How Does the World Work?

  • See the About page for a description of the subjects of interest covered in this blog.

Series Indexes

Global Issues Blogroll

Blog powered by Typepad

Comment Policy

  • Comments
    Comments are open and welcome as long as they are not offensive or hateful. Also this site is commercial free so any comments that are offensive or promotional will be removed. Good questions are always welcome!

« | Main | Autumnal Equinox - 2018: On the way down »

June 21, 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Gene O'Donnell

Thank you,
Yes some of us still look forward to reading your message.

Please keep in contact with us at your regular intervals. There is so little wisdom left to us...

Gene O'Donnell

A question of biological inheritance:

Is eusapience necessarily only inheritable? I might accept your argument that it is a matter of (excuse my rough paraphrasing) 'good physical brain attributes in the frontal lobes' but is it possible that eusapience can be independent of genetic inheritance? I mean to say, is it possible that the likely survivors of immediate chaos who are likely to be the more 'rapacious' in nature may offspring that are 'randomly' eusapient?

Gene O'Donnell

Of course I am making various assumptions in asking this question that you might have earlier discounted, namely:

Survival in the near term chaos will depend on physical ferocity and self-regard.

Eusapient characteristics and brutality are mutually exclusive

Gene O'Donnell

Another probative question:

What value do we place in technology (in the widest sense of the world 'techne')

If certain groups exhibit through their cultural frameworks an ability to act group-wise, what matter are their individual brain characteristics?

By this method of questioning I'd seek to argue that those WITH appropriate brain characteristics will fail to survive without the appropriate eusapient-supporting cultural frameworks

I am attempting to skewer any romantic or rational individualism that casual thought may attach to your theories of eusapient survival. Space forbid any sense that a 'superman' is the answer to human evolution or the grand project of system complexity in the magnificent universe.

Gene O'Donnell

To anticipate your response and to save your precious time...

eusapience is more than group-identification. It is also the ability to make decision of an 'ecological-temporally expansive nature. Yes this ability needs a certain brain functionality. Cultural frameworks that might still exist in remote tribes may instil such decision making processes. Yet for system complexity and consciousness to persist through the genus homo these decison making processes need to be supported by a biologically determined framework too. Our brains, if they are to be the instruments of intelligent life on this planet must progress).

George Mobus

Hello Gene,

Thank you for your interest and questions.
RE: inheritance. I think it is likely that eusapience or, at least, higher levels of sapience, are indeed heritable. My research has led me to suspect that there are a few alleles responsible for the development of the prefrontal cortex (esp. Brodmann area 10) that is implicated in higher levels of sapience, and that these are fairly recent mutations. I suspect, further, that these are not necessarily protein coding sequences, but more likely control sequences that affect the development of brain tissues (again Brodmann area 10) that are involved in higher-order judgement.

RE: survival in response to ferocity. I have wrestled with this notion for a long time. I can't help reference back to the biblical injunction: the meek shall inherit the Earth! I suspect that eusapient individuals will know how to keep their heads down and avoid confrontations. At least I hope so.

RE: Tech and cooperation. I suspect that eusapient individuals will be capable of interpersonal communications that are of a much more cooperative nature than we see presently (my next book will explore this in great detail). I expect Homo eusapiens to exhibit hypersocial tendancies even while maintaining a sense of self.

Of course all of this depends on a survival of some eusapient individuals reminiscent of the survival of bird and mammals after the great extinction of dinosaurs! Wish I could be around to see!


Molly Radke

THANK YOU for finally posting more of your wise observations! SO glad I bowed to my intuition and checked your site! Please continue to post now and then....we, the great unwashed in this dirty world, need bits of inspiration now and ten! And I've quite given up refering to "homo sapiens." I've quite come to prefer the more honest term of "homo ignoramus." I have a WEE bit of hope for the distant future, but being an old lady, i doubt I'll live to see that future!

Fred Magyar

How about you the reader? Know anyone who you think is eusapient and of breeding age???? Somehow, we need to find these people and get them together. That problem eludes me so far. If you have any thoughts let me know.

Yeah, that's a tough one!

Given that there are currently 7.6 billion humans on the planet it would seem that there must be a few eusapient individuals out there. Maybe identifying them at this point might even prove counter productive and put their very survival in jeopardy.

