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....
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbouton
Whats the thesis?
I really don't like trying to speak for Michael Levin because I don't trust myself to get it right. But I think his "thesis" stands on two legs. One is collective intelligence, i.e. there is intelligent behavior at the cellular level which scales up in collectives of cells. The other is that the Genome is not the whole story in determining form. Morphogenesis is also involved.
He provides the example of the planaria. It has maintained its form nearly exactly for over 100 million years despite its DNA being massively corrupted by multiple mutations. You can cut a planaria into pieces no bigger than a few hundred cells and each piece will grow into a fully functional identical planaria with all its complexity and memories.
He motivates this thesis as a solution for what he intuits is a hard problem of the pace of evolution under the standard model. You can disagree whether that really is a problem. I think the mainstream response is that it's a false intuition stemming from the lack of a full understanding of the power of evolution under the standard model. What it's not is an invitation to solve the problem - if it is one - with "God did it".
Bringing up the "hard problem of consciousness" - if it is a hard problem - is not an invitation to solve it with "God did it".
Bringing up the hard problem of accelerating expansion of the universe is not an invitation to solve it with "God did it".
Bringing up the hard problem of the origin of life is not an invitation to solve it with "God did it".
Natural science's history is a history of solving one hard problem after another which was originally solved with "God did it".
Here's a great talk on work being done on the origin of life problem:
If you train a planarian. Chop off its head. It regenerates its head and brain with all its memories in tact. And no one knows where the memories are stored. Presumably the tail if not the brain and if not the tail then who knows.
If you train a planarian. Chop off its head. It regenerates its head and brain with all its memories in tact. And no one knows where the memories are stored. Presumably the tail if not the brain and if not the tail then who knows.
I had asked, 'if i can satisfy the inquiry, with simpler explanation', will the become the topic of the thread...
its not a stupid question. Its stupid content you are putting up.
The question is profound.
Will you accept a simpler solution is better. Or do you ONLY accept that midichlorians from star wars do all this?
I haven't responded to this because I don't know what to make of it. If you have a case to make for some position go ahead and make it. You don't need my permission.
Here is the Tufts University page for Michael Levin listing his published papers going back to 1999. Looks like there are about 500 of them. Notice the publications and citations.
The problem is that he is definitely "intelligence" in a weird way.
The other problem is that he thinks that a molecule of water contains all that there is to a hurricane within it.
It makes more sense to think of things as emergent phenomena. Might be wrong, but it is a more useful model.
He defines "intelligence" as the ability to achieve goals by various means. He attributes this definition to William James. He says the definition allows the comparison of levels of intelligence according to the kinds of goals and problems solved reaching them. He defines a "cognitive light cone" of an intelligent "agent" as the scope of such goals and problems for which the agent is competent. He explains and motivates some of this in the following short (8 minutes) video.
The problem is that he is definitely "intelligence" in a weird way.
The other problem is that he thinks that a molecule of water contains all that there is to a hurricane within it.
It makes more sense to think of things as emergent phenomena. Might be wrong, but it is a more useful model.
I think he clarifies a lot of this here. Some interesting comments by Irina Rish on things in AI behaving like phase transitions. High slope change in small intervals around critical levels. Levin thinks change is more gradually continuous for life. He rejects a binary view of things.
I don't get anything Levin says boiling down to your analogy with a molecule of water. The scaling up requires some kind of networking between the smaller parts being added on. The higher level works by sort of "training" the smaller parts. It's very non-reductionist.
Prof. MICHAEL LEVIN, Prof. IRINA RISH - Emergence, Intelligence, Transhumanism
That is less weird than I thought. It does push it to another level, since we have no ability to ask a cell what its goals are.
The definition may not be satisfying philosophically, especially for those taking the binary view that something either is or isn't intelligent. But it provides for an objective and empirical study of behavior in terms of the definition.
He defines a goal as a preferred state that the agent expends energy to achieve. Intelligence is recognized when various unforeseeable perturbations, or barriers, are overcome in the process. An example is a fertilized egg undergoing morphogenesis toward the preferred state of a mature form despite various perturbations you might put in its way. Like say, cutting it in half along the way. Each half form grows into the preferred state of a full mature form rather than staying in the half-form.
