theories of uncertainty and reality and Sufis

One list I visit is perhaps the world's top list for discussing issues like fuzzy logic versus probability theory,

and how we can better understand UNCERTAINTY. A US researcher summarized a paper by Gupta, saying that

there are two general types of uncertainty, "objective" and "cognitive". (To see what he posted, go to the end.)

A researcher in Europe replied:

Dear Dr. ..,

Thanks for your clear description of the 'two broad categories' under which the 'various types of uncertainty' can be classified. However, I wonder how the two are related or can be unified. Aren't we running here into the perennial problem of the relationship between KNOWLEDGE and REALITY, a relationship on which philosophers in India, China, Japan and the West have had different views?

Here is my reply:

Many of us would see the situation as follows.

First, we would assume the existence of an Objective Reality, a larger universe or multiverse or cosmos,

whose state across state and time is determined by some kind of Underlying Physical Law. Let us call this the Objective Reality Hypothesis (ORH).

WITHIN the large set of possible Underlying Physical Laws, there is of course the traditional Einsteinian set -- laws defined over continuous

3+1-dimensional space time, expressed by stating a Lagrange function which leads to Lagrange-Euler equations, a subset of the larger set

of 3+1-dimensional partial differential equation (PDE) models.

BUT THE SET is certainly larger than that. There is no reason why it should not including stochastic PDE or mixed forwards-backwards stochastic PDE.

Any mathematically well-defined system is acceptable within ORH, so long as we can use it to make predictions.

To avoid being too pompous -- perhaps a kind of joke is in order.

One version of quantum mechanics has been stated as follows:

"First God created the universe by throwing dice many, many times, over a vast four-dimensional checkerboard. He looked out

upon his work... as you might look out upon a Christmas tree you just set up... and he said in a booming voice: 'Yuk! It is not good!'

So he gave it a good ninety degree kick and left the room never to be seen again."

Actually, many people believe that this is the closest thing we now have to a mathematically well-defined rigorous formulation of quantum field theory.

It is described in a classic book by Glimm and Jaffe. The first stage is, more precisely, simulation or implementation of a Markhov Random Field

over four-dimensional Euclidean space. The ninety degree "kick" is a Wick rotation, kicking one randomly chosen direction (original raw time)

into its analytic extension. It actually sounds like a kind of Realistic model ... if you believe that the Wick rotation has the right properties.

I tend to doubt it. What it does to certain ordinary Fourier modes...

If you go back further, to philosophers of the West like the Pythagorean Order (which I take with many grains of salt), they still support the claim that

everything we see is governed by some kind of natural law. There is a challenge in understanding what KIND of natural law. I have not seen anything in

Chinese philosophy which would contract that general sort of approach, though they would often feel in a pragmatic way that they need not be bothered with

the theory of things in general. Many in the West used to believe it can be a bit dangerous to play around too casually with things before understanding them, but

the current elections seem to reflect some other way of thinking...

=====

In a way, this all gets back to Gupta's categorization, but tilted more towards the cognitive side. There may or may not be "uncertainties" inherent in the formulation of the

underlying Physical Law -- but within the ORH approach, these are really just options one has in trying to express what the Physical Law is.

After that... "uncertainty" is basically something we intelligent creatures experience. We experience it at "many levels," simply because our mind

works on many levels. In a sense, many of the "objective" uncertainties that Gupta talks about are essentially cognitive in nature; we use uncertainty as

an attribute of the approximate models we use to describe complex dynamical systems in the physical world. Approximation and probability are the two recurring themes here...

I tend to view "fuzziness as opposed to probability" as a hook to the approximation side of things.

=====================

=====================

Many years ago, I had a discussion about ORH with one of the leaders of one of the most powerful Sufi Orders in the world.

He basically asked: "Why do you Pythagorean types keep trying to understand how reality works in mathematical terms?

Why do you assume it is possible?"

The truly honest answer is that I do not Axiomatically commit myself at the most fundamental level to assuming that it is possible.

At the deepest level... you could say it is like what Heidegger says, or you could say I am like one of those little organisms I sketch in some slides...

simply trying to make sense of a stream of direct personal experience as best I can. That's the deepest foundation. But we have certainly learned,

over centuries and centuries, that ORH has yielded immense improvements in our ability to cope with that stream of experience, that it is very

general in what it allows (in a sense, able to encompass anything else workable as a subset), and that folks bouncing against the walls without it..

with the use of a "mirror" to connect the objective and subjective world ... do easily get lost in all kinds of crazy thrashing which goes nowhere.

Many modern philosophers say that the alternative to realism is solipsism, and the world still keeps giving us examples of people doing crazy stuff

through solipsistic thinking. We do not know the true Physical Law, and rationally should remain open-minded about a wide variety of possible theories...

(constantly updating subjective probabilities ala Raiffa for such alternatives)... but it is WAY too early to give up on understanding much

better than we now do.

But... he thrashed around a lot, went back to Pakistan after 9/11, and died. I am very sorry that I didn't work harder to improve the dialogue before it was too late.

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

Using geoengineering to save us from climate change

My evaluation (for the Global Climate Change Situation Room, GCCSR)

of a proposal to handle climate change..

First, the proposal:

On Oct 19, 2010, at 10:44 PM, Jerome C. Glenn wrote:

Check out Solutions' new feature article: "Geoengineering: The Inescapable

Truth of Getting to 350" by Charles H. Greene, Bruce C. Monger, and Mark

E.

Huntley.

While geoengineering may be one of the most controversial solutions

proposed for getting to 350ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, the authors argue

that it will be essential to reaching this goal by the end of this

century.

The authors believe that one technology in particular has great promise,

if

paired with an aggressive emissions-reduction plan.

Read it here: http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/771

==================================

My evaluation:

=====================

Most of us would be very interested in the important question this article

addresses:

what does it take to keep CO2 from rising above 350 ppm?

Systems people might prefer a slightly sharper version of the question: how

can we minimize the cost and maximize the probability

of CO2 not rising above 350 OR of getting the environmental damage which a

CO2 above 350 would imply?

Real optimizers usually would want to fine tune almost any strategy, to try

to do a little

better. In that spirit, here are some comments on how to tune or interpret

(or implement) what this article offers...

in addressing that question.

