most difficult are the easiest. Fortune may favor the bold who attempt the summit, because there are fewer paths up a mountain than across a meadow. The fewer the paths, the fewer ways there are to get lost.

 

     If you want to produce a biological theory that compares with Einstein's theory of general relativity, then you are not likely to succeed if your theory concerns 'a complicated combination of rather simple tricks evolved by natural selection.' In the absence of molecular biology, theoretical fads dominate psychology. Psychologists sometimes seem more interested in getting grant money than in testing their models. 'Nobody likes to ask if a model is really correct since, if they did, most work would come to a halt.'

 

     To unscramble a complicated system, you need three main approaches. First, take the system apart and find out what the basic building blocks are and how they work. Second, find out exactly where each part of the system is located within the system and how the parts interact with each other. Third, synthesize the study of the system's structure and behavior; delicately alter the system's various parts and observe the effects on the behavior of the system and its components; make such observations on behavior at all levels of the system.

 

     The 'soft' science of psychology will soon yield to the 'hard' science of molecular psychology.

 

SUBJECTIVE SUMMARY

 

     Perhaps, I substitute my own tips for Crick's tips to a great extent. The reader should study Crick's ideas in their original form. I summarize my impressions under seven headings: Curiosity, Strategy, Data, Methods, Evolution, Persistence, and Partnership.

 

1. Curiosity.

     Above all, work on what interests you. Focus on your main interest.

 

2. Strategy.

     Define the main problem by a reasonable number of tentative questions. Try to find a decisive test for your ideas. Develop a strategy for answering the main questions. Be prepared to revise the questions or the strategy for answering them. Consider the possibility that your goal is unrealistic or overly ambitious in terms of current science and technology. Keep in mind that your favorite original ideas might be partially or completely wrong.

 

3. Data.

     Keep in mind all the empirical data. Remember that some experiments are wrong and that you will inevitably try to ignore the experiments that make you look wrong; the two groups of experiments are not generally identical. Talk to the experimentalists working in your field of interest.

 

4. Methods.

     Keep in mind the current state of the art of experimental methods. Resolve the main problem into subsidiary problems that can be solved in a limited time with existing methods. If existing methods are inadequate, then develop a strategy for developing new methods. Only those who do an experimental method truly understand it; the Chinese proverb is: I hear and I forget; I see and I remember; I do and I understand.

 

5. Evolution.

     Keep in mind that Darwinian evolution governs biological phenomena. Your notions of simplicity and economy may not fit into the evolutionary history of how things came to be the way they are.

 

6. Persistence.

     Keep pursuing the main problem. Always continue to return to the main problem. Avoid getting sidetracked. Create leisure time for yourself in order to consider your best course of action. Follow strategy to determine tactics. Follow tactics to determine techniques. Keep the main things in their proper perspective. Consider ways to avoid or delegate minor tasks or distractions. Don't get so busy that you don't have time to think.

 

7. Partnership.

     Often when you are stuck on a problem, someone else can suggest a way to solve or avoid the problem. Work with one other person who can objectively criticize your ideas.

 

                    REFERENCES

 

1. Brown DW. Crick and Mitchison's theory of REM sleep and neural networks. Med Hypotheses 1993; 40: 329-331.

 

2. Crick F, Mitchison G. The function of dream sleep. Nature 1983; 304: 111-114.

 

3. Crick F, Mitchison G. REM sleep and neural nets. J Mind Behav 1986; 7: 229-249.

 

4. Anderson PW. Some thoughtful words (not mine) on research strategy for theorists. Physics Today 1990; 43; February: 9.

 

5. Crick F. The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Scribners, 1994.

 

6. Crick F. What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books, 1988.

 

Questions about questions

    Which three questions are the three most important questions that any human being can possibly ask? Which three questions are the most productive questions? Which three questions are most likely to lead to simplicity and depth? In your life, which are worse: the bad things you did, or the good questions you failed to ask yourself?

   Is quantum information processing the essence of the universe? Is consciousness the essence of effective robotics? Is spirituality the essence of cooperation?

   Are Crick's "What Mad Pursuit," Kurzweil's "The Age of Spiritual Machines," and Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" among the greatest books ever written? Can people create hardware-based robots with digital consciousness? Is artificial consciousness the greatest opportunity and danger for people? What are the ten most important questions in science and technology? What should you ask? What should you say?

