My two talks: Thursday June 4 & Thursday June 11 @ 8 AM PT, 5 PM CET

[Zann Gill]

Hi All;

I’m giving two upcoming talks:

Thursday,  June 4 – 8:00 – 9:30 am PT; 5 – 6:30 pm CET

GRC: Internetworking Lessons from Natural Evolution with Zann Gill. David Witzel, host, leads GRC and is committed to turning ideas into action. ZOOM link here.

 

This talk describes several decades of work on a theory of collaborative intelligence, which underpins a DANs (Distributed Autonomous Nodes) strategy to address our polycrisis.

 

Thursday, June 11, 2026 – 8:00 – 9:30 am PT; 5 – 6:30 pm CET

LEAP Lab: The APR Hypothesis: co-bootstrapping Autonomy-Pattern Recognition (APR) Cycles in the origins of life & mind with Zann Gill. ZOOM link here Meeting ID: 650 292 0751        Passcode: POW

 

This talk, based on a paper that I’m co-authoring with Michael Levin (collaborator with Karl Friston, who spoke for Sci FOO) and Tomas Veloz @ the Free University of Brussels proposes a cognitive hypothesis for the origin of life, arguing that this hypothesis reveals a paradigm shift needed in our problem-solving model to save life on Earth.

I'd love to hear thoughts from this fascinating crowd.

Best,

Zann

--

Zann Gill ::: earthDECKS ::: GAIL [Global Action Improv Lab] ::: 

GAIL [Generative AI Lab + Library] ::: POW! [Power Our World] 

PO Box 4001 ::: Los Altos, California 94024 USA :::  650-656-7600 :::

[Paul Werbos]

Thank you Zann! Your message.. and what I see of you on the web.. brings great joy and hope in this otherwise very worrisome time.

But you are calling for a higher level of consciousness and intelligence, which as a corollary demands the fierce probing we practice who have done real science.

On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 2:15 AM Zann Gill <zann...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All;

I’m giving two upcoming talks:

Thursday,  June 4 – 8:00 – 9:30 am PT; 5 – 6:30 pm CET

GRC: Internetworking Lessons from Natural Evolution with Zann Gill. David Witzel, host, leads GRC and is committed to turning ideas into action. ZOOM link here.

 

This talk describes several decades of work on a theory of collaborative intelligence, which underpins a DANs (Distributed Autonomous Nodes) strategy to address our polycrisis.

 

Thursday, June 11, 2026 – 8:00 – 9:30 am PT; 5 – 6:30 pm CET

LEAP Lab: The APR Hypothesis: co-bootstrapping Autonomy-Pattern Recognition (APR) Cycles in the origins of life & mind with Zann Gill. ZOOM link here Meeting ID: 650 292 0751        Passcode: POW

 

This talk, based on a paper that I’m co-authoring with Michael Levin (collaborator with Karl Friston, who spoke for Sci FOO) and Tomas Veloz @ the Free University of Brussels proposes a cognitive hypothesis for the origin of life, arguing that this hypothesis reveals a paradigm shift needed in our problem-solving model to save life on Earth.

Many people I know mention Friston. That is due to a position paper I wrote on systems neuroscience last year  https://drpauljohn.blogspot.com/2024/09/position-paper-for-next-great-advances.html, which led to creation of the journal Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, whose first issue should come out soon. Some of us have learned a LOT lately. But that paper focused on what we know and see working in the mammal brain. Are you and Karl building on a foundation assuming that there was other intelligence at work?

That is VERY controversial, of course. I agree with you to some extent, but even now, years later, probing so many aspects, I still wonder from day to day "TO WHAT EXTENT? HOW?" I also learned a lot from collaboration with Peter Ward (https://www.build-a-world.org/doku.php?id=climate:risks ), citing Ward and Kirschvink, which I view as the best single volume history of life on earth. However, since we all have different databases of experience to draw on, I do NOT expect all rational,. intelligent people to agree with us; I just hope that human dialogue can be made rich and harmonious enough to fully respect people on one side or the other, or the middle.

