Karma

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Yes, usually trolls have little to offer of their own, but parasitize upon other people's stuff.

Parasitize - as so often, you've come up with the perfect word. I do wonder sometimes why those whose only contribution is destructive bother with it. Surely if they really believe in something they'd at least want to try to make a positive argument for it, at least just occasionally. There seems to be an element of, "if I can reduce everything else to rubble my stuff doesn't look so threadbare" perhaps - at least that's the only motive I can think of.

[Sebastian Toe]

Those that can do.......those what can't ,teach.

What is it exactly that you can do then in relation to this topic?

Ps. Apart from demonstrating word-salad skills.

[wigginhall]

Wiggs,

Parasitize - as so often, you've come up with the perfect word. I do wonder sometimes why those whose only contribution is destructive bother with it. Surely if they really believe in something they'd at least want to try to make a positive argument for it, at least just occasionally. There seems to be an element of, "if I can reduce everything else to rubble my stuff doesn't look so threadbare" perhaps - at least that's the only motive I can think of.

The trouble is, that the internet seems to encourage threadbare stuff.  On the other hand, are there really rich and interesting arguments going on about theism away from the internet?  Where would that be?  I think we are being left with the dried out residue of an ancient tradition, fallen on hard times, and scratching around in the dust for something to say.  Also with a high dose of science envy.

I think I said, I recently read David Bentley Hart, who has a high reputation as a theologian, and it struck me as one long argument from incredulity.   Also very pompous.

Oh well, somebody just told me that Hart doesn't have a high reputation.  Who does?  Craig?

[torridon]

ekim,

Well, emergence concerns a lot more than an organism just putting itself back together. An ant colony for example is much more information rich than the sum of the information in the ants. Steven Johnson though sets out four basic conditions for emergence: neighbour interaction, pattern recognition, feedback, and indirect control.

He also establishes five basic principles, namely:

- More examples are better: you need to study lots of ants to grasp the behaviour of the colony as a whole

- Low-level ignorance is useful: failures won't change the overall pattern, and may be helpful to it

- Notice how the system responds to random encounters: ants stumbling across a new resource will increases the adaptiveness of the whole

- Notice the patterns in the signs: ants respond the the frequency of encounters and to the gradient of pheromone trails, not to "messages" from individual ants

- Components pay most attention to their neighbours: in this way swarm logic leads to global information increase and thus to "wisdom"

It's not that the components somehow want or choose to become an adaptive emergent system, but rather that by following these simple rules adaptive systems will emerge nonetheless.

good stuff, that 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

The trouble is, that the internet seems to encourage threadbare stuff.  On the other hand, are there really rich and interesting arguments going on about theism away from the internet?  Where would that be?  I think we are being left with the dried out residue of an ancient tradition, fallen on hard times, and scratching around in the dust for something to say.  Also with a high dose of science envy.

It seems that way - I'd love to see something of substance from polemical theists rather than the gruel we tend to see here. Do you remember Father Patrick (I think that was his name)? He was a catholic priest who used to correspond here (or possibly on the old BBC site) - we could do with more like him, or perhaps some academic theologians. Can it really be that even the arguments of those in academia are as threadbare as those we see here? Where do they post their thoughts I wonder, assuming that they do it at all. Don Cullen interested me a while back I remember - perhaps I should revisit.

I think I said, I recently read David Bentley Hart, who has a high reputation as a theologian, and it struck me as one long argument from incredulity.   Also very pompous.

Oh well, somebody just told me that Hart doesn't have a high reputation.  Who does?  Craig?

I don't know DBH but I have seen a couple of Youtube videos - arrogant and dismissive I found and without the substantive arguments to support either. If WLC really is the high water mark of theistic philosophy though, god help us all!

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

good stuff, that 

Yeah I thought so, and I find the subject fascinating too. I you haven't read it already, you'd enjoy Steven Johnson's book I think.

For "ants" you can swap pretty much "neurons" and other equivalent phenomena too and the same principles hold. SOTS would say that the information in the emergent system was in the ants/neurons etc anyway, but the evidence is very much that learning systems gain in information as they adapt – ie, they learn. Once that's understood consciousness as an adaptive emergent property doesn't seem particularly outlandish, especially given the eye-watering complexity of brains. 

