Dear Willy,

Thank you for your comments. I will read your essay.

With regard to AI, my preference would be for a small local "digital assistant" under one's control, rather than a mysterious oracle in the cloud.

Alan Kadin

Hi Alan, you have said a great many sensible things. I thought it a well written, very accessible essay.

A few quibbles...

You wrote in regard to evolution; "There is no underlying goal or intent, apart from survival." A. Kardin 2017. I think that not even survival is a prior goal but survival is the outcome of a functional structure able to avoid its elimination. Tommaso Bolognesi has written in his essay about the linguistic use of 'goal' when it is actually an external viewpoint post occurrence of outcome.

You wrote: "The primary feature that distinguishes biological systems from physical systems is exponential reproduction, based on the digital code of DNA." A. Kardin 2017. I don't know why you have called it digital. It is a chemical code and the structure of those chemicals are necessary for the function of protein building and mRNa building. The letters of the base pairs are not just like numbers but associated with material structure. I can't readily see a definition of digital that would fit.

Re. your: "In particular, only a guided design can produce a radical redesign in a single step. In contrast, the unguided design of natural selection can only make minor modifications per generation, each of which must be adaptive." A. Kardin 2017. Not all genes are equal in the effect they have on structure or function. Also some are control genes that have effects on many other genes. So a small change can have a large effect. Also there can be epigenetic effects altering gene expression of many genes. Not all selection is adaptive. A characteristic can be harmful but so long as the carrier is able to survive and reproduce rather than not it can be passed on in the gene pool.

Kind regards Georgina

    Dear Georgina,

    Thank you for your careful reading of my essay, and for your comments.

    I agree with you that my explanation of evolution and adaptation were a bit simplified, but I was trying to emphasize the power of adaptation to a physics audience that has mostly overlooked it. Adaptation is mathematical, but the mathematics are not the closed-form differential equations that physicists are used to.

    My other key point is that almost everything we think we know about the human mind from our subjective perceptions is illusory. That is why progress in understanding consciousness and intelligence have been so difficult. Even our attempts at emulating intelligence using computers have been misdirected. But ongoing research in cognitive science, brain science, and computer science may lead to a dramatic change in the not-too-distant future. I might even be around to witness it (and I'm 64).

    Best Wishes,

    Alan Kadin

    This felt more like a long setup than an essay; it's all accurate, but there's so much further to go! The idea that our conscious perception of our aims is mainly a post-facto rationalization isn't that controversial, and I'd be more interested in *why* this property exists. What is it about conscious, simplified models of the world that allows for better decision-making in complex environments? Why, if both the world and our minds are mostly chaotic and difficult to perceive, is it adaptive for organisms to set up conscious aims at all? This implies a certain level of order above the chaotic interactions of particles that only emerges at particular scale, and allows for reasonable interpretations of the terms "aims and intentions" beyond the idea of "conscious goals."

    To be fair, after reading through the other essays, there are apparently plenty of people in the world who still believe in Cartesian dualism to the point of mysticism, but the scientific community is pretty well over it. I just thought this essay focused to much on interpreting the topic as "spiritual" vs. materialist consciousness, which isn't the only way to approach it, and spent a lot of time reiterating a solid but very old set of arguments.

      Dear Mr. Tolkin,

      Thank you reading my essay, and for your comments.

      You assert that the illusion of consciousness is widely accepted, but unfortunately, that is not the case, even among scientists. The essay was written primarily for those who are open-minded but still unclear.

      My other key point is that evolutionary adaptation is a powerful general paradigm, and is indeed mathematical, even if the mathematics are not the closed-form differential equations that physicists are used to.

      As to why consciousness is adaptive, that is probably the easier question. In a world of predators and competition, rapid decisions and actions are adaptive; hesitation is not. Simple models also lend themselves to social cooperation, which is adaptive, in contrast to solitary introspection. We believe ourselves to be rational free agents, but that is another illusion. These illusions are themselves adaptive, which is why they are so persistent.

      Finally, only by seeing through the illusions will we be able to emulate natural intelligence and design truly intelligent machines.

      I will read your essay. Good Luck in the competition.

      Alan Kadin

      8 days later

      Dear Kadin,

      In this essay, a feel good factor exists throught out, and also generates a sense that we saw an over all picture. As I felt, in all the discussions of mind, and consciousness, an agency forms a basis as a given feature, with an ability to identify itself, and model the environment around. So, I decided to take a few points regarding this.

      In Fig.2B, a small modification may be needed. The question of being adaptive is not as discrete and clear as shown, since it seems to be suggesting only one path of evolution, where as we observe existence of millions of species indicating that variations evolve too. Continuation of variations suggests that a single non-adaptive modification might not be sufficient to stop a species, which can take different routes to evolve further since the adaptation specification itself might change. Similarly, single better adaptation is no guarantee for the continuation. Adaptation is a continued test till certain designs are not able to continue. So may be continuity should be tested. It is a minor point, yet decided to bring forth.

