Evolution without accidents and also no intelligence?

Getting a bit technical here...

On a more serious note, it seems like you are saying Information is what shifts the physical over from deterministic processes...but isn't the best of our current scientific knowledge telling us QM is indeterministic?

I am still chewing on the two papers you posted, one by Tononi et all and the other by Kauffman and Roli.  Both are highly significant.

My own subjective view leans toward a fully probabilistic state of affairs, with the actualization/decoherence of manifest reality -  the streaming here and now - being a special state of 100%  probability - where the determination of physical outcomes is grounded.  Physical outcomes and informational outcomes occur in different states, with informational outcomes happening in a coherent fashion. 

From a science methodological point of view, the past is all informational - as is the future - and observable as being unified and continuous probabilistic wave patterns. Now is fixed, discrete, granular and expressive of particulars.  In an informational environment an outcome can be spread out in time and in different places, integrating into the emerging present in surprising ways (think chaos theory).

The mind can detect information in all three states of time.  Now/here is from stimulus signals inbound from the senses.  Self-aware minds can observe themselves in real time.  The kicker is by structuring a future action (a plan) with a pattern from the past, mental action can change future probabilities.  That happens in a determined way when the plan is actively enforced in physical time and space.  Hence, mind is determinative.  Just in a different context than abstract empirical patterns such as the physical laws.

Take for example the morphic fields that Rupert Sheldrake postulates. One type of these fields - morphogenetic fields - seem to cover an entire species, and he has produced a lot of evidence to demonstrate that these are real. In one experiment that he quotes, a newt embryo's eye lens is removed using microsurgery. The embryo is then followed and it re-grows the lens by a completely different mechanism from that used naturally. This forces me to the conclusion that some intelligence outside of matter knows how a newt is designed, and figures out how to repair it on the fly!

David

First, let me say that Sheldrake's model is an excellent one.  As a translation tool from my musing to his marvelous prose and exhibition, you can directly map my ideas of "real-world probabilities" populated with information objects - to the activity of his morphogenetic field.

I enjoyed reading your comments.  Rather than try to parse cellular communication's role in regulatory systems, let our focus stay on Shapiro.

  Abstract

All living cells sense and respond to changes in external or internal conditions. Without that cognitive capacity, they could not obtain nutrition essential for growth, survive inevitable ecological changes, or correct accidents in the complex processes of reproduction. Wherever examined, even the smallest living cells (prokaryotes) display sophisticated regulatory networks establishing appropriate adaptations to stress conditions that maximize the probability of survival. Supposedly “simple” prokaryotic organisms also display remarkable capabilities for intercellular signalling and multicellular coordination.

These observations indicate that all living cells are cognitive. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...1X2031754X

Contrary to the assertion, not every single amino acid change results in a "piece of junk." Many mutations are neutral, having no effect on protein function. Some are deleterious and get selected against. But crucially, some confer new or improved functionality and get selected for. It's also worth noting that many proteins can tolerate a large number of sequence variations without loss of their primary function, offering a buffer for evolutionary innovation.

Presumably you mean alternative sequence variations, not sequential variations?

The DI has done quite a bit of research on that. The first change often leaves some residual functionality, but after 2 sequential changes, the functionality has all but vanished. Also some changes induce a change in the way a protein folds - which is obviously catastrophic.

For protein evolution to be possible there would have to be long chains of possible functional proteins in protein space. Do these exist, and if they do, wouldn't they provide evidence for a designer tuning them into organic chemistry?
Only in that way could RM+NS evolve anything.

The point is that any protein that has near zero functionality, will be somewhat selected against because the corresponding gene simply wastes the cell's resources making the protein. Combinatorial explosion wins almost as soon as there is no selective advantage from the gene/protein - 20^n for n steps in evolution that aren't driven by evolution.

David

Maybe not great for debating, but in my worldview it is definitional.  Mind is an abstract term that defines actions within informational environments as detection of affordances.  Minds act on information objects and can detect and restructure their order to anticipate future states.  Picture the earth, or any planet in the known universe, as it cools down from geological formation, life is not active yet.  The Materialistic idea is of some "magic" chemical event starting life, life that will only have mind after achieving a certain level of physical complexity.  This is a just-so story.