---------

First two sections:

The article begins by discussing how serious the problem may be. I won't

focus on that, since that's not the question

posed above. But it's interesting that they discuss the risk that sea level

might rise by EIGHTY meters. Peter Ward

of U. Washington will be discussing similar issues at NSF in a few days. (I

can't go due to other commitments.) IPCC

people were estimating a 5-20% probability of a 20 meter sea level rise,

under business as usual and what was known a few years ago.

That's already risky to human species survival, if one accounts for all the

downstream things which might follow.

When I tracked these issues last year from an office in the Senate, this

flooding risk was by far the most important

worst-case risk from rising CO2 levels.

"Averting Catastrophic Climate change."

The authors say that there is little chance that we could reduce CO2 enough

in time by emission reductions alone.

That's only a half truth. In the US, at least, petroleum is the fuel which

accounts for the most emissions.

On a technology level, best guess is that it would only take 20 to 25 years

for the US to become

100% independent from fossil oil, at little or no net overall cost to the

economy,

**IF** we took the right action. (In all fairness, I would claim to know the

integrated picture of this better than anyone else on earth. See

www.werbos.com/oil.htm. For example, IEEE has gotten me access to the

engineers on the front lines

of this technology, to the folks at Toyota leading their efforts, and to key

battery manufacturers in China. NSF efforts on nonfuel biofuels have also

given

a crucial start.) The biggest single emissions SECTOR is electric power

(which I now handle at NSF).

There have been impressive breakthroughs in Carbon Capture and Reuse (CCR)

which could be deployed rather widely

within 20 years, with the right incentives, and CO2 prices no greater than

$30/ton at most.

HOWEVER -- due to lack of will and action (and coherent thinking in the

policy world), I have to agree that the chances are looking pretty dismal.

Thus as a matter of rationality, and of hedging our bets, it is very

sensible for folks at the R&D level to find ways to

prepare for a high probability of continued failure to deploy emission

reduction technology fast enough. The kinds of actions endorsed in the

article are important

at this point.

"Geoengineering Options"

The article recommends a mixed portfolio, a combination of two kinds of

action, above and beyond continued efforts

aimed at emissions control:

1. Solar Radiation Management (SRM)

2. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)

I agree with that.

1. SRM

With SRM they mention three key options -- sulfate aerosols, seawater

droplets or other cloud condensation nuclei, and mirrors in space.

The article does not sound so excited about exploring these three, because

they are unproven and because costs may be high.

But I would not be so negative. The whole point of the geoengineering

options is to try use R&D (a mostly lower cost activity)

to hedge our bets against the failure of policy by the folks who dispose of

bigger sums of money. And the whole point of R&D is to explore what we do

not yet know. Some of that is positive and some of that is negative. (I

actually have a book chapter in press on strategic thinking for

leadership in S&T which elaborates on such things.) The risk of

acidification of the ocean is not nearly so great as I would have thought

before studying it more closely last year. The worst case risk they are

talking about (according to a deep balanced assessment report from the

Congressional Research Service) is that ocean pH might go down from 8.0 to

7.7 by 2100. That's not nice, but it's nowhere near as large as

other risks we are trading off here. Still, the sulfate cycle can become

lethal under some circumstances (see Ward's book, Under a Green Sky);

we really need to know a lot more about that cycle, and about the ecology

and potential variability of archaea in general,

from atmosphere to deep under the ocean floor and to deep reservoirs under

the land. With water and nucleation, we need to follow up on recent

breakthrough discoveries at NASA regarding the rapid movement of water

vapor. (From the folks watching asteroids, not from the climate models!)

The cost of large space based mirrors might well be made much lower than it

is today; if only I could find a way to get key decision makers to follow up

on

unmet technical opportunities to get access to space about three orders of

magnitude cheaper than its present cost,

and an order of magnitude cheaper than what I'd expect form the new X37B

technology!! The option is there, and is economically justified by

other benefits ... but no one is doing the key enabling work, which could be

done at a cost as low as $35 million! Would be happy to say more.

ALL of these things really ought to be pushed as hard as we can, to minimize

the chances of catastrophe. Life itself is worth the investment.

It's all about RISK REDUCTION... and that does require doing some high risk

stuff at times. When the bullets are flying at us, we can't afford to wait

for certainty.

2. CDR

For CDR, they rightly stress the great potential of algae as a way to get

low cost removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Having 10 minutes left right now, before my next meeting (ironically on

climate satellites under our GEO people)... must be too brief.

wwww.aurorabiofeuls.com is one of many good sources. They say they could

convert CO2 to 60% fish food and 40% liquid fuel,

at $60 per barrel crude oil price, if environment permits... after some

demos. The bill I posted at www.werbos.com/oil.htm

would provide an effective mechanism to move this along faster. Not only

algae but other microbes would qualify,

and have promise. Sustainability rules are part of the proposed legislation.

But R&D on cutting the cost of

other approaches is also indicated. The long-term economics of extracting

CO2 form flue gas versus atmosphere are

simply not known, and policy should not assume that it is known. The

challenges are to improve the economics of BOTH routes

(especially by more effective R&D) and make sure there are correct

incentives (and kill the market failures) which inhibit both.

This is, again, an urgent matter of life and death, and I thank Jerry for

moving us ahead on it...

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

Mystical (and Physical) Visit to Byzantium

Mystical (and Physical) Visit to Byzantium

October 2010

n Written at Ataturk International Airport in Istanbul, Thursday October 14.

n I arrived in Istanbul late last Saturday. The story of these six days is very complicated. That’s how it usually is for me with international travel. Why waste any time when one may never get a chance to see the area ever again? I spent most of the time with the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, where I gave the first plenary talk on Monday. I spoke on “Neural Networks: From Toys to Cars to the Brain.” But there was a free day. Here I’ll mainly talk about the hour or two on that free day when I got to visit Hagia Sophia, which is also called St. Sophia or Ayasophia – the main church of the Eastern Roman Empire, built by the Emperor Justinian from 532 to 537 AD.

First, some background ==========================================

1. (Added 10/16.) Just what is the proper name of Hagia Sophia? Wikipedia asserts that the full original name in Greek means “Church of the Holy Wisdom of God.” Sacred Wisdom. Sancta Sophia, not Saint Sophie.

2. It feels very strange, “leading dozens of different lives in parallel.” In my plenary talk, I said a little bit about that. I argued that the biggest, most important challenge to science today is to really understand and replicate the higher intelligence and consciousness which exists in the brain of a single, isolated mouse. “Here in Istanbul and at an SMC Conference, it is very tempting to talk about intelligence and Mind beyond the level of the mouse… but I need to discipline myself, and not discuss that other half of my existence, except for one slide and one line on another slide.” In visiting Hagia Sophia – I do the opposite. If you want real science (as defined by Thomas Kuhn, for example), please read no further. We all have a right to lead parallel lives.

