Dear Rick

>>> "Physics underlies adaptive selection in that it allows the relevant biological mechanisms to work; but adaptive selection is not a physical law. It is an emergent biological process."

>> Do we mean to imply that biology and thinking being emergent are not just non-fundamental but non-deterministic and that we are in some sense therefore free?

Biology and thinking are indeed emergent, and obey the appropriate laws of behaviour, according to their function, at each emergent level. Thus neurons use energy to propagate action potentials along axons; neural networks carry out pattern recognition and prediction functions; the brain as a whole undertakes logical and psychological tasks. These kinds of interactions are not *determined* by the lower levels lying under them, rather they are *enabled* by these lower levels.

I would not use the word "non-deterministic: at these higher levels: there is an appropriate logic in operation at each level that decides what happens in a logical way. The different levels all work in concert with each other to enable this to happen, the developmental processes of the body having constructed them so that this will be so; this is the marvel of physiology.

Where things are non-deterministic is at the lower levels: there is both quantum indeterminism at the atomic level, and a huge amount of randomness in the molecular storm at the molecular level. My view is that this lower level randomness allows the higher levels to select what to do from a repertoire of options they make available. This is set out in my book How Can Physics Underlie the Mind?. Yes I think we are free to act in accordance with our own character, make meaningful decisions, and argue logically on the basis of evidence. That is why it is meaningful to carry out the discussions taking place on this website.

Regards

George

George,

A good essay - with interesting content, as usual for your writings

(and I also became well acquainted, in this contest's case, with how hard it was to fit a comprehensive narrative about fundamental issues into only 9 pages!)

From your essay, and the comment threads, I envision we probably have roughly similar views on our inherent ability to actually make decisions and the freedom to act on those choices (i.e. macro level entities not being fully constrained in their behaviour by the unitary evolution of the wavefunction for their constituent quantum particles)...

I have long argued for objective wavefunction collapse (perhaps related to information content thresholds) to be developed as an integral part of quantum formalism - and that for complex entities like us to have free will (and intentionality) is not compatible with a fully deterministic underlying dynamics (e.g. of the Schrodinger equation) to apply at all levels and for all time.

Though so many other physicists seem to feel that standard quantum mechanics can be applied to macroscopic bodies (a la the Many Worlds interpretation etc), which I find hard to credit.

Since you deal here with the emergence of purpose, at higher levels of complexity, I take it you are open to the likelihood of objective collapse being real?

Regards,

David C.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #126

In view of the question raised in the contest, "how can... intention" you've displayed a wonderful command of scientific procedure and knowledge. But the problem with science is that it sometimes unwittingly exceeds scientific boundaries. Purpose and Intention literally transcend the physical and biological interactions they build upon, and if science fails to appreciate its own disciplinary limits it will either deny Purpose and Intention or sneak them in with a

There is no intentionality in the scientific description of metabolism, or neurology. Every molecular, every electro-chemical interaction, is considered discrete and purposeless. And there is no conceivable bridge from purposeless to purposeful.

To your conception of biological logic:

IF x is evident THEN do y ELSE do z

consider the leap that would have to be made to evolve to:

IF x could be THEN maybe y1 should be ELSE maybe y2 or y3 or y4 should be OR maybe nothing else could be better than UN-x anyway.

Physical and biological systems are positive. Could, should, and maybe are negatives, they are not about WHAT IS, they transcend and negate reality, and that basic but wondrous fact is beyond the strict scientific consideration of the IS.

Intentionality depends on all the processes you analyze, but it eludes scientific explanation.

I believe my essay will appear soon, and help show that science and philosophy are interdependent but separate and legitimate pursuits.

    Sorry -- I thought I was logged in. And in my first paragraph I bracketed "presto!", which was interpreted as a (meaningless) HTML tag. I wanted to write "... with a presto!"

    Dear David C,

    >> From your essay, and the comment threads, I envision we probably have roughly similar views on our inherent ability to actually make decisions and the freedom to act on those choices (i.e. macro level entities not being fully constrained in their behaviour by the unitary evolution of the wavefunction for their constituent quantum particles)...

    Indeed so. And this is also the case for example in the way digital computers can make logical calculations unconstrained by the underlying medium whereby its algorithms are realised (which was Turing's great discvery). You might find interesting the statement by Walter Kohn about the limits of wave functions in the real world on page 220 of his Nobel lecture, which you can access here. There is no meaningful wave function for complex objects like a cat, or even a single cell. If the wave function does not exist in a meaningful way. neither does its unitary evolution.

    >> "I have long argued for objective wavefunction collapse (perhaps related to information content thresholds) to be developed as an integral part of quantum formalism - and that for complex entities like us to have free will (and intentionality) is not compatible with a fully deterministic underlying dynamics (e.g. of the Schrodinger equation) to apply at all levels and for all time. Though so many other physicists seem to feel that standard quantum mechanics can be applied to macroscopic bodies (a la the Many Worlds interpretation etc), which I find hard to credit. Since you deal here with the emergence of purpose, at higher levels of complexity, I take it you are open to the likelihood of objective collapse being real?"