Who you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying. - Emerson

Kindness, I've discovered, is everything in life. - Isaac Bashevis Singer

Words are also actions, and actions a kind of words. - Emerson

 I believe that a simple and unassuming manner of life is best for everyone, best both for the body and the mind. - Einstein

Is Wolfram on a level with Darwin?

   Why are the ideas of Fredkin, Kurzweil, and Wolfram important? Are the 4 greatest challenges in quantum gravitational theory to explain dark energy, dark matter, Guth's inflation, and ultra-high-energy cosmic rays? Are the 4 greatest challenges in neuroscience to explain consciousness, sleep, learning, and memory? Are the 4 greatest challenges in technology to develop biotechnology, space colonization, artificial consciousness, and robotics with telepresence? Are the ideas of Fredkin, Kurzweil, and Wolfram essential for solving all the greatest problems of our age?

   Darwin's "Origins of Species" and Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" were both best-sellers. According to Wolfram's Principle of Computational Equivalence, can we divide Turing machines into two fundamental types: those with a capacity for consciousness and those without? Throughout all galaxies, does Darwinian evolution often create consciousness based upon environmental modeling, attentional focusing, and short-term learning? Is the locational history of the read/write head the essence of focusing attention? Is the temporal history of the Turing machine the essence of short-term learning and memory?

Is all consciousness fundamentally digital?

Consider 5 conjectures:

*** In the Fredkin-Wolfram information process of the universe, string theory plays the same role that time, tape, and the read/write head play in a Turing machine.

*** All consciousness is fundamentally digital.

*** Wolfram's Principle of Computational Equivalence provides for a special type of machine, the Kurzweil machine, that possesses digital consciousness.

*** There is a unique theory of consciousness that explains consciousness as a digitized electromagnetic field that enables a machine to possess a model of its environment. Consciousness depends upon speed, complexity, feedback mechanisms, and the Kurzweil axioms of consciousness.

*** Belief in God is a placebo mechanism that is a theorem provable within Wolfram's theory and Kurzweil's axioms of consciousness.

What is wrong with string theory?

*** If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Einstein

   Are string theorists missing some basic idea that would allow them to explain the computational basis of their theory?

*** Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions. - Einstein

   What powerful leap of imagination do string theorists need? Is there some basic fact about alternate universes that is somehow revealed by astronomical findings?

*** Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone. - Einstein

    Should string theorists guess at the three most important predictions of string theory? Should string theorists give a simple explanation of three things: what are the basic ideas of string theory, why are the ideas important, and how do the ideas modify science?

Is there a Fredkin-Wolfram constant?

   What is the basic problem in combining the quantum mechanical paradigm and the general relativistic paradigm? Is the basic problem to fully incorporate the information paradigm? Does randomness just happen, or does it result from causality in information processing across alternate universes? Are Fredkin and Wolfram correct in their conjecture of an information processing paradigm for physical reality?

Jolly good ideas are not always right. - Francis Crick

   Does the multiverse consist of a Fredkin-Wolfram information process for alternate universes? Does the Fredkin-Wolfram constant equal some type of standard deviation of cosmological constants for alternate universes? Is the Fredkin-Wolfram "constant" really equal to a variable matrix?

Are alternate universes the cause of dark energy and the nonzero cosmological constant?

   If the cosmological constant arises from a form of dark energy which has negative pressure equal to its energy density, then does dark energy prove that alternate universes exist? If energy and spacetime are a single conglomerate, with the multiplicative product of energy, volume, and time always equal to an integral multiple of the granularity in the Fredkin-Wolfram information process of alternate universes, then what? Are strings merely the tubular computations of the Fredkin-Wolfram process as it twists, turns, untwists, and unturns across alternate universes? Does quantum gravity theory fail without alternate universes and the Fredkin-Wolfram physical constant? Can the cosmological constant be approximately calculated in terms of Newton's gravitational constant, the speed of light, Planck's constant, and the Fredkin-Wolfram constant?

Can information processing go beyond quantum mechanics?