3. For many, many years, I usually try to do some kind of meditation when I visit a unique historic site. I make an effort to contain my ordinary brain thoughts, to avoid being distracted by them, and practice “listening” (a skill which Quakers work hard to cultivate), to project some questions or dialogue, and to shift over different “frequencies” or textures or directions of thought so as to avoid missing things. In other places, the feedback I have gotten has usually been much simpler, more unified and more graphic than what I picked up here. Usually there is some especially interesting stream of thought, which feels as if there is a single mind or nucleus of thinking in the middle of it. (One time, in Guillmaraes in Portugal, I recall at least three streams… but at different places, encountered at different times.) At Hagia Sophia, it was more like eight streams in the one building, which was essentially one gigantic room at the mundane level.

4. Of course, it requires incessant checking and skepticism and analysis to hold on to reality with this kind of activity, and to avoid succumbing to personal imagination masquerading as psychic inputs. I really like the introduction to McMoneagle’s book on time which discusses some important aspects of the required discipline. (It is very unfortunate, however, that he only addresses the basic cognitive discipline, and not the affective discipline, which is even more important. I suspect that lack of proper affective discipline is a major reason why the kinds of programs he worked on did not really prosper.) I have always felt some contempt for people who live their lives by “hermeneutics” – a kind of word game, devoid of spirit, which seems very sensible and logical if one asumes that there was some initial Text in ancient times which was the Whole Original Truth. But it now occurs to me that there is a kind of hermeneutics of experience, which is not so different in structure, form an abstract point of view. I wonder whether folks like Bishop Berkeley or the Reverend Occam ever talked about that? Or Francis Bacon? (added later: Heidegger?) I am tempted to say more, but there are some bits of knowledge which could be misused. In the end – some of the things I have received this way have been “veridical”(testable), while others could be seen as a way to better use my subconscious mind to reconstruct a deeper picture of what I should have been able to figure out anyway **if** I had made full use of the available information elsewhere. If the picture works, and is a big upgrade from my earlier picture, I don’t worry too much about which type of feedback it was. The majority of what I picked up in Hagia Sophia was like that – really what one should have expected anyway.

5. Prior to Hagia Sophia, I had some discussion of Sufi training and such – both at a Mevlevi Hane (dervish training place) near the tramway, and with Professor Okyay Kaynak, chair of the SMC conference, whom I thank for inviting me. (The trip to Turkey was paid for by IEEE SMC. Not a penny from the US taxpayer. The side trip to Hagia Sofia cost me about $3 each way on pubic transport.) A key question: aside from the training to dance, to make the right physical movements and to know the traditional interpretation of the movements, what still exists of the ancient training methods to discipline and exercise the mind, soul and feelings? The dervishes I talked to felt that most of that was lost, maybe even all of it, at the time of Ataturk. (Ataturk led the Young Turks just after World War I to create modern, secular Turkey.) They understood the need for what Ataturk did, and the damage that fundamentalism and corruption do to real spiritual growth, but maybe not quite as intensely as I do. (I have a stronger feeling for the lessons of the reformation in England, and for some things one sees on Fox News.) Perhaps I will have more discussion with them or their colleagues in the future,

6. Like Isaac Newton and Dan Brown, I have generally assumed that the “great miracles” of the Emperor Constantine, converting to Christianity, were not so different from the later “miracle” when Lenin appointed himself head of the Russian Orthodox Church, or when Henry VIII created the Chruch of England. We were not astounded when the Politburo voted unanimously to accept Lenin’s manifestoes. Likewise, it was no miracle when Constantine’s people voted unanimously to bless Constantine’s edited version of the Bible and to bless his offficial party line. “Render unto Caeser what is Caeser’s”? Long before that, I had several interesting conversations with the older anti-Melkite church, but that’s another story, not for today. Of course, Constantine’s political manuever was inspired in part by what he saw of earlier priest kings, and of certain bishops acquiring power by similar means. Byzantium became the walled city of Constantinople, the capitol of the Eastern Roman Empire from 330AD to 1453AD.

7. I scanned about 4 little guide books or blurbs before going to Hagia Sophia. Only one of the four mentioned that the world headquarters of Orthodox Christianity is in St. George’s, only a little west of the area I explored. They said that a large part of the Byzantine Empire was actually run from Hagia Sophia for a long time, rather than the rundown palaces which were removed when Sultan Mehmet II the Conqueror came in 1453 AD. But actually, The Great Palace was the greatest government center in Byzantine times. There is an archeological park near Hagia Sofia, where the ruins of the Great Palace have been partly excavated. It too had interesting palpable vibes. But in 1202-1261, “Latin invasion,” it was razed to the ground, presumably by crusaders sent there by a jealous church in Rome. It seems there was a triangle of power for many years, from the Great Palace to Hagia Sophia to the Hippodrome (a focus of political parties when these were tolerated). The Great Palace had a beautiful commanding view of the Bosporus and the Sea of Marmara, which reminded me of George Washinston’s view of the Potomac – with a similar degree of confidence and competence.

Next: Experience of the Place ==============================

1. As you enter, you first go through a kind of long hall, as broad as the whole front of the massive building, but only about 10 meters or so deep into the interior, with several big openings to the main chamber. Lots of typical poster boards with background for the tourist, but only one – in the center – with unusual information. It basically says: “Here you see a relief image of Jesus Christ the Creator of the Universe, palling around with his buddy the Roman Emperor.” I immediately felt a kind of visceral negative reaction to this, welling up through my viscera. I really doubt that Jesus would have said kind words to folks who would call him the “creator of the Universe.” (After all, wasn’t he the guy who said “I do not do these things of myself, but only the Father does them through me?” And who used the words “lawyers and hypocrites” to certain folks he encountered in other temples, and warned about certain kinds of rich folks? ) My reaction was so sharp and so intense that I immediately damped it down, to avoid going so negative that it would block my sensitivity and create inappropriate side effects. I always remembered the need to maintain balance, in working with the complex thoughts and dynamics of this world. I then thought: “I wouldn’t even begin to let myself get so far out of hand in China, with all its golden calves and pigs and goats. I guess it is especially upsetting when one’s own people do such things.” But then as I stretched, I realized… this was not just my own personal reaction that I was feeling here. In fact, the main essence of this place, from about 1453 to 1920, was a similar horror by even the most enlighted Moslems at precisely what was highlighted, in such dispassionate objective terms, at the entrance here. I looked for thoughts about the foibles which exist within Islam as well, but did not find them here. Not a major theme in this place (though of course there were some Greeks still loyal to their church, visible even in the streets outside).

