Toggle light / dark theme

Outer Space, Inner Space, and the Future of Networks.
Synopsis: Does the History, Dynamics, and Structure of our Universe give any evidence that it is inherently “Good”? Does it appear to be statistically protective of adapted complexity and intelligence? Which aspects of the big history of our universe appear to be random? Which are predictable? What drives universal and societal accelerating change, and why have they both been so stable? What has developed progressively in our universe, as opposed to merely evolving randomly? Will humanity’s future be to venture to the stars (outer space) or will we increasingly escape our physical universe, into physical and virtual inner space (the transcension hypothesis)? In Earth’s big history, what can we say about what has survived and improved? Do we see any progressive improvement in humanity’s thoughts or actions? When is anthropogenic risk existential or developmental (growing pains)? In either case, how can we minimize such risk? What values do well-built networks have? What can we learn about the nature of our most adaptive complex networks, to improve our personal, team, organizational, societal, global, and universal futures? I’ll touch on each of these vital questions, which I’ve been researching and writing about since 1999, and discussing with a community of scholars at Evo-Devo Universe (join us!) since 2008.

For fun background reading, see John’s Goodness of the Universe post on Centauri Dreams, and “Evolutionary Development: A Universal Perspective”, 2019.

John writes about Foresight Development (personal, team, organizational, societal, global, and universal), Accelerating Change, Evolutionary Development (Evo-Devo), Complex Adaptive Systems, Big History, Astrobiology, Outer and Inner Space, Human-Machine Merger, the Future of AI, Neuroscience, Mind Uploading, Cryonics and Brain Preservation, Postbiological Life, and the Values of Well-Built Networks.
He is CEO of Foresight University, founder of the Acceleration Studies Foundation, and co-founder of the Evo-Devo Universe research community, and the Brain Preservation Foundation. He is editor of Evolution, Development, and Complexity (Springer 2019), and Introduction to Foresight: Personal, Team, and Organizational Adaptiveness (Foresight U Press 2022). He is also author of The Transcension Hypothesis (2011), the proposal that universal development guides leading adaptive networks increasingly into physical and virtual inner space.

A talk for the ‘Stepping into the Future‘conference (April 2022).

Along the lines of last night’s post, Keith Frankish has an article at Aeon describing and defending the illusion ist viewpoint, that phenomenal consciousness is an illusion. It’s an excellent introduction for anyone who isn’t familiar with the basic argument.

As noted before, I think the illusion ists are right about the reality, but I’m not sure using the word “illusion” is productive. We could just as easily say that yes, phenomenal consciousness exists *subjectively* but not objectively, and this is how that subjective experience is constructed. There is some value in using stark language to get people’s attention, but it also frequently gets their summary dismissal.

I’m also not entirely sure it’s all in the introspection mechanisms. Phenomenal qualities seem useful in discriminating between different objects, and the affect lacing the brain weaves in also clues the deliberation engine on how to regard those objects. It seems likely that our introspective representations of these perceptual representations are value added rather than entirely constructive. Thinking the latter implies a lot of processing overload for introspection, which doesn’t necessarily feel adaptive to me.

Philosopher Peter Hankins at Conscious Entities has a write-up on the November 12 issue of the JCS (Journal of Consciousness Studies) in which philosophers, psychologists, and neuroscientists such as Keith Frankish, Daniel Dennett, Susan Blackmore, and Michael Graziano, debate whether it makes sense to refer to phenomenal consciousness as an illusion. Unfortunately the full text of the journal articles are paywalled, although if you are on a university network, or have the ability to access the site through one, you might find you can reach them.

Saying that phenomenal consciousness is an illusion is often met with derision. The phrase “is an illusion” is meant to state that consciousness isn’t what it appears to be, but many people read it as “does not exist”, which seems self evidently ludicrous. Which is why, while I generally agree with the illusionists ontologically, that is with their actual conclusions about reality, I’ve resisted using the “illusion” label for the last few years. As one of the JCS authors (Nicholas Humphrey) stated, it’s bad politics. People have a tendency to stop listening when they perceive you’re saying consciousness isn’t there.