      "Kahneman identified two distinct systems at work in the human mind: System 1 and System 2. System 1 ('fast thinking') is the unconscious mind that does things automatically without us having to think about them".

      Can we refer to a processing of information classified as unconscious as mind? Should not we take 'mind' to be always associated with consciousness, for otherwise, all information processing in any domain by any agent will have to be called 'unconscious mind'? This also brings forth the question of how does processing of information happen in the brain, that is how does the semantics emerge in the brain activities before they can be called conscious? This is precisely I have tried to deal with in my essay, which may go hand in hand with this essay.

      "Kahneman uses the analogy with a Chairman of the Board of a corporation, who thinks that he runs the entire operation." How true !

      "It seems that the human mind is preprogrammed to identify agency, ...", while this statement appears to be correct, but how does it identify agency? How does even the basis (model building technology of information processing) of identifying agency even arise?

      "This is shown in Fig. 5T, which shows consciousness as a 'virtual reality' (VR) construct created from filtered input data, and representing a simplified dynamic model of the reality presented to an individual." How does a notion or meaning (semantics of information) of virtual reality come into existence in the first place? Do we agree then that 'information' has an existence without and before any existence of the interpreter?

      "The problem is that there are several illusions implicit in our thinking..." So, it seems illusions are a reality; if so, then it needs an explanation how does an illusion become a perceivable reality.

      Rajiv

      Dear Dr. Singh:

      Thank you for your careful reading of my essay, and for your extensive comments.

      With respect to Fig. 2B, you are correct that this represents many systems evolving in parallel, so that many directions of evolution are possible.

      The question of how a conscious mind recognizes self and agency is indeed an important one. Minds are designed to recognize the continuity of objects even if they move or change, and further to identify correlations as causal. For example, if object A moves next to resting object B, which suddenly moves, then object A is an agent that caused (non-agent) object B to move. Neural networks are good at matching patterns like this.

      With respect to how a virtual reality construction representing consciousness first evolves, that too is an important question. But consider the need of an animal to partition a visual field into objects of various categories: food, threats, mates, competitors. Some of these identifications may be instinctive, but others may be learned. The ability to make dynamic identifications based on past experiences would be highly adaptive. A dynamic model with active embedded links can start out simple, and become more complex with evolution.

      With respect to my comments in the conclusion about illusions, my key point is that our subjective perceptions are NOT the same as the external reality. Instead, they represent a simplified construction, like a dream or a virtual reality, which dynamically tracks external reality and enables rapid adaptive responses. Only by looking past the illusions can we make genuine progress on understanding consciousness.

      Alan Kadin

      It is interesting that ours are the only two essays that bring in the concept of Corporation Boards into this contest. I rate your essay highly. I also note that you have written (earlier) about avoiding the paradox of quantum entanglement and measurement. I missed this when I first read your essay. You might want to check out Racicot's essay since it too attempts to resolve the same paradox.

      Regards, Willy

      Dear Alan,

      bravo -- clear analysis, well-reasoned and nicely told! Your essay is among the most comprehensive ones, I think you touch upon about every aspect that is relevant to tackle the question. Myself, I focused on why our models of the macroscopic world, which "identify agency, both in ourselves in others" (as you put it) are not at variance with goal-free microscopic laws. Your approach is somewhat broader. I also like your comments about animal consciousness and the possible relevance of dreaming.

      Good luck, Stefan

        Dear Stefan,

        Yes, clarity is something that I value in my writing and in that of others. Your essay is also quite clear. Obscure writing can sometimes be a way to hide confused thinking!

        My key point, which is different from most other essays, is that intelligence and consciousness can be modeled without any fundamental new physics, provided that we dismiss our subjective perceptions. I realize that this may be controversial, but it provides a way to avoid the philosophical impasse of mind-body duality.

        I have had a number of lucid dreams over the years, in which I knew I was dreaming, and could analyze dream content real-time and even manipulate the dream environment. Any serious model of consciousness needs to incorporate dreaming as an alternative conscious state.

        Best wishes,

        Alan

        Dear Alan,

        I'm also sympathetic to the idea that "intelligence and consciousness can be modeled without any fundamental new physics" and that this will allow to "avoid the philosophical impasse of mind-body duality."

        By the way, your explanation "that the human mind is preprogrammed to identify agency" and that "[t]hese agents are central to a simplified model of the world, which filters all our perceptions" reminded me of Sofia Magnúsdóttir's essay, which also prominently features such internal "simplified models".

        One more question: Do have a simple example for what you had in mind when you wrote that "macroscopic systems often include complex feedback loops that largely decouple the macroscopic behavior from microscopic degrees of freedom"?

        Cheers, Stefan

        8 days later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #49

        Alan -

        An excellent essay, thank you. You provide a clear and concise defense of the universe as a closed physical system of immense complexity, and a well crafted argument that our notions of consciousness and agency are epiphenomenal illusions.