    Is it reasonable to assume that an information process can underlie quantum mechanics? Most physicists would say that Einstein's naive concept that a causal process underlies quantum mechanics is wrong. However, is there a possibility that an ultra-weird, semi-causal information process underlies quantum mechanics? Fredkin and Wolfram have conjectured a bizarre generalization of information processing that might be sufficiently flexible to axiomatize both quantum mechanics and general relativity theory. The odds against Fredkin and Wolfram might be not a million to one but instead ten to one. By adding another bizarre idea to the Fredkin-Wolfram idea, can a theory actually give quantitative, or at least qualitative, predictions that eventually turn out to be correct? Is a black hole a Fredkin-Wolfram information process that possesses ultra-weirdness beyond quantum weirdness? Is there some bizarre, empirically correct prediction that can actually reveal the Fredkin-Wolfram information process?

Are Fredkin and Wolfram correct about the fundamental paradigm of physical reality?

   Is there something fundamentally missing in the physical ideas of Witten and other quantum gravitational theorists? Are there four fundamental physical constants: Newton's gravitational constant, the speed of light, Planck's constant, and the Fredkin-Wolfram constant? Is the Fredkin-Wolfram constant essential for describing the computational complexity of a black hole?

   Does a black hole have a boundary with weird turbulence that sometimes allows a photon to escape and become an ultra-high-energy cosmic ray? Is the weird turbulence deterministically computable based upon the computational complexity of the black hole?

   If quantum mechanics is the semi-random basis of causality, then what is the semi-causal basis of randomness? Is the answer a Fredkin-Wolfram computational model that allows approximation of branching and collapsing Markov chains in gravitationally-compatible quantum field theories? Is the main point of quantum gravity theory to find an empirically correct prediction that forces a minimal number of choices for mathematically valid models?

   "What I am saying is that at the most basic level of complexity an information process runs what we think of as physics." - Edward Fredkin

Three depressing conjectures

Assume that there is a reasonable axiomatization characterizing "mathematically interesting." Consider three conjectures: As the length of a statement goes to infinity, almost all mathematically interesting true statements about Diophantine equations are unprovable in Peano Arithmetic. As the length of a statement goes to infinity, almost all mathematically interesting true statements formulated in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF) are unprovable in ZF. The Riemann Hypothesis and the P does not equal NP problem are examples of true statements unprovable in ZF.

Geomagnetic reversals, anomalous moonquakes, and the impossible photons hypothesis

Consider some questions: When and where spacetime and energy break down, what happens? Is there an Einstein-Fredkin-Wolfram information process, in which spacetime, energy, and quantum electrodynamics fall out as approximations? Is there a Gaussian normal distribution of impossible photons that proves that there is an Einstein-Fredkin-Wolfram model of the multiverse?

Consider 5 hypotheses:

1.       There exist photons with energies that are impossible according to quantum electrodynamics and general relativity theory.

2.       As energy levels increase, the percentage of photons among ultra-high-energy cosmic rays eventually approaches 100%.

3.       A statistically significant cause of geomagnetic reversals is the collision of a single ultra-high-energy photon with the Earth’s core.

4.       On the Earth’s moon and similar bodies, there can exist an anomalous moonquake caused by a single ultra-high-energy photon colliding with the moon’s interior.

5.       From any black hole, there can exist emerging photons that prove the general relativistic model of the event horizon is significantly wrong.

Language and reassessment

When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. – Lao Tzu

The most important things are the hardest to say, because words diminish them. – Stephen King

We alone own the definition of who we are. – Montel Williams

Do the very best you can. – Dale Carnegie

   Do you need to discard the ways that other people define you and then let go of all the negative thinking that you yourself associate with your reality? Do you need to study science, history, and all the possibilities open to you? Should you reassess your own language and thought?

Kindness in words creates confidence. Kindness in thinking creates profoundness. Kindness in giving creates love. – Lao Tzu

   Does good language require truth and virtue? Do failures in language create failures in education, government, and creed? What is wrong with language, education, governments, and creeds? What might be the best insights into language, education, government, and creed? Consider 4 candidates:

Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind. – Kipling

Every form of education is also a form of indoctrination. – Aldo Leopold

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a poor servant and a fearful master. – George Washington

Truth is the cry of all, but the game of few. - George Berkeley, bishop of Cloyne

   What are the worst limitations of a particular language? One answer might be the ignorance, arrogance, hypocrisy, and self-deception of the users of that particular language. Is profound ignorance profoundly universal?

