Dear George,

Your responses this time allow us to move towards heartening convergence.

1. "all state descriptions of physical entities correlates with certain definitive information..."

- Indeed. But the processes carry on without worrying about whether anyone is making a description of the state or not. ... They just talk about either forces or potentials and the outcomes resulting from their influences - which take place regardless of whether any observer is present or not.

What is heartening to see is that you agree that there is natural association of information with each description. This would mean that at every interaction information processing is taking place. Now, it is for me to construct the logical structure of how the interactions can be organized to build higher level abstraction from this correlation with information. And it is for me to show how this organization maps very well with the elementary neural connectivity structure in the brain. This is what precisely I have attempted in my essay.

2. "Yes, we could create larger and larger systems (brains) to carry out very complex IF THEN ELSE kind of computations in hierarchy, but then if bacteria did not have the sense of Aims and Intentions, at no level of such logical computation in higher order organism can also have that sense"

- You are assuming emergence of new kinds of properties cannot occur in a complex structure. It is my contention that they can and do.

Yet another heartening response. No, I do not mean that emergence does not take place, in fact, what is needed is to show how exactly emergence happens that may create the descriptions of high level abstractions as well as complex structures of semantics. Again I have to refer to my essay, which has laid down step by step in specific detail how the abstraction takes place and what exactly constitutes the step of concrete emergence. I do not prefer citing emergence without actually showing the step.

3. "bacteria itself has goal oriented behavior, but does it have the sense of the goal?"

- No- it has no brain.

Yes, it does not have the brain, but what difference the organization makes is something that needs complete elaboration. From the description of information processing and emergence of abstraction I show what kind of organization and information processing would make the specific difference.

4. "So the pure behavior (action) oriented claim does not meet the need of the sense of aims and intentions."

- Exactly. You have answered your own comment 2. above.

Thank you, it does not need any further discussion.

5. "I can understand that it carries out more complex computation of IF THEN ELSE version, but again how does the information abstraction happen?"

- Through modularity of the hierarchical structures, with information hiding and modular interfaces that depend only on abstracted variables.

I am not in the knowledge of Grady Booch's work, but if I have a mechanism to show how modularity in hierarchy builds the required information abstraction, it suffices. It is not through hiding of information, but rather via disjunction among multiple specific information that the abstraction emerges. Moreover, the states interact not the information represented; therefore, information cannot be directly probed anyway.

So, I may infer that we do not differ on any of the points, except that each point needs very well justified specific detail of emergence and organization. In case, if you do choose to peruse my essay, my request is to be patient, open, and very critical, while judging the meaning from the precise definitions of the terms stated at first use. This is extremely condensed version to fit in 25000 characters.

Rajiv

Dear George Ellis

You collected a good inventarium of logical gates in living creatures. But according to all this it seems that you think that free-will is not necessary, because logical gates do everything? With the exception, that you maybe think that top down causation includes free-will?

I am interested also in your opinion about quantum consciousness and about quantum biology, like quantum smell etc. It seems that you support this, but only implicitly?

You, Hoel and Sara Walker write positively about top-down causation. Is here in this contest anyone else? I like analysis of this causation, although I think that this is not all what explains life. As I wrote, I think that consciousness and free will are also important factors. (Please visit My essay.)

You are against influence of gravity, what is common sense. But, my opinion is that physics is dimensionless, thus, we need gravitational constant G to make it dimensionless and we need quantum gravity to explain what time is. But, this is only by the way remark.

You separate physics and biology. I do not. But, I think that this is only the thing of aspect, maybe we do not have different opinions? By my opinion, everything is physics, also information, principles of computer working, etc. At the same time, I think, from the another aspect, (closer to your definition of physics) that physics almost does not exist, all we know as physics, is only information. One hint is also that with help of c, hbar and G we get dimensionless constants of elementary particles, this means we obtain only math, real physics is hidden in dimensioful constants. What maybe we will see, that quantum gravity will be written on t-shirt and quantum gravity is all physics (besides consciousness).