        Two things puzzle me. The first is whether you have completely closed the door. For example, you say "you choose your breakfast, but the climate of the earth is beyond your control." As to breakfast, where do you make room for the efficacy of consciousness by which one may change the course of history by choosing a breakfast other than the one that appears before you? As to climate change, are you saying that human behavior has no effect on climate - or simply that your individual decisions are so minuscule as to have de minimum influence on the outcome?

        My second question concerns a key theme in my essay The How and The Why of Emergence and Intention. Your arguments are specific to the questions of "How", but what is absent is an explanation of "Why". I suggest that a closed system can have no answer to that question.

        Thank you - George Gantz

          Dear George,

          Thank you for your careful reading of my essay and your comments.

          Cartesian dualism is so embedded in our psyches that overcoming it is extremely difficult.

          Regarding the illusion of control, we all like to believe that we are important as individuals. We can indeed affect things locally in a large way, and globally in a very small way. Regarding climate, I recyle and conserve energy as a way of expressing my solidarity on the issue, but I understand that this is largely symbolism.

          Regarding "why", once you have DNA, natural selection automatically brings about the rest. But I would suggest that the evolution of human-like intelligence may not be inevitable. So I really don't expect to hear from intelligent aliens. Primates are not the most successful animal group, and ancestral humans and pre-humans were almost wiped out several times. It is really only the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago that turned humans from a marginal existence to the dominant form of life on earth.

          Alan

          Hi dear Kadin

          You have presented one serious and huge meaningful article in this contest (I think really - maybe for this namely your work remains little bit outside of active discussion and evaluation!) I will just tell you that small quantity of people will entered to detailed study the whole volume of your amazing work in limited time that provided to us. But I had try to read your essay and had find many attractive - justice assertions and rational approach that can bring to productively develop, in my hurried view. On a contest question particularly you clearly notices that we no need a new mysterious hypotheses (that is main thing for me!), but you also demonstrate the whole difficulty of such question.

          So, your work seems to me very rich to future thinking that unconditionally deserved to high rating, (that I feel obligated to do!) But only let my drive your attention on my technological remark for your future works.

          Best wishes!

          P.S. Hope you can check - is my essay are readable or not?

            Dear Alan M. Kadin

            I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it. 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

              Dear Dr. Kirakosyan,

              Thank you for reading my essay and for your insightful comments.

              With regard to your essay, it is readable even if the English is a bit non-standard, and the presentation a bit wandering. If I understand your argument correctly, you question the foundations of both quantum mechanics and relativity based in part on their non-realistic methodology.

              I agree, and I refer in the End Notes of my essay to a recent unpublished manuscript "Proposed experiments to test the foundations of quantum computing". Quantum computing has become a hot research area driven by immense amounts of funding, motivated by dramatic claims of exponentially fast computing. My prediction is that these systems will fail completely, which will bring about a revolution in our understanding of the foundations of quantum mechanics, perhaps within the next 10-20 years. I hope to still be around to see this.

              Alan Kadin

              Dear Dr. Dizhechko,

              I am not sure that I understand your analysis, and the English may be only part of the problem.

              My view, which is mentioned briefly in the Endnotes section of my essay, is that quantum waves provide the fundamental units defining time and space, but that these waves are physically distinct from the time and space in which they move.

              Alan Kadin

              Thank you for kindly words, dear Kadin.

              You have almost rightly characterized the main essence of my approach, and you have offered your article in vixra.org. It look to me as your next serious work that however, I'm just not able to study and say something reasonable within this short and tensioned time that we are now. So, I will do it after this heavy battle. Then we can examine our common points as well as the possible disagreements. Now I can only wish you successes!

              Dear Alan,

              I really liked your ending calling for cooperation... very inspirational.

              2 questions:

              1. Does AI scare you? Why or why not

              2. Do you see neurons like I do? They are eyes of consciousness that pass along information (see or communicate - kind of like humans do).

              * And if you wouldn't mind giving me a critique... I would love to hear your ideas about my paper... A Theory of Everything...

              and check out my latest post... on 4/6... it's a little poem like description about dark matter.

              Good luck in the contest,

              William Walker

                Hello Alan Kadin,

                I very much enjoyed your essay; it's an excellent read. You have an excellent grasp of the field leading up to artificial intelligence and consciousness, and I agree with your many points.

                But, I think that you may have missed the point of the question of "How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?" You jump to the assumption 'that human behavior should be ultimately derivable from particle physics' - human behavior is not reducible to particle physics. How would you explain the rules of Baseball with particle physics? Human behavior is ultimately implemented by particle physics. In a decade or two, we will demonstrate that human behavior can be implemented by computers, in addition to evolutional implementation in biology.

                I think the question should be read as: How can the mindless universe implement aims and intention though human behavior or otherwise?

                I am sure you have to agree that the universe is highly likely to be mindless, yet billions of years of physical processes and natural selection have produced us. The fact of our existence is not controversial - how we got here is.

                How can, and how did, the universe produce us?

                Thanks for the good read.

                Cheers,

                Bruce Amberden.