To realize that you do not understand is a virtue; not to realize that you do not understand is a defect. – Lao Tzu

   A speaker of English might say, “I know what a cat is.” The speaker might be able to recognize a cat as opposed to a dog, to recount many facts about the behavior of a cat, and so on. Does the speaker possess highly detailed knowledge about the genome, physiology, and anatomy of a cat? Does the speaker truly know what a cat is? If the speaker of a language does not understand what a cat is, then is it likely that the speaker does not understand what education, government, and creed really are?

When cleverness and knowledge arise, great lies will flourish. – Lao Tzu

   Does education always fundamentally depend upon government and creed? Consider five hypotheses:  Law courts govern the decisions made by law. God governs the universe. Money governs the psychological universe. Causality and chance govern the outcome of physical events. Hopes and fears govern choices. Does our understanding of government fundamentally depend upon the various creeds we believe in? Consider a proverb: Whoso doth no evil, is apt to suspect none. Is the world the rule of the cynical, rich, and powerful over the naïve, poor, and powerless? Consider two books: “The Prince” by Machiavelli and “War Is a Racket” by General Smedley Darlington Butler. Is the world ruled by hypocritical language and Machiavellian creeds? Are concepts of virtues and sins essential in languages and creeds?

   Do greed and pride write human history? Is hypocrisy built upon convenience, tradition, greed, and fear? Is self-deception built upon denial, appetite, pride, and hope? Does good use of language require wisdom, humility, honesty, openness, courage, self-control, and hard work? Does good use of language require profound knowledge of nature? Did Leonardo use the visual language of sketching and painting to explain his discoveries in nature?

Nature at its most beautiful, simple, and direct displays invention with nothing lacking and nothing superfluous. – Leonardo da Vinci

    Is nature the dictator of good language? According to the book “The Art of Readable Writing” by Rudolf Flesch, “The classic tradition is that a writer should use the language so that the reader doesn’t even notice the author’s words and the way they are used. Anybody who has ever thought about the problem of literary style has come to the same conclusion. …

    The history of English prose is, in fact, the history of the plain style and successive attempts to replace it by something else. All these attempts broke down in the end; the plain style is the only classic style that has survived.”

   Would Flaubert have agreed that the novel equals the French language equals art equals religions equals life? Does language fundamentally consist of words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs? Does religion fundamentally consist of words, prayers, chants, and rituals? Both language and religion consist of human life in various aspects – but which aspects are most fundamental?

    According to Rudolf Flesch, “The ordinary citizen with his customary reverence for everything that’s printed and his awe for everything that’s unintelligible … can’t rely on what he has learned in school … what he has been taught about English literature has muddled his judgment and furnished him a handy excuse for being unable to say anything simply.” Should language be beautiful, simple, direct, and natural?

    Speaking, writing, illustrating, performing, and acting should be parts of nature. According to the actor Michael Caine, the rehearsals are the work and the artifice; the performance is relaxation and disappearance of artifice.

    Does a good creed result from hard work and cruel honesty based upon nature and skepticism? Does a bad creed result from complacency, fanciful artifice, emotional comfort, and ignorance of nature?

Nature is not human-hearted. – Lao Tzu

Life is not fair; get used to it. – Bill Gates

   Do false creeds promote bad governments that corrupt language and education? Is the worship of money truly my creed and that of a significant percentage of others? Does the ideal critic focus more on sins than stupidities?

Manifest plainness, embrace simplicity, reduce selfishness, have few desires. – Lao Tzu

    Is criticism the arrogance of the mediocre? Is science a plausible basis for every form of criticism? If a work is not scientifically proven wrong, then what justifies the critic?

Silence is a source of great strength. – Lao Tzu

   Is every objective statement made in any language a form of biological hypothesis involving the words of the language? Does the meaning of any group of words involve various biological hypotheses?

    According to Goethe, people limited to one language fail to deeply understand even their own language. According to Vladimir Nabokov, it is impossible to translate poems and novels.

    Are words like fleas that can hop from one language to another? Are words that are inadequate for mathematics and science too human and too slippery for accurate criticism?