What interpretation of quantum mechanics do you prefer? It seems that you are not in mainstream. You also write that quantum effects exist only in the first level. Can you repeat this sentence, (I do not find it again in your answers.) It seems to me that your claims can be refuted by known physics. For instance, quantum mechanics is valid everywhere, not only on the first level, there are some experiments, which shows similarly.

You answered to Singh that:

"Quantum randomness is not equivalent to purpose, as your essay seems to suggest." But, I claim similarly as Singh. Purpose in micro level shows as quantum randomness, but purpose in biological level is no more perfect randomness.

I claim that some sort of consciousness exists also in unicellular creatures. I claim for panpsychism. What is your opinion?

What is your preferred essay here?

It is interesting that you wrote one similar sentence as I in one old essay:

My sentence: Let us assume that there is a woman Desiree who is never awake and only dreams. As consequence, her ego would be weaker.

Your sentence: If one would dream his entire life, and the dream would be consistent, then wouldn't that person experience imaginary as real?

Best regards, Janko Kokosar

Dear Tomasso

Thanks for that.

>>> Formula (1) involves an equal sign '=' which is not found in formula (5), but the two examples provided (cat and fuel control) suggest that assignments ':=' of values to variables are involved. Would it be meaningful to distinguish between '=' and ':=' (e.g., 'assignment' perhaps suggesting some form of will...)?

Interesting point. In the case of (5), perhaps yes.

>> The way (1) and (5) are formulated does not help comparing the roles of the Context in the two cases, and to see whether they are substantially different roles or not. For example, wouldn't it be possible to formally include C in functions T, and/or F1 and F2?

Yes it would. It's really a question of emphasis. There are always a huge number of things we take for granted that form the environment (the Universe exists, the Earth exists, the experimenter/thinker exists, etc etc)

>> What I find particularly convincing is the fact that T, F1 and F2 "are not determined by the underlying physical laws; they can be shaped by evolutionary or developmental processes in highly complex ways". I suppose these functions represent the stored information used by life to "plan and execute future purposeful actions", that you mention earlier.

Yes indeed

>>>Then, wouldn't it be possible to come up with a single law for the two realms, in which the only difference is the static (for physics) vs. dynamic (for biology) nature of the involved functions? Would this be too much of a unification?

Nice question. Maybe you could formally, but it would hide the essential difference I want to highlight.

>> Both the logic of Physics (1) and the logic of Life (5) involve an IF statement. The IF statement describes a reaction, more than an action, thus it seems inadequate to capture agency, intended as a spontaneous state change not requiring triggering events or conditions.

I have not attempted to characterise agency here. I want to characterise some of the building blocks out of which agency might arise.;

>> Do you consider this as a genuine scientific problem, or a merely philosophical one? Is it perhaps another way of asking 'What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?' (S. Hawking)

In the case of (1), yes; in the case of (5), no.

Best regards

George

Dear Janko Kokosar

too many items to answer all, I'll deal with a few.

>> But according to all this it seems that you think that free-will is not necessary, because logical gates do everything? With the exception, that you maybe think that top down causation includes free-will?

I did not say free will is not necessary, I was only dealing with the lower level foundations that may help meaningful free will emerge

>>> You, Hoel and Sara Walker write positively about top-down causation. Is here in this contest anyone else? I like analysis of this causation, although I think that this is not all what explains life. As I wrote, I think that consciousness and free will are also important factors.

Indeed they are. I did not write about top down causation here because I did that in a previous essay.

>> You are against influence of gravity, what is common sense.

I am not against the influence of gravity. It just is not important in the way that neurons function.

>>> You separate physics and biology. I do not. By my opinion, everything is physics, also information, principles of computer working, etc.

I think that physics provides the foundations for these things to happen, but they involve other forms of causation than just physical.

>> What interpretation of quantum mechanics do you prefer?.. quantum mechanics is valid everywhere, not only on the first level, there are some experiments, which shows similarly.

It is only valid everywhere on some scales, not on all scales. See lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1108.5261 for a full discussion.

>>> I claim that some sort of consciousness exists also in unicellular creatures. I claim for panpsychism. What is your opinion?

I don't understand it.

Best regards,

George Ellis

    That is a really good suggestion, but we need a biologist to take it up.

