Joe, I agree with every word you say, and you phrase it all crystal clear - you are surely a good teacher! - so I am afraid there is little I can add. Apart from saying I'm happy to receive these comments from someone who can write so well, and who produced such an excellent essay himself.
So good to know we are tuned!
best!
inés.
I agree, the world provides the conditions for agency to be arrogateable. That is what I meant, in the essay, by "merits are shared". Indeed, the world has the merit of producing subsystems where entropy decreases. Moreover, those subsystems are repeated in space and time, and are nested in space and time. For example, if we choose a certain subsystem and declare it "prokaryote cell", it turns out that many such bugs exist. And they combine/evolve into other subsystems that can be called "eukaryote cell", that are also numerous. These, in turn, combine/evolve into multicellular organisms, and so forth. So not only entropy sometimes decreases locally, but does so following certain patterns, that are nested. All these are merits of the world, without which no observer could arrogate agency.
Can we say agency exists without observers? This reminds me of the question "if a tree falls, and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?". Maybe yes, maybe no. The waves are there, the atoms are moving, but if nobody interprets them, I feel dubious. Agency only exists if we choose the right subsystem. Of course, the right subsystem can be detected by a brain, by a robot, by a computer program. Or by nobody: it exists in nature, even if nobody observes it. I surely admit its existence, and by all means, its existence is also an interesting topic, in fact many essays discuss the conditions required for its existence.
I just decided to focus on the role of the observer, because I believe there are three interesting points to make. 1) arrogating agency is a compact and computationally efficient way to observe the world and make predictions, so observers actually benefit themselves of their observational powers (2) the ability to perform this computation can be understood as the product of evolution, and (3) the acquisition of this ability can be thought of, in turn, as a goal directed behavior itself (2 and 3 are very close to each other).
I guess I just chose a sub-topic that was limited enough for me to develop a story that could fit in 9 pages :-)
Thanks for your interest! best!
inés.
Thanks for your comments,
Dear Inés,
this was enjoyable to read. I think my analysis largely parallels yours -- plus, you framed it nicely! -- and we come to similar conclusions. You say "Goal-directed behavior does not exist if we do not define our variables in such a way as to bring goals into existence." with which I agree -- it's a matter of at which scales we describe the world. I'd add that in order to make sense of the macroscopic world, we have not much choice but to use these "variables" which "bring goals into existence". You turn the latter into a statement about our brain, its purpose and how it evolved, which also makes sense. In this last step I also see connections between your essay and Sofia Magnúsdóttir's contribution.
Good luck, Stefan
Thanks, Stefan, I've just read your essay and liked it a lot (comments there). And I was also very fond of Sophia's, I'm happy to see other people value her ideas too. Best!
inés.
Dear Ines,
I estimate you essay exelent. Excellently written.
You are one of the few who directly answers the question put by the contest.
In my opinion, the "Maxwell's Demon" considered by you has an analog, in the form of a classical parametric resonance in a soliton wave, which operates on the principle of the action of a heat pump.
You might also like reading my essay .
Your essay allowed to consider us like-minded people.
Kind regards,
Dear Vladimir, thank you so much for your comments. Sure, I will read your essay carefully, hopefully soon. Looking forward!
inés.
Very vividly written, I especially like the use of the verb "arrogate". (The comparison of Menelaus to a bacterium on the other hand failed to enlighten me, I'm afraid)
I like the idea that something like metabolism, as a continuous redefinition of the boundaries of "self" helps agents rise above the determinism of the physical level. I guess the redefinition can sometimes be more discontinuous as well, like when a lizard detaches and discards its tail to escape a predator.
Hi Ines,
Are you trying to hide! Your abstract is terrible....it confused me to the extent that I needed to return to your essay after two weeks recuperation.
May I redo your abstract: "The main conclusion of this essay is that the interesting part of agency is the observer. Physics does not make sense, observers make sense of it. Life does not have a meaning, we give it a meaning."
