Robert writes:

< It would be a Hebbian-oriented mental process by way of "habituating" the 
kind of thoughts that lead to altruism or the desired state. >

I give that names like worrying, self-reflection, doubt, analysis, and reading. 
  I believe it is practiced in a widespread way by the type 1 thinkers that 
Pamela mentioned.

< And, so my question is how this can work at the level of a society, beyond 
the individual level. An example, perhaps but not sure, is the societal 
transformation of profit-oriented, capitalist or stockholder-owned enterprises 
into employeed-owned cooperatives. >

Ok.  I’m skeptical about the concept of employees.   Employees aren’t the 
deciders pretty much by definition.   To simply have a bunch of people that do 
enough to get an income isn’t typically enough to make an enterprise 
successful.   Hard problems require improvisation, not just managers that 
divide up work.  Actually I’m skeptical about the concept of enterprises too.   
Enterprises imply insiders and outsiders and thus haves and have-nots.   The 
only solution I can see is to divorce goals from organizations.   Goals need to 
be their own first class objects that aren’t proxies for other things like 
money.  For example, I write to FRIAM because it has an inherent value to me, 
not because it is proxy for something else like professional networking or 
whatever.   I work on a free editor feature because I want it.   As soon as 
organizations get involved there is trouble.  In reality, we need organizations 
like political parties and non-profits like the ACLU to cope with bigger 
organizations like the elected federal government.  And we need the federal 
government to counter other governments that have even more objectionable 
properties.

< Genetic engineering isn't going to get us there either, IMHO. We don't know 
where to locate the genes or how to comfigure the so called Hox circuits to get 
better brains or minds.  Again, better for whom? >

Through experiments, individuals with more or less short term memory can be 
identified.    There have been cases in the popular press (e.g. 60 minutes) 
about people that have profound auto-biographical long term memory.   There are 
IQ tests.  There are individuals in academia in industry that demonstrate 
incredible productivity (objective measures like citations or patents).   Pick 
some phenotype of interest, and then the inverse problem is what are the 
minimal polymorphisms in the genomes of individuals that have this phenotype 
that are distinct from individuals that don’t have this phenotype.   The 
combinatorics of such a search are very hard (4^(3e9)), but Ising machines like 
adiabatic quantum computers could help address that.    It would require a huge 
collection of full genome samples to make the inferences robust.   The idea is 
to work backward from brains that have the desired property to the nucleotide 
mutations that statistically are associated with it (and not).  If there are 
pareto-optimality tradeoffs, that should come out in the statistics too.   For 
example, being a gymnast or a Sumo wrestler call for different specializations.

Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Reply via email to