The definition may not be satisfying philosophically, especially for those taking the binary view that something either is or isn't intelligent. But it provides for an objective and empirical study of behavior in terms of the definition.
It is just a model.
Quote:
He defines a goal as a preferred state that the agent expends energy to achieve.
I'm not a biologist, but (other than including a preference) that would include everything that a living thing does
Quote:
Intelligence is recognized when various unforeseeable perturbations, or barriers, are overcome in the process.
That subtracts out "dying" as one of the things a living thing does, so at least it isn't everything.
Quote:
An example is a fertilized egg undergoing morphogenesis toward the preferred state of a mature form despite various perturbations you might put in its way. Like say, cutting it in half along the way. Each half form grows into the preferred state of a full mature form rather than staying in the half-form.
And if it dies for some reason, that would demonstrate that it was too stupid to be alive, right?
I would not rely too much on my clumsy attempts to explain any of this. I think the video below is maybe the best. He explains the role of bio-electric networks in memory, their relationship to neurological research, and practical applications they are working on. Altering the bio-electric network can induce changes in the cells of a collective from the top down, avoiding the much more difficult approach of inducing changes cell by cell.
Bioelectric networks underlie the intelligence of the body - Michael Levin
He defines a goal as a preferred state that the agent expends energy to achieve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
I'm not a biologist, but (other than including a preference) that would include everything that a living thing does
Taking everything I say with a grain of salt, you may be right. But I don't think the use of the word "goal" here is arbitrary nor does your observation trivialize the concept. You might say that life is "goal" driven. It also goes along with Levin's non-binary view of these things. So his concept of "goal" may not divide life activities into goal and non-goal binary categories. Instead, it allows for a continuum of goals and categories of goals. Large goals, small goals, immediate goals, longer term goals, goals for interaction with the outside world, goals for inside the collective. Importantly, it provides for empirical study. It seems reasonable to me and seems to be bearing practical fruit in Levin's research. See the last video I posted.
On the term "goal" - Levin says he uses the term "goal" in the cybernetics sense. He often uses the example of a thermostat as a control system. You don't have to rewire it every time you want to change what it does. You just change the thermostat's "set point"
This from Google:
----------------------
Wiener defined cybernetics as “the science of control and communications in the animal and machine.” This definition relates cybernetics closely with the theory of automatic control and also with physiology, particularly the physiology of the nervous system.
and
The operation of cybernetic systems can be characterized by a cycle with five stages: (1) goal activation, (2) action selection, (3) action, (4) outcome interpretation, (5) goal comparison. In the first stage, one of the person's goals is activated and guides the rest of the upcoming cycle.
=============
Evolution speed depends on niches and evolutionary pressure. The general idea of it being 'slow' usually misses the mark because people underestimate the massive parallelism. There's also memory - sometimes change can be adapated to fast because old methods which are still hanging about can be dug out. That may incorporate mechanisms for adapting quickly which might appear intelligent.
When a once succesful trait finds itself in a favourable evolutionary environment i.e it's niche is over capacity and new fertile niches are available then evolution happens fast.
This applies at all levels from tiny stuff to physics. Mostly slow change while the niche is explored then there's a breakthrough happens and we get very rapid change for a bit.
On the term "goal" - Levin says he uses the term "goal" in the cybernetics sense. He often uses the example of a thermostat as a control system. You don't have to rewire it every time you want to change what it does. You just change the thermostat's "set point"
This from Google:
----------------------
Wiener defined cybernetics as “the science of control and communications in the animal and machine.” This definition relates cybernetics closely with the theory of automatic control and also with physiology, particularly the physiology of the nervous system.
and
The operation of cybernetic systems can be characterized by a cycle with five stages: (1) goal activation, (2) action selection, (3) action, (4) outcome interpretation, (5) goal comparison. In the first stage, one of the person's goals is activated and guides the rest of the upcoming cycle.
=============
PairTheBoard
This also applies to the consumption of alcohol for those that want a practical and useful application.
Stop collecting intelligently round here. If you have something profound to say, on this subject, then please snap out of it. And remember where you came from: The drunk thread.
Post your bs there. or I’ll lock this thread.
This is your fake captain welcoming you back to reality. It’s hot and cold outside with a good chance of pleasure. You’ve suffered enough, kid, I know.
