Jochen -

Thank you for working through an interesting problem in a very clear and thoughtful way. The argument is coherent and well-structured from beginning to end, despite its complexities.

Since I take quite a different approach in my essay on the emergence of meaning, I'm afraid my comments here may not be very helpful in clarifying your theme - I've tried to make up for that by giving your essay the high rating it deserves.

You understand meaning in terms of reference or representation, which is well-accepted -mainly because it has a kind of clarity that's otherwise hard to achieve. But of course there are many other ways for things to be meaningful - to "make a difference that makes a difference," in Bateson's phrase - without representing other things. You're right that to understand reference we need to include an "agent" as well as a sign and its interpretation... and the rest of your argument follows convincingly, on this basis. More generally, though, what makes things meaningful is the context of possibilities in which they may have some effect, that changes what can happen in other contexts. Such contexts are always complex, hard to represent symbolically. But I've tried to show they can be understood in terms of the functionality of three distinct kinds of recursive systems.

Your argument about replicators makes a great deal of sense in a computational context. But the original replicators on Earth apparently faced a very different kind of challenge - they could by no means take for granted the existence of well-defined structures more complex than small organic molecules, and there were no blueprints or constructors available. So I suspect there may be basic limitations to computational models of biological systems, including the brain, where information-processing has to operate through interactions that are largely random, at the molecular level. Even in physics, I argue that the mathematical patterning serves a more basic function - that of selecting meaningful, i.e. measurable information out of a background of random events.

Nonetheless, I find your point very interesting that computational self-replication is only possible through a two-stage process. As you know, von Neumann was also instrumental in developing the two-stage representation of quantum dynamics, which plays a role in my essay. I wonder if there's any connection between these aspects of his work?

Thanks again for your excellent contribution.

Conrad

    Dear ðÖð¥Ð...ðÁð¢ Szangolies!

    I invite you to familiarize yourself with New Cartesian Physic

    I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it.

    If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better.

    I wish to see your criticism on the New Cartesian Physic, the founder of which I call myself.

    The concept of moving space-matter helped me:

    - The uncertainty principle Heisenberg to make the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter;

    - Open the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface is the sphere of space-matter;

    - Open the law of universal attraction of Lorentz;

    - Give the formula for the pressure of the Universe;

    - To give a definition of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.

    New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in his essay I gave The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural . Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. Note my statement that our brain creates an image of the outside world no inside, and in external space. Hope you rate my essay as high as I am yours. I am waiting your post.

    Sincerely,

    Dizhechko Boris

      Dear Peter,

      thanks very much for your kind words! (Sorry, by the way, in being so late in replying---I was on holiday the past week...)

      I think you correctly identify one of the main points where my proposal still needs work: as it stands, it's indeed not clear how, exactly, the selection process is implemented in the brain (if indeed it is). Mutation as such isn't that difficult: we merely need to stipulate that copying isn't perfect, which seems only realistic. But what decides which version is more fit with respect to the conditions the environment (ultimately) sets up?

      I'll certainly have a look at your essay; maybe you can help me out there!

      Regarding the score---yes, I've noticed a few unfortunate one-point votes without comment. It's a bit of a shame that people feel the need to resort to such practices, but with the voting system as it is, there's probably not a lot to be done right now.

      Cheers,

      Jochen

      Hi JS,

      I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at the essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

      I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

      For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

      Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

      With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

      Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

      Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

      Best wishes to your essay.

      For your blessings please................

      =snp. gupta

      11 days later

      Dear Jochen,

      I enjoyed reading your essay. The problem of intentionality is indeed plagued by the homunculus fallacy as you described. I liked how you refer to Svozil's theorem and use von Neumann's constructors and replicators to propose a solution. Also the parallel with the immune system. And that you state clearly what open problems you see that need to be solved. Very good work!

      Best regards,

      Cristi Stoica

      The Tablet of the Metalaw

        Hi Jochen,

        Nice and clearly written essay. I was vaguely aware about the self-replicating machines of von Neumann, but I did not know that they we formalized using cellular automata.

        I like that your use of CA is very engineering/evolution oriented, rather than getting mired in the details of logic calculus or computability like so many others.

        Still a lot of details missing, like if there are any natural boundaries of such self-replicating patterns, or indeed what features are necessary for a pattern to count as a "CA brain". Also if mutation is involved, how much can the pattern change and remain the "same" brain?

        All the best, Miles Mutka

          Dear Jochen Szangolies,

          Thank you very much for your eminently readable and excellent summary on Von Neumann's cellular automata and the various implications of his work, forming much of the groundwork that is today considered to be "artificial intelligence". I wanted to let you know I particularly enjoyed the scope of your essay along with the appropriate rigorous grounding, and have rated it in the meantime too.

          Regards,

          Robert

            Dear Conrad,

            I don't know how I missed your reply earlier---sorry for that. And thank you for your kind words!