2. Beyond the thin veneer of later thoughts, the ground floor (the floor of the whole gigantic domed chamber) was pretty much all Justinian’s show. The guidebooks were proud about how quickly the church was built … after the the earlier version built under the Emperor Theodosius was burned to the ground in the Nika rebellion. That sank deeper into my mind as I explored the ground floor. There was a lot of typical average-person piety in the air, which reminded me of one of the better Catholic churches in Munich, but a lot weaker, perhaps because of time. But there was also a lot of clear awareness, perhaps from earlier times, of the “bait and switch” game the Emperor was playing when pretending to be Christian but stifling the real spirit of original Christianity. (It reminded me of the incessant bait and switch games now routine in Washington, and of the folks who tried to sell the Waxman or Kerry-Boxer climate bills by pretending they address our addiction to oil. Such games are played by both parties, but that’s the one which came to mind here.) I asked: were they really aware of the seriousness of letting that bait and switch game go uncontrolled? Of course – that’s real reason why they burned the first version of this church to the ground!

3. Circling around the edges of the big ground floor…back near the entry, a kind of open passageway with a high rounded ceiling, with amazing acoustics I could literally feel before I tested them. And I could tell they were very consciously used in the past. Following tradition somewhat, I began a kind of low humming (low in its mundane component) to resonate and use to probe the area a bit further. Of course, I made sure that the mundane component could not be easily traced to me; mouth closed, sounds from all directions. I could maintain that same resonance all through the rest of my movement around that floor. At points it felt as if I were moving quickly through statue-like clumps of inert tourists, a bit like part of Dan Brown movie or like a science fiction about walking in a lively way through people whose time flow had slowed down.

4. I ran across a couple of interesting small high open corridors to the right of the chamber (from as you enter). One for confident middle level importantly busy clerics, on typical important errands, not the kind where you could tell whether they were Christian or Moslem – all pretty much the same at that level. A less important corridor for more maintenance kinds of people, a bit more aware of what was around them than the clerics. At the far back, some more recognized area without much energy.

5. Back to the entry hallway, on the far left, the wide entry to a gallery passage, a wide winding ramp to to the second floor, a kind of vast balcony overlooking the one great chamber. Near the entry, looking over the ground floor and ahead towards where the old altar had to have been. The feeling here was very different from the feeling on the ground floor. It was basically the same as that in the Washington Cathedral, which reminds me of comfortable jackets and ties and George Bush and prep school. Loyal comfortable burgers. Of course, not complacent; very active, but assured that they were better and more insightful than the average folks. More educated. And of course more aware and proud of their true Greek cultural roots, deeper and more intellectual than the Christian side of their sphere, but still proud to be good charitable people, creating progress in this, the most enlightened center of the most modern and advanced civilization ever. A very, very familiar set of thoughts!

6. Still in the gallery level, closer to the front, still overlooking the altar. The imperial place. And many stages or layers, though flowing together, in that place. (On the whole, Hagia Sophia reminds me of what someone said about Cappadoccia – seven layers of civilization in one place! Sic on the psychic/spiritual level here!) Such a great struggle to try to maintain civilization, and whatever progress one can manage, in the face of so many challenges. And so many unfortunate unavoidable shortcuts. (After having seen China, and how the Emperor Qin approached the issue of achieving peace and order, how much could I complain about these guys here?) It was so unfortunate to have to shut down the more powerful spiritual side of Christianity, but it was necessary, and, besides, those who were really worthy could simply follow the more advanced Greek (and Egyptian) traditions. Later, it was so unfortunate to have to make so many allowances to the growing power of the church as such, and allow restriction of the Greek culture and less freedom even for one’s own cousins… but we all must make some sacrifices to maintian civilization when it is under threat. (Added later: it reminds me a bit of changes in pension rules in France this month – or rather, of a whole set of changes around the world economy today.) But in the end, no matter how hard we struggle … each effort seems to give way to a need for even more compromise… nothing more than prolonging an inescapable long prolonged slide down to the ultimate horror. Could not find any way out.

7. In the same general area – I paused. This was such a center of culture and civilization and of mind and spirit. What could I find at a higher level? In all that time, were there any clearer and more disciplined minds, more like “eagles,” flying high and seeing far, breathing fresh mountain winds? Anyone there? Certainly. What would you make of all this depressing stuff (not so different from the depressing global trends which upset me in the present time, though far less global)? No depression, no worry at all. Great confidence and optimism. (Not what I feel!) Yes, the government structure in Byzantium is on an inevitable long slide, due to things like corruption and lack of vision and various politico-economic forces, but there is a good balance between some fundamental progress in the higher culture here and the development of new nuclei elsewhere which will carryr on. One to the north a few hundred miles away. One towards south and east not so far. (Comment: that’s as much as I got. Beyond that, your guess is as good as mine.) I started to walk away, but came back: “But hey, what about what was lost when the library of Alexandria was burned down?” Laughter. “Don’t worry about that ancient history. We have everything here, and it is all being taken care of.”

8. On the ramp down, I did notice some real special energy around a little holy water fountain in a side corridor.

9. I intended to walk a bit (east?) to more Islamic areas, to see if I could catch a glimpse of later history, at a meditative level, but living people had different conversations to offer, along with apple tea and rugs and so on. I later saw a Rosicrucian cross (but flower next to cross) from 6^th to 9^th century providing a bit of modest support. From the work of Corbin and others, we already know there was a major Pythagorean (and Stoic and neoPlatonist?) influence in the genesis of Sufis, and a whole lot of constructive interchange at the same time as the bad stuff during the crusades. And I remember Alexander’s letter to Aristotle, in Plutarch’s Lives.

There is more to be said on these themes, but not here and now.

Added Later ================================

To entertain myself in the airport and on the flight, I brought a new paperback novel, Blackout, by Connie Willis, whose writings seem to demonstrate a really acute awareness. This novel talked about historians trying to interrogate past time. It asked – is there a risk that one might actually CHANGE past time?