[ekim]

Steven Johnson though sets out four basic conditions for emergence: neighbour interaction, pattern recognition, feedback, and indirect control. ........
- Components pay most attention to their neighbours: in this way swarm logic leads to global information increase and thus to "wisdom"

Thanks for the information.
This seems to imply consciousness or awareness.  In order to pay attention to a neighbour the component must be aware of the neighbour's presence, surely?  Similarly pattern recognition and feedback.  A grain of sand doesn't have awareness and so the same kind of mass movement doesn't take place.  All that Johnson seems to be doing is suggesting a kind of control loop which is used in business but without any plan. There does seem to be a motive though ... adapting to the environment.  So to rephrase my question, what causes one piece of matter to initiate an adaptation to its environment and another piece to be non adaptive?

[wigginhall]

torri,

Yeah I thought so, and I find the subject fascinating too. I you haven't read it already, you'd enjoy Steven Johnson's book I think.

For "ants" you can swap pretty much "neurons" and other equivalent phenomena too and the same principles hold. SOTS would say that the information in the emergent system was in the ants/neurons etc anyway, but the evidence is very much that learning systems gain in information as they adapt – ie, they learn. Once that's understood consciousness as an adaptive emergent property doesn't seem particularly outlandish, especially given the eye-watering complexity of brains.

Very interesting.  It seems to deal with the objection that individual neurons are dumb, since individual ants are pretty dumb, but gain in information and processing power en masse.   

The other thing I found interesting is that there isn't an overseer.   This is often a critique of brains, that no-one is in charge, well, there is, the jolly old soul.

[Sriram]

The problem with this is that it doesn't go far enough.  It needs to explain where the humans who did the intelligent designing came from, where their intelligence came from.  Just saying something cleverer up the cleverness ladder did it is no solution ultimately.  So it with gods and all other forms of magic thinking, it is naďve to think we can account for observed complexity by some invisible being with special powers.  Ultimately it is within our remit to figure things out without recourse to magic.

torridon,

How can it go beyond that? As far as the robots are concerned, they cannot know anything about humans. How can they understand the motivations of humans let alone their origins? They don't know the reality of their own origins!

They are  making up theories about themselves based on limited information....which is all they can do.   

But the reality is that there is lots more beyond what they know and what they can comprehend.

Cheers.

Sriram

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

Thanks for the information.

No problem.

This seems to imply consciousness or awareness.  In order to pay attention to a neighbour the component must be aware of the neighbour's presence, surely?  Similarly pattern recognition and feedback.  A grain of sand doesn't have awareness and so the same kind of mass movement doesn't take place.  All that Johnson seems to be doing is suggesting a kind of control loop which is used in business but without any plan. There does seem to be a motive though ... adapting to the environment.  So to rephrase my question, what causes one piece of matter to initiate an adaptation to its environment and another piece to be non adaptive?

Not really, no: "consciousness or awareness" is too strong. A basic electro-chemical signal for example will be enough to cause a consistent response, but you wouldn't describe an individual neuron as conscious, and nor does it have a motive.

I'll grant you that this is all pretty counter-intuitive - we're hard wired it seems to assume a controller, a master planner etc whereas what emergence teaches us is that that remarkable complexity can come from very non-complex components "bottom up" provided they observe consistently some basic principles - "pheromone X means turn right" for example.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#580

torri,

Yeah I thought so, and I find the subject fascinating too. I you haven't read it already, you'd enjoy Steven Johnson's book I think.

For "ants" you can swap pretty much "neurons" and other equivalent phenomena too and the same principles hold. SOTS would say that the information in the emergent system was in the ants/neurons etc anyway, ...

No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that the ability to generate the information would have to be present.

... but the evidence is very much that learning systems gain in information as they adapt – ie, they learn. Once that's understood consciousness as an adaptive emergent property doesn't seem particularly outlandish, especially given the eye-watering complexity of brains.

and it is the explanation for the gain in information that I take issue with. I see it as trying to get round the need for an external cause being responsible for it, as opposed to attempting to solve the problem of the external cause, hence the something from nothing dilemma.

My contention would be the ability to learn in the first place being an emergent property of something else (which in turn is an emergent property from something before that, etc), then claiming consciousness as an emergent property of the ability to learn. It’s a classic circularity with that which exists being used to explain the emergence of that which exists.

If you really want to understand why I question the explanations, take e.g. any of Newton’s conservation of xxx laws, come up with any scenario that violates it (e.g. an overall increase in momentum after a collision of two objects, with no external agent involved) and then try and explain the violation as an emergent property of the collision. The one thing Physics (particular Mechanics) shows in abundance is that you do not get something from nothing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Very interesting.  It seems to deal with the objection that individual neurons are dumb, since individual ants are pretty dumb, but gain in information and processing power en masse.

That's it. The key is that some systems are adaptive so they learn as they go, and learning is information gain. If you'll allow me, a book you'd enjoy I think is Vlatko Vedral's "Decoding Reality: The Universe as Quantum Information" - it sets out the thesis for the universe being essentially information (of which matter and forces are just manifestations). It's very well and wittily written (and not tekky) too by the way.