    My contribution is to go as far out in the unknown as I can, and report back on the landscape I find - mapping, if you like, the territory to be exploited.

    The goal being to understand how aims and ambitions arise, we need a theoretical framework that includes ideas such as aims and ambitions, and minds that can have such ideas. That's how my essay should be understood, as an attempt to sketch that framework.

    ...george...

    George,

    Just ran across a new book in NY Times Book Review that seems relevant to this discussion called Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari. Prior books in his series trace man's evolution. This book sees living creatures as an assemblage of organic algorithms shaped by natural selection. His vision is that humans are doomed by superhuman biological or computational machines. Do you think man can somehow duplicate "the key link between physics and life .. of voltage-gated ion channels" your abstract speaks of?

    Jim Hoover

    Dear Jim,

    >>> This book sees living creatures as an assemblage of organic algorithms shaped by natural selection.

    That seems to fit nicely with my view.

    >>> His vision is that humans are doomed by superhuman biological or computational machines.

    What are they made of? How do they come into existence? If they are made by humans, how do they escape our control? Is he supposing they will be conscious? I think we are more likely to be doomed because of the actions of humans.

    >>> Do you think man can somehow duplicate "the key link between physics and life .. of voltage-gated ion channels" your abstract speaks of?

    Not impossible. Synthetic biology is now a very active field, creating designed macro-molecules.

    Regards

    George

    A very interesting contribution sir.

    You use reproduction as the hallmark to differentiate living organisms that have purpose from non-living like rocks and stars. This distinction has its own blurry aspects as you also mentioned, fire being an example of something that can start small, grow big and reproduce. It can also be said to have a metabolism of sorts, 'breathing' in oxygen and 'breathing' out carbon dioxide; 'dying' if deprived of nutrients and flourishing in the abundance of nutrients. On the other hand we have certain viruses that can be classified as non-living since they cannot carry out any metabolism neither can they reproduce on their own but require living cells to do so.

    With regard to your statement, "Life depends on adaptation to its environment", would you support the theory that dinosaurs became extinct because of a change in Earth gravity which subsequently made them heavier? This theory is not originally mine but I also referred to it in my essay as a possible evidence along with other terrestrial ones that Earth mass/gravity is not a constant but has varied. It may be an example of how physics determines the variety of life.

    Best regards,

    Akinbo

      Dear Akinbo

      I agree with your first statement.

      As to the second,

      >>> With regard to your statement, "Life depends on adaptation to its environment", would you support the theory that dinosaurs became extinct because of a change in Earth gravity which subsequently made them heavier?

      No I don't: Dirac proposed that the strength of gravity might change with time, but we have not found evidence that supports that theory.

      best regards,

      George

      Dear George,

      Thank you for your beautiful and concise essay. It inspired me to think about the specifics of biomolecules and carbon in particular which makes it so unusual and essential to biological processes (as we know them). I have also come to appreciate the importance of simultaneous emergence and realization across multiple levels of scale. The second last sentence in your conclusion succinctly summarizes what I thought this essay contest was all about. "The key thing that enabled this all to happen was the origin of life, when adaptive evolutionary processes came into being."

      I have already rated your essay a few weeks ago, but I wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed it.

      Best regards,

      Robert

      Dear George,

      I have just a brief response to your last comment (to me). I had written:

      The question then is whether there is a dichotomy between the configurations of biological and non-biological systems that corresponds to intentionality versus no intentionality. Do some configurations have intentions while others have none? I argue that there is not a dichotomy, but that biological configurations are better designed to survive (to be stable and grow). Biological systems are better at achieving the goal of survival.

      You responded:

      A rock survives a lot longer than an animal or tree: it is very stable. Furthermore species become extinct. A galaxy survives even longer than a rock or any living species. I can't see what your real claim is.

      "A rock" survives longer than "an animal." But the cells in our bodies have survived for at least millions of years, and they continue to grow. Their structure has changed only moderately. All life on earth could conceivably have derived from a single cell. The structure of that cell has been preserved better than the structure of most rocks, and has a better chance of survival in the future. More precisely, the information in the cells has increased over time, whereas the amount information in a "surviving rock" has been nearly constant. The cells survive better because they better predict and cause their future.