At http://arxiv.org, I have posted my paper in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics on backwards time effects. From all I can see in any laboratory experiments, I have arrived at conclusions quite similar to what she calls “estbalished physics of 2060.” It is possible in theory to “affect” the past but not to “change” it. The universe is “able” to minimize its Lagrangian between two time surfaces, even if we humans make it very hard to reconcile them; a solution between two hard-or-reconcile states would basically act like a “weirdness generator,” like the kind of flow of events she depicts with amazing clarity.

But our laboratories today are not the whole realm of physics. Could it be, when we learn more, that we will have to revise this picture a little? Maybe. Certainly beyond the scope of this posting.

As for optimism – even the most far-seeing of us must sometimes rely a lot on hope and faith and waiting for openings.

sanity as a first step towards enlightenment

We all lead multiple lives. Some of us, like me, have to wear so many different hats that

I have thought about creating a hat closet, and actually wearing them to conferences,

to help people keep it straight when I change hats.

One of my hats is as a scientist, trying to get people to see the way to understanding

and replicate that level of higher intelligence which exists even in the brain of a mouse. Call it the mouse hat. Another hat is as a person, still using what I know from math, but using everything else as well, playing by ear, try to understand and advance higher levels of intelligence,

all the way up to stuff like what Bucke calls "cosmic consciousness." Call it the atman hat.

There are many paths up the mountain... but for a mathematical thinker, at least, the tidiest path is like the slide of a mountain I often show in neural network talks, posted at www.werbos.com/Mind.htm. A key step along the way is to make full, coherent use

of what the human brain is capable of, including a full well-grounded use of words and

other symbols. I call this "sanity." It has a lot to do with what Freud and Confucius

(Kung Fu Tzu) talked about.

But... I realize this morning that I have oversimplified more than I should when discussing

sanity -- for example, in my recent posting here on discussions about Kung Fu Tzu in China.

Usually, I emphasize... what might be called... verbal sanity, or symbolic sanity, the integration

of our symbolic and subsymbolic selves. This is a problem for humans, but not for mice.

Many characteristic neuroses of humans (often totally out of touch with reality in the modern world) simply don't apply to mice. Humans get hypnotized... mice are immune.

But... how could I ever forget to say a few words about "mouse sanity." Mice are not at all

totally free from certain important kinds of sanity problems. After the fox.. their own

'version of post traumatic stress disorder?

It's really weird I should forget that, because when I wear the mouse hat... as in the talks

I gave to the Erdos circle on the mathematics of prediction (posted at www.werbos.com/Mind.htm)... I talked a lot about the mathematical mechanism of "syncretism" which underlies this issue.

So the path to cosmic consciousness which I would support... begins with both mouse sanity and

symbolic sanity.

Even mouse sanity requires more gloabl understanding, a necessary requirement for not being

aberrated by painful traumas (filling our world with human psychological minefields,'

unavble to adapt to today's challenges) and euphoric traumas (folks a bit lost

in hopeful unreality)...

But must run...

True Legends of Ultrafast Aircraft

Legends have spread that the US has a secret superfast aircraft, about Mach 8, the Aurora, successfully hidden from the rest of the world. The legends I will talk about here are much closer to the truth. I have fictionalized a bit, to protect people’s identities… but those who already know the true story will see past the fiction part.

=================================

Chapter 1: An Airplane Without an Engine

I start the story in the 1990’s, when I was visiting a kind of rock concert just outside Nashville Tennessee. (The real story begins much earlier; at the bottom of this blog entry, I have posted my brief space bio, for my election this year to the board of the National Space Society.)

A Hungarian friend of mine introduced me to a real cool cat who was playing the drums,

and told us stories about fireballs and plasmas and how we could use them to make

an airplane so fast it could get all the way to outer space.

(If you think you can guess who the Hungarian is already, you’re probably wrong, unless you were at the rock concert yourself. I know a whole lot of Hungarians in Tennessee,

most of whom would never go to a rock concert.)

When I returned home to Virginia, I went to visit the cool cat one day where he worked –

the NASA Headquarters office in charge of aeronautics and astronautics. Everyone there said he was their “last scientist.” He had lots of serious technical publications out there, enough to do any university proud.

He told me a story. Everyone in the world knew that the fastest airplane ever flown was still just a measley Mach three plus something. Thanks to vigilant oversight by Congress, by aviation leak and others, everyone in this business in the whole world knew the basic story. NASA decided we could do better. We could really show the world by developing an airplane which could go Mach 5 to 6.

Some of you may say – “Wait a minute. Didn’t the space shuttle get to Mach 26,

which really was enough to get into space?” True, but it wasn’t an airplane. It was powered by a rocket engine, which needs to carry its own oxygen, which is expensive and limits performance. We are talking about airplanes here, for now.

Cool cat told me: We know we have to do this at Langley, in Virginia. But Langley has a problem. There is a woman who runs the body department, who proposes that we build an airplane without an engine. The man who runs the engine department proposes that we build an engine without a body. Because they asked me to look over this, on behalf of NASA headquarters, I told them that if they want an airplane to go to Mach 5 or 6, they would need to have an engine and a body both, with the engine in the body.

Later he told me: Congress ruled that I was guilty of gross misuse of authority, in questioning the judgment of the fine people in Langley, based on the obscure and questionable intellectual type assumption that you need an engine in a body to make it work. They have ordered that all the money will go to the woman with the body. Me, I am being sent to Siberia, and you won’t be seeing much of me from now on. I’ll really miss my old house and my old neighborhood…

Chapter 2: Unveiling What Was Achieved

A few years later, the top experts on high-speed aircraft from every major nation on

earth came to a closed meeting in Tennessee, to reveal their progress to each other.

I got to observe, in the peanut gallery, because I knew the Hungarian, and had funded some stuff.

Almost all the speakers were very embarrassed about the state of their programs. Programs had been cut back or cancelled all over the world. They had lots of paper studies and wish lists, but nothing was being built. The two big exceptions were Japan and the US.

The Japanese guys said – we have actually developed a viable new engine, the Atrex, which can go from Mach 0 to Mach 6, in one engine. Here are photographs of it. But we have a big problem. How can we test this engine? We have had some thoughts, like putting it on top of a fast train, or shooting it from a cannon, or hanging it at the end of a very long string which we could rock back and forth. But these would not be perfect solutions. We come here to ask one question: can anyone help us here? Does anyone have any better ideas how to test such an engine?