And it can be argued that, whatever phenomenal experience is, we most definitely have it. And that the perception of a subjective experience is the experience, such that questioning it is incoherent. I have some sympathy with that position.

Tiny plastic particles may accumulate at higher levels in the human brain than in the kidney and liver, with greater concentrations detected in postmortem samples from 2024 than in those from 2016, suggests a paper published in Nature Medicine. Although the potential implications for human health remain unclear, these findings may highlight a consequence of rising global concentrations of environmental plastics.

The amount of environmental nano-and microparticles, which range in size from as small as 1 nanometer (one billionth of a meter) up to 500 micrometers (one millionth of a meter) in diameter, has increased exponentially over the past 50 years. However, whether they are harmful or toxic to humans is unclear. Most previous studies used visual microscopic spectroscopy methods to identify particulates in , but this is often limited to particulates larger than 5 micrometers.

Researcher Matthew Campen and colleagues used novel methods to analyze the distribution of micro-and nanoparticles in samples of , kidney, and tissues from human bodies that underwent autopsy in 2016 and 2024. A total of 52 brain specimens (28 in 2016 and 24 in 2024) were analyzed.

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a well-known neurodevelopmental disorder that affects the brain’s ability to regulate attention and control impulses. It poses many challenges to those affected, typically making it difficult for them to sustain focus, follow through with instructions, and maintain a calm and restful state.

As one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders, ADHD impacts individuals throughout their lives, creating a breadth of social, emotional, academic, and workplace challenges.

Despite its high prevalence and decades of research, currently available drugs for ADHD are not able to completely resolve the core symptoms of the disorder in most cases.

Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) do not have a behavioral disorder, nor are they lazy, or lacking in manners and boundaries. Their brains mature in a different way, with different patterns of neurological activity and a number of neurochemical differences. For this reason, ADHD is considered to be a neurodevelopmental disorder.

These neurological imbalances manifest as attention difficulties, disorganization, or hyperactivity and impulsivity. While these are most noticeable in childhood, where prevalence is estimated at 5%, ADHD can persist into adulthood, where prevalence is 2.5% of the population. ADHD can therefore have social, academic and occupational impacts throughout a person’s life.

Although there are risk factors (such as mothers smoking during pregnancy or ), these have not been shown to directly cause ADHD. Genetic factors play a more significant role, as 74% of cases are hereditary.

I take Adderall.


Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is one of the most prevalent neurodevelopmental disorders and can persist into adulthood in the majority of cases. ADHD is associated with deficits in cognitive functions, in particular executive functions such as motor and interference inhibition, sustained attention, working memory, timing, psychomotor speed, reaction time variability and switching.

This is the first meta-analysis paper of chronic medication effects on cognition in ADHD, looking at attention, inhibition, reaction time and working memory. All of these aspects can affect academic performance in school, and occupational performance in adults.

The research is published in the journal Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

Summry: New research reveals that dopamine plays a crucial role in teaching young male mice to fight, with the chemical’s influence diminishing as they gain experience. In novice fighters, boosting dopamine increased aggression, while blocking it stopped them from fighting.

However, experienced fighters showed no changes in behavior regardless of dopamine manipulation, highlighting the role of experience in shaping aggression. The study identifies the lateral septum as a key brain region for “aggression learning” in males, but no similar effect was observed in females.

Recent research demonstrates that brain organoids can indeed “learn” and perform tasks, thanks to AI-driven training techniques inspired by neuroscience and machine learning. AI technologies are essential here, as they decode complex neural data from the organoids, allowing scientists to observe how they adjust their cellular networks in response to stimuli. These AI algorithms also control the feedback signals, creating a biofeedback loop that allows the organoids to adapt and even demonstrate short-term memory (Bai et al. 2024).

One technique central to AI-integrated organoid computing is reservoir computing, a model traditionally used in silicon-based computing. In an open-loop setup, AI algorithms interact with organoids as they serve as the “reservoir,” for processing input signals and dynamically adjusting their responses. By interpreting these responses, researchers can classify, predict, and understand how organoids adapt to specific inputs, suggesting the potential for simple computational processing within a biological substrate (Kagan et al. 2023; Aaser et al. n.d.).