    Indeed, I believe that wave function collapse takes place in a contextual way. I have written about this here: "On the limits of quantum theory: contextuality and the classical/quantum cut", and am presently working on the topic. I find it weird that some physicists claim all quantum evolution is unitary, when the evidence (in the real world) is strongly against this. However despite the loudness with which they proclaim it, they are a small minority of physicists, see this survey

    Regards

    George

      Dear James Arnold

      thanks for that.

      > "There is no intentionality in the scientific description of metabolism, or neurology. Every molecular, every electro-chemical interaction, is considered discrete and purposeless"

      - By who? Metabolism is there to supply energy, it's very complex processes (and underlying molecules) have been selected for in order to do so. Neural processes are there to convey signals between synapses, they have been selected for to do so. Use the word "function" here rather than "intentionality". All physiological systems have a biological function (else they would not exist),and in that sense they have a purpose. And they are not discrete - they interact with each other in enormously complex ways.

      > "consider the leap that would have to be made to evolve to:

      IF x could be THEN maybe y1 should be ELSE maybe y2 or y3 or y4 should be OR maybe nothing else could be better than UN-x anyway."

      - of course those more complex logics occur. But they are built up by combining more the elementary logical steps based in AND, NOR, NOT, etc. together with mathematical functions such as underlie Bayes' Theorem. You need the basic steps in order to get the more complex.

      I don't think I claimed to have explained intentionality.

      Regards

      George

      Dear George,

      No, no intended spamming. Just that my post was being truncated due to a quotation symbol that created a parsing problem with the software in use here. Removed it and 3rd attempt successful. So let's leave behind the animosity here. But just like you told Robert Bennett that you are not going to write another essay, I am not either. So I'll be as brief as I can.

      The list of factors that you mentioned to define life do not have defining value for the living in my view, they are about phenomenology, not ontology, and I don't care who came up with them. And even if you look beyond the terms, one can see that they are replicates of phenomenology that occur beyond the biosphere.

      Organization in one or more building blocks can never have a defining value for anything. There are hydrogen atoms out there in empty space as singlets, and there are cumulations of hydrogen atoms in duplets (molecules) forming hydrogen gas out there in the cosmos and on planets. You sure would not agree that they are living entities on that basis.

      Metabolism is a mechanism that is fundamentally driven by motion and activity, both for intake, which the author does not emphasize, and catabolism. The keyword here is autonomous motion. If the Brownian motion of smoke particles, driven by random kinetic motion of molecules, is not autonomous motion, then I don't know what is. Even one level down, the non-deterministic motion of the electron in an orbital shell is to be considered autonomous motion. That is why Schrodinger, I believe, used to think that the electron must be like an amorphous object (i.e. Amoeba) in response to perpetual sudden changes in momenta, and Einstein was no less than appalled by the behavior of this entity, stating that "he cannot imagine the electron hopping like a BUG".

      Reproduction is in essence the ability to replicate oneself. The other terms of the definition constitute specificities on how the realization of replication is mediated. Keyword here: self -replication. I remind this author that a crystal put in the proper chemical environment will GROW by REPRODUCTION of its lattice unit. So much there too for GROWTH and ANABOLISM as defining factors of life.

      Homeostasis is a process of maintaining constant thermal equilibrium developed by necessity in living entities, while beyond biota this process is autogenic as far as population of same or different objects in interaction. One can view systemic homeostasis as the modality of thermal equilibrium throughout the population of cells represented by biotic entities, necessary because the physics of juxtaposed cells or cell materials do not facilitate timely autogenic thermal equilibrium across the entire individual.

      Adaptation and response to stimuli are epi-phenomena that are sub-functions of the above, which I will not discuss in the interest of keeping this short.

      Here is the thing. If you want to define life, you have to go back to ontogeny, the merger of a mobile male gamete and a static female ovule as the fundamental karyotic duet of the life orchestra. It is an act of emulation of primal phylogenetic gestation whereby the mobile propagating male gamete plays the role of the space wavefunction and the static female karyotic box plays the role of mass. What ensues in the developmental life of the fertilized egg or female karyotic box (pre- and post-birth) is a re-enactment of the fundamental order of covariance between the two universal primal ontological tenets as it occurs in (abstract) phylogenetic space. Both real and emulated phylogenesis are realized under the regency of the most fundamental physical function, which I have called the Grand Eigenfunction, and its derivates. Very importantly, the choice of the word Kariot cannot be overstated, since the physical symmetry of the Karyotic building block is borne out of symmetry breaking not from the molecular gauge group but from the lattice or material gauge group as I have called it. And that is how the fundamental physical life constant arises as an invariant coupling quantity characterizing covariance between real karyotic coordinate space and karyotic mass. You see, at the fundamental level, life is not so much about what macromolecules do than it is about the directives that they receive from the higher karyotic gauge group.