   Without molecular linguistics and molecular psychology, how can you precisely analyze what you say? When asked if molecular reductionism were his philosophy of biology, Jim Watson asked, “What else is there?” According to Francis Crick, any hypothesis in biology is suspect unless thoroughly verified at the molecular level. Should every aspiring critic consult Crick’s ideas on biology? (See Crick’s Tips.)

    Criticism might differ drastically with acceptance or rejection of miracles, immortal souls, and supernatural entities. Should those who want truth welcome criticism from all sources?

   Does accurate criticism require science? Are skepticism and objectivity two basic prerequisites for scientific accuracy? Niels Bohr said, “Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation but as a question.” According to Jim Watson, most scientists are stupid and they work on unimportant problems. Do ignorance and stupidity prevent us from seeing the profound unity of all things? Is the worst form of ignorance the failure to recognize what is important and what is unimportant? Is the worst form of stupidity the blind stupidity that cannot recognize visionary intelligence greater than itself?

   According to Euler, everything is closely connected to everything else. Are virtues, evils, truths, falsehoods, arts, and criticisms closely connected to each other? According to Jim Watson, “,,, no one benefits from false praise, and only if the truth is honestly faced does the possibility exist for rebirth.”

   Are exposure to false praise, isolation from informed criticism, and denial of personal sin often barriers to improvement? According to “Problem Bosses” by Grothe and Wylie, “The bosses believe they’re good people managers and their employees think they aren’t. But the employees are like the emperor’s attendants. They don’t straighten their bosses out. They don’t give them honest, candid feedback that will counter their tendency toward self-deception.” Consider two proverbs: Conversation teaches more than meditation. Write down the criticism of him that loves you, though you like it not at present. Jim Watson wrote, “Constantly exposing your ideas to criticism is very important, and I would venture to say that one reason both of our chief competitors failed to reach the double helix before us was that each was effectively very isolated.”

    Is isolation from criticism likely to be more a character flaw than a social circumstance? Thoreau wrote, “I have found that no exertion of the legs can bring two minds much nearer to each other.” Is language both barrier and bridge between two minds? Is obscurity in language often either a deliberate stratagem or an approved tradition? Does good language serve virtue and vice equally well?

   What is the fundamental basis of good communication? When two people talk to each other, both need to have some understanding of the what and why, the strengths and weaknesses, the opportunities and problems of the communication. Ability, experience, knowledge, motivation, opportunity, wisdom, empathy, self-control, and common sense are important in communication.

   Because people are social animals, success in life depends upon communication. Usually, success in communication depends upon ability in dealing with people and life’s problems.

   Consider three insights about life. According to Thomas Edison, the greatest discovery is discovering what people want. According to Henry Ford, one of the greatest keys to success is looking at things from the other person’s viewpoint and considering things in terms of the other person’s interests. According to Leonardo da Vinci, only the inadequate student fails to exceed the teacher. Do you need empathy, knowledge, and humility for good communication?

   By failing to understand what the other person wants, needs, and hopes for, do you sabotage your communication with that person? Consider a proverb: A good Jack makes a good Jill. If Jack and Jill want to improve each other’s lives, then they need to understand each other’s needs. The book “His Needs, Her Needs” by Willard F. Harley, Jr. lists the man’s five most basic needs in marriage: (1) sexual fulfillment; (2) recreational companionship; (3) an attractive spouse; (4) domestic support; (5) admiration. The woman’s five most basic needs in marriage are: (1) affection; (2) conversation; (3) honesty and openness; (4) financial support; (5) family commitment.

   One-to-one relationships and group relationships have various attributes and problems. Bad forms of communication and the silence of noncommunication might damage relationships.

    According to Archimedes, knowing when to speak requires knowing when to be silent. Consider three proverbs: Denials make little faults great. A word spoken is an arrow let fly. Every heart hath its own ache.

   Elizabeth Kuebler-Ross identified the five stages of grief as denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. According to the book “The Adult Children of Alcoholics Syndrome” by Wayne Kritsberg, there are 4 general rules that operate in the alcoholic family: rules of rigidity, silence, denial, and isolation.