Godofredo Aravena

Hi George
Very interesting post of yours.
It opens a space where there is a lot to say and comment.
I can conclude based on your post and comments that in some way you are lost about what is going on and why. It is understandable. The trees do not let you to see the forest. And the forest is huge.
Science in general has reached the end of the road in most areas, mapping and later modelling is not the way to understand a reality that is by far too complex to be understood by just developing sophisticated models. Models work for the basic and simple stuff (what we have been dealing with so far). But if we want to go further, the approach must change.
We have reached a point where there is no Academy degree that would provide an advantage in the understanding of the reality and the complexities of the Universe.
The problems or questions to solve we face today are too big for current science and the scientific method.
Thus, it can be concluded that in your area of expertise, to continue along a path based on your current ideas and understandings (e.g. Systems Science and the evolution concept), it will hardly be possible to get any farther. Your current unanswered questions will remain unanswered. Because the supporting ideas and concepts, just like the rest of science in other areas, have reached the end of the road as a way to try to explain and understand the humans and the human society. Some big changes have to be made in the methodology.

Seeing and understanding why science has big limitations to provide answers, and feeling the need for answers, rational and possible answers, coherent with reality, I have developed a different way to explain the Universe. I have already exposed to you this other approach, based in a theory that does not get in conflict with what science has already discovered and accepted, which also gives a totally different approach to understand and explain ourselves and the system we live in.
It does not model a behavior, it develops an approach to understand the purpose of the system and the acting mechanisms that rule the behavior (always fully connected with the purpose of the system). Thus, tries to develop a way to explain why the behavior, not to just predict the behavior. One of the conclusion of the results given by this theory is that some things can be predicted quite accurately, but others will never be possible to be predicted, at most, guessed with some rough certainty. The possibility to predict in some cases and not predict in others is a consequence of the way some systems work (their mechanics). That conclusion means that as we deal with more complex systems, scientific method will work sometimes, and sometimes (most of the time) will not work when it comes to details. As we can see today.
Not surprisingly (even in the XXI century), my theory is in conflict with the establishment just because uses a basis that is unacceptable (classified as pseudo-science), maybe because sounds like religion, even though has no connection with any of them, or more than that, is totally based in an atheist approach.
But as society has always been reluctant to even discuss new ideas, this case is not the exception. Not even with the scientific community, the expected sapient component of society. Although you already indirectly accept that science is composed by pseudo-sapients, and that situation would explain the lack of mind aperture.

I have already explained you why most humans behave the way they (we) do. There is a statistical genetic limitation in some (most) humans to understand reality. Without this limitation, society would not work. As simple as that. It is a positive and needed characteristic. It is all about basic functionality. But with a wrong purpose to exist or be, or no purpose at all, the limitation works against us. Currently human society exists just to exist. It has no other purpose than just keep on rolling. If we change that situation, providing a useful purpose, and focus our reason to be into actions that somehow become beneficial to the system (the biosphere), the situation would be the opposite. A win-win situation, where the genetic limitation would become part of a virtuous circle. In that aspect I differ from your perception that humans can evolve to become more sapient just by evolution. That will simply not happen because if it happens, we cannot survive as species.
One important thing to say, the limitation I am referring to does not mean less intelligence, by no means that, just means a less wider way to look and understand reality. I could mean being smarter in many cases, as we shrink the space object of attention, study and understanding.
The theory also concludes that among the logic of the system, there is a need for some rare humans which do not have the limitation that most human have. What you have called in your essay “Does evolution has a trajectory?” the Homo Eusapiens (I like the word, I was looking for a way to call them, but had not found a word, I will use yours in the future). They also exist for a reason. They are meant to become the “natural” leaders. And for that purpose their intelligence has a very wide spectrum regarding the humans and the relation with environment. This type of humans is the only one able to become “super sapient” or “truly sapient” taking your words.
Eusapients and pseudo-sapients are a result of the concept of the “possible system”, a way to explain why there are different types of systems in the biosphere.
It is interesting to see how we both came up with the concept of the Homo Eusapiens. Starting from two totally opposed positions. Even though in general we differ a lot, there are many common points when it comes to understand and explain humans.
There will never be an eusapient human population as a result of evolution. A human society is not possible if all humans are Eusapients. On the other hand, Eusapient individuals have always existed, and they do exist now, among us. I once commented in this blog about them and why they do not show up. My estimate is that they are not more than 0.05 to 0.1% of human population.
You could be talking with an eusapient, and probably would not recognize its true nature unless he or she let you know about that.
I have been studying the concept of the eusapient, and how they come to be and why.
The eusapient and pseudo-sapient humans are not the result of heritage, statistics at the genetics level play a relevant role in the process that produces them. This means that from an eusapient human, there is almost certainty that breeding will not produce other eusapients. Just like the intelligence basis of a human is very much the result of a random process, there is no genetic heritage in that component of humans.
Eusapients are not a new species of humans, they are the real alpha individuals of an intelligent species, where the physical characteristics and advantages are not important.
Contrary to what you express in the comments, Homo Eusapiens will not exhibit hypersocial tendencies and a sense of self. Because their purpose requires loneliness. They are to be lonely individuals, as they have the task of deciding for the rest, and for that task, the self becomes less important.
I have been looking for eusapients, but have not been able to find one. It is very difficult to identify them, as they usually feel and see different and do not want to be noticed, so they hide their true nature. Besides I should be able to closely know at least between 1000 and 2000 persons to have a chance to find one. If he or she allows me to… The only way to identify them is by talking, because they see their relation with the system in a different way. So, in the end it is not an easy task.
I can see that the best way to find them is when they are children, but have not been able to figure out in detail the tests to discover them, as their capabilities are not properly related with the common concept of intelligence. As adults they will show a low profile, but when (if) the time comes, in a crisis, they will know what to do.
Another important thing to note regarding eusapients is that they have to be trained, by another eusapient, especially regarding the ethics to decide, and the full understanding of the relevant connection between “what was expected to be and what ended being”. Probably their best moments begin after the 50 years old mark. They are not magically wise.
One more thing, the system needs a third type of human to properly work, located in between the eusapient and the pseudo-sapient. With capabilities also located in between. These humans are some of the current leaders of our society who have got into a position of power by their choice and efforts, although most leaders among our society are pseudo-sapients.