The US speaker proudly unveiled a Mach 5.5 airframe, and described HIS plans.

“We do have a bit of a problem testing this body. But we believe that the real issue in flying this kind of advanced body is to prove we can keep it stable as we go from zero speed to 100 or 200 miles per hour. For that, we have contracted with a maker of lawn mower engines in the MidWest, and we will be doing tests very soon to prove that we have a real breakthrough in stable control here. The real body design is scaled for 23 feet,

but we have an eight foot scale model suitable for that test.”

Finally, even though I was in peanut gallery, I couldn’t help myself. I raised my hand and said: “Look, guys, I am not an aerospace engineer here, but I do have a question. You (nodding to the Japanese) say you would like a better way to test your engine, and you (nodding to the US speaker) say there are some issues in testing your airframe up to Mach 6. To make these tests… has anyone considered putting the engine in the body,

to see if they could actually fly? At Mach 5 or Mach 6?”

There was great excitement in the room. What a wild, out of the box idea – putting the engine in the body, to test them both! Everyone adjourned to a nearby restaurant, where people sat around me, and started to consider plans.

But then, in walked The General. The general was a famous guy, who had made his reputation on how well he defended the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) project, which had been cancelled a few years earlier. The General stood high, looking down on us and the tables where we were working with a severe frown: “You all are engaged in SPECULATION. I say it again… SPECULATION. You know what that means.”

Suddenly the folks who had been smiling gave furtive fearful looks at me, signaling “oh my god, what you dragged me into…”. Everyone knew what a crime it would

be to be caught in the act of speculation. “It’s speculation, because you have no idea whether this engine would actually fit in this body.”

After a moment of silence and interesting face expressions, I said: “Actually, general,

there is no need for people to speculate on that issue here, one way or the other. Didn’t you guys (nodding to the Japanese) show us actually physical blueprints, with size and shape? Didn’t you guys (pointing to the US official team) do the same? Couldn’t you just compare those blueprints which you have with you right now, from your presentations?”

One more moment of stunned surprise and delight. “Wow, let’s do it.” They pulled out

their stuff.. and found it was an exact match, as if the two had been designed for each other. The Air Force was ready to schedule wind tunnel tests immediately. The Hungarian noted that it would take only a few million dollars to build the full 23 foot version, out of the metal matrix composite materials it was designed for. Not bad for breaking the world’s speed record with a real airplane.

But then… in walked the Friend of Al, with flashing dark eyes and a smile that could

remind you of an alligator at this time. “Wait a minute, you guys. Do you realize what you guys are engaging in? It’s called international cooperation. And you know who is in charge of international cooperation. NOT YOU GUYS. You wouldn’t want to cross the White House, would you? None of you should do anything at all about this, until and unless we discuss it in the White House and get a full clearance. What’s more, this is such an important issue, that it has to be a really high level meeting, with security. No

people without security clearances and high official status (glare at me) will be invited, to screw things up.”

After the meeting, a verdict was handed down: “It is a great insult to the fine leading aerospace companies in the US to suggest that the Japanese could build an engine that the US industry can’t. Also, there are political sensitivities about cooperating with the Japanese on advanced aircraft, given what Mitsubishi did to us in the past. We will postpone this project until after we have a suitable US-built engine available.” Which never happened.

Chapter 3: Quick Summary of Later Stuff

This was certainly not the end of the story, but I don’t have time today to go through all the major events flowing from there.

There was a creepy story about a woman WITHOUT a body, or at least no awareness of such.

There was more on the Atrex engine. Turns out, it was actually designed by a Russian guy, Belapin, who was invited to Japan for only five years. He understood what he was doing very deeply, much more deeply than most of our hands-on kinds of folks. When he left, they couldn’t figure out how to control the valves well enough to get beyond Mach 4. We could have told them how… but the Duke of the North of Japan got into a cat fight

with a Jewish investor from New York, both reliving The Old Days, and I am more interested in Mach 26 anyway.

From NSF, I funded a major project at ANSER and Princeton on ways to use plasma effects to make it easier to build a Mach 26 airplane. After awhile, I began to understand why some of the key folks at NASP had been pushing to get real flight data at lower speeds, to make their efforts real. Above all – I learned that Mach 26 kinds of speeds require really radical upgrades to body material and skin layers. (Maybe what we REALLY needed was a better body after all… much better than what the woman in Langley had.). The best hope of building a real, working, affordable Mach 26 airplane is “back to the future:” to build a reusable rocketplane, first, using skin technology developed years before by Boeing, through CIA contracts years ago. The technology has been declassified, but is close to being lost (if not lost already) through lack of use. The deeply classified but much publicized X37B rocketplane does provide a useful test of some related technology, including some competing technology for the skin… but for now, it looks as if it will be a whole lot more expensive, and may require a whole lot more maintenance, like the space shuttle.

Bottom line: it now looks very grim for the future of humans in space. Or on earth, for that matter. But there is still some hope… somewhere… I wish I really knew where.,,

===================

Candidate Statement for Paul Werbos

For decades, I have worked to make human activity in space economically self-sustaining, with “multiplier effects” which make space more than just a” banana republic.” Space must open up big new markets. We must cut the cost of access to space to $200/pound. (That drives the economics of energy from space and the scale of other markets.) We need dogged efforts to connect the requirements all the way from nuts and bolts to global policies and politics.

In 1972, while getting a PhD from Harvard in Applied Math, I started the Harvard Committee for a Space Economy (HCSE). HCSE stimulated many new ideas. It provided a start for Mark Hopkins, and links to the Princeton group (O’Neill) and Drexler. George Mueller’s vision for the space shuttle inspired us, but Nixon’s response illustrated pitfalls in politics.

Teaching at U. Maryland (1975-1978), I included space in my course on Global Survival Problems, where I met Gary Barnhardt. With another friend, we founded the Maryland Alliance for Space Colonization, which got up to 500 members.

From 1979-1989, I became the DOE/EIA lead analyst for long-term energy futures. As Regional Director for L-5, I worked with chapters from New Jersey to the Piedmont. I served quietly but effectively as L-5’s representative to Congress, helping start the National Aerospace Plane Project (NASP). After my DOE colleague Gary Oleson became representative, I worked with him on a council of pro-space organizations leading to the founding of NSS.