      My vision is not at all in hiding and my attitude in physics is not to play the prevalent game everywhere of zero-sum physics. You can read my contest paper and see how I have put the Quanto-Geometric Theory at work in elucidating in no equivocal terms the physics of human cognition. If you don't want to read my book "Quanto-Geometry", you can freely access my other papers on Research Gate and Academia.edu for solid primers. But you probably won't, and that is fine.

      Sorry to force on you another long read (My! Looks like I've written another essay!!!), but you left me no choice. And shall I say that I believe exchange and dialogue are better than confrontation and discord, even in physics!

      Joseph

        George,

        I think "function" rather than "purpose" or "intention" is a crucial difference. My heart is functioning while my mind is intending this reply. "Intention" implies a component of un-caused willfulness, which of course many scientists would deny.

        > I don't think I claimed to have explained intentionality

        Well, the question is "How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention"

        I suspect we're going to disagree on a number of points. But thanks for responding.

        Ok I don't understand "Karyotic building block" or "higher karyotic gauge group." Maybe your essay will elucidate what this is.

        George

        Hi George

        Three points:

        1. You say, "Life collects and analyses information in order to use it to plan and execute future purposeful actions in the light of memory."

        This is a viewed that would be shared by most. But there is no known transition that explains the naturalisation of the process that turns raw physical interaction into physical interaction where some 'commodity of nature', typically referred to by the term 'information', gets 'carried' and thereby collected and analysed. What is the device of nature that turns the physics of interaction into the commodity of information in the first place? It is all very well saying that a certain mechanism of life can operate as a logic gate, but what determines the comparative meanings or values of the variables upon which the logic gates operate? How does a protein "read" genetic information? by which I mean, how does the meaning and value of one parameter become measurable against another?

        2. You say "I am taking for granted that living systems are open non-equlibrium systems".

        This is a curious thing to take for granted for the following reason. Surely 'a system' that is stable is acting, in virtue of that stability, as if it is in equilibrium i.e., it is not seeking an alternative state. Irrespective of the nature of its dynamic constituents, it is 'a stable system' and as such is an expression of a state in equilibrium. If we are to say that a stable system is not an expression of a state in equilibrium, then we must concede, that there is no such system in existence. There is no known system in existence that does not consist of constituent components. So, living systems are stable and, in any given instance that they are stable, they are in a state of equilibrium.

        3. Also, you say, "There is no purpose in the existence of the Moon or an electron or in a collision of two gas particles." (also quoting Hartwell, Hopfield, Leibler and Murray 1999) The existence of, for example, an electron or a star is dependent on a complex series of interactions, each ensuring system stability--their stability is an expression of a state in equilibrium. One might say the reason why an electron or star exist is because they are stable. Can we not say of any stable physical system that their purpose is to maintain a state of equilibrium, because when, through interaction, stability is challenged, any given physical system will always adjust. In adjusting, they reacquire an equilibrium state once more, which may give rise either to renewed system stability or to system deformation. Perhaps human awareness is about the acquisition and continual maintenance of a conceptual stabilities whose states of equilibria are constantly challenged through experience, dialogue and thought.

        Thank you for your extensive reply George- you must be exhausted from all the replies you have written.

        I will definitely check out your book.

        Again, best of luck-

        Rick Searle

        Dear James Arnold

        >> I think "function" rather than "purpose" or "intention" is a crucial difference. My heart is functioning while my mind is intending this reply.

        Indeed

        > "Intention" implies a component of un-caused willfulness, which of course many scientists would deny.

        "Uncaused" may not be the right phrase. Randomness is not what one wants here, but purposefulness.

        >> I don't think I claimed to have explained intentionality

        > Well, the question is "How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention"

        Sure, but nobody can fully explain that. You need to get the building blocks in place. I go somewhat further down the road in my book on Downward Causation.

        George

        Dear Mark Pharoah

        >>> 1. You say, "Life collects and analyses information in order to use it to plan and execute future purposeful actions in the light of memory."

        >> This is a viewed that would be shared by most. But there is no known transition that explains the naturalisation of the process that turns raw physical interaction into physical interaction where some 'commodity of nature', typically referred to by the term 'information', gets 'carried' and thereby collected and analysed. What is the device of nature that turns the physics of interaction into the commodity of information in the first place?

        Sensory systems of some kind, made up of cells that are made up or proteins an other biomolecules

        >> It is all very well saying that a certain mechanism of life can operate as a logic gate, but what determines the comparative meanings or values of the variables upon which the logic gates operate?