Although we as humans have had the capacity to be a virtuous society ever since, the only way to become aware of it, and somehow understand that we are here with one specific purpose, other than just being the top of the food chain, is to experience a catastrophic collapse. Because pseudo-eusapient humans only learn about something bad when the results of wrong actions as society affect them directly, in their daily m2 of reach and understanding of the Universe.
I once wrote about that. Not fully well written but you can get the idea.

Certainly, we have already gone too far damaging our support system. There is no way to revert the current process. A collapse is the only way to change the purpose of the system, by creating a new system. No reasons to keep the current system, as its basis is totally wrong.
The detail technical knowledge acquired along the centuries must be kept, not to be used by the eusapients, but by the pseudo-sapients now hopefully well guided by eusapients. The eusapients, on the other hand, need other type of information, mainly why things went the way they did. It is mainly about the general thing, paying attention to details in some cases to make the special case. They will mainly need information about the day to day life, and all the political and technical issues discussed and said during this period (in general information about history).

Godofredo Aravena

George Mobus

Hi Molly,

Thanks for the kind and encouraging words, but honestly I am not sure what else I can offer that hasn't been covered in my years of posting. Basically the world is going the direction I thought it would, but at a pace more accelerated than I had imagined. My writing efforts now are going into my new book on how to use the principles of systems science and the systems methodologies I have developed to try to grasp deep understanding of how the world (and the human species) is working in the hopes that some people with a bit of wisdom and younger than me will be able to have a leg up on the impending collapse of society. I don't know what else to do at this point.

This blog has attracted some attention, but it seems fleeting and has't seemed to matter a great deal. After all, to those who are pseudosapient the message that they are in that condition probably doesn't resonate. And I still think there are very few who are really sapient or even eusapient for whom the message would make any sense. I continue to take hope that those who are sapient will already recognize the situation and that what they need more than someone continually pointing out the nature of the problem is someone codifying the way to greater wisdom (or so I imagine).

I have been working on a set of appendices to the book that detail the nature of several complex adaptive systems (CAS) and complex adaptive and evolvable systems (CAES) generic model archetypes. They are for decision agents (deciders and controllers), a governance architecture, and a generalize economy. The patterns I am writing about appear in systems starting with the single cell (metabolism is the economy of a cell) and running to the whole human social system on Earth. I am examining major differences between the economy of, say, physiology and an ecosystem as compared with the human social system's experiments with governance and economy. I am trying to point out the deficiencies in the latter with respect to what nature has found to work. But I also point out that the human social system is still in evolution. If we don't completely blow it with nuclear war or global warming, we might just evolve ourselves and our societies into some kind on sustainable balance with the whole Ecos. Needless to say, while this is a possibility, I probably won't hold my breath!