Once you accept that, say, an ant is organised information then more complex layers of information sitting above lots of ants is much less of a stretch.   

The other thing I found interesting is that there isn't an overseer.   This is often a critique of brains, that no-one is in charge, well, there is, the jolly old soul.

Yup, it's bottom up. Of course there are such things as town planners and the like, but there's a remarkable impression of planning in cities whose topographies have emerged with no top down planning at all. No-one for example says, "let's put all the Chinese restaurants in one street" but it happens anyway, whereas other businesses with less demand (wine shops for example) will congregate just close enough to attract customers to the area for mutual benefit, but not so close as to take too much business from each other - in both cases the net gain of attraction is greater than the net loss of competition.

Once you see emergence, you'll see it everywhere by the way - shoals of fish, Amazon's recommended reading lists, embryo development, you name it. Be warned!

[ekim]

Not really, no: "consciousness or awareness" is too strong. A basic electro-chemical signal for example will be enough to cause a consistent response, but you wouldn't describe an individual neuron as conscious, and nor does it have a motive.

I'll grant you that this is all pretty counter-intuitive - we're hard wired it seems to assume a controller, a master planner etc whereas what emergence teaches us is that that remarkable complexity can come from very non-complex components "bottom up" provided they observe consistently some basic principles - "pheromone X means turn right" for example.

Perhaps there is cellular awareness and when it losses it, it dies or becomes non adaptive.

I think I'll stick with the 'intuitive' for the time being.  Swarm logic doesn't appeal to me.  It sounds too much like mass mind and flock think, the sort of condition which appeals to consumerism, politics and religious indoctrination and other persuasive techniques.  Perhaps transcendence is the next stage of emergence. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that the ability to generate the information would have to be present.

Then you’d still be wrong. No ant or neuron has that ability. When there’s enough of them though, collectively their behaviour creates new and greater levels of complexity. 

…and it is the explanation for the gain in information that I take issue with. I see it as trying to get round the need for an external cause being responsible for it, as opposed to attempting to solve the problem of the external cause, hence the something from nothing dilemma

Then you’d be wrong again. The fact of information gain is well-observed, well-researched and well documented. It happens. There is no “something from nothing” problem though because there is a something – consistent behaviours by the constituent parts, none of which though possess the complexity those behaviours collectively cause. 

My contention would be the ability to learn in the first place being an emergent property of something else (which in turn is an emergent property from something before that, etc), then claiming consciousness as an emergent property of the ability to learn. It’s a classic circularity with that which exists being used to explain the emergence of that which exists.

Wrong again. The ant, neuron etc does not have an ability to learn at all – they just go on consistently repeating behaviours. The learning happens at a higher level as the system itself adapts. What you’re actually describing is non-adaptive systems (like snowflakes), which is a different matter though again no ice crystal “knows” how to make a snowflake yet snowflakes there are nonetheless. 

If you really want to understand why I question the explanations, take e.g. any of Newton’s conservation of xxx laws, come up with any scenario that violates it (e.g. an overall increase in momentum after a collision of two objects, with no external agent involved) and then try and explain the violation as an emergent property of the collision. The one thing Physics (particular Mechanics) shows in abundance is that you do not get something from nothing.

I do know why you question the explanations – it’s because you don’t understand emergence, and Newton’s law concerns the conservation of energy in isolated systems in any case Deepak.

Seriously, read Steven Johnson or any of the on line resources for more information. You may actually learn something!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#588

What you’re actually describing is non-adaptive systems (like snowflakes), …

And at some point, a non-adaptive system must have become an adaptive system, hence why I differentiate between an increase and a gain.

A longer example: Here is an explanation (transcribed word for word) given by Sir David Attenborough in his BBC 1 programme Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life on Sunday 1st February 2009 for the origin and development of life in its early stages:

150 years after the publication of Darwin's revolutionary book, modern genetics has confirmed its fundamental truth. All life is related. And it enables us to construct with confidence the complex tree that represents the history of life.

It began in the sea some 3000 million years ago. Complex chemical molecules began to come together to form microscopic blobs - cells. These were the seeds from which the tree of life developed. They were able to split, replicating themselves as bacteria do. And as time passed, they diversified into different groups. Some remained attached to one another so that they formed chains. We know them today as algae. Other formed hollow balls, which collapsed upon themselves creating a body with an internal cavity. They were the first multi-celled organisms - sponges are their direct descendants. As more variations appeared, the tree of life grew and became more diverse. Some organisms became more mobile and developed a mouth that opened into a gut. Others had bodies, stiffened by an internal rod. They, understandably developed sense organs around their front end...

