I don't want to bias you but i can't resist. And also i likely won't.

imo that's where this leads as i feared/got excited about. He's clever to let you jump there if you so wish and not jump to it himself. All he needs is **** tons of
seemingly novel scientific evidence that is testable, today, which he has.

Evolution is the undertone if you notice and mentioned when reasonable with intelligence being demonstrated to exist and convincingly so over say random mutations being selected for when suited to environment that we may all have heard.

Which to me, is precisely the crux of evolution being made out a mere random process that then leads to intelligence later on in brains of animals.

intelligence being defined as the ability to reach the same goal by various means.

i should have actually put some effort into researching a should be simple process but id rather wing it and look ignorant at this point.

I recall Daniel Dennet was mentioned earlier.

This guy is screaming intelligent design at me. But it took a while to find two random people on an intelligent design subreddit.

An intelligent design theory doesn't exist but a community does and it's active and of course They're nuts.

As i must be, according to ockhams razor.

Edit: Lex Fridman....

Stephen Hawking on numerous occasions remarked that intelligence is an anomally. He Questioned why it evolved at all (humans) when we have organisms that are extremely sucessful, existing forever without intelligence.

solid argument (for its time.)

First deepfake technology easter egg.

One of two of Intelligent's designs best arguments

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irre...d%20need%20all

No. Listen closely to what he says at 59 minutes 20 seconds.

"How do we know there's enough time ... There are some people who will never buy this because they are fundamentally committed to another story"

He's clearly referring to Creationists and Intelligent Design folks here. He quickly brushes past them and goes on to speak to those of us interested in "naturalist" and "scientific" explanations.

I think I was clear on this point in the op and have now repeated it more than once. "Intelligent Design" appears to be a kind of strange attractor here. If you feel your knee jerking in that direction I suggest you perturb yourself past it and listen to what he actually says rather than where you project him to be going.


PairTheBoard

Natural selection



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Keyword environment find.

He debunks it being a factor believed in what he calls collective intelligence directly testable. Argues backwards to apply to evolution.

PTB I was almost ready to simply say we are attempting to fit something into a box. How about we focus on what he argues instead.

Then i found irreducible complexity. Not so fast if you Read that and listen to him.

Let's hear it.

The negative argument part in irreducible complexity.

He then goes on to the standard story is wrong. And introduces intelligence or smarts. It's not clear what he does dismiss exactly. He could mean any number of outright absurd myths.

I don't doubt this man doesn't believe in Adam and Eve for a single second.


Evolution by intelligent design is the elephant in the room.

Not evolution vs intelligent design.

Where are you hearing him talk about irreducible complexity? Please post the youtube and time where he mentions it. I believe Kastrup talks about irreducible computability, claiming the only way to see where the universe is going is by letting it run and seeing where it goes.

What do you conclude based on his talk about "irreducible complexity"?


PairTheBoard

He says, "all intelligence is collective intelligence". When he talks about intelligence he's taking about "intelligence all the way down" to the cellular level, which scales up with increasing problem solving ability as the smaller units work together collectively.

I believe the view he's debunking is the one that says DNA is the whole story. The view that the DNA completely determines the form of the creature. There's a problem with this when you look at morphogenesis. How does one of your skin cells "know" to be a skin cell and not a liver cell? They both have exactly the same DNA yet have greatly different forms and functions. He views the DNA as being like the hardware on which the software of morphogenesis runs.

He talks about viewing individual cells as "agents" in their own right but only conceptually, not as philosophical matters of fact. In other words, view them "as if" they are agents and see how that drives empirical research, i.e. ideas for experiments.

Levin admits his ideas are not mainstream. His main goal is for them to drive empirical research. Do experiments based on these concepts and see if they bear fruit in areas like medicine, regeneration, cancer, cognition, etc. Seems to me it's worth a shot and there are evidently a number of people who agree with him and working in the field.


PairTheBoard

https://theconversation.com/intellig...-thought-52932

If I'd made a flaw, it's very small.

If i haven't, this link helps.

Great article. Thanks.

However, confiscating the term "Intelligent Design" to mean the natural evolution of evolvability just invites useless battle with the religious who have pretty much established it as a theological term of art. Although I suppose that battle will ensue regardless of what you call it. See comments at the end of the article.


PairTheBoard

Ok well I'm convinced dawkins has said this guy doesn't understand evolution, is that a thing that has happened? I will take some time to understand and ask these questions.

Another one is about Midi-chlorians , is this guy saying he believes in Midi-chlorian theory.

I'm pretty sure thats what both you are trying to say.

I agree the article is interesting.

So the question becomes. where does Levin come in. When does intelligence in fact enter the story. Before the evolution of evolvabilty.

From article 2016

I 'd rather ask the question rhethorically. I'm not looking to argue over how interesting the story became. Etc.

Does he even change the timeline. I'd honestly have to watch the videos to answer my own question. Which are based more on collective intelligence as you know.

Collective intelligence is already more interesting than the evolution of evolvability. But in the context of the article there, my question is fair i think.

Chatgpt..Nevermind. I'm tired.

https://youtu.be/p3lsYlod5OU?si=wWyHeguHhHVhjJAG

2:07:47 origin of evolution

Suspects maybe some rudimentary form of cognition rather than blind. But he doesn't know.

deepfakes would explain a lot

I've been trying to let Michael Levin speak for himself here and avoid bringing in my understanding which is bound to be biased by my ignorance. But I think Levin's theory speaks to the nature of evolvability. He's talked about the DNA being like hardware on which the software of morphogenesis runs. But I think that analogy is a bit misleading. If you make a minor random tweak of computer hardware there's a good chance the software won't even run on it anymore. I think the DNA is more like a protein producing machine. You flip the right switches (upregulating and downregulating) and you get the protein you want.

Now if you make a minor tweak of the DNA via a random mutation, what you've done is change the menu of proteins you can get it to produce. This requires the collective intelligence involved in morphogenesis to navigate another path to its desired goal. It's good at doing that. That's what it means to have "intelligence". So it doesn't crash. On the other hand, the tweak provides opportunities as well. It may be there are items on the new menu of proteins that provide morphogenesis the means to reach goals it hitherto could only partially achieve. Or maybe morphogenesis experiments with trying something new. Thus the random mutation of the DNA serves to enrich the morphological ecology.

Of course, I may just be spewing nonsense. I'd much rather listen to Levin.


PairTheBoard

Powering the complexity of life with Michael Levin and Nick Lane | Reason with Science | Biology




They go into a lot of detail here for what goes on at the cellular level. The role of electro-static potential. Pre-life to life. Early life.

I think this question by @KipIngram in the comments section is crucial. I don't know if Michael Levin has given a clear answer to it.

-----------------
@KipIngram
1 month ago
How does Dr. Levin propose that that "shape information" gets from parent to child? He stated categorically that the genome doesn't provide it. But the genome is the only thing that's passed down the lineage. So yeah - once we've got that cellular hardware in the right state, we can regard it as memory. But ho does that information arrive in the first place?
========


PairTheBoard

I don't believe you that his thesis is acceptable science.

I want to be clear in my language, if you were honest and typed out his thesis, I think you know you know its the wrong sub.

This is funny...pairtheboard is falling for a cult....