Other intelligence -- I deeply respect Carl Jung's Red Book, and the conclusion after experience that there is some kind of collective intelligence at work. Could it help save our species? If so, how, and how can we assist the processes of survival, growth and situational awareness, the three great imperatives which might drive it?

There is much more to discuss here, but slowly I have been learning not to burden people with too many details too soon.

Best regards, and thank you again, Paul

I'd love to hear thoughts from this fascinating crowd.

Best,

Zann

--

Zann Gill ::: earthDECKS ::: GAIL [Global Action Improv Lab] ::: 

GAIL [Generative AI Lab + Library] ::: POW! [Power Our World] 

PO Box 4001 ::: Los Altos, California 94024 USA :::  650-656-7600 :::

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lifeboat Foundation Advisory Boards" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lifeboat-advisory-...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lifeboat-advisory-boards/CAHSDnLN_98xejMupYa12x%2ByHgkER8BdcfAdOi-ozqR2Mwdy8Vg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Zann Gill]

Paul; 

Thank you for your kind words. We would all do well to move beyond the illusion that science is the pure pursuit of truth.

In my first talk, I'll cite the most consequential perversion of science – the misinterpretation of Darwin's theory of evolution to serve an economic.agenda.

But there are many lesser examples, the fake disease drapetomania, which remained in medical dictionaries for 63 years, the science-confirmed

safety of Monsanto's toxic herbicide Roundup, which was under wraps for 44 years until a class action lawsuit in 2018 exposed that scientists were paid to lie.

Though historically I always said "I'm not a feminist" and I remain uninterested in this silo, it now appears that we can only save this planet

when sexist men inclined to believe that women have no clue what they're talking about, cannot possibly have any original or significant ideas etc. etc –

when those men wake up and value women's ideas as they value their own. The evolutionary adaptation of keeping women down to grow the population of our species is no longer

viable now that we're c. 8 billion, so we must use our intelligence to adapt.

All best,

Zann

--

Zann Gill ::: earthDECKS ::: GAIL [Global Action Improv Lab] ::: 

GAIL [Generative AI Lab + Library] ::: POW! [Power Our World] 

PO Box 4001 ::: Los Altos, California 94024 USA :::  650-656-7600 :::

[Shams Hamid]

Dear Zann,

Thank you for sharing your upcoming talks. I have been exploring some of your work on Collaborative Intelligence and Distributed Autonomous Nodes, and I wanted to express my appreciation for the breadth and courage of your vision.

What resonates most strongly with me is your effort to move beyond centralized models of intelligence toward distributed, evolutionary forms of problem-solving. In my own work on Relational Intelligence, I have been exploring a complementary question: whether meaningful intelligence emerges not only within individual agents but also through the quality of relationships among them. In that sense, your DANs framework and our relational approach appear to be addressing similar challenges from different directions.

I am also intrigued by your collaboration with Michael Levin. His work on cognition across scales—from cells to organisms and beyond—suggests that intelligence may be more deeply woven into the fabric of life than our conventional models assume. The possibility that autonomy and pattern recognition co-bootstrap one another is a fascinating lens through which to view both biological evolution and collective problem-solving.

One of the strongest resonances we perceive between your work and our own explorations of Relational Intelligence is a shared question: How does intelligence emerge when autonomous agents learn to coordinate while preserving their distinct perspectives, purposes, and identities? This question has led us to the following reflections, and we would greatly value your perspective on them:

1. How does the APR framework distinguish genuine pattern recognition from mere adaptation or reactive behavior? Where, in your view, does cognition begin?

2. What mechanisms can help distributed autonomous networks avoid reproducing existing power asymmetries while preserving the autonomy that makes them innovative?

3. If collaborative intelligence is itself an evolutionary principle, what role does trust play in enabling higher levels of coordination and collective problem-solving?

