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

        Dear Dale, thanks for your remarks on my essay. You rightly point out the importance of being able to repeat things in an almost but not exactly identical fashion, both in biological evolution and in human social interactions. I'm not sure I'm convinced that this also applies to quantum mechanics. You also rightly stress that meaning and intention depend on emerged context. Cheers, Stefan

          Stefan,

          Yes, what gets repeated in quantum measurement is not generally something "almost identical", as it is in biology. Of course it's possible to make repeated measurements on a system and get the same result... but in general, the result of one measurement event will contribute to contexts in which entirely different types of measurements become possible.

          The same is true of human communication, though. We can of course repeat ourselves, but in general, if what I say has meaning to you, your response will be entirely different from what I've said... though hopefully not unrelated!

          Where the recursive process in biological evolution is essentially about reproducing information, both in quantum physics and human connection the primary process is that of creating contexts in which information has meaning. That is, information gets defined and communicated rather than just copied. That's essentially why these process are so much harder to clarify than the biological one.

          Thanks for commenting! -- Conrad

          7 days later

          • [deleted]

          • Post #29

          Hi Conrad,

          Thanks for your nice remarks on my essay, and I must say I enjoy your writing style, which is nice and clear.

          I am picking up some points of concern in your argument though, particularly with respect to QM:

          While these choices are random, they're correlated with other random choices in ways that aren't yet explained.

          I'm not sure what you are talking about here - do you mean entanglement? If so, I think this is explained at a mathematical level by the operator of QM, and at the level of intuition in many-worlds and similar interpretations of QM.

          any two molecules of the same type are identical, always interacting with other molecules in just the same way.

          Wouldn't you agree that there is randomness in the way molecules interact - especially for example in DNA?

          Best regards, ...george...

            The above comment is from George Ellis, whose excellent essay is here.

            George - thanks very much for responding. As to the two points you mention -

            1) I did have entanglement in mind, and the puzzling question of non-locality. But much more generally, what's "unexplained" about QM is that measurement results can be individually random, and yet result in statistically precise patterns. Or in short, that indeterminacy can support a higher-level determinism. This looks like a prime example of your "top-down realization."

            But while it's true that a great deal about this is understood mathematically, that doesn't seem to me an explanation of how or why this occurs. Maybe such basic facts about nature aren't explainable, of course... but I suspect there's much more to be understood about the ability of our universe to make essentially all its information physically determinable.

            2) Yes, there's plenty of randomness at the molecular level, as well described in your essay, so my statement was not well worded. But it's also important that atomic interaction is so precisely reliable. If there were even slight differences in the behavior of any two atoms of the same type (in the same state), there would be larger differences between two simple molecules of the same type... and there would be no possibility of replicable behavior at the level of huge biomolecules.

            Hope that makes sense - Conrad

            Dear Conrad,

            I enjoyed your essay, and I agree with much of it. Also, I have now responded to your post on my essay (The Making of the Mind: What is Intrinsic to Matter and What Emerges with Complexity?).

            Your essay focused especially on "reproduction" as the key factor that distinguishes animate from inanimate objects. I fully agree that it is a very important difference between animate from inanimate objects (I am a biologist). I argue in my essay that reproduction does not form the basis of a dichotomy that distinguishes a "thing" with "knowledge and intention" from a thing with "no knowledge or intention." You seem to imply that reproduction is the basis of a dichotomy. If you do believe that, I would like to see a more precise definition of "reproduction." Gravity and the strong force enable growth, allowing smaller things to come together to make bigger things that are larger and more stable. It is not difficult to conceive of a chemical that directly or indirectly catalyzes synthesis of 'copies' of itself (positive feedback). Neither of these is "biological," but both involve growth and "natural selection" that promote survival. I am not denying that biological reproduction exceeds these processes, only that the distinction is not a dichotomy.

            Best wishes,

            Christopher

              Hi Christopher - thanks very much for reading the essay, and your comment. I'll respond at more length in the thread to your excellent essay.

