Thursday, May 28, 2009

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

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

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?

Monday, May 25, 2009

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.

   

Sunday, May 24, 2009

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?