Frank’s Morning Thoughts – 1

At the moment, one of the constants in my life is my morning routine. This routine starts with taking a liothyronine and a levothyroxine pill along with a cup of cappuccino (made with boiled milk) around 6. As I watch the milk heat up, I fire up one of my iPad Pros and start looking at the day’s New York Times. The milk soon starts to boil over, but just before it begins to escape the pan, I pull the pan off the flame. Only rarely do I miss.

With cappuccino in hand, I glance at the day’s headlines. Since on weekday evenings, I usually listen to Chris Hayes during my before supper walk, I’m already aware of the recent news.[1] I’m looking instead for bits of information, insightful points of view, and bedrock information. On my iPad I also look at the Washington Post, the San Diego Herald-Tribune, and the Letters from an American blog. On average I find three to four articles I want to take note of in my daily journal. [2].

Such is my physical routine. Mentally, the cappuccino and reading get my brain racing. It’s quite marvelous really [3], but given my poor memory, I need to make notes; often in the form of a article title and brief comments.

Beginning about twenty months or so, as my mind picked its way through the fire hose stream of articles that I can now call up with a tap of my finger, [4] I started to form two opinions that are presently the foci of much of my thinking:

  1. My country, for all of its many dark stories, is presently in danger of dropping its commitment to human enlightenment and morphing into something else.
  2. Civilization is now in danger of an untimely demise after a mere ten thousand years of up-and-down evolution.

Basically, nature’s genetic lottery worked just fine until with the spiffy brains she gave us for survival as hunter-gatherers, we invented agriculture. Now our ceaseless inventiveness, couple with intrinsic selfishness and a desire to be ‘top-dog’, has brought us to the brink of possibly doing ourselves in.

Notes

[1] Good news stories attempt to inform us of what actually took place. They should include just enough strictly factually background to begin to begin to understand the event; a salutary service. Information theory [5] tells us the amount of information in any message is directly proportional to its surprise factors. Most of what happens every day is predicable given a rough understanding of current forces at play.

[2] Although nature endowed me with slightly above average rational abilities, she definitely short-changed me in memory capability (probably aggravated by conscious neglect). I now attempt to compensate by taking copious notes. A draw-back for web-publications is that physical copies don’t pile up until one gets around to throwing them out. But it turns out that if you know the title and the publication source, Google can almost always fetch it for you, even if it’s years old!

[3] See Frank’s Wonderful, but Noisy Brain (pending)

[4] Although I have had internet access since I could access ARPA-net in 1972, before my new retirement life I was almost entirely focused on computer programming and work . Presently there is much alarm about the social damage our new personal communication technology is enabling, but for scholars of any stripe, the internet is a marvelous portal.

[5] What is information and what are its key concepts?
https://vitalflux.com/information-theory-machine-learning-concepts-examples-applications/#What_is_information_theory_and_what_are_its_key_concepts , retrievedj10/29/22.

I’m a Fan

I’m a fan of humankind. I know we have done, and are doing, terrible things. We’ve also done, and are doing, wonderful and marvelous things. And we can do many more, much more, marvelous things. We can start to move toward a worldwide civilization of peace, plenty, and nourishing community in concert with individual self-realization. For the first time in history humankind has the technology to provide adequate food, shelter, clothing, and the basics of civilized living to all the Earth’s human inhabitants.[1] [2] However, on the flip side, our inherent drive for understanding and control of physical reality has expanded our economy, and our knowledge base, so much that it is increasingly difficult to forge effective public policy. And our communication technology has suddenly supercharged the power of propaganda and demagogues to the point where even basic civility is vanishing.

I’m still cheering for humankind, but I’m increasingly pessimistic. The very limited evidence that I can gather leads me to the conclusion that there is a better than even chance that we are playing our last few games. That unless we can get our act together, our multi-millennium record of civilizations that went bust will go unbroken to the end.[3] Humankind sometimes loses because physical reality gets the upper hand, but mostly she loses as the result of social entropy.[4] We are our own worst enemy. Maybe the inability to hold a civilization together for more than a few centuries is inherent in our collective psyche. Maybe the deck Is stacked against us. But I don’t think so.

