Biological Creativity

Steve Agnew,

That wasn't as clear as I intended it to be. I am declaring human free will to be an intelligent act. Are you declaring it to be a mechanical effect and not an intelligent act. Thank you.

James Putnam

Now we are engaged...is free will an intelligent act or is free will a mechanical act? I am surprised that you are still engaged since usually I am thrown out of the bar by now...

Notice that we have moved the free will/free choice argument down the field a little bit further than is typical. Now we are differentiating between an intelligent act, which certainly does not include creativity, and a mechanical act, which is like a machine programmed to make an object, but evidently now also includes all creative action as well.

I am afraid that you have left me to choose neither...but just 50% of the time! The really nice thing about free will is that it is very flexible in a quantum universe. No matter what you do, in a quantum and probablistic universe, the future is never completely certain and that means that both intelligence and mechanics have roles in determining the future.

Suffice it to say that mainstream science is a universe that is mostly empty space with a few objects here and there. The universe of matter time is full of the possibililties of the future with very few empty moments of time. Is your universe full of possibilities or of empty space?

Look...people have been arguing about free will for several millennia and I daresay that those arguments will likely continue in spite of what I or you say. What I do know is that the future it not certain and yet we do have a role in determining that uncertain future. Is that intelligence or is that mechanics?

Free will is really neither intelligence nor mechanics. Although we like to think that all of our choices are rational, it does not take much analysis to show that is certainly not true. It is likewise easy to show that our choices are also not just random chance. Free will is simply not either intelligence and mechanics, rather free will is due to the feelings of our primitive mind. While our rational mind and reason has much to do with choice, it is really by the feelings of our primitive mind that we make choices. The feelings of our primitive minds are what give us free choice and free will, not rational logic.

So it is with both the intelligence of reason as well as the mechanics of belief that we choose a desirable future.

Dear Steve Agnew,

Thank you for sharing your view. Your meanings for 'free' and 'choice' were important for me to understand. I don't see either of those words being applicable to mechanics. But, your words and your meanings make up your view which is what I wanted to understand. I have another question:

"While our rational mind and reason has much to do with choice, it is really by the feelings of our primitive mind that we make choices. The feelings of our primitive minds are what give us free choice and free will, not rational logic."

Does your previous message explain what you mean by 'primitive' mind?

"Our neural computer generates an aware matter packet for each choice that is a superposition of both action and inaction and therefore represents two possible futures. That is a free choice because given the exact same initial conditions, the second trial will only be probablistically related to the first trial because that is how our quantum universe works."

If so, can you please explain an "aware matter packet"? Does your meaning of the word 'aware' refer to an intelligent understanding? I am looking for steps you credit with converting dumbness into intelligence. By dumbness I refer to the mechanical properties put forward by theoretical physics. By intelligence I refer to our ability to discern meaning from the information. By information, I refer to that which photons deliver. If you are interested in my previously stated view, it is expressed in my essay "Lead With Innate Knowledge"

James Putnam

Thanks for the link to your essay. You are very close to my understanding, but of course with different words and terms. Your innate is my primitive mind and your intelligent mind is my aware matter.

I agree that photons do carry a lot of information, but sound, touch, taste and smell also carry information as various forms of matter exchange. Furthermore, photons are what we share with objects along with other matter and are what binds objects and the universe together.

The synapses of neural communication pair up as particles of information that I call aware matter. Aware matter assembles into neural packets that we call thoughts, but intelligence is always a combination of both conscious and unconscious thought.

My understanding of dumbness is that it is an essential part of intelligence. Our intelligence as humans is to me just a more complex form of the same intelligence of other life. So I do not find intelligence that useful of a differentiator. The biggest differentiator for humans seems to be our ability to imagine clearly impossible futures...and yet still survive. We also somehow keep from spending our lives in futile quests and manage to procreate and thrive.

Simplicity is a result of equilibrium, and seeking simplicity is a human specific preference

Simplicity is that a relative few theories and mathematical models can explain a number of phenomena. While complexity is the opposite where there seems to be an unending need to invent new theories. By this definition, physics and astronomy are in the former camp and social science and biology belong to the latter.

Why is the universe is even understandable? This itself is hard to understand according to Einstein. I propose a line of reasoning here. Simplicity is a result of long term evolution in a close system. The resulting equilibrium gives rise to simplicity. The infinite possibilities of any member of the system have been largely reduced to a highly confined options. Most of the possibilities are prohibited due to forces that have long been cancelled out during the long evolution. Because of this simplicity, there appears to be causal effect. In other words, causal effect is a direct product of simplicity. Take our universe as an example, the universe is in equilibrium by and large. Only a handful forces remain. Because there are relatively few forces and laws, the universe appears to be orderly and thereby allows mathematics to even exist and work. Mathematics owes its existence to the equilibrium of the universe. Equilibrium brings orderliness and slowness to change. Just imagine, if one puts one stone by another stone, and because the stones decay so fast, by the end of this action of moving them together, one counts zero stone. The law of addition will be forever different from what we know today. In this sense, math and physics have 'this worldliness' feature, and is a localized knowledge to this universe at this phase of equilibrium. It could be vastly different in other possible states of the universe or other universes.

One notable exception to the simplicity in universe is the complexity in bio-sphere. Because the bio-sphere is inherently expansive and interactive, we cannot reduce the theories to a few laws and mathematics models. The bio-sphere is NOT an equilibrium system. Therefore it is very hard to apply causal effect to explain human society for instance. It is very hard to generalize theories or apply mathematics in bio-sphere or human society, as we are able to in cosmology.

