I guess you focus goal on self-perpetuation, thereby imposing some qualitative constraints, whereas I work with just the quantitative constraint of entropy reduction. I do so, because I have no clear notion of what are the ultimate requirements to be alive, so I am not sure how to define survival. Is a single RNA molecule that self-replicates alive? Ideas and cultural traits can self-replicate, they are born, and they sometimes disappear. Computers surely do self replicate (both the software and the hardware), and they can be created and destroyed. Feeling insecure in this realm, I guess I prefer to impose no qualitative restrictions...

Thanks for your thoughts!

ines.

Hi, James,

> Generally, living organisms seek order, but as we age we lose order

I sadly agree...

> Reproduction is a way of sustaining a replacement order for your DNA which

> provides a solid foundation for storing and exhibiting order?

I would say yes, and add that we can not only reproduce biologically (making children), but also culturally: raising children, interacting with other people, discussing essays..

> If life becomes extinct on Earth, we transfer meaning to other intelligent

> life residing in far away planets?

I wish I new... I just keep hoping so! Another alternative is that we evolve into something else that can make something useful with what we have constructed thus far.

Thanks for your comments!

inés.

Professor Samengo,

Hope you check out my essay.

Jim

Ines,

GOOOOOAAAAAALLLLLLLL!

Many artists attempt to draw self-portraits. So they draw themselves. Then they draw themselves drawing themselves and they try to do this recursively. You have observed yourself observing yourself. Bravissima!

A concept I had not adequately considered is the ability of the observer to define the system boundaries ... as a chemical engineer, I have used this concept thousands of times to solve heat and material balances, but I had never thought about it in the way that you describe. It seems to be a very central concept.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

    dear ines,

    "Therefore, entropy reduction and goal-oriented behavior are in a

    one-to-one correspondence."

    hooray! it is a relief to find someone else who has this same premise also be part of their essay. also i love that you also use maxwell's demon as well: it's such a well-known and simple model that helpfully demonstrates how entropy can be beaten with simple rules.

    i was however hoping that you would be able to connect these things to answer the essay's main question (or a variant of the same), "how may mathematical laws give rise to aims and intentions", and would ask if, in retrospect since your essay's submission, if you had any further insights on this question?

      Ha, ha! Touche'! You caught me in an infinite loop of recursive narcissism! I will look into your essay as soon as I find a bit of time...

      best! ines.

      I will certainly do so, just give me a bit of time, it's hard to keep up. Best! ines.

      Professor Ines,

      A very interesting essay. Enjoyed it a lot reading it. I do agree with you on the importance of observers and the observer's demarcation of what the system is. Thought the following line is very interesting "What is interesting in goal-directed behavior if the observer is allowed to engineer the very definition of the agent, in order to get the desired result? Plants grow because what we define as a plant is the stuff that grows every spring, and not the dirt left on the ground every autumn". Think we will both agree that information theory has tremendous potential to provide the missing links.

      I will have to ponder over the idea of ascribing goals to any entropy reduction in a system. I am wondering if that is too narrow a definition. After all, a (conscious) observer should be capable of ascribing a system as performing a computation (and hence the goal of performing that computation,) even with no entropy change(?)

      I do think we agree on some fundamental ideas. I describe emergence of goal and intentions in physical systems as a tradeoff between dissipation and complexity. In the spirit of Landauer, I have a submission titled 'Intention is Physical'. Due to lack of space, I did not have the chance to talk about the role of observers, but I have a few ideas on how such observers who ascribe goals might emerge in the first place (to be left for future work). I would love your comments and feedback if you have the chance to read it.

      Cheers

      Natesh

        Hi Natesh, I actually read your essay, and liked it a lot. Congratulations, good work!

        "Religions put belief first." by Lee Bloomquis.

        Lee: There is an elegance in your brevity.

