A clearer conclusion, even if just a restatement of mysteries, would have helped (or would have helped me, at least).

    Dale Conrad Johnson,

    Congratulations on a first-class essay. You speak well, you explain well, and you integrate concepts. Most significantly, you qualify your statements, pointing out in several places that equations can only be solved approximately, and that aspects of the problem are too hard to define. Thus, logical proof being impossible in this situation, you weave a narrative, and quite a narrative it is.

    Your conclusion, that all this could not have been invented on purpose - it's too finely tuned, seems plausible. But I believe that if one masters the 1400 pages of Albert's 'Molecular Biology of the Cell' and any good book on embryology, and then a couple of books on immunology, that your conclusion

    "It could only have come about by accident"

    does not hold up.

    And nowhere, that I saw, do you explain how, from dead matter, conscious awareness arose. I think it more likely that, at every step of the way, there was a hand on the local scale. This 'hand' could take the form of a primordial consciousness field, as ubiquitous as gravity, that embodies awareness plus volition, and pushed the system to succeed where random statistics would prevent success.

    The outcome is the same, but the meaning is vastly different.

    I hope you will read my essay and comment.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Conrad Dale Johnson,

      I want to thank you for your wonderful essay. I found much of your essay resonated with thoughts I've been kicking around in my own head for quite some time, though I doubt I could have articulated them quite as well as you have.

      Parts that particularly struck me:

      The distinction you made between living and nonliving systems:

      "The thing is, there's almost no way to do this, in physics. Though we sometimes hear that our universe is finely-tuned to support the existence of life, in fact almost nothing in the non-living world ever makes copies of anything, let alone of itself. "

      The gap between the physical world and our mathematical models:

      "Each nanosecond in each atomic nucleus in the universe, incredibly complex interactions go on that we can barely begin to approximate. "

      The difference between brains and computers:

      "So brain software is nothing like computer software, that gets installed just by copying it to another machine. Rather, the human mind has to get itself reinvented itself in every baby's brain. Each new version of this software is unique, and will never be repeated."

      The uniqueness of each human person:

      "Each human consciousness evolves its own universe. The world as seen with your eyes and imagined in your brain is a world no one else will ever see."

      The observation that constraints are the source of possibility:

      "Pure unconstrained possibility - as in the deep quantum vacuum - provides no context in which anything can make a meaningful difference."

      I have judged your essay in accordance with its excellent merits. Please be kind enough to check out my own essay in the contest entitled "From Athena to AI" when you get the chance.

      Best of luck,

      Rick Searle

        Branko - I appreciate the comment. Looking at your essay on physical constants gives me an idea why you might suppose atomic particles are not identical, but of course that's far from mainstream science.

        Thanks - Conrad

        Hi Mark - surely no physical law says that any living creatures must exist. And I don't think being "goal-driven" is really what's fundamental in human evolution. I'll have to look at your essay to see what you mean by "the grand scheme of the universe." But my goal here is only to make it understandable that physics, biology and humanity operate very differently, and to show how each of these realms of operation can have arisen by accident. The result is certainly very grand, but it's not the result of any plan.

        Thanks -- Conrad

        Andrew, you're right. I was pressed for time, and as usual tried to get too much into the essay. I hoped that restating the main idea many times in various contexts would work, but I should have left space for a better summary at the end. Thanks.

        Mr. Klingman, thank you very much - I look forward to reading your essay.

        I'm very far from mastery of molecular biology, but it surely is impressive that all the finely-tuned machinery of the cell can function in a "storm" of random encounters among molecules. And I think very few biologists doubt that this all came about through natural selection operating on mutations, which is to say, by accident. The fact that the process has evolved amazingly tight and complex controls does not imply that these constraints were somehow imposed by an external agency... rather, by circumstances that themselves evolved.

        To me, the notion of a "primordial consciousness field" implies an extremely vague notion of "consciousness" that's hardly explanatory. I prefer to consider what's unique about human consciousness, since this is really the only context in which the term has a meaning we can explore.

        Rick - Your essay is high on my list to read, since I remember the excellent piece on Utopias you wrote for the 2014 contest. Many thanks for your comments.

        Conrad

        Hi Conrad,

        I read your essay with interest.

        In particular I liked "That's how the software gets itself reseeded in each new brain, through daily emotional contact with others whose software is already highly evolved." This resonates with me. I have the notion that emotion is a key to intention and meaning.