        The structure into which that logic gate is built, which is what it is because on the one hand of genetic information that determined many of its aspects in a preordained way, and because of developmental processes on the other that adapt it to its local environment.

        >> How does a protein "read" genetic information? by which I mean, how does the meaning and value of one parameter become measurable against another?

        Transcription takes place whereby specialized proteins attach to the DNA strand and make a copy of the DNA sequence in the form of messenger RNA (mRNA). Thus this first step is carried out by a protein. The genetic message is then transferred to the outside the nucleus via mRNA and translation then takes place: cellular machinery made of proteins again reads the genetic instructions in the mRNA and synthesizes new proteins.

        >> 2. You say "I am taking for granted that living systems are open non-equlibrium systems".

        > Surely 'a system' that is stable is acting, in virtue of that stability, as if it is in equilibrium i.e., it is not seeking an alternative state.

        They are stable as long as they are open to an environment that provides a flow of energy in and allows heat disposal out. Please see here Life as Non-equilibrium for why life is regarded as a non-equilibrium process.

        >> 3. Also, you say, "There is no purpose in the existence of the Moon or an electron or in a collision of two gas particles." (also quoting Hartwell, Hopfield, Leibler and Murray 1999) The existence of, for example, an electron or a star is dependent on a complex series of interactions, each ensuring system stability--their stability is an expression of a state in equilibrium. One might say the reason why an electron or star exist is because they are stable.

        Well that is the reason they can stay in existence but the two are very different: the star is on a death run because it is using up its nuclear fuel, the electron is fine for a very long time. It does not deal with how they came to be in existence.

        >> Can we not say of any stable physical system that their purpose is to maintain a state of equilibrium, because when, through interaction, stability is challenged, any given physical system will always adjust.

        In adjusting, they reacquire an equilibrium state once more, which may give rise either to renewed system stability or to system deformation.

        Well that is an anthropomorphism. It's not purpose in a sense related to someone's will.

        >> Perhaps human awareness is about the acquisition and continual maintenance of a conceptual stabilities whose states of equilibria are constantly challenged through experience, dialogue and thought.

        Yes indeed. That is an active learning process enabled at the lower levels by electrons flowing through axons and synapses, but with its own emergent higher level logic that guides what happens.

        George

          Dear Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

          >>> "The key difference between physics and biology is function or purpose. There is no purpose in the existence of the Moon or an electron or in a collision of two gas particles.".

          >> george, i would be interested to hear how you arrive at this conclusion. are you in effect saying that particles or larger objects cannot *by definition* have either aims or intentions?

          In effect, yes.

          >> if so i would be interested to know why you would believe that to be the case.

          Look in any physics textbook. Please find me a discussion of the purpose of the Moon or of an electron or of a collision between two gas particles. How can the Moon have intentions? It has no brain.

          The whole point about physical laws is that purpose does not enter into them. They just describe how physical systems interact. Please explain to me an experiment that will determine the purpose of an electron collision or the intention of a proton. Energy minimisation will not do the job: physical systems just do it, they do not intend to do it. If it was an intention, they could decide not to do it. That option is not open to them.

          George

            George,

            Thanks for the Kohn link - I am always interested in any arguments (especially dimensional or scale-based estimations) that might have a bearing on limitations to entanglement or superposition.

            I have seen some summary results before from that survey you mention, but had not seen those detailed tabulations until now.

            I suppose it is gratifying to see that the bizarre Many Worlds Interpretation is only accepted by a relatively small proportion of physicists - but I was quite chagrined to see such low proportions expressing any knowledge concerning the measurement problem at all!

            I can somewhat excuse the "Shut up and calculate" camp (i.e. aware of the issues, but choose to disregard until it impacts on their experimental setups) - especially if dealing with fairly prosaic fields of research. But that large parts of my professional community are not even aware of such an important philosophical issue (underlying our understanding of nature), I find rather mortifying (and perplexing!)... Sigh.

            Regards,

            David C.

            Hi David

            Well there is now a flourishing field of quantum foundations that is indeed leading to some interesting experiments, e.g. Leggett-Garg inequalities. So maybe things are changing.

            George

            Dear George,

            I would have thought that a discussion of the basic ingredients and mechanisms of emergence -- multiple realizability, top-down causation, coarse graining vs. black boxing etc., topics upon which you touch in your technical notes 4 & 5 -- would have been more in line with the theme of the contest. Instead you chose to focus on biomolecules and convincingly argue that they may be the crucial link between lower level physics and higher level biology. Luckily, your choice leaves room for complementary pieces. :-)

            Cheers, Stefan

            Dear Stephan

            It would in many ways, but that would have been just a repeat of what I did in a previous FQXI contest (which is published in a book arising out of that contest). I could not see the point in doing that.

            So yes, this leaves room for complementary pieces: and there are indeed some.

            Cheers

            george