Through 2010, I funded research from the Engineering Directorate of NSF. I funded AAC in Tennessee to apply computational intelligence to problems which plagued NASP. Based on their success, AAC briefly led America’s continuing effort in hypersonics (LoFlyte) after NASP cancellation. I cooperated with McDonnell Douglas, leading to the Handbook of Intelligent Control (White and Sofge), yielding methods to mass-produce materials for hypersonics and reduce the weight of thermal protection systems. I funded efforts to assimilate and improve a Russian approach (“Ajax”) to air-breathing vehicles fast enough to get to orbit. In 2002, I visited John Mankins, who agreed to “JIETSSP” – the last US government funding program for space solar power, which we ran jointly. (To learn more, search on JIETSSP at www.nsf.gov, or visit www.werbos.com/space.htm.) In 2009, I worked at the Senate on climate, energy, defense technology and space. Futures published my paper on a rational strategy to maximize the probability that humans really succeed in settling space.

Discussing the true meaning of Confucius in an ancient academy in China

Discussing the true meaning of Confucius in an ancient academy in China

First the discussion, then some discussion of this ancient academy..

****************************************************************

Tuesday, August (18), 2010

Host asks: do you believe this Confucius stuff?

Response:

There are many kinds of Confucius stuff. It is like Buddhism or Taoism or Christianity or Islam – there are many many varieties, some very good and some very bad.

Host: like Chinese food?

Me: yes, exactly.

What I really believe most fundamentally… I think of it as German existentialism.

Those are very fancy words, but what they mean is actually very simple. Basically, they just mean –

here I am, I see things and feel things, and I try to understand what I see and feel and what happens when I do things. And that is my starting point, the feelings and sensations and doing things first, and the words and theories all come later.

Next after that starting part are two very basic tools I use to help me in understanding my experience.

One is mathematics, and the other is the mirror. These are very basic. They are universal.

If anything in Confucius or Christianity or Islam is firmly rooted in these foundations, they can be very good. If not, they can become very crazy and even very dangerous.

I first learned about Confucius (in a real way) from one of my best friends in high school, a guy named Chen (Hsiung-Hsiao Chen?). He said just three things about Confucius.

First, Confucius said you should always try to tell the real truth to yourself.

Second, he would ask: “Who are you? Who are you really?”

And third he would ask,”Where are your blind spots?”

If believing in Confucius means these three things, you can say I believe it. They are all important and fundamental. For example, asking “who are you” means we should use the mirror….

All of this was what I came to understand by the end of high school. But later I grew older and learned

That was the end of the brief conversation, but more should be said.

The concept of “telling the truth to yourself” is basically the same as the specific concept of SANITY

which is a key part of my theory of human intelligence, discussed in my web page and in my 2009

paper in Neural Networks. Some Confucians call this “integrity.” Humans are born halfway between the mouse level of intelligence and the full symbolic/semiotic level of intelligence. Cultivating sanity or integrity means humans learning to emulate that next highest level of intelligence. Now we can understand more clearly and more precisely what this means – but it is basically what Confucius said,

when he described this basic principle. It is natural for humans to try to cultivate this higher level,

because it lets us be more effective in what we really want to work for, whatever it is. But we can learn to cultivate it more effectively when we have help of understanding and guidance from others who understand it, just as we can learn better in many areas with the help of understanding and other people.

The blind spots I just wondered about in high school. It is good to always wonder about blind spots, since all we humans have very important blind spots. Wondering about them helps us be alert and overcome them. For myself, I was willfully blind about things like qi and collective intelligence and special powers of the mind, until March 1967, when personal experience became too strong to ignore, and I became more open-minded and scientific about it. That is another story, discussed in bits

and pieces on my web site. Here in China, I see some signs of others who have taken a serious focused attempt to really understand such things, like Meng Tzu and the founder of Ch’an Buddhism and

a few others… but still I have a lot to learn about them.

In general, maybe I am further along than others in understanding. Also pretty unique in

turning the wheel, in the realm of qi and ideas. But in seeing… I see more than 99%, but that

is not really enough, and some others may see better..All for now.

Best of luck to us all…

Context ********************************************************

The ancient academy was the Yuelu Academy, the “Thousand Year Academy”

across the street from Hunan University in Changsha, ancient capital of Hunan Province area in China.

We held this conversation over lunch or dinner and the Fenglin Hotel (maple forest hotel),

just a few blocks as the crow flies from the Yuelu Academy. We were in the hotel with the ICIC convention led by Dr. Deshuang Huang (the host), who also arranged contacts with Hunan University people and a visit to Yuelu Academy and Hunan University.

At Yuelu Academy, we saw Mao Tse Tung’s dorm room, and the lecture room where Zhu Xi gave his lectures long ago, under edicts from emperors praising his style of Confucianism and a declaration that this southern v ersion is the right one. Many people say that Zhu Xi is third only after Confucius and Meng Tzu (Mencius) themselves, and far more recent, but I have heard from others who cast doubt on its profoundity. Mao went there after graduating form Changsha’s old downtown teacher’s college (“normal university”), in preparation to enter Hunan University, but he found other things to do somehow…

Was in China August 2 to August 22. Got back late August 22. No jet lag at all, even last night.

fly stories and understanding the brain and mind

A professor of artificial intelligence recently posted his thoughts about what we could learn from a story on the fly brain. My response:
=========================================

Like Don, I agree strongly with the main points John is raising here.

How to achieve a better understanding of intelligence and the mind is a central goal of this community,
and it's good that he has raised these points.

Is it good to get into fine points and refinements? Maybe... at least for some of us....

-----------------------------------------------------------
John said:

>.......I'd like to cite the following item that came up recently:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100712102812.htm

Fly's Brain -- A High-Speed Computer: Neurobiologists Use State-of-the-Art Methods to Decode the Basics of Motion Detection

>This research illustrates some interesting points:

>1. Many theories and models that were formulated a half century or more ago could be and have been quite accurate:

"Back in 1956, a mathematical model was developed that predicts how movements in the brain of the fly are recognized and processed. Countless experiments have since endorsed all of the assumptions of this model."

------------------------

Me:

There have been many examples in the past few centuries of mathematics
and mathematical insights developed many decades before it was used,
understood or appreciated by domain experts. This is certainly an important point
these days...

---------------
John:

2. But many features of such models could not be tested against the available neural evidence: "We simply did not have the technical tools to examine the responses of each and every cell in the fly's tiny, but high-powered brain."