            I agree that representationalism isn't necessarily the only way to get meaning out of some system; one could, for instance, also think in terms of subsymbolic approaches. Representationalism's main virtue, to me, is that if it works, it's completely clear how---by simply having some vehicle standing in place of some object or state of affairs. But of course, this direct route is blocked by the homunculus; hence, my attempt to patch things up. If that turns out not to work, it might be necessary to abandon representationalism altogether, and move on to something else; but since, to me, this seems to entail a certain loss of intuitiveness and clarity, I'm going to keep on digging on this ground until I'm absolutely certain I'll never strike gold.

            I'll certainly have a look at your essay; maybe I'll find something interesting to say about it.

            However, a point of clarification: I don't understand my model as being mainly computational; in fact, I'm skeptical of computational models. I know that usually CAs are thought off as a computational system, but that just means that they are systems that can be used to compute, not that they are intrinsically computational. To me, what's more important is the pattern, which is a physically real thing (an analogy to the pattern of neuron firings in a brain), and its properties. The meaning I see is the semantic information the pattern contains about itself, and about the environmental conditions. But that's not a point I wanted to put too much emphasis on in the present essay.

            Anyway, thanks again for your comment!

            Cheers,

            Jochen

            Dear Dizhechko Boris,

            sorry for not replying earlier. Thank you for appreciating my essay; I will have a look at yours---however, I must confess I am somewhat skeptical that it needs a new physics in order to make sense of intentional, goal-directed behavior. But I will try and form an unbiased opinion of your work.

            Cheers,

            Jochen

            Dear Christi,

            thanks for the kind words! Yes, I think that even if there's some germ of truth in my model, it'll be a long way yet before it'll be clear whether it actually solves the problems it sets out to solve. I think things are looking somewhat hopeful at the current stage, and the main virtue is that it provides a relatively concrete, well-defined model to play with; so I think there's a justifiable hope that even if things ultimately don't work out, we'll get out some useful pointers regarding what not to do.

            Cheers,

            Jochen

            Dear Miles,

            I'm glad you found something of value in my essay! You're right, I think of this model as a kind of 'hands-on' test bed for my ideas; and as you point out, there's still lots to tinker with.

            Regarding the question of identity, I'm afraid I don't have an answer. In a sense, it's analogous to the question of when a speciation event occurs---when was the first little bundle of feathers clawing its way out of an egg no longer a dinosaur, but a bird?

            I'm not sure the question is very meaningful, at least in that case: the boundary between 'bird' and 'dinosaur' is ultimately as arbitrary, and as man-made, as the boundaries between nations on a map. But is there more meaning to the question in the case of brains/minds? Lots of people, from Hume to the Buddha, didn't think so. I, for myself, am just going to continue tinkering with my model for the moment.

            Cheers,

            Jochen

            Dear Robert Groess,

            thank you for the kind words! Yes, it's certainly a testimony to the genius of von Neumann that his work continues to influence and direct modern ideas---he ought to be rated much higher on the list of all-time greatest minds than he usually is.

            I'll try and take a look at your essay, too!

            Cheers,

            Jochen

            Ah, forgot to comment regarding the two-tiered dynamics of quantum mechanics. At present, I'm not sure if one can really formalize a parallel, but just on the level of analogy and metaphor, these things may not be too far away from one another---there have often been attempts to link quantum mechanics and self-reference (one prominent exponent of this view being John Wheeler), and of course, the bipartite structure of von Neumann's replicators is exactly due to the problems of self-reference (which makes a self-scanning mechanism impossible). So well, maybe?

            Jochen

            An absorbingly written essay with a number of interesting automata discussions. I am not sure you explicitly define what you mean by 'intention' - or that how you define this fits what humans are capable of vs what is possible in an automata model.

            I found the essay does need some additional context to understand, as you presume some knowledge of other items you reference. So I did review some of your references for my response.

            There are three items I wish to discuss:

            The first is the concept of requiring a sequentially ordered list of actions - which I believe you refer to as Richard's paradox. This is essentially Georg Cantor's proof of the uncountability of the Real numbers (using decimal expansions). The fact that something cannot be sequentially ordered does not mean it is not ordered - since Real numbers are ordered, yet cannot be placed in a 1-1 relationship with integers. It does mean that there are limitations to sequential automata and sequential instructions. This does not preclude parallel instructions, which I do not believe you address. This might be a worthy direction to pursue.

            The second is the concept of replication needing to be exact. I do not see any evidence in nature that replication need be exact - and thus requiring the infinite regress you present. There are numerous examples of non-exact reproduction (like maybe all living reproduction), where some aspects are generated from a static (or passive) state. If much of our knowledge and learning starts from a (near) blank slate, then there is no requirement for exact reproduction. In fact this maybe an evolutionary negative that has been 'sifted out' in the early stages of life (why make the same exact being with the same mistakes in the next generation - at least make different mistakes).