              As to defining reproduction - like the other basic terms I explore (meaning, measurement, communication), it's defined recursively. "To reproduce successfully is not to make perfect copies, but to have offspring that also have offspring, on and on." What it means and what it takes to reproduce is different for each species; it involves many complex functions that have all changed over time. What's essential is just that the process keep itself going.

              Early in the emergence of life, the top priority would have been the accuracy of replication, along with improving the metabolic process needed to sustain this. But as the evolutionary process itself evolved, reproduction became more oriented toward promoting variation (e.g. recombination) and managing mutation (e.g. sex). But as a biologist, you're better acquainted with all this than I am. The point is to define reproduction functionally rather than formally - this relates to my discussion with Inés above.

              Where you want to emphasize the overall continuity from particles to people, I'm trying to describe the basic discontinuities and show how they could happen. Apart from that emphasis, I do think our views have a lot in common.

              Thanks again - Conrad

              5 days later

              Dear Conrad Johnson,

              Thank you for your fanscinating and wide ranging essay. I enjoyed reading it and have also in the meantime rated it too. Your essay did give me a new perspective on this topic which I have been thinking about ever since. In particular, what do we mean by an accident? If you consider a person with a driver's license, it would not be very politically correct to say "there's an accident looking for a place to happen". But in truth if you place a million of such people in a large city then the rate of car accidents can be predicted so accurately that companies can make a profit off that distribution. So in a way, the phenomenon of auto insurance is realized by a large sample of individuals, though we have no idea who will get into a car accident next. So the scope of my musing was, if the "accidental" origin of meaning of which you speak were very ubiquitous, what emergent structure would be realized from that?

              Thanks again for the read. Good luck for the contest.

              Regards,

              Robert

                Hi Conrad,

                I don't think there are any important differences in the way you and I would define 'reproduction.' I would define it pragmatically (to make it a distinct and useful word), and I would say that it is a property of animate but not inanimate things. However, my main point here is that I don't think that the distinction between a reproducing and non-reproducing thing corresponds to a dichotomy in which the former has intentions and the latter has none.

                Surely there is a very important distinction in the nature of the intentions of animate versus inanimate things. If only animate things reproduce, by definition, then I would naturally say 'only animate things have the intention to reproduce.' I fully agree that reproduction is a key step in the emergence of higher intelligence and intentionality. In common language I would agree to call it a 'discontinuity,' but I probably would not call it that with respect to math.

                I have just now responded to your second round of comments on my essay.

                Best wishes,

                Christopher

                Robert -- thanks very much for reading and commenting! I enjoyed your essay as well, and left a note in that thread.

                I'm glad you found a new perspective here. Though I'm sure I made my point about recursive systems and natural selection, since I repeated it a lot, I don't think I did a good job explaining why that perspective is important. To me the possibility of coming to understand physics and human consciousness as clearly as we understand biology seemed very striking, but I may not have sold that idea very well.

                To your comment -- no doubt accident is ubiquitous... but circumstances that enable random events to connect in meaningful ways are not. Or rather, they are ubiquitous in our universe, but only through the three recursive technologies I describe, which continually regenerate such circumstances.

                Thanks again -- Conrad

                4 days later

                Conrad,

                An interesting and well written essay reminding us of and identifying some important points. I think the three 'layers' (I found techologies an interesting word choice! - but I like that) you chose were valid, (if perhaps only representative of a more deeply stratified reality of upward emergence?).

                I don't feel I came away with any conclusions or decision on the topic question (though did it really deserve one!?) but that didn't really detract.

                I agree with your comments, consistent with my own work, that; "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. and then also of QM;

                "....in quantum physics, things are interconnected in more complicated ways". ..and ...we haven't had any clear notion of what a measurement is. which I raise because I further address that this year (wearing last years red & green socks) with what 'should be' the last component deriving it all mechanistically, so removing all 'spookyness'! You do have a handle on QM so I hope you may look and tell me if you follow the mechanism (4 out of 5 barmaids could!)

                Very well done for yours. I do like your writing style. Your essays cover much good ground like mine (I deal with macro levels too!) but I feel mine have to be more 'compressed'. (when you get time watch the video too). A complementary score now being applied.

                Very best

                Peter