      The argument in my essay is that intentionality is not unique to biological structures, although its nature evolves and emerges with complexity. Key to my argument is a precise definition of "intentionality" and "survival" with respect to space and time. We all have an intuition for these terms, but I have not seen them defined precisely in most of the essays.

      Best wishes,

      Christopher

      Dear Christopher

      >>> ""A rock" survives longer than "an animal." But the cells in our bodies have survived for at least millions of years, and they continue to grow. "

      ???? I cannot make sense of that.

      We each start off as a single cell, which came into existence in our mother's body, and then developmental processes grow these to 10^23 cells, which all die when we die. A rock does better than an single cell.

      If you are talking populations of cells as against populations of rocks, yes some aspects of cells have been very stable over a very long time. So have populations of rocks.

      >>> "The cells survive better because they better predict and cause their future."

      Well they survive well provided the environment provided by the earth allows them to do so. If there is a catastrophic change in that environment, e.g. impact by an asteroid, the family of rocks will do better.

      >>> The argument in my essay is that intentionality is not unique to biological structures, although its nature evolves and emerges with complexity.

      You are somehow using words and/or ideas in a way that completely eludes me.

      Best wishes

      George

      Hi George,

      Very interesting essay especially the loop feedback between "Higher level controls of gene expression" and the "protein machinery".

      I would suggests that selections (higher or lower levels) are not based on Causality principle unless the selection result is inevitable. i.e. Causality is a special case in the occurrence of a phenomenon and the mode of selection of an action out of many (or few) potential action is related to the best optimal equilibrium for the phenomenon, especially (or even) if it is a "Protein Machinery". Philosophically speaking there is Freedom of Choice even in the Protein machinery" .

      In my philosophical essay: "We are together, therefore I am" I expand the subject and explain how we ratify reality and maintain our self-organization while we ever changing in the continuous present.

      thanks for your insights

      Yehuda Atai

      Dear Yehuda

      >>> I would suggests that selections (higher or lower levels) are not based on Causality principle unless the selection result is inevitable.

      Well selection is based on having a variety of things to choose from, and they are usually a random set so the result is not inevitable because of this randomness. Any one of a number of solutions that is good enough will do.

      >> i.e. Causality is a special case in the occurrence of a phenomenon and the mode of selection of an action out of many (or few) potential action is related to the best optimal equilibrium for the phenomenon,

      In the case of living systems, it may not be an equilibrium solution. It might be dynamic. Nevertheless selection to fulfill some goal can be regarded as an emergent causal principle.

      >. Philosophically speaking there is Freedom of Choice even in the Protein machinery"

      At that level, I'd rather say there is a lack of determinism.

      Regards

      George Ellis

      Dear George

      I enjoyed reading your essay, as regards how purpose emerges in biological systems. No doubt this is a hot area, and the emerging field of quantum biology will be one to watch.

      I wanted to suggest my own interpretation of the fundamental laws of physics. I note a few of the other essayists have challenged the idea that inanimate life - which includes the laws of the universe - is devoid of purpose. Obviously these laws of physics have an enabling function which serves to allow for the existence of complex life forms. I will summarise some of the argument from my essay From Nothingness to Value Ethics here.

      If the universe began from nothing (and multiple lines of evidence suggest this to be a possibility) then it is responsible, within itself, for the creation of the what/when/where that we call "reality". This may be an open-ended process - indeed the universe seems to go on creating time and space in an unlimited fashion. So where can we go from this fairly justifiable set of statements to a deeper understanding of the "what"?

      The majority of the laws of the universe, in combination, create a matrix in which complexity can continually expand in a seemingly limitless fashion. The laws may be unchanging by necessity, as to change the fundamental laws of reality would disrupt the whole process. Therefore the laws may have a purpose that is more than analogous to those that support space and time - a complexity dimension, as I call it, allowing for an open-ended creation of "what-ness".

      Best regards

      Gavin

      Dear Gavin

      >>> I note a few of the other essayists have challenged the idea that inanimate life - which includes the laws of the universe - is devoid of purpose. Obviously these laws of physics have an enabling function which serves to allow for the existence of complex life forms.