   “The alcoholic family is inflexible. … The alcoholic family does not provide the kind of flexible environment that children need in order to experiment with life.”

   The rule of silence “extends not only to talking to people outside the family, but also includes talking to the members of the family itself. The rule of silence not only bans talking about the behavior and actions of the family, it also bans talking about feelings. This no-talk rule is so strong that children who grow up in this family system have difficulty in expressing themselves for the rest of their lives. …

   The denial of the alcoholic family begins with the denial that there is any problem with alcohol. As the behavior of family members become more and more dysfunctional, the denial becomes stronger and stronger. …

   The alcoholic family is a closed system. … As the alcoholic behaviors become more and more extreme, the family becomes more and more isolated. …  The alcoholic family isolates itself from the community, and the individual members of the family isolate themselves from each other.”

   Kritsberg defines co-dependency as “the condition of a person who is emotionally dependent on an outside source to get feelings of self-esteem and who focuses on external stimuli in order not to feel his or her own pain.”

   In any significant relationship are self-control, spirituality, openness, honesty, and commitment needed to confront problems and deal with them? Does any good relationship require empathy, flexibility, wisdom, humility, humor, and kindness? Is profound religious belief an important virtue for the survival of relationships, individuals, and families?

   According to the entry for “Roman Law” in the 11^th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, there was “decline in religious sentiment and public and private virtue which was fraught with … disastrous results in the later days of the Republic. … The ever-increasing disregard of the sanctity of the marriage tie is one of the features in the period which strikes even the most unobservant. … This looseness of the marriage bond, as was naturally to be expected, had its effects on the other family relations … The decline of morals had an equally marked effect on the transactions of daily life …”

   Are morality and virtue essential for good results in language, education, government, and the practice of a creed? Are virtue, truth, and communication closely bound together?

   Consider some proverbs. Live not upon the opinion of other men. The first step to virtue is to abstain from vice. He that thinks too much of his virtues, bids others think of his vices. Virtue itself turns vice being misapplied. Vice often rides triumphant in virtue’s chariot. If thou must deal, be sure to deal with an honest man, All men naturally have some love of truth. Children and fools tell the truth. Craft must have clothes, but truth goes naked. The usefullest truths are the plainest. Truth and honesty have no need of loud protestations. Truth is a means, not an end. Truth is the daughter of Time. Truth may sometimes come out of the devil’s mouth. Truth needs not many words; but a false tale a large preamble. Truth should not always be revealed. Truth is truth to the end of the reckoning. Truth will sometimes break out unlooked for. Truths and roses have thorns about them. Nothing is good or bad, but by comparison. If a communication is good, then what are the systems of truth and virtue that provide the comparisons for good and bad?

    Are there at least eight basic categories of action in communication: to reveal truth, to soften truth, to conceal truth, to distort truth, to reveal falsehood, to soften falsehood, to conceal falsehood, and to disguise falsehood as truth? Is your concept of truth always dependent upon your concept of virtue? Should you always make sure that your sources of self-esteem and inner satisfaction are fundamentally virtuous? In the material world, are money, selling, and manipulation inescapable?

    Consider a proverb: Have but few friends, though much acquaintance. Does deep friendship require a deep commitment of time, effort, and devotion?

   Are money, selling, and hypocrisy involved in acquaintance disguised as friendship? According to the book “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie, 3 fundamental techniques in handling people are: (1) Don’t criticize, condemn, or complain. (2) Give honest and sincere appreciation. (3) Arouse in the other person an eager want.

   Consider some proverbs. There is a scarcity of friendship, but none of friends. A true friend should be like a privy, open in necessity. False friends are worse than open enemies. Few there are will endure a true friend. Fire and water are not more necessary than friends are. Friendship consists not in saying, What’s the best news? Friendship is not to be bought at a fair. Friendships multiply joys, and divide griefs. He is unworthy to live who lives only for himself. He knows best what is good who has endured evil. He loseth nothing that keepeth God for his friend.

   Is your best friend either God or what other people perceive as God? Is the human mind an electromagnetic field that protects itself by strange and subtle stratagems provided by Darwinian evolution?