Several essays mentioned Maxwell's demon as a place for agency to creep in. However, Your analysis of Maxwell's demon describing agency is so insightful I will repeat it here:
Arrogating purpose, in this case, is to assume that the gas--who takes the role of the agent--wants to shrink. Other verbs may be used (tends to, is inclined to, etc.), but the phrasing is irrelevant. Maxwell's demon hid the initial conditions of the gas in its memory. As uncanny as it may seem, arrogating purpose to the gas is a rather accurate description of the gas' phenomenology. Purposeful agents, hence, only emerge from sub systems that eat up order like Maxwell's demon.
There are a lot of good essays in this contest, this essay is monumental (IMHO). Please excuse me for being in a loop of delayed recursive narcism.
Do visit my essay,
Don Limuti
Hi, Miles, thanks for reading and commenting! The entropy reduction of the bacterium is instantiated by the fact that no matter how nucleotides are arranged in the initial state, they become tidily arranged for DNA replication in the final state. The entropy reduction of Menelaus is larger. He manages to achieve DNA recombination not only irrespective of the initial spatial arrangement of nucleotides in Helen's womb, but also, irrespective of the initial location of Helen herself (Troy). Both he and the bacterium are able to circumvent obstacles, but his strategy is more complex. Anyhow, it was obviously not a good example, having to explain it once and again is a bit like explaining a joke (!).
I liked the lizard idea! Looking forward to reading your entry,
in[es.
That's the dilemma, right? Should I write a fancy abstract, and later bore readers to death? Or better a very obscure one, and later deliver an essay above their flattened expectations? Same as when choosing a photo for one's web page. Should we look good, and then disappoint people when they meet us? Or look terrible, and give some relief to the brave ones that dared to come anyway?
Anyhow, thanks so much for the help, your version of my abstract was very much improved. I'll keep it in mind for next time! And thanks also for the support.
Feel free to loop as much as you want, that's the whole point of consciousness, isn't it?
best!
inés.
Hey Inés,
Thank you very much for your detailed brainstorm, and I must apologize for my tardy reply. (I was fully expecting the website to let me know when my questions are answered on forums. That should teach me!) I agree with what you are saying.
As regards your question at the end, "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?":
It does beg the question about just how fundamental observers are in the physical world. It can be argued from the plethora of information that is distributed by a-biological processes (such as red-shifted spectra of galaxies to name one example), that all of that would be useless if not for observers who can process such information to make sense of the universe.
I also think the issue of time is intimately related to all of this, though my thoughts on it are far from developed. But I do like the perspective of if we can adjust the rate of time, so the rate at which information is transported, all the way to zero, then nothing would exist. So time, no matter how we look at it, is as fundamental as energy conservation itself.
I'm digressing, but I also believe that a few choice essays in this contest would provide the seeds of progress on the question that was originally asked - mindless math leading to intention - and take us a step forward in that direction.
Once again, my apologies for replying so late.
Regards
Robert
Hi Ines, (I also posted on my blog)
1. Thanks for you review....much appreciated.
2. You say "I myself argue that there are no goals per se, but that we choose to see them. Not exactly because their existence makes us happier, but rather, because their detection allows us to make predictions, and thereby, to be more fit to pass on our genes."
Yea, Darwin and Dawkins have highly regarded points about how genes foster evolution and are selfish respectively. I will not argue with Darwin, however, Dawkins is wrong. Genes are both competitive and cooperative (see Yaneer Bar yam's work on complexity).
Instead of using the words goals I will substitute "choice" and rephrase your sentence: ""I (Don L) argue that there are no goals per se, but that we (humans but perhaps not all life) choose to see them. These choices are made because they satisfy us emotionally, (in healthy individuals they tend toward happiness), and thereby, to be more fit to pass on our genes."
About Choice and Emotions: I posted on one of mad max's minion's blogs "your emperor is totally nude (in Italian)". This minion was a determinist but his emotion (aka greed) caused him to delete my post (followed by my score plummeting). Was his choice determined by mathematics? This minion was much less fit to pass on their genes than someone like yourself.
In spite of my stated intention, ha ha. I hope you win this contest.