Humankind stands at the pinnacle of three billion years of stop-and-start, turbulent evolution that has produced a brain that is more complex and subtle than anything in the known universe. Early on, the creative process, built into the very fabric of our universe, created a primitive brain. It then proceeded to create evermore powerful versions until a brain emerged that could, on its own, take charge of its own evolution. So, the creative powers of the universe are such that they can produce a win. But this process is probabilistic, not deterministic. Over the entire universe some civilizations may endure for eons.[5] There’s no guarantee that human civilization will be among them.[6]

My view is that the survival of human civilization of Earth depends mainly on how we construct humankind’s social reality. I maintain that this reality is just the amalgamation of the realities each of us constructs in our own minds. While most of the contents of our minds is not under our conscious control, there are parts that are. The question is, if we want to support team humankind, what can we do? [7]

Glossary entries
– drive
-evidence

Notes

[1] This assumes that we have the will to limit the size of our population.

[2] In the basics of civilized living I include all of our endeavors that facilitate self-realization.

[3] See It’s Different This Time (pending)

[4] Conjecture on my part. I have yet to find a comprehensive review of a fair sample of all human civilizations with an associated analysis of the reasons for their collapse.

[5] Among Trillions of Planets, Are We ‘Home Alone?’, https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/1658/among-trillions-of-planets-are-we-home-alone/ , retrieved 05/24/22.

[6] SETI & the Search for Extraterrestrial Life, https://www.space.com/33626-search-for-extraterrestrial-intelligence.html , retrieved 5/24/22.

[7] See What Can We Do? (pending)

Frank’s Axioms 

In my mind all my attempts at rational arguments are based on a few propositions about either subjective or objective reality that I take to be true. I’m calling these propositions axioms. Throughout this blog I will state these propositions as true without explanation. If you, a reader, find other propositions that I claim to be true without an evidentiary reference or an argument, I hope you will post a comment to that effect.

Currently (August, 2022) my axioms are:

Axiom 1. The only reality that I can truly know, or understand, is the one in my mind, that is, my subjective reality.

A2. I am the only one that has access to my subjective reality.

A3. My subjective reality is created either by the spontaneous operation of my brain, or by the consciously directed operation of my mind.

A4. Outside of any person’s subjective reality there is a single objective reality.

A5. An objective reality entity may have a corresponding subjective entity. For example, I am aware that I am writing this with a pen that exists in objective reality. What I am aware of is a subjective reality entity that my brain has created from stimuli received by my sense organs.

A6. Objective reality consists of two distinct parts: physical reality and social reality.

A7. Physical reality consists of all the matter, energy, and forces of the universe. The totality of matter and energy in the universe is constant, but there is constant change that is governed by the immutable laws of physics. [1]

A8. Social reality for humans consists of that part of objective reality that is created by humans.

A9. All entities in social reality are abstract. They have all been created by a human mind, or a group of human minds.

Comment: Confusion is possible here. In order for a subjective entity created in one human mind to have existence in another human mind it must first be instantiated in physical entity. So, since you are reading these axioms, they exist in social reality. For this to be the case, these axioms must be embodied in some physical entity like this sheet of paper.

A10. Since all entities in social reality were created by a human mind these entities are not governed by immutable laws. On the contrary, they may have any humanly imaginable characteristics.

A11. All human action impinges on entities in physical reality. The outcome of any such action is determined by immutable physical laws.

A12. Human action my also impinge on entities in social reality. In general, there are usually at least several possible outcomes. It is not possible to know with certainty which outcome will manifest.