        Thanks for your essay,

        Don Limuti

          Don - thanks for your interest! I was very impressed by the writings of Colwyn Trevarthen who studies infant development... he says emotional connection is basic to sharing perspectives and intentions with others. Seems obvious, yet is rarely emphasized.

          Hi, Conrad, thanks for the good read! In the context of your essay, the comments you made about mine acquire even more meaning. Which, by the way, is a good way to stress that I truly valued your idea that context is crucial for meaning. Among the many interesting topics that you touched, one that has really captured me (biased by the ideas of my own essay) is to try to find a meaning (or should I say a context?) in which to understand the difference between replication and noise. Following you, and Dawkins, and Dennet and many others, I agree that self-replication plays a central role, and that so do copying mistakes. But the distinction between the two (between self replication and mistakes) requires a context. What do we mean by self replication? Specially when talking for example of ideas. What is a perfect copy of an idea? And a copy with Variations? Surely if you change too little, there is no mistake at all, otherwise nothing would be a copy. Even when DNA replicates the issue arises, though less dramatically. For example, we say there is a copying error when one base is mistaken, but not when one atom inside one base is replaced by an isotope. So before distinguishing what is a mistake and what is a perfect copy, we need a notion of equality, which is, in a sense, a context. And the context is defined not by what has happened so far, but by what is to happen next, right?

          Ok, not truly sure of what I am saying, but by all means, your thoughts (replicated in my head with or without variations) are very useful to me. Thanks!

          inés.

            Yes... but the key distinction made in the context of "what happens next" is not between a perfect copy and a mistake. The organism's offspring just get whatever genes they get, which may include "mistakes" and will definitely include recombinations. The distinction is whether or not this new version works to make more copies. Accurate transcription is important, but also the mistakes.

            When it comes to ideas, we're even further away from perfect copying. If my essay succeeds really well, for you, it's not because you have an accurate copy of what I think in your head. Ultimately there's no way to compare what some set of words means to two different people... unless we're talking in a well-defined and restricted context. So if I succeed here, it's because fortuitously I manage to set off something that makes sense for you, in the creative context of your own ideas. Instead of comparing, we can discuss. Which, by the way, is for me a rare pleasure... so I really appreciate your taking time for this.

            Conrad

            > The distinction is whether or not this new version works to make more copies.

            Sure, but in order to decide whether something succeeded or not in producing copies, I need a notion of equality, or similarity.. don't you?

            > So if I succeed here, it's because fortuitously I manage to set off something that makes sense for you

            Sure, but again, I need the notion of similarity. Imagine I read your essay, so I get delayed, miss my normal bus, and take the next one. And there I happen to find an old school friend I had not seen for many years. Your essay will have set off something that makes sense to me, but not in the way we are intending it here. Any other thing dealying me would have had the same effect. There is still a causal link between me getting caught by your ideas and me meeting my friend. But the two events are too different from one another to state that one gives meaning to the other, are they not?

            So this is the issue I am still trying to work out in my head. You have a recursive definition of meaning. But when I try to make it work, I always fall back on the need to try to define "copy" and "mistake", otherwise the recursive definition seems to dilute away in "something affecting something else", which is no more than to say that in the whole universe, all particles interact with all others. I truly like the your idea that something has meaning if it can produce more meaning. But I cannot separate it from "produce more meaning *of the same kind*".

            am I missing something?

            Note: In spite of my example of the bus above, I think that I do carry some copy of your ideas, modified to a sufficiently modest extent as to still be recognizable as daughter ideas - at least by me!

            best,

            ines.

            Conrad,

            I like the clear classification of the studied dimensions of meaning. Your changing context sounds somewhat like Aristotle's perception of human goals. Recursive functionality of meaning as common element for the three categories. I noted the comments on differences in molecules, but you said "In biology, finely-tuned systems of complex molecules make near-exact copies of themselves," which I thought accurate, not saying that bonding is the same.

            I like the way you separate your dimensions of meaning: in everything we experience - human, biological and physical, and compare the recursive functionality, the brain sw installed and reinstalled not like computer sw.

            You clearly distinguish the varied elements of the universe but perhaps focus less on the specific function of so-called mindless laws while I emphasize the broader universal scope of such laws, especially entropy.