Don Limuti
Hello Inés,
The reference to "if a tree falls, and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?" clarifies matters for me. I understand why you say, "Maybe yes, maybe no." The subsystem exists independently of external observers, but for the subsystem to exist as an agent in a full sense, it must be detected, observed, or interpreted as such.
On another issue, I might say that at some point it would be interesting to think about the relationship between your understanding of arrogating agency and what Daniel Dennett calls "taking the intentional stance." Of course, Dennett is also concerned to show that entities which take the intentional stance and those entities to which intentionality is attributed can both arise in the course of evolution.
Best wishes.
Laurence Hitterdale
THank you for commenting on my essay. I read your essay and really liked it. You make some very novel points.
Thank you.
Noson
Ines, you say:
The main conclusion of this essay is that the interesting part of agency is the observer. Physics does not make sense, observers make sense of it.
I say in my essay:
Our vision (and knowledge) of the different scale LANDSCAPES is always from our own scale spectra (our LANDSCAPE: Newtonian Landscape). And from there we try to understand everything that
happens in the others scale landscapes.
But, what would happen if we could observe these same LANDSCAPES from their own scale?
It could give us a completely different point of view that we have now, and it would surely help us to understand better many concepts and phenomena that now we do not fully understand.
Dear Ines Samengo
I agree a lot, what you wrote, especially about entropy.
But you wrote:
»By iterating the algorithm, profuse RNA replication in free solutions can be observed to give rise to prokaryote cells, who in turn evolve into eukaryotes, from which multi-cellular organisms appear, all the way up to the ever growing branches of the tree of life. In the way, conscious humans, civilization, and artificial intelligence emerge.«
Here I add that consciousness cannot arise out of materialistic world. The first reason is because consciousness is from different material than materialistic world. The second reason is that materialistic world per se, does not exist.
The second problem is "self", as you write at the end. I think that the smallest units of consciousness is qualia. Qualia as pain, for instance, is a negative feeling, but it does not need to know what is self.
I admit, I am not so sure as in non-emergentism of consciousness.
Can you write, what you think about quantum consciousness?
Best regards, Janko Kokosar
Hi, Lawrence, sorry for the late response, I had a lot of demand at work, I'm now trying to catch up with the fun in my life, which includes discussions in this forum.
I have not read "The intentional stance", but heard about it in lectures and talks - and surely liked the ideas that those talks triggered in me. Actually, it may well be the case that I developed my point of view in this essay based on Dennett's ideas. (It's not really easy to say which ideas are ours, and which are inherited, is it?). I believe he goes further than me, going all the way down to arrogating mentality, that is, assuming agents are rational, and have beliefs and desires. I believe intentionality is less than mentality. I do not think we gain much by assuming a robot has mentality, nor that evolution, or a football team have mentality. But I am ready to ascribe goals to them.
In my essay, I have focus more in the initial steps of the arrogation process. Before arrogating intentions (or even mentality), we need to identify the agent by cutting it out from the huge amount of particles populating spacetime. I tried to emphasize that predictability (or entropy reduction) is the crucial property guiding the cutting process. And I also tried to underscore that this process is an economic representation of the outer world, and to conjecture that this very same process is involved in the construction of the self. I did not delve in the construction of the representations of other minds, but I guess it follows naturally.
So yes, you are right, all what I say may well be aligned with Dennett's thoughts. To be able to make a more certain statement, I have just bought "The intentional stance" and I should get it here in a month or so. So maybe in a little while, I'll have a better answer!
Thanks for commenting,
inés.
Dear Ines Samengo
If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts.
I inform all the participants that use the online translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.
Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.
New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of the materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.
Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same in your theme
Sincerely,
Dizhechko Boris
Hi Ines,
I believe that Dennett does go further than you in identifying mentality and consciousness for that matter with functional states such as having intentions. Based on what you say in your comment, I would agree with you more than with Dennett. In any case, I think you will find "The Intentional Stance" an interesting book. As you know, Dennett has recently published a new book, "From Bacteria to Bach and Back." I haven't read it yet, but it will be interesting to see his current expression of his ideas.
Best wishes.
Laurence Hitterdale
Hi David, thanks for reading and commenting. I will give a look into your essay soon! inés.