Frank’s Glossary Entries

argument
brain
entity
mind
objective reality
proposition
rational argument
reality
subjective reality

Notes

[1] Physicists speak of “laws.” For example, “the law of gravity.” These are propositions about physical reality entities that are considered to be true for all time for our entire universe. Actually, these “laws” are just constructions created by human minds to model how human perceive particular aspects of physical reality. Newton’s law of gravity (1687) has been superseded by Einstein’s theory of general relativity (1915)

Frank’s Glossary

I can only consider the things in my own mind. The things in my mind are either bodily sensation, feelings (emotions), or thoughts. All of the things in my mind are projected there by my brain. [1] These projections are either created autonomously by my brain, by conscious thought, or arise from signals received from external, objective reality by my sense organs.. Sometime after my birth, my brain began to label the things in my mind with words. Sometime later I began to use words to send signals to the ears of other humans. Still later, I started to also write words that could be picked up by the eyes of other humans. I believe that what I have just said about myself is also true for all humans.

All the words that I use are to some extent idiosyncratic. They have personal connotations that may not mesh exactly with the connotations that any of my listeners or readers have. This glossary is an on-going attempt to delineate a few of the words I’m using in this blog that I think need explanation. It seems to me that lot of the disagreements people have revolve around their attaching different meanings to some of the words they use. In an attempt to sidestep such disagreements and focus any discussions on this blog to non-linguistic issues, I offer this glossary.

argument
A sequence of statements for which the last statements are propositions which are claimed to be true.

assertion
Synonymous with proposition

brain
The largest concentration of connected neurons in a nervous system. The most basic functions of a brain are to generate responses to signals from other organs, and from the animal’s sense organs. These response signals have two fundamental purposes: one is to keep the animal alive, and the other is to facilitate reproduction.

chimera
An illusion or a fabrication of the mind. [2]

consciousness
Synonymous with mind

data
Usually, a collection of quantitative measurements that bear on the truth or falsity of a proposition or coherent collection of propositions. Could also be qualitative observations.

deterministic proposition
A deterministic proposition has a truth value of either true or false.

drive/driven
Used metaphorically of an entity to assert the existence of an innate will/energy to reach some condition or objective. For example: all living beings have a drive to reproduce.

entity
A basic unit of thought. In English, all nouns refer to entities. An entity can be either concrete or abstract. A concrete entity is a particular, unique thing. In English, proper nouns refer to concrete entities, common nouns refer to an abstract entity, i.e., an undefined collection of concrete entities. Entities almost always have attributes, and relationships with other entities.

evolution
Googling on Firefox (09/24/22) gives two definitions:
– the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form: “the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution
– the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
This blog uses this word in both senses and depends on context to determine which meaning is operative.

model
a) In social reality: an entity whose purpose is to aid in the understanding of another entity.
b) In a subjective reality: a set of propositions, equations, or diagrams whose purpose is to aid in the understanding of another entity.

objective reality
Everything in a person’s subjective reality comes either from the spontaneous operation of that person nervous system, or as a result as of outputs from that person’s senses. The source of all stimulation to a person’s senses is objective reality. Human minds construct models of objective reality based on the processing of sensory data and current mental constructs. As humankind’s knowledge grows, our models of objective reality become more complete, and our predictions become more accurate. But we cannot ever know objective reality in an absolute sense. All we can ever do is develop more comprehensive and accurate models. There are two distinct spheres of objective reality: physical reality and social reality.

physical reality
All of the entities in objective reality that can be sensed by a human either naturally or with the aid of instruments.

reality
Synonymous with “what is.” There are two aspects: (1) what an individual is conscious of, and (2) everything outside of an individual’s consciousness. In this bog I call these two aspects subjective reality and objective reality. When referring to objective reality I’ll say” “what actually is.” This is a bit confusing; for each individual their subjective reality is all there is. For each individual objective reality entities exist only as mental chimeras/models in their mind

social reality
All of the non-physical entities in objective reality that were created by humans. All of these entities must be manifested in a physical entity in order to be perceived by humans. Thus, the Constitution of the United States is a social reality entity, but before it can be perceived it must be instantiated in a physical reality entity. The collection of computer memory bits that enable you to read this entry are a physical reality entity.

subjective reality
Refers to all that a person is conscious of, that is, the entirety of a particular person’s thoughts, feelings, and sensations. See What’s “real”.

rational argument
A sequence of propositions that are either axioms, the conclusion of a rational argument, or are deduced from prior propositions by the rules of a cited logical system.

true
a) One of the two possible values for the truth value of a deterministic proposition. The other value is false.
b) The truth value of a probabilistic proposition whose probability that the proposition is true less is at least 50%). The other truth value is false.

truth
What a proposition with a truth value of true expresses

what’s-out-there
Synonymous with objective reality.