      Correct.

      >>> If the universe began from nothing (and multiple lines of evidence suggest this to be a possibility) then it is responsible, within itself, for the creation of the what/when/where that we call "reality".

      I can't agree that multiple lines of evidence suggest universe began from nothing. I don't know what such evidence would be. Also, I'm not sure what the word "responsible" entails here. That sounds like an animate system, but it's not.

      >>> the universe seems to go on creating time and space in an unlimited fashion.

      In a sense that's true, although again that suggests it plays an active role - it's personifying the universe. Its the laws of physics that determine that the universe keeps expanding in space, and keeps extending in time in the form of an Evolving Block Universe (which is a topic I have written about).

      >> The majority of the laws of the universe, in combination, create a matrix in which complexity can continually expand in a seemingly limitless fashion.

      Agreed

      >> The laws may be unchanging by necessity, as to change the fundamental laws of reality would disrupt the whole process.

      yes

      >> Therefore the laws may have a purpose that is more than analogous to those that support space and time - a complexity dimension, as I call it, allowing for an open-ended creation of "what-ness".

      Well here you are taking a huge philosophical step in assuming that physical laws have a purpose. How do you distinguish this from them just carrying on doing what they do, in a purposeless way, with life an accidental byproduct? You have to give philosophical rather than scientific arguments to support this claim.

      Regards

      George

      Dear George Ellis

      >>>>>> I claim that some sort of consciousness exists also in unicellular creatures. I claim for panpsychism. What is your opinion?

      >>>I don't understand it.

      Panpsychism is defended also by Tononi and Koch, therefore it is not an unimportant theory. My variant of panpsychism is that the basic elements of consciousness are collapses of wave functions. This model agrees with Zurek's interpretation of quantum mechanics.

      At the same time, it is not easy to imagine, that some materialistic world would exist where consciousness absolutely does not exist. Matter and it properties as touch would have lost sense if no consciousness had not existed. It is similarly, as space would have lost its meaning if no matter had not existed (a link to these my claims is in my essay).

      I read your link http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1108.5261. In your corollary 3 you wrote "Corollary 3: generically, living cells will not exhibit quantum behaviour (because there are thousands of feedback loops in a living cell);"

      At the same time you know quantum biology, because you cited Lloyd. (I cited the same link, [11]). We know still quantum sense of smell and sense of earth magnetic field by birds. Can you write more about quantum biology? I never found how Tegmark's paper https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009 agrees with quantum biology? But decoherence times in sense of earth magnetic field are approximately micro seconds, much larger, as Tegmark said.

      It is also fair that you mentioned testing of your level theory with Leggett experiment. I wished to mentioned you about this.

      But, your theory is bad accrding to Ockham razor, because it needs new parameters, a lot of them.

      >>> I am not against the influence of gravity. It just is not important in the way that neurons function.

      I think that only that gravity defines nature of time and indirectly nature of panpsychism.

      About top-down causation I agree with you a lot. Maybe some software for artificial life could visualize this. One basic example of top-down causation is also quantum entanglement, because information is included also in a connection between two particles, not only in the particles themselves.

      But, existence of top-down causation is not in contradiction with quantum consciousness.

      About your division of physics and biology I think that the essence is that both are informatics, or as simulation in some computer. For instance, using physics 200 years ago, one meter was typically clear physics, not math. But, by physics known nowadays, one meter can be described as multiple of Planck's distance, thus it is dimensionless, thus so physics can become math.

      But I agree, that the problem of interpretation of quantum mechanics is a separation of micro and macro worlds, but my proposal is panpsychism. Probably there are other persons who suggest such models, because this is model which is fall in eyes.

      You also claim that life is known only in biological level, nowhere else. This is true, but this not prevent to introduce panpsychism, which is not equal to "panlife".

      I disagree also with Feynman, as you cited him in your paper. Philosophical models enable testing or at least they can be estimated by Ockham razor, and nature needs very sharp Ockham razor. Scientist today to much follow to Feynman view, they think that they are objective, but at the same time they have some model behind, for which they think that it is correct. The same is valid also for Feynman.