The early earth would be characterized as deterministic to physical processes.  YET, as some stage of physical evolution of the planet, new shit starts to happen.  The informational environment grows as events have their information copied.  Mutual information, with early mind, interacts and then is structured into informational objects.  This activity is all happening as probability manipulation.  In the informational environment basic mind is active experiencing and altering the unfolding course of these real world probabilities.  With mind using just past and future probability it can realize new vectors for life and both physical and mental environments start changing in new ways.

Rather than faith, scientific observation has documented how information is real and causative.  It is science that is equal to physics and materials subject matter.  Mind experiences past, actual and future probabilities as the "stuff" and relates these in such a way as to change entropy of a local system.  Mind uses direct perception of probability waves to import mutual information.  Mind can organize real world probabilities into states of being where a local system of information activity can exert physical influence via states of being.

Rather than a definition based on Physicalism, mind in an informational environment is the means for making a measurable differences in the actual evolution of the world we inhabit.  Mind starts working and the compounds created in nature start to change.  Information objects like repeatable sequences and codes to communicate are part of mental evolution.

Sub-conscious mental activity is really well documented.  When a bacteria uses sophisticated communication tools - purposely - that is mental activity.  They make mutual information work - to help them maneuver, detect food and know when to consume.  It is solid science.

Your answer to my question essentially is "don't ask me how I know, I just know as a matter of faith that all life has the property of mind". Then you fundamentally redefine the word "mind" to mean "Mind is an abstract term that defines actions within informational environments as detection of affordances."  This sounds good and sciency since "detection" is merely physically interacting in a predictable way with a phenomenon. 

As you say, your worldview is definitional, but I find this problematical.

"Detections" and "actions" are inherently in another entirely different existential category than consciousness; their properties and parameters are fundamentally existentially different than the properties of conscious awareness. For instance, a photometer can "detect" photons of light, but does not have awareness of that light. Awareness is in another entirely different category of existence.

The dictionary definition of "mind" is, rather than being the abstract term "detections", it is "the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought." This standard definition of "mind" is inextricably bound up with consciousness, using consciousness's properties of awareness, thinking, feeling and so on.

I think your post is essentially the faulty argument device of redefining things at the outset to assume your argument. A version of the invalid old argument by reassertion. You redefine out of the term "mind" all the essential fundamental characteristics of mind and consciousness as we know them, leaving "mind" (still supposedly capable of creating complex designs) bereft of any of the known essential characteristics of an inventing conscious agent.

"Mutual information, with early mind, interacts and then is structured into informational objects.  This activity is all happening as probability manipulation.  In the informational environment basic mind is active experiencing and altering the unfolding course of these real world probabilities."  

Again, an argument by reassertion with additional sciency-sounding terminology. This just assumes that this "basic early mind" actually existed and somehow had the capacities of awareness, experiencing, agency and inventiveness that were just defined out by redefining mind as actually "detections" and "actions". 

This all seems rather confused.

As you say, your worldview is definitional, but I find this problematical.

"Detections" and "actions" are inherently in another entirely different existential category than consciousness; their properties and parameters are fundamentally existentially different than the properties of conscious awareness. For instance, a photometer can "detect" photons of light, but does not have awareness of that light. Awareness is in another entirely different category of existence.

I can't argue at all that there is a difference between making a copy of information and an agent experiencing life.  Methodologically, mind being treated as the processing of bio-information is a way for mind to be measurable.

What did you think of the Shapiro quote about all cells are performing cognitive functions?  ie they are processing information

I can't argue at all that there is a difference between making a copy of information and an agent experiencing life.  Methodologically, mind being treated as the processing of bio-information is a way for mind to be measurable.

What did you think of the Shapiro quote about all cells are performing cognitive functions?  ie they are processing information

Yes, they are processing information, but as the Hard Problem states it, there is a fundamental existential gulf between information processing (that is done in every computer by computation of algorithms), and consciousness. Consciousness, awareness, thought, etc. are nonalgorithmic and noncomputational. Cells may be performing "cognitive" information processing, but this doesn't by any stretch make them conscious in the slightest, any more than our computers are conscious.