Humans' brain is wired to understand simple things and not complex things. We seek patterns and generalize. This skill helps tremendously in our evolutionary past. For instance, our eyes are adept in figuring out linear movement. Our eyes are especially good at spotting moving object in a static background. The predisposition to seek simplicity gave humans survival advantage in its evolutionary history. We appreciate simplicity over complexity. Humans process limited computational power. It is most efficient to apply the limited resource to a fast algorithm. The design principal of the fast algorithm is simplicity. There is an aesthetic side of simplicity, whether it is a new physics theory or a design of a gadget. The propensity of seeking simplicity is a very human specific trait, and has nothing to do with the reality whether the world is simple or complex.

The coincidence of the simplicity of the universe and human's preference of simplicity is fortunate and fruitful. Specifically in the math and physics the coincidence yielded amazing results. There is no reason to doubt that more amazing discoveries will surface in the future. However, a grain of salt must be added so that we are conscious that there is less mysterious processes or agent involved in the coincidence. This article hopefully explained why.

However, the simplicity on the surface for the natural world might be just a disguise of a chaotic and unpredictable reality. The equilibrium masks over much of the chaos and most noises or complex nuisances cancel each other out. What's left is the poetic simplicity skin. Underneath the skin, things might not be that smooth, or elegant or simple after all. It is a possibility. We probably are able to see some hints as we get more refined data, better models and more powerful observation tools.

rujing_tang at yahoo com

Another aspect of the simplicity is that it indicates the death process of the universe toward infinite entropy. Based on the second law of thermal dynamics, our universe is slipping into this final death of maximum entropy. An accompanying result of this process is that the universe becomes simpler and simpler. Imagine a universe where homogeneity rules and any imaginable infinitesimal particles and forces are distributed absolutely uniformly and cannot be changed a bit. This would be the simplest state and requires the simplest mathematics or physics. If we are slipping in that direction, which I think we are, then we should not be surprised that the physics laws in describing the universe is becoming simpler. Our current simplistic physical forces and laws are hinting that.

Hello,

The evolution is a priciple of adaption and encodings.There is 2 principal concept, the darwinism and the lammarckism.In a very simple resume Darmin is about the naturalselection and Lamarck about the will. I prefer personnally Lamarck.But in fact these 2 theories are not sufficient for the encodings in dna.The cosmological informations,bosonic and even gravitonic)are essential.Fermions so encode informations with a lot of parameters,with sortings and superimposings.

Lamarck for example thought that if the giraffe had a long neck, it is because its will has encoded it,Darwin on the other side thought that it is just an adaptation due to a selective environmental adatation.But in fact the main important is to see theevolution since the first cells .

Hope that helps

Regards

Here is a simple resume of general evolution

Quantum sphères........H...CNO.....H2O NH4 CO2 H2C2 ......proteins hormons vitamins glucids lipids protids amino acids.....UNICELLS.PROTISTS.....PLURICELLS.....in millions of years they build

algonkian eozoic 550 millions cambrian 500 silurian //500 and 400 devonian 350 carboniferian(very incredible) permian 250 Trias Jurassic cretacea /135 AND 65 after tert and quat .....The evolution is pure road of adaptation and complexification.

Hope that helps

Regards

Announcing the introduction of the first Periodic Table for the Human Forebrain; which enjoys similar advantages to the dramatic influence the Periodic Table of the Elements has enjoyed with respect to Chemistry/Physics. The cerebral cortex represents the most logical initiation point for such an innovation, celebrated as the crowning culmination of human forebrain evolution. This radical expansion of the neocortex is observed to occur in a discrete pattern suggestively termed cortical growth rings. The stepwise repetition of these processes over the course of mammalian evolution ultimately accounts for the six sequential age levels of cortical evolution.

The two fundamental variables defining forebrain evolution are the parameters of phylogenetic age and input specificity. Sanides (1972) proposed that the human cortex evolved as a sequence of five concentric growth rings comprising a medio-lateral hemisphere gradient. Furthermore, the interoceptive, exteroceptive and proprioceptive input categories each project to their own four-part complex of cortical bands that (when taken collectively) define an antero-posterior hemisphere gradient. The para-coronal variable of phylogenetic age is plotted as the ordinate and the para-sagittal parameter of input specificity charted as the abscissa in a Cartesian coordinate system. Each cortical area described by Brodmann and von Economo corresponds to schematically unique age/input parameter coordinates. Furthermore, each affiliated thalamic nucleus of specific age and input coordinates projects principally to that cortical area comprising identical pair-coordinate values, implying that the evolution of both the dorsal thalamus and the cortex are similarly defined in terms of the specifics for the dual parameter grid.

More at forebrain.org

Hi Steve

Forebrain expansion conforms to the roundness of the cranium.Not sure of an overlap of our approaches but sounds interesting ! ^_^

Best John

:) Regards

I have just submitted to the essay contest re; my forebrain dual parameter grid

Stay posted !

John

Hi Mr Lamuth ,happy to see that you shall participate at this constest.

Best Regards

The origin of life on planet Earth

A "cosmic cloud" falls from infinite space. Then, in the crust of the planet, as in the depths of the primitive oceans, could be observed the existence of a viscous element that covered the whole Earth. With this gelatinous mass, protoplasm was born. This matter, amorphous and viscous, with its condensation gave origin to the birth of the nucleus. The earliest inhabitants of Earth are albuminoid cells, amoebae, and all unicellular organisms that have multiplied in the warm waters of the oceans. These beings only reveal a sense: of touch, which gave rise to all others.