   In his autobiography, Clarence Darrow suggested that people who claim to believe in God, angels, and miracles don’t really believe in the supernatural – if they did, then they would be eager to sponsor scientific experiments to test their beliefs. Such experiments could reveal precisely how the supernatural realm is manifested in the natural realm. Does truth have anything to fear from criticism? Should truth-seekers promote criticism from all sources? According to Goethe, most requests for criticism are veiled entreaties for praise. Why should God need praise – except to reinforce the placebo power of belief in God?

    According to Einstein, “ Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Ideally, should a person possess a religious devotion to understanding science, as well as a scientific devotion to understanding religion?

   How are science, religion, language, and communication related? Does music provide a biological framework for religion, language, and communication? According to Will Durant, “ Music and religion are as intimately related as poetry and love; the deepest emotions require for their civilized expression the most emotional of arts.” According to Helmut Walcha, “Bach opens a vista to the universe. After experiencing him, people feel there is meaning to life after all.”

    According to “Musicophilia” by Oliver Sacks, “… even the most exalted states of mind, the most astounding transformations, must have some physical basis or at least some physiological correlates in neural activity.” Is music the bridge between language and religion, both in culture and in the structure of the human mind?

   Consider three proverbs. Hope is grief’s best music. Hope is a good breakfast but a bad supper. Music helps not the tooth-ache.

   Does music have an important role in medicine? According to “Musicophilia” by Oliver Sacks, “Music that helps patients with parkinsonism, for example, must have a firm rhythmic character, but it need not be familiar or evocative. With aphasics it is crucial to have songs with lyrics or intoned phrases, and interaction with a therapist. The aim of music therapy in people with dementia is far broader than this – it seeks to address the emotions, cognitive powers, thoughts, and memories … It aims to enrich and enlarge existence, to give freedom, stability, organization, and focus.”

   Might every individual, every team, and every community need freedom, stability, organization, and focus? According to Bill Gates as quoted in “Bill Gates Speaks” by Janet Lowe, “Maintaining focus is a key to success. You should understand your circle of competence, the thing you’re good at, and spend your time and energy there.”

   Without understanding language, education, government, and creed, how can you understand your own circle of competence? According to Goethe, there is nothing more appalling than ignorance in action. Should you act by what your have learned from good books and important role models? Time and fame reveal books and people. According to Emerson, fame is a great convenience for the reader, because one or two generations are enough time to identity the best of a generation’s good books and important people.

   People who criticize the ignorant masses seldom realize that all of us belong to the ignorant masses. Consider three proverbs. Never judge from appearances. Judge not of men or things at first sight. You cannot judge of a man till you know his whole story.

   Should you always suspect money and the profit motive, especially when you are involved as buyer, seller, or bystander? According to Samuel Clemens, honesty is the best policy unless there is money involved. Consider some proverbs. Honour and profit will not keep in one sack. Hypocritical honesty goes upon stilts. Hypocritical piety is double iniquity. The hypocrite pays tribute to God that he may impose upon men. God keep me from the man who hath but one thing to mind.

    Is the worst form of single-mindedness a maniacal focus on money? To understand our world, must we follow the money? Are financial panics caused by the clever greed of the few and the stupid greed of the many? Are government’s first three laws to keep power, to gain money, and to keep on gaining more power and money? Is government at best a monopoly business with a bad attitude – and at worst a concentration camp?

   Is our world filled with languages, educations, governments, and creeds that are often unappreciated or unsuspected? There might be approximately four to five thousand languages in the sense that Hungarian is a language. However, each line of work has its own jargon, slang, and rituals. According to Balzac, every profession has its shibboleths and stigmata. Are stigmata nonverbal communication and psychological business? To some extent, is every business a religion, and every religion a business?

    Is language a way of doing Darwinian business among people? In terms of Darwinian evolution, words originated as ape-like noises correlated with perceptions, thoughts, and emotions. Do people attribute precision, objectivity, and values to words that the words themselves cannot support? Are language and creed inseparable?

   Education within a tribe employed language, music, and religion to propagate the genes of the tribal members. Men governed women by brute force. The tribal chief and the witch doctor employed government and religion to guide the tribe. There are many languages, educations, governments, and creeds that are informal, individual, and communal.

    A religion might have several levels such as folk tradition, political institution, and theological system. Each person might have dozens of creeds, formal, informal, unexamined, and perhaps partially subconscious.