I enjoyed reading your comments.  Rather than try to parse cellular communication's role in regulatory systems, let our focus stay on Shapiro.

Actually, I accidentally found myself reading your quote from Shapiro thinking it was you expressing your views!

I'm sorry, I think Shapiro writes like that for one reason - to be tolerated within the body of biology. He wants to do his research without ruffling too many feathers in his subject.

As I have said, I don't blame Shapiro - it may be the only way to drag biology out of the mess of trying to support the indefensible - however you should realise how weird Shapiro's language is to read.

Try to restate Shapiro's ideas in conventional language, and eschew redefining things.

I gave you a good example of "informational flow". Applied to something practical like posting a message on a message board, doesn't it sound a bit silly, yet I'm sure that Shapiro or one of his friends coined that phrase. Don't you feel uncomfortable that Shapiro (presumably) has tricked you into using such a vague, meaningless phrase?

I can't argue at all that there is a difference between making a copy of information and an agent experiencing life.

For anything to experience something, you are bumping into the Hard Problem. I.e you are assuming the very essence of the problem that sentient beings pose to biology.

Maybe the most fascinating aspect of this, is that it illustrates the iron grip that materialism exerts over the science establishment. People are literally driven into writing things which are vague and confusing, just to escape the charge of being 'woo woo'!

David

Yes, they are processing information, but as the Hard Problem states it, there is a fundamental existential gulf between information processing (that is done in every computer by computation of algorithms), and consciousness. Consciousness, awareness, thought, etc. are nonalgorithmic and noncomputational. Cells may be performing "cognitive" information processing, but this doesn't by any stretch make them conscious in the slightest, any more than our computers are conscious.

Even so, I wouldn't rule out the idea that cells are literally conscious - see for example:

http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/FRAME.HTM

Given that we don't know what it is that makes us conscious, it is dangerous to rule it out of simpler organisms.

Of course, that is not the same as ruling consciousness out of computers or their programs. We (collectively) know completely how these objects work, and everything operates essentially like clockwork.

David

Yes, they are processing information, but as the Hard Problem states it, there is a fundamental existential gulf between information processing (that is done in every computer by computation of algorithms), and consciousness. Consciousness, awareness, thought, etc. are nonalgorithmic and noncomputational. Cells may be performing "cognitive" information processing, but this doesn't by any stretch make them conscious in the slightest, any more than our computers are conscious.

To extend this, I think there is at least some actual pertinent research data available. Richard Lenski performed a well-known long-term experiment in bacterial evolution, putting them under stress and trying to demonstrate significant RM + NS Darwinian evolution in such microorganisms. Well, this long-term experiment essentially failed - it only came up with one evolutionary accomplishment out of thousands of generations and millions of organisms, the development of citrate metabolism. Unfortunately for neo-Darwinian New Synthesis evolutionary assumptions, this wasn't any sort of real creative innovation, since all that happened was a slight reorganization activating an already existing gene. In fact, this sort of development is exactly at the limit of what could be expected of the undirected semi-random walk RM + NS process.

If all cells are actually conscious to some degree, and carry out creative evolutionary innovation by means of this intelligence, then you would think that the bacteria in Lenski's experiment would have come up with something better than the citrate metabolism trick.

Even so, I wouldn't rule out the idea that cells are literally conscious - see for example:

http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/FRAME.HTM

Given that we don't know what it is that makes us conscious, it is dangerous to rule it out of simpler organisms.

Of course, that is not the same as ruling consciousness out of computers or their programs. We (collectively) know completely how these objects work, and everything operates essentially like clockwork.

David

The Buehler paper you link to seems to make a good case for identifying at least some of the underlying mechanisms of the "intelligent cell cognition" that Shapiro was referring to. Again, this does not in any way shape or form point to individual cells having consciousness, because of that obstinate Hard Problem. For just one example, cognitive and other data processing is ubiquitous in our computers with no sign of consciousness. 

Then the claim might be made that creative innovative biological engineering design can be expected to come out of "cognitive data processing", no consciousness required. Unfortunately, data processing of any kind can't generate thought, imagination, innovation, foresight, ingenuity, all the qualities of consciousness essential to human beings who are the only observed source of creative innovative inventions.