        Perpetual attempts to discover our ignorance out of every successful step is the best way to evolve towards ontological reality. However, we betray ourselves when we fall in love with a success path that appears to validate a theory while ignoring that experimental evidences are only limited responses of the chosen interactants in our setup. This eventually leads us to develop an abiding "belief" in a "working" theory!

        ChandraSekhar Roychoushuri

        Hi, Ganesh - I feel a bit like having 2 personalities, by writing here and also at your place. If the mapping between inputs and outputs loses no entropy, then it is injective (or has random components, which does not fit the idea of a goal). In injective mappings, the input is equal to the output, except perhaps for a reassignment of the names of the variables. I believe that an important characteristic of a goal is that it be flexible: the goal must be reached under multiple conditions, and circumvent obstacles. That is why I restrict goal seeking to non-injective mappings. In a way, the interesting computations are the ones where information is lost. Or to put it more constructively, where information is compressed, and you only keep the few aspects of the input data (or environment, or initial state, call it as you wish) that are relevant to achieving the goal. Very much related to your physical mechanism of learning. Any thoughts, for or against this argument?

        Professor Ines,

        Thank you for your kind words about my essay. You mention: "Do the forces of energy given off by plasma, a fourth stage of matter, in fact, about 99% of normal matter in the universe, replicate and restructure in the form of dark matter?" It seems like a wild speculative proposal and I don't think it has been proposed by those seeking the source of dark matter. Nevertheless, it represents the connection and utilization of mindless math laws and goal-oriented behavior.

        I appreciate your interest in my ideas, considering some rate w/o reading, and I hope you rate them as highly as I did yours.

        Jim Hoover

        Dear Professor Ines Samengo,

        Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

        I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

        Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

        The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

        A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Dear Samengo,

        Nice essay on Neuron sciences ,

        Your ideas and thinking are excellent... "Observers learn how to observe, and they do so within the framework of learning theory [7]. They are first exposed to multiple examples of the process, that act as the training set."

        ..........................There are observers in our brain, one form picture of pen thro eye, another form a picture of a pen through touch etc... how they will coordinate with each other....?

        Though my essay is not related to your topic I request you to please have a look at it....For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

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

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

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

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

        http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

        Best wishes to your essay.

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

        =snp. gupta

        Dear Professor Ines Samengo,

        Thank you for a delightful, creative and enjoyable essay. From your comment to me a few days ago I notice we share a few references that reveal a deep connection between thermodynamics and information processing. The perspective you provide on your multiple examples of goal directed behavior is thought provoking and have been wondering if there may ultimately be a fundamental connection with your conclusion and the measurement problem in quantum mechanics?

        I just wanted to let you know I have voted for your essay - thank you again for the read.

        Regards

        Robert

          Wow, great question! Let me try to brainstorm a bit about it - all improvised, I confess.

          Indeed, the two situations seem to have some similarities. The Copenhagen interpretation of QM claims that observation collapses the wavefunction. The act of observation, hence, produces a new reality that would not be there, had no observation been made. In my essay, I claim that agents are also a creation of observers, and they would not be there, were there not an observer (endowed with a brain) producing it.

          Can we make an even stronger analogy? When an observer identifies an agent, he or she does not change anything in the outer world, they only change the representation of the outer world that they carry in their brain: by defining the limits of the agent, they make a decision of what exactly they will represent as a separate concept, and what they will discard. Collapsing the wavefunction, however, seems to be a more dramatic action. It seems to imply a change in the outer world, banishing the possibility of interference between the branches of the wavefunction that prior to the collapse were evolving together.

          Yet, within the Everett perspective, the collapse of the wavefunction loses the drama of the Copenhagen picture: All branches of the wavefunction continue to evolve, each one containing one version of the observer. So the collapse is no more than the view from inside-one-branch of an otherwise continuous process. The observer changes nothing of the outer picture, his or her experiments are just the result of perceiving a partial version of all what happens. But can we argue that evolving into one or other branch of the wavefunction is also a computation that brains cannot avoid performing, given the way they have evolved? Can we make the same claim as when observing purposeful agents?