Incomplete – under construction

How It All Began

In the beginning, [1] in the very first microsecond, all was chaos. Or so it seemed. Just quarks and electrons buzzing about.[2] But not chaos! A few millionths of a second later, quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons. Within minutes, these protons and neutrons combined into nuclei. Hundreds of thousands of years later molecules formed. Then stars and planets. Thousands of trillions of planets. [3] Then, on a least one planet some simple molecules joined, and kept joining, until there was a self-replicating molecule – the first life-form on planet Earth! [4] A membrane of phospholipids formed around some of these self-replicating molecules to form prokaryotes, a primitive cell. [5][6] Thus, the life-force of our universe became manifest; definitely not on every planet, but here on Earth. Driven by the life-force inherent in the fabric of our universe, prokaryotes evolved to eukaryotes, cells with a distinct nucleus. Multicellular organisms appeared next. Then life-forms with specialized organs, and then, after billions of years, homo sapiens, us.

In homo sapiens the life-force brought forth mind, [7] and in a tiny spot in a vast universe, human minds broke the bounds of a biologically driven life-force, and began to create language, religion, and art. Then agriculture, villages, cities, civilization, literature, philosophy, and finally science. Altogether a great, ongoing flowering of creativity across all cultures, across the whole planet.

Notes

[1] It has always been the general consensus of thoughtful humans that everything has a beginning. It seems that universally our minds balk at the notion that causes can be extended backwards indefinitely, particularly as regards to the physical universe. [8] Humanity’s current understanding of the origin of everything has been painstakingly developed over three millennium. During that time critical human thinking and analysis of the data from our eyes, enhanced over the last five centuries by instruments, has resulted in the now currently generally accepted Big Bang Theory. See https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe , The Early Universe, Origins, retrieved 4/7/22.

[2] It is always important to remember that all statements about physical reality are created by human minds. Over the centuries scientists have created methods and processes that, when applied for a sufficient amount of time, ensure that accepted scientific statements have a high probability of being true.

[3] Astronomers estimate that there are thousands of trillions of plants in our universe. See https://astronomy.com/news/2020/02/how-many-planets-are-there-in-the-universe , retrieved 4/7/22. This estimate has been created by astronomers and astrophysics from observations across the electromagnetic spectrum, mathematical equations, and large-scale computer simulations that automate these equations. Large scale super-computer simulations run continuously to create pictures of the past and future of our universe.

[4] A simplification. RNA and protein matchmaker had to form first.

Michael Gazzaniga, The Consciousness Instinct (New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2019), 188.

[5] A phospholipid is a type of lipid molecule that is the main component of the cell membrane. Lipids are molecules that include fats, waxes, and some vitamins, among others. Each phospholipid is made up of two fatty acids, a phosphate group, and a glycerol molecule. When many phospholipids line up, they form a double layer that is characteristic of all cell membranes. . https://biologydictionary.net/phospholipid/ retrieved 07/12/22.

[6] Prokaryotes are unicellular organisms that consist of a single prokaryotic cell. Prokaryotic cells are simple cells that do not have a true nucleus or other cell organelles. Bacteria and Archaea are the two domains of life that are prokaryotes.

[7] I believe that it is no more an accident that life appeared in our universe than that a well-capitalized and well-run casino is a sure-fire money maker. I chose to call this attribute of our universe its life-force.