   In the realm of emotion, spirituality, and community, should we believe in the creed of democracy? In the realm of knowledge and accuracy, should we believe in the creed of elitism based upon empirical science, outstanding talent, or experienced judgment?

    How can we survey our own ignorance? Spirituality, curiosity, and humility might be one starting point. The books of Aldous Huxley, especially “The Doors of Perception” and “The Perennial Philosophy,” explain various aspects of spiritual perception and religious experience. The books of Oliver Sacks, especially “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat” and “Awakenings,” reveal how all of us depend upon the normal functioning of our brains. One surveying scheme might be to consider 100 experts in 100 domains, each with 100 recommended books. There might be a useful summary of each book.

    According to the French historian Taine, any subject, no matter how complicated, has a useful summary at any desired degree of brevity. Consider a proverb: He that lives with the muses shall die in the straw. The preceding proverb might be a summary of George Gissing’s novel “New Grub Street.” Are novels and other types of fiction as important as nonfiction?

   According to Margaret Culkin Banning, “Fiction is not a dream. Nor is it guesswork. It is imagining based on facts, and the facts must be accurate or the work of imaging will not stand up.” Is imagination a machete that cuts a path through knowledge? Without imagination, how can you understand the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of your knowledge? Without imagination, how can you grasp future possibilities beyond your current knowledge? According to Einstein, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

   What shall be the ultimate history of the human imagination? Is God the promise of eternal life, eternal joy, and eternal reunion with loved ones? Is science the promise of giving people god-like powers? Consider a proverb: Never trust to fine promises.

   What is the most unlikely promise of religion? Shall good ultimately triumph over evil? Is the universe a quantum machine that the human imagination makes up a story about? Is human history a fight between good and evil? According to Jonathan Swift, “Most sorts of diversion in men, children, and other animals, are in imitation of fighting.” Is the fight between good and evil merely a child-like belief that human life is universally important?

   A Christian church might have a prayer list for people who are sick, grief-stricken, or otherwise afflicted. Yet, have more Christians prayed for a winning lottery ticket than anything else? According to Jonathan Swift, “A nice man is a man of nasty ideas.” Are greed and hypocrisy the two great wheels of history’s chariot?

   If money, greed, and hypocrisy are mixed with science, technology, and optimism, then do we have a recipe for baking the future? Should we fear the imaginations of people like Einstein more than anything else? What are the four most human and most complicated features of the human mind? Is the soul a captive of love, sin, hope, and fear? Is the soul a captive of imagination, stories, beloved people, and beloved creed?

   Can society survive without a strong creed affirming good over evil? Can people truly trust an atheistic moral relativist? Samuel Johnson said, “If he really does think that there is no distinction between virtue and vice, why, Sir, when he leaves our houses let us count our spoons.” Is life a process of counting spoons, measuring sugar, and mistrusting both business and pleasure?

   Should we learn the truth before business and pleasure? Do we need to become humble, confront reality, and find the truth about what should be important in our lives? Should we create a priority list of important truths as our guides in life? Do we need to listen, observe, value, empathize, organize, prioritize, follow, lead, learn, and teach?

Do things in the order of their importance. – Dale Carnegie

Lead, follow, or get out of the way. – Thomas Paine

Be very wary of opinions that flatter your self-esteem. – Bertrand Russell

God give me strength to face a fact though it slay me. – Thomas Huxley

    Is science the way to get the facts? Are science, religion, and government three different forms of business? In the global marketplace, money, technology, competition, sales, marketing, communication, and education increase in importance. A CEO provides vision, leadership, and realism by selling to and communicating with customers, employees, and suppliers. Leading is persuading is selling. In today’s realism, you are the CEO of the company consisting of you. Are language, education, creed, and communication essential for business? Are concepts of God and sin essential for business?

Your most unhappy customers are your greatest sources of learning. – Bill Gates

Price is what you pay. Value is what you get. – Warren Buffett

      Are the worst sins of your lower self the greatest sources of learning for your higher self? Are our failures in the past the price we have paid for the diminished value we have in the present? Do we have even more collective failures than individual failures? Do we need to help each other reassess our language, our lives, and our ways of communication and interaction?

Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success. – Henry Ford