            Finally, my reading of how sensory perception works indicates that this is an active process, whereby sense perceptions are constructed against expected concepts and is not like a projection on a screen or light filtering into a room. We are active in our construction of what we perceive - not passively receiving images or sensory inputs. I think this changes the participatory actions of the 'agent' you discuss.

            An interesting essay, overall.

            Thank you,

            Don

              Dear Jochen,

              I like your essay. Offering a solution to the homunculus problem you focus on a different aspect than most other essays which argue for a naturalist explanation of intention. I examine the compatibility of goal-oriented macroscopic behavior and 'goal-free' microscopic laws, which you may also find useful.

              Cheers, Stefan

                Dear Donald,

                thank you for taking the time of reading and commenting on my essay. Regarding intentionality, I agree that the concept is treated somewhat vaguely in much philosophical literature, but I'd say my level of rigor is par for the course, at least---compare my definition: "Mental content exhibits the curious property of intentionality--of being directed at, concerned with, or simply about entities external to itself.", and that of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Intentionality is the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs." Both essentially follow Brentano, who introduced the concept into modern discourse (saving it from the old scholastics).

                Again, I can understand---and to some degree, sympathize with---wanting a more thorough definition, but sometimes one also risks getting embroiled in petty turf wars when trying to clarify every last definitional issue ('rigour mortis'). So rather than spending most of the allocated room on such definitions, I chose to introduce my model instead, hoping that this would help clarify lingering issues---apologies if it didn't.

                Regarding Richard's paradox, the ordering itself isn't really so important; one merely needs an unambiguous way of referring to certain elements (either of English phrases corresponding to natural numbers, or of behaviors of a given automaton). Any association between these elements and natural numbers will do fine, since then, you can refer to the nth element, which picks out a unique one; then, you can use the diagonalization trick by creating a new element that wasn't part of the original association.

                But since that was claimed to be complete (a list of all the English sentences describing real numbers/a theory of all behaviors of the automaton), we arrive at a contradiction.

                Regarding self-replication, you raise a good point---natural replication is indeed never exact. This doesn't necessarily address the infinite regress, though: if the parent needs to have access to a plan of the child in order to construct the next generation, we still get a regress, even if all of the plans are allowed to differ. Furthermore, when replication is inexact, we start getting into issues of vagueness: when is a construct a 'child'? How similar do parent and child-generation have to be in order to constitute an example of self-replication? If a stone, rolling down a hill, breaks off another, is that an example of self-replication?

                Lastly, you're dead-on regarding perception: it's indeed a far more active process than my caricature gives it credit. But whether the outside world is just faithfully projected onto an internal screen, or whether a sort of virtual internal reality, perhaps only loosely 'inspired by actual events', is created, doesn't make a difference for the conceptual point: both implicitly presume some central meaner (as Dennett calls the homunculus) using the internal representation as pertaining to the outside world. And with that, we're already off the rails as far as a theory of representation goes.

                Again, thanks for your thoughtful comments!

                Cheers,

                Jochen

                Dear Stefan,

                thanks for your comment. I have to say that I feel somewhat narrow in focus in this competition---most people seem to propose entire cosmologies, while I just play around with cellular automata!

                I'm glad, though, that some people seem to find some value in my ideas nevertheless. I'll have a look at your essay!

                Cheers,

                Jochen

                Dear Jochen Szangolies

                Physics of Descartes existed before Newtonian physics. It is known that through the efforts of Voltaire's Newtonian physics moved to Europe and became dominant up until Einstein put it under doubt, but he did this not by returning to the physics of Descartes, and by relativism, i.e. by its complications.

                I believe that by updating the physics of Descartes to achieve greater understanding of the world than did previous theories, as it provides a more intuitive mapping. New Cartesian Physic, as the concept of moving space-matter, not remakes of modern physics, and summarizes it based on the identity of the space-matter.

                I appreciate your essay and wish you success in the contest.

                Sincerely,

                Dizhechko Boris

                Dear Jochen,

                very interesting essay. I rated it with the highest number.

                Your goal-oriented dynamics (replication) reminds me on evolution. I wrote my PhD thesis about physical models of evolution including the evolution of networks. Evolution is goal-oriented. Here, there are two processes, mutation and selection. Mutation produces new information (=species) and selection is a global interaction among the species giving a goal to the process. In a more refined model of Co-evolution, the selection itself is formed by the interaction between the species, so again you will get a direction or goal.

                I know it is a little bit to late (maybe) but I want to recommend my essay.

                All the best and good luck for the contest

                Torsten

                  Dear Jochen,

                  In your reply to Stefan Keppeler above, you noted that your paper has a relatively narrow focus, compared to those (like mine!) that "propose entire cosmologies". But this is not necessarily a bad thing: your paper is well written, rigorously argued, interesting and perfectly relevant to this year's essay topic: why ask for more?

                  I already knew about many aspects of Von Neuman's work, in particular about Von Neuman replicators, but I had never studied the details of his approach. Your essay presents it very clearly and builds on it in an interesting way. Congratulations, and good luck in the contest!

                  Marc