      My essay

      Best regards, Janko Kokosar

      Dear Janko Kokosar

      Thanks for the post. I'll have to read more about panspychism. There is a nice Wikipedia article about it: Panpsychism.

      Regards

      George Ellis

      Dear George

      Thanks for your thoughts on this line of reasoning. Our first major point of difference was:

      GR> If the universe began from nothing (and multiple lines of evidence suggest this to be a possibility) then it is responsible, within itself, for the creation of the what/when/where that we call "reality".

      GE> I can't agree that multiple lines of evidence suggest universe began from nothing. I don't know what such evidence would be.

      Well it is indirect evidence, but here is the section of my essay which discusses the indicators of a cosmic origin ex nihilo:

      "How did the universe begin? Even before we ask this question we should perhaps ask - did it, indeed, have a beginning? Multiple lines of evidence strongly suggest that it did, and since 1965, when Penzias and Wilson discovered the microwave background radiation, most have considered the evidence to be overwhelming. It appears as if the universe began in an explosion (the "Big Bang") approximately 13.7 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since.

      It is important to note that there is no special point from which the universe originated. Rather, wherever we may position ourselves - here, or a billion light years away - we would see the same pattern of expansion. It appears as if the universe began everywhere at once. But what was the nature of this primordial 'everywhere'?

      Large-scale surveys of the universe show that it is spatially very flat. What this means, in essence, is that the spatially contracting forces very equally balance the spatially expanding forces. Thus, if we were able to put all of the forms of energy in the universe (including gravity) together, they may very well cancel out to a net sum of zero. This observation prompted Alan Guth to refer to the universe as "the ultimate free lunch".

      Another important observation is that the universe is very, very large. What we can see is limited by the finite speed of light. But there is no reason to think that it stops at our visual horizon. It may well be infinite. But to create something infinite, we would seem to require some precursor state that was also infinite in extent.

      So here we have something of a riddle. What sort of cosmic origin state could there be, which is of perhaps limitless quantity, and whose net sum of energy is zero? This state would also have to take up very little room, as the Big Bang appears to have started with a very high density. The answer may be nothingness - no space, time, laws, energy - in short, nothing at all. Nothingness should have a net energy sum of zero, and would take up zero space. It would also be limitless in quantity, because if we are dealing with nothingness then why should there be any limit to the amount of the stuff? In fact, true nothingness by its very definition should have no limit or boundary, or else it would be something rather than nothing!"

      Also, with an other cosmic origin state there are potential problems with the first law of thermodynamics.

      There are many possible points of contention in this argument, but as I have said it is worth considering nothingness as a cosmic origin. It is also a useful philosophical starting point, as then one can easily argue that it must possess, intrinsically, a means by which it came into existence. And as existence (as we know it) entails a what, a when and a where, then the universe should have mechanisms by which it creates all three. I know "create" suggests consciousness, but I think it is impossible to get past some kind of decision making process when one approaches the nature of the laws and constants in this way. The only alternatives I know of which don't require consciousness are i) saying that all the unexplained features of reality are just brute facts - the "purposeless way" you refer to, or ii) saying that we live in a multiverse. I don't like either of these answers, and suggest that if we subscribe to either of them there is a real risk we are making premature intellectual closures on important questions.

      One way of arguing my metaphysical position is to go on to show how origin ex nihilo can lead to a model of reality which contains everything - gravity, complexity, spacetime, inflation, dark energy, consciousness, free will, emotions etc. This I have attempted elsewhere, and you can read the short version here. In my essay (this contest) one of my underlying arguments is that, in order to answer foundational questions, we should be thinking metaphysically through exploration of the consequences of possible cosmic origin states. I think a lot of metaphysical speculation is a waste of time, because it is too limited in scope &/or based on incorrect assumptions. But I hope to demonstrate that thinking metaphysically from a cosmic origin ex nihilo is worthwhile. In science, we have picked the low hanging fruit, and deeper answers are not immediately apparent. I think that's where we need this type of reasoning. I note Roger Trigg has a new book out "Beyond Matter: Why Science Needs Metaphysics" - I am looking forward to reading it.

      I would be interested in your thoughts on any of this.

      Best regards

      Gavin