          In this respect, I believe the two systems are somewhat different. The sole interaction between the measuring apparatus and the quantum system under study collapses the wavefunction (or branches it, within the Everett picture), irrespective of whether there is a brain or not in play. Of course, a brain can only evolve in a system that receives information about the outer world, and is capable of representing that information. So by all means, brains must be endowed with measuring devices (our sensory systems, at the very least). So my conclusion would be:

          - brains create agents when observing the world

          - all measuring devices (not just brains) that interact with a quantum system collapse the wavefunction

          - the sensory systems that a brain is fed with are examples of such devices.

          There is much more to say, I guess, actually this is an excellent question! I'll post this right now, but will keep thinking about it, these ideas are just my first draft of an answer.

          Is it not surprising that relativity, and QM, and thermodynamics all point out to an active role of the observer in what we so far had regarded as objective reality?

          So hey, thanks a lot, this is truly fun!

          ines.

          Ines,

          This is a very interesting argument, clearly stated. I don't doubt that you're right - "Goal-directed behavior does not exist if we do not define our variables in such a way as to bring goals into existence." Still, I feel this perspective is a bit one-sided. Though evolution is not goal-directed, it surely involves "a runaway escalation of sophistication," as you note.

          I think what may be missing here is that that the role of the "observer" is in a way played by the recursiveness of evolutionary processes. You say, for example, "Cell division seems to be a productive business because the waste products are not defined to be part of cells." But when cells divide, they create the conditions for more cells to divide. You make a good case that the waste products are important - and of course they may be food for other cells - but they don't pass on the information that keeps cellular replication going. So it's not an arbitrary choice to distinguish the cells from their waste. Similarly, members of a species that reproduce are distinguished from those that fail, even though the failures are also important, as the basis of natural selection.

          I think you must have had something like this in mind on page 7, where you discuss agency and "iterating the algorithm" to generate higher-level order. In any case, the aspect of the process you emphasize deserves more consideration, and you have a way of making profound statements strikingly simple - "A subsystem can only decrease its entropy if it somehow gets rid of initial conditions."

          I hope you'll be inclined at some point to look at my essay, on the role of recursive processes in quantum measurement, biological evolution and human communication. In any event, thanks for your very thoughtful and thought-provoking essay.

          Conrad

          Dear Conrad,

          Thanks! If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that there is an objective way to define the variables of the system so as to produce agency. In my essay, subjectivity was the central character. But in the end, I argue that observers detect agency because they learn to do so, so there must be something in the outer world that makes agency learnable. I claimed that learning is guided by the need to be able to predict the future, for the evolutionary benefit of the observer. You, instead, point out that learnabiligy may be also be something that can be dictated by reasons that do not relate to the benefit of the observer. There may be something going on out there, that makes agents a natural concept because of the effect they produce in the system, and irrespective of observers. I think this is an interesting point.

          I still believe that brain-carrying subjects learn to ascribe agency for their own sake, but this need not the only way to ascribe agency. There could be for example computational/descriptive reasons. For example, we could ask: How should we define an agent (and its goal) so that the future evolution may be described with as few variables as possible, and as simple (and universal) rules as possible? Following the living cells (and not their wastes) allows us to keep telling the story (living cells replicate, wastes do not).

          This is not disconnected with my observer-centered story. In the end, observers also need to tell themselves a simple and an accurate story (that is the whole point of learning). But the new idea is that the problem of arrogating agency can also be formulated in terms of computational convenience, with no need of a "fitness function" for an observer. Nobody denies that observers need to be computationally efficient, but we need not always describe nature looking through their eyes.

          I hope to have interpreted your ideas correctly - let me know, if I haven't! In any case, I will surely continue to think along these lines. Excellent input!

          And I will look into your essay shortly, by all means. Best!

          inés.