--------------------------------------------

Me:

The specific example of the fly is interesting in many ways.
It is hard to refrain from telling several very amusing old stories...

But more relevant: in 2008, when we had discussions all over the Engineering Directorate
at NSF on the new initiative on Cognitive Optimization and Prediction (COPN)... we decided to
focus on .. learning... in VERTEBRATE brain. The real target was to understand how
the brains of the smallest mammal, the mouse, could be as powerful as they are in learning to predict
and to make effective decisions (or control). But lower vertebrates were very much included, because they offer a kind
of logical progression of design important to understanding or replicating the mouse eventually. Understanding
the progression of design is really important to understanding the design principles.

So why didn't we include invertebrates?

This is an important question which has been debated at VERY great length.

At a big workshop across ALL NSF, people studying really simple organisms like aplysia and nematode
argued that we should master them first before even trying to do anything at all with vertebrates.
There were a few typical appeals in the spirit of "give all the money to us and none to them."
There were especially interesting appeals to study taste and digestion in the context of lobsters...
(Am glad that Senator Grassley wasn't there...)

The aplysia people made the good and serious point that a lot of the biochemical mechanisms used
in vertebrates can be found in aplysia as well, and that aplysia might be a good place to learn about them.
This is an important and reasonable point. For the biology directorate, which has a responsibility to
understand these biochemical mechanisms, it is certainly justified to invest some money in these areas,
as one part of their portfolio, in order to develop understanding which could be used later in the more
important task of understanding the biochemical aspects of what we see in vertebrate brains. But for
us... the full challenge or end target of understanding the mouse is in sight clearly enough now that there
is no excuse for ignoring it. The sad fact is that there is a good amount of money out there today (as there should
be) for aplysia and nematodes, but, now that there is no money for NEW COPN projects, there is essentially no funding for directly addressing the bigger target. Aplysia simply aren't intelligent enough to be good testbeds for
the fundamental issues in prediction and optimization that we could and should be pursuing more directly and effectively.
We are in a situation of gross unmet opportunity.

As we are in many other areas, like energy.

Flies, however, are not aplysia. They present a very different set of questions.

Those of us who really want to achieve a crossdisciplinary understanding of mind and intelligence
should include the classic work of Bitterman on the list of must-read foundations. At least, his
Scientific American article from the 60's, which is easy enough. Bitterman did a great first cut at
explicating the qualitative progression in types of intelligence from fish (and lamprey?)
up to mammal. Curiously enough -- in his later work (some in Science in the 70's), Bitterman found that honeybees
scored as high as mammals in some experiments that reptiles couldn't quite handle. Whatever we make of this...
it raises the question: "Is there a SECOND whole progression here that we could learn from?"

The fly brain was discussed in some detail in a workshop sponsored by Microsoft at the University of Washington,
around 1998, run by Chris Diorio.

But -- here is the problem. There are some very large neurons in the fly (and other arthropods) which are easy
to access, but do not provide the kind of throughput and complexity that could explain the kind
of things Bitterman was talking about. Whatever high-level intelligence is there seems to depend on things
called "mushroom bodies" which are much HARDER to access than neurons in the mouse. Huge numbers
of very tiny neurons....

Given a VERY limited budget for COPN, we felt it was better to "put all our eggs into the one basket,"
and focus on vertebrates. We said people could submit proposals using insects as testbeds, BUT ONLY
if they could convince reviewers interested in vertebrates that the work would really help more
than the competing proposals.

**IF** there had been NIH-style hundreds of millions available, it would have been rational to diversify the portfolio more,
and maybe even throw in an octopus or two...

(Stories I refrained from telling: the beautiful blond and the fly brain; the flyas an attack and evasive military vehicle; Microsoft meets the fly.)
=======================================

John:

3. New technology can test the assumptions about previously unobservable features:

"Although it seems almost impossible to single out the reaction of a certain cell to any particular movement stimulus, this is precisely what the neurobiologists in Martinsried have now succeeded in doing."

----------------

Me:

This was certainly part of COPN as well. More could be said, but maybe not here and now.

John:

4. But every new discovery opens up even more questions: "Just how much remains to be discovered was realized during the very first application of the new methods."

============================

Me:
Again - agree strongly.

There is a tendency for some folks to despair at some level, because it seems there
will be no end point... and hence no pot at the end of this rainbow.

But I would claim (and have various papers out there...)... the principles are in hand to
make it possible to understand and replicate that level of general purpose intelligence
we see in the brain of the smallest mouse. At a certain kind of philosophical level,
we are "already there"... but we certainly haven't proven we know enough to actually
provide a working model of this kind of general intelligence. But we can. How far we are from that target depends on us.
As it does with certain energy technologies
and space technologies, which we might have in 5 years or never, depending on what we do.
It's sad that the present trends are towards never. And, as Don has pointed out, one of the forces
pushing us towards "never" are the forces who pretend we are already there...
who overhype and oversell the widget they have plugged in this week...

----------------------

John:

5. And the size of the problem remains immense: For the "fly's motion detection... one sixth of a cubic millimetre of brain matter contains more than 100,000 nerve cells -- each of which has multiple connections to its neighbouring cells."
----------------------------------------------

Me:

To physically build the equivalent of a mouse brain learning system requires both the
physical hardware and the architecture/algorithms. IBM (from work under Todd Hilton's area at DARPA and their Blue Brain stuff)
has claimed they are already up to the cat brain in terms of hardware. Even throwing some broad error bars
around that... I would claim that the understanding for the algorithm/architecture side is the real bottleneck.

What's more... from a VERY large viewpoint... many of us believe that the understanding is what's most important here
(along with some applications that could be done with brains much smaller than a mouse).
That's a value judgment. It's the kind of judgment which depends on us being able to act smarter than a mouse.

I certainly believe that such research is important. But note that the older theories and models enabled neuroscientists to focus on the critical issues and ask appropriate questions that could be answered with newer technology.
Older work other than mathematics -- we still have a lot to learn from
folks like Pribram and Freud, and there are a whole lot more.

--------

John:

What I want to emphasize is that the problems of cognitive science are so complex that no single branch can solve them by itself. The combined insights from different branches -- psychology, linguistics, philosophy, artificial intelligence, and neuroscience -- are all important, and they must be reconciled with one another.

------------------

Me:

I would add neural networks, engineering, mathematics, statistics and operations research to the list as well. (And of course "psychology" is not just one thing...)

Best of luck,

Paul