At the time when complex molecules began to come together, was the system non-adaptive, or adaptive?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

And at some point, a non-adaptive system must have become an adaptive system, hence why I differentiate between an increase and a gain.

A longer example: Here is an explanation (transcribed word for word) given by Sir David Attenborough in his BBC 1 programme Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life on Sunday 1st February 2009 for the origin and development of life in its early stages:...

At the time when complex molecules began to come together, was the system non-adaptive, or adaptive?

What point do you think you're making?

Here's Wiki with a definition for you:

"A complex adaptive system is a "complex macroscopic collection" of relatively "similar and partially connected micro-structures" formed in order to adapt to the changing environment and increase its survivability as a macro-structure.

They are complex in that they are dynamic networks of interactions, and their relationships are not aggregations of the individual static entities, i.e., the behaviour of the ensemble is not predicted by the behaviour of the components. They are adaptive in that the individual and collective behaviour mutate and self-organise corresponding to the change-initiating micro-event or collection of events."

Note in particular: "their relationships are not aggregations of the individual static entities". (My emphasis.)

Clear enough?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, usually trolls have little to offer of their own, but parasitize upon other people's stuff.

Oh look Wigginhall, Hillside and Toe . Three non adaptives working as an adaptive emergent........

DICTYOSTELIUM ASSEMBLE!...........

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

What point do you think you're making?

Your claim:

What you’re actually describing is non-adaptive systems (like snowflakes), …

It appears to me then that you are assuming an adaptive system for the explanation I gave in my #589.

Why should I take on the one hand non-adaptive systems for snowflakes (which involve one type of molecules) or  observations in Physics, but on the other hand an adaptive system for other complex molecules coming together?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wiggs,

Parasitize - as so often, you've come up with the perfect word. I do wonder sometimes why those whose only contribution is destructive bother with it. Surely if they really believe in something they'd at least want to try to make a positive argument for it, at least just occasionally. There seems to be an element of, "if I can reduce everything else to rubble my stuff doesn't look so threadbare" perhaps - at least that's the only motive I can think of.

Again I am not against emergence.....what i'm against is reductionists usurpation of it and your continual book quoting and statement of the bleeding obvious.

In other words you have nothing to turn to rubble.

[Alan Burns]

Ultimately it is within our remit to figure things out without recourse to magic.

But if you insist on ignoring the possibility of intelligently guided events bringing us into being, you are bound to end up with an intelligently conceived scenario showing how our existence could possibly have been brought about by a series of natural events, with any gaps or unexplainable bits conveniently patched up with the assumption that there will be a future explanation.  So you may ask how we can possibly discover the real truth?  I would suggest you open up your spiritual awareness to allow God to reveal Himself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

torri,

Yeah I thought so, and I find the subject fascinating too. I you haven't read it already, you'd enjoy Steven Johnson's book I think.

For "ants" you can swap pretty much "neurons" and other equivalent phenomena too and the same principles hold. SOTS would say that the information in the emergent system was in the ants/neurons etc anyway, but the evidence is very much that learning systems gain in information as they adapt – ie, they learn. Once that's understood consciousness as an adaptive emergent property doesn't seem particularly outlandish, especially given the eye-watering complexity of brains.

How do you get from the accumulation of information, something a non conscious computer could do, to consciousness?

[Gordon]

Why should I take on the one hand non-adaptive systems for snowflakes, observations in Physics, but on the other hand an adaptive system for complex molecules coming together, because this is the explanation someone wants to give for how life allegedly started?

Here you go:

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

[Sebastian Toe]

So you may ask how we can possibly discover the real truth?  I would suggest you open up your spiritual awareness to allow God to reveal Himself.

And if that opening up has been done and nothing has been revealed. Whst then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And if that opening up has been done and nothing has been revealed. Whst then?

Can you describe in more then 25 words how you opened up?

[wigginhall]

But if you insist on ignoring the possibility of intelligently guided events bringing us into being, you are bound to end up with an intelligently conceived scenario showing how our existence could possibly have been brought about by a series of natural events, with any gaps or unexplainable bits conveniently patched up with the assumption that there will be a future explanation.  So you may ask how we can possibly discover the real truth?  I would suggest you open up your spiritual awareness to allow God to reveal Himself.

Well, that does have some comedy value, since your ideas about the soul and and about creation seem to involve a whole ton of gaps and unexplainable bits.   How does the soul interact with the brain?   How did God place the moon in the right place? Have you got any links to research projects on this?   Or maybe it's, 'just like that'.