[8] Human minds also balk at the notion that something can happen without a cause. The Big Bang Theory addresses our aversion to an unending chain of causality, but it leaves “why” hanging. From Godel’s theorem to quantum mechanics we have learned that we can pose questions for which, in the realm of rational thought answers do not exist. In our current state of civilization, religion and myth serve up answers for those that require them

Daneel Visits Princeton

“Good grief. What the devil? Who are you?” Dr. Norman exclaimed as he opened the door to his office at the Princeton Neuroscience Institute.

A good looking, youthful man, a complete stranger, dressed in what appeared to be some sort of iridescent lab coveralls, jumped up and said, “Excuse me Director Norman, I thought I might as well sit until you arrived.” The young man stood and extended his hand. “I’m R. Daneel from the 25th century. I’m really sorry to barge in on you like this, but I’m afraid my colleagues at the Princeton Temporal Exploration Institute blundered badly and sent me back in time rather than forward. I appeared here about five this morning and thought I might as well wait here until you came in.”

To say Dr. Norman was surprised would be an extreme understatement. His first reaction was that some Princeton undergraduates were up to their usual spring mischief. Ignoring Daneel’s outstretched hand he said, “Look Mr. Daneel, or whatever your real name is, I’m not in the mood to be part of some elaborate undergraduate joke. I’m calling security!”

“No problem, Director Norman, I’ll go quietly, but it you kick me out you are throwing away a good chance of making a Nobel prize level contribution to cognitive neuroscience.”

Taken aback, Dr. Norman responded sarcastically , “Oh, really? Just what makes you say so, Mr. Daneel?”

“Allow me to demonstrate, Director Norman.”

Daneel then proceeded to slide a finger over the mechanisms that held his lab coveralls and closed his lab shirt. As they fell away a dull grey metallic chest was exposed.

Dr. Norman gasped. But Daneel wasn’t finished.

He placed a finger on the side of his neck and the two panels that covered his chest slide back, exposing an intricate set of electro-mechanical mechanisms.

After a moment of speechlessness, Dr. Norman managed to sputter, “My god, you’re a robot!”

“Quite right, Director Norman; a robot the likes of which won’t appear on Earth for another three hundred years. But what’s important is that except for controlling some bodily functions that I lack; my brain and mind are functionally identical to yours. What’s more, not only will I be a willing subject on any neuroscience experiments your Institute would like to perform; I can also help you build sensor technology that will enable you investigate how my brain operates to create my mind.”

Dr. Norman’s eyes glistened. if R. Daneel was really as intelligent as he appeared to be on first sight, and if indeed his artificial nervous system had the same functional capabilities as a human’s, then yes, earth-shattering neuroscience results might be possible!

“Alright Mr. Daneel, clearly you are not part of an undergraduate prank. … Mister Daneel, is that correct?”

‘No Director, it’s Doctor Daneel Olivaw. My PhDs are in Human and Robotic Psychology, Computer Engineering, Computer Software, Artificial Intelligence, and Temporal Science.”

Dr. Norman raised his eyebrows, “Really?”

“Too many degrees? My mental processing speed is about four times that of an excellent human PhD student. Also, my life span is only limited by my manufacturer’s ability to keep replacing parts that wear out. Most 25th century sentient robots have earned at least six PhDs. It’s a way for our sponsors to maximize our usefulness.”

Dr. Norman’s knees were starting to give way. He sat down in the chair Daneel had just vacated. “Alright Dr. Olivaw, assuming that your offer might possibly result in my Institute achieving some neuroscience break-throughs, what do you want in return?”

“Isn’t it obvious? I need to build a machine that can send me back to the 25th century. I’ll need your help and the resources of the Institute to do that.”

Dr. Norman took a deep breath, “Ah. I see. Not an unreasonable request given the circumstances. But will an investigation into your artificially created mentality really yield useful information on the relationship between a human brain and a human mind?”

“I think so, Director. At any one moment I am conscious of only a small part of my memory. I can consciously tune into how my brain is managing my bodily activities, and willfully direct these activities, but normally I’m not conscious of them. Like a human, I experience my mind as a multi-media production that I have only some control over.”