Nevertheless, one has to project some kind of hope or else just buy a handgun or a pill that would end it all. I'm not ready to go that route.


Good observation. I guess if I really have any faith in the capacity of eusapience I should just assume they will figure it out for themselves. No need to be a helicopter parent, eh?



A ray of Hope is, perhaps, provided by the realisation that it is not necessary for all, or even a majority, to become eusapient for a eusapient-oriented society to be established.

Many may travel the road marked out by others. Law and custom and, yes, even lawful force, can send them in the right direction.

When discouraged - I believe I have been eusapient from my earliest years and hence rather bewildered by the assumptions of the society to which I was expected to conform unthinkingly, even though quite successful in it - I like to recall the old Sufi dervish song which I came across years ago:

'It may be said: They came in vain/Let it not be that we came in vain./ Say: We did what we could:/ The rest we leave to YOU!'

The course of our civiization has been set - straight on to the rocks: but maybe one or two might find themselves alive and clinging to planks, and by chance thrown up on some promising island where something might be done.


If I claimed to be eusapiennt, there would be no belief.
I suffer from no belief for more tnan 30 years. I have patents and a lot of stuff.
When I ask for help, I only encounter no belief.
there is no communication base.
You will die and I can not help you.

Molly Radke

Thank you kind sir for your thoughtful reply to my bleating....But I have to say that given the last few days, I am lower than snake shit. I cannot BELIEVE that sapient (as in educated) people voted for that POS who, amazingly, can continue to surprise me with his unbelievable, blundering ignorance! I am NOT a religious person, but if I were I would be on my knees PRAYING for......for what? With Pence in the wings, what less than dark future is there? But I SO appreciate the rays of sapience and you and others continue to shine into our lives.


When I speak to other people they seam to function normal.
You can tell the differnece when you discover one of these:
1. Technology will save us (Size to be applied???)
2. They will have a plan B
3. I have no time to watch the videos you proposed

Wes Hansen

"How about you the reader? Know anyone who you think is eusapient and of breeding age???? Somehow, we need to find these people and get them together. That problem eludes me so far. If you have any thoughts let me know."

You might find this study from Yale interesting:>Autism risk genes linked to evolving brain. Especially if you follow it with this from William Tiller:>What is human consciousness.

Tiller's Psycho-energetic model has recently received a good bit of support. Specifically, the following experiments (most hosted by the U. S. National Institutes of Health):>Pre-stimulus 1;>Pre-stimulus 2;>Meta-analysis;>Response to Critique;>Roulette Paradigm;>Meta-analysis Update;

show that the human heart and brain become aware of an emotionally stimulating event 4.5 to 18 seconds prior to that event happening in spacetime! This appears to be a violation of relativity, and technically it is. Furthermore, this cannot be explained away with holography; in fact, the only explanation I am aware of comes from Tiller.

Start with his>analysis of de Broglie's pilot wave construct; move on to his>biconformal reference frame; and finish with the autism paper I linked to above. Basically, Dr. Tiller extends Karl Pribram's Holonomic Theory to the entire nervous system, suggesting that our nervous system acts like a massive wave-guide array, intercepting these waves, the fundamental waves generating the pilot wave which move at velocity greater than "c," processing them, and using the information to prepare for the coming present.

Wes Hansen

For some reason the HTML didn't work out properly; I have no idea why but I apologize for it regardless! Generally speaking, I don't experience such trouble . . .


I may be eusapient.

Joe Clarkson

wisdom that uses that consciousness to project long-term consequences of our decisions.

I wonder if projecting the long-term consequences of decisions is even possible, no matter how 'sapient' the consciousness might be. There is so much complexity in all the physical and biological systems that comprise the ecosystem of the earth that projecting more than a few thousand years might be impossible. Just think of the quantum fluctuations disrupting long chains of cause and effect. Projecting a long way into the future of a stochastic universe might be physically impossible.

Besides, since we can't seem to prevent the really immediate consequences of our misbehavior, even when dire consequences are obvious, why worry about the long term? I think if we can just keep from killing ourselves off in the short term (and much of the rest of life on earth too), the long term will work out OK. That's what evolution is for.



If no one picks up your book, please consider self-publishing. It's a shame for the value to be withheld.

The comments to this entry are closed.