            Well done. I would like to hear your ideas on my essay.

            Jim Hoover

              Inés,

              > in order to decide whether something succeeded or not in producing copies, I need a notion of equality, or similarity.. don't you?

              Well, I recall there are complex error-correcting mechanisms that check on RNA and repair mistakes, as well as splicing out introns, etc. But at a basic level, in biology, I think that success means ongoing reproductive success, and accurate copying only serves that end. After all, in sexually reproducing species, offspring are not genetic copies of the parents. Most of the genes need to be exact copies for the offspring to survive and reproduce, but ultimately it's their reproductive success that "decides" whether any member of a species is a good enough copy... so far as future evolution is concerned.

              > I always fall back on the need to try to define "copy" and "mistake", otherwise the recursive definition seems to dilute away in "something affecting something else".

              In biology, the key thing that has to get reproduced is the ability to reproduce. With us humans, the key thing that needs to be communicated is the ability to communicate. The latter is much more complicated, because only in special cases (like learning a math formula or relaying news) does it come down to accurate copying. Even then, the meaning of the news or the formula depends on what we do with it in future.

              Your bus example is good... it shows how meaning ramifies out into the world to have all kinds of effects. Likewise in biology, the successful reproduction of an organism can cause many different effects in the world. But the key effect is to make more reproduction possible. With communication, the key function is to keep the conversation going, whether with yourself or with another person... to keep making new things seem fun or important to talk and think about. You're right that "sameness" is a crucial element, though less clearly defined than in biology. If you and I had very different notions, we would just be talking past each other. But again, while accurately grasping each other's thoughts is important, it serves a deeper purpose - for me anyway, it makes me feel much more connected and hopeful, maybe better able to listen and express myself clearly in future.

              In short, "meaning" does indeed dilute out into the world of interaction... I think that's why it can seem impossible to define except as a feeling we have about things. Meaning does more than set up the possibility for more meaning, but that's the key thing it succeeds or fails at.

              Hope that clarifies things a little... and thanks again for your helpful responses.

              Conrad

              Jim -- I'll certainly take a look at your essay. Yes, my main goal was just to clarify the basic differences between the three dimensions of our existence, to try to explain why they work in such different ways. But concepts like entropy are relevant at all levels.

              Thanks for reading and commenting! -- Conrad

              • [deleted]

              • Post #23

              Hi Conrad,

              I read your paper and yes, I do see the similarity between your use of 'contextual meaning' and my construct of the traveler with in a certain terrain. Interesting how that works within an iterative frame. There is also kindred thinking between your idea of 'meaningful difference' and Gregory Bateson's definition of information as, "a difference that makes a difference," or something like that.

              I appreciated your section on the difficulties of creating a universe ex nihlo; that is fertile ground. How does it begin? If one thing exists only in relation to another, what is the first declarative step?

              It felt like we were covering much of the same ground, simply on different paths.

              Regards, Don

                Dear Conrad,

                I estimate you essay exelent. Excellently written.

                You are one of the few who directly answers the question put by the contest.

                Perhaps my essay will complement your understanding of the causality of quantum processes. Your essay allowed to consider us like-minded.

                Kind regards,

                Vladimir

                The note above was posted by Don Foster, whose most entertaining essay I highly recommend.

                Don,

                Yes, I had Bateson in mind... having been fortunate enough to take a seminar with him many years back. And I'm glad you picked up on my creation fantasy... something that occurred to me a mere 20 years ago. Finally got a chance to use it.

                As to your question, how does it begin? My thought is to start with a more radical version of the quantum vacuum of "virtual events" where there are no rules at all, and anything can happen. As in the creation scenario, the problem is that there's no given context to define what happens. So the only kind of structure that can exist is one that's able to define all its own rules and parameters, without referring to anything outside itself.

                Now our universe is able to do that - as evidenced by the fact that we're able to define all the known laws of physics, etc. on the basis of empirical observation. All these various kinds of information evidently have contexts that make them meaningful. So can we find simpler patterns within this very complex structure, that might represent more primitive self-determining systems, from which our universe emerged?

                In an earlier FQXi essay (page 6), I suggested the electromagnetic field might be such a "fossil" system. This also discusses how emergence might work here. I also sketched the basic idea in a Physics Forums post - that was back in 2009, when they still allowed posting such stuff.

                Thanks for asking! - Conrad