“Well, that sounds like you might make a useful subject. We will need to be able to monitor your brain’s activity and correlate that with what you can report or demonstrate about what’s in your mind. Can you help us build the instruments we’ll need to that purpose?”

Smiling condescendingly Daneel said, “Yes, of course. In fact, we should get started on this right away.”

As his scientific curiosity started to override other concerns, Dr. Norman started planning. “Alright, we’ve got a empty office and adjacent lab that I can assign to you right now. I know Professor Baldassano will be wanting to put his current project on hold to start working with you immediately. I’m sure some of our other researchers and graduate students will also want to be involved. I assume you won’t mind if we immediately start a clinical assessment of your psychology and mental abilities.”

***

The clinical assessment of Daneel’s psychology revealed that his creators had indeed constructed an artificial human, at least from a psychological perspective. His rational abilities were essentially that of a highly intelligent human, just four times faster, and unfailingly accurate. The scope and intensity of his emotions were much reduced, but after allowances were made for the radical difference between Daneel’s artificial “biology” and that of a human, there remained a remarkable similarity.

The construction of instruments that could detect various external aspects of the dynamic functioning of Daneel’s brain proved easier than Dr. Normas anticipated. At the functional level Daneel’s brain was organized much like a human’s. Like a human’s it was an intricate network of “neurons” and “synapses.” One difference was that his brain contained about 600 billion “neurons” interconnected at 600 trillion “synapses.”[1] The volume occupied by his brain was about twice that of a human’s and was located in his chest cavity where it was easily instrumented to detect phenomena within Daneel’s “brain.” With Daneel’s help the Institute team was able to get real-time data on both individual “neurons” and a cluster of as many as 1024 “neurons.’ During the last stages of the investigation the team could get data on as many as 16 “neuron” clusters. This was important since it turned out that Daneel’s brain, like human brains, was organized by layers into functionally differentiated modules. [2]

Investigation began as soon as the initial instrumentation was ready. All the reported experiments on the link between a human brain and a human mind were repeated. The experiment reported by J. D. Haynes that measured the time between the acquisition of the image of a letter on a retina and when that letter was recognized in the mind yielded similar results.[5] Daneel’s timing was just four times faster. A similar result held for all the other experiments.

As experiment after experiment on Daneel produced functionally the same result as they had on humans, the team at PNI became more and more excited. They were putting the final nail in coffin of Descartes’s view that the body and the mind were two separate entities.[4] Here was indisputable evidence that the mind was a feature of physical complexity and not something outside of the physical universe.

***

“Well, Daneel, I guess this is good-by.”

“Yes, Director Norman, when I close this door I will be instantly back in my own time in the 25th century. Three microseconds later this time-warp chamber will self-destruct into a lump of metal. We’ve had a great time together. You and your team now have soild data to support the proposition that a mind is created by a physical brain. With this knowledge you will be able to design research projects that will eventually result in a Nobel prize. Unfortunately, none of the result we have obtained here can be published!”

“Oh, no?! How so?”

“When I am gone there will be no way to replicate our experiments. Good-by Director.”

***

Poof!

Notes

Research on the creation of artificial minds is currently underway. [5]

[1] A human brain has roughly 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses. https://www.verywellmind.com/how-many-neurons-are-in-the-brain-2794889 , retrieved 05/12/2022; google: number synapses human brain?, 05/12/2022. Daneel’s chest cavity is about 6 times larger than a human cranium

[2] Gazzzaniga, Michael. (2018). The Consciousness Instinct: Unraveling the Mystery of How the Brain Makes the Mind, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

[3] Hayes, J. D. (2011). Decoding and predicting intentions. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1224(10; 9-24.

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism. retrieved 3/29/2022.

[5] Gallagher, Brian. (March 23, 2022) Robots Show Us Who We Are. Nautilus, New York.

Author’s Posting Comments

  1. An entertaining illustration of the plausibility that a brain creates a mind.
  2. A companion to Is the Mind Identical to the Brain?