Thank you again for your work and for creating spaces where such questions can be explored. I look forward to learning from your presentation and the discussion that follows.

With appreciation,

Shams

On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 2:15 AM Zann Gill <zann...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lifeboat Foundation Advisory Boards" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lifeboat-advisory-...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lifeboat-advisory-boards/CAHSDnLN_98xejMupYa12x%2ByHgkER8BdcfAdOi-ozqR2Mwdy8Vg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Shams Hamid, PhD (Philosophy) 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/shams-hamid/

YouTube Channel

[Zann Gill]

Shams,

Thank you! Please share these thoughts in the discussion. I look forward to following up.

Lifeboat and the Millennium Project are already collaborating. I cc David Witzel, Head of GRC, where there are also synergies.

Zann

--

Zann Gill ::: earthDECKS ::: GAIL [Global Action Improv Lab] ::: 

GAIL [Generative AI Lab + Library] ::: POW! [Power Our World] 

PO Box 4001 ::: Los Altos, California 94024 USA :::  650-656-7600 :::

[Shams Hamid]

Dear Zann,

Thank you for your generous response and for connecting me with David and the broader community.

Unfortunately, I was unable to attend today's session, but I am looking forward to joining the June 11 discussion and continuing the conversation there.

I am especially encouraged to hear about the synergies among Lifeboat, the Millennium Project, and GRC. The possibility of learning across these communities is exciting.

Thank you again for your invitation. I look forward to listening, learning, and contributing to the dialogue.

With appreciation,

Shams 

[Tihamer Toth-Fejel]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 2:25 PM Zann Gill <zann...@gmail.com> wrote:

We would all do well to move beyond the illusion that science is the pure pursuit of truth.

I wouldn't have put it like that.
After all, the scientific method still works quite well in pursuing better and better views of subjective truth.
 

In my first talk, I'll cite the most consequential perversion of science – the misinterpretation of Darwin's theory of evolution to serve an economic.agenda.

Hmm... it seems to me that you are saying that laissez-faire capitalists use evolution to defend their unfair practices.
Ok, that seems reasonable.
At the same time, competition in a free market is more efficient at generating and distributing real wealth. It is also much better at handling creative destruction that results from improved technology.
 

But there are many lesser examples, the fake disease drapetomania, which remained in medical dictionaries for 63 years, the science-confirmed

safety of Monsanto's toxic herbicide Roundup, which was under wraps for 44 years until a class action lawsuit in 2018 exposed that scientists were paid to lie.

What you listed are, as you say, perversions of science.  There is nothing inherently wrong 

 

Though historically I always said "I'm not a feminist" and I remain uninterested in this silo, it now appears that we can only save this planet

when sexist men inclined to believe that women have no clue what they're talking about, cannot possibly have any original or significant ideas etc. etc –

when those men wake up and value women's ideas as they value their own. The evolutionary adaptation of keeping women down to grow the population of our species is no longer

viable now that we're c. 8 billion, so we must use our intelligence to adapt.

Intelligence cannot adapt to a TFR of 1.6 (for the USA), ~0.87(for China), and two thirds of the global population lives in countries with a TFR below replacement level of 2.1.

In less than 10 years, when China hits the wall caused by their one-child policy, we will see what Elliot meant when he wrote, "This is the way the world ends  Not with a bang, but a whimper."
(Hint: See "Children of Men". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VT2apoX90o&t=1s).

You are correct that ignoring 50% of the brainpower of a population is a huge waste of resources, not to mention unfair to the individuals.

But current trends against having children is not sustainable. 

I do not know what the answer is. Molecular nanotechnology and/or advanced bioscience that resolves the seven mechanisms of aging may help (especially if it gets us off this planet in large numbers), but associated side effects could be problematic.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lifeboat-advisory-boards/CAHSDnLPeObWuo%2B24g-PEW7fFcXvJk_P6tUsbS1mcFEo5d%3DsfsA%40mail.gmail.com.