Intelligence - A Form of self-organization ?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 09:41 pm
@Exebeche,
Hey I like it. I remember something similar by Kevin Kelly, one of the founding editors of Wired Magazine, a few years back. It's a whole new picture, isn't it? I think this idea of kind of a creative tension between order and chaos is somehow very fertile...

---------- Post added 09-07-2009 at 02:54 PM ----------

This is one of the articles I was thinking of: God Is The Machine

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/images/FF.HolyTech_1.jpg
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 10:19 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;88598 wrote:
Hey I like it. I remember something similar by Kevin Kelly, one of the founding editors of Wired Magazine, a few years back. It's a whole new picture, isn't it? I think this idea of kind of a creative tension between order and chaos is somehow very fertile...

---------- Post added 09-07-2009 at 02:54 PM ----------

This is one of the articles I was thinking of: God Is The Machine

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/images/FF.HolyTech_1.jpg


... one difference being that in the dynamical systems perspective mathematics and computation are simply models of reality, not reality itself ... what Kelly forgets to point out in this article are the limits of digital computation (the digital-computation analog of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem) - Computability ... that even something as fundamental as the real number line is a fiction in digital physics ... so while a "universal" digital computer can indeed compute anything that is digitally computable, not everything is digitally computable ... thus digital physics makes the claim that what is not digitally computable simply does not exist ... with the limits (if any) of analog computation as-yet unexplored, let alone the possibility of a creative fusion between analog and digital computation (suggested in Bateson's "Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity"), I don't see any reason to buy into such a radical claim ...
 
Exebeche
 
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 03:36 pm
@paulhanke,
jeeprs;88598 wrote:

This is one of the articles I was thinking of: God Is The Machine


A very fascinating contribution. Thank you jeeprs.
(Some parts of it seemed familiar. Have you posted parts of it somewhere else?)

paulhanke;88755 wrote:
let alone the possibility of a creative fusion between analog and digital computation .


Honestly i did not catch Kelly's point about how three atoms perform a digital computation for forming a molecule.
What i see here is pure analog computation, where mathematics is an attempt of digitally describing such a process.
To me digital means in numbers. If we reduce microscopic processes to "yes/no" functions i don't see numbers emerge, but only logical operations.
Still very fascinating though.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 06:40 pm
@Exebeche,
well no, I haven't posted it anywhere, but this thread really reminded me of it. As paulhanke points out, it is different to what he is driving at, which I am still not quite across yet, but Kevin Kelly is a really interesting writer. 'It's all geek to me' ha ha
 
hammersklavier
 
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 07:23 pm
@Exebeche,
It would seem that intelligence has an inherent desire to order given how strongly ordering tendencies manifest themselves...
 
Exebeche
 
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 03:24 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;88598 wrote:

This is one of the articles I was thinking of: God Is The Machine


I am still totally fascinated by this text from Kelly.
It does in fact lead us back to the original topic.
One thing that baffles me is how i was already familiar with the concept of cellular automata but didn't see the significance.
It took this text by Kevin Kelly to make me see some connections.
First of all i remembererd having read that Alan Turing did some research on how patterns appear. What i have read is that he did some investigation on how we can explain the different patterns in animals' fur?
Why does a zebra have this typical (however highly individual) pattern in such perfect continuity, what makes the difference to a leopards pattern?
A process that creates patterns that are never precisely the same but of such perfect similarity must be subject to a highly organized principle.
Turing expressed it as equations of chemical waves.
From reading books about this on one side and cellular automata on the other i never connected these two things.
Furthermore in books the cellular automata appear to be just a bit absract if i'm honest.
But after i read Kelly's text, i looked up some java applets representing conway's game of life, and when i saw these automata in motion, what a vision !
Self organization in all its beauty ! The 'gliders' and the waves... it really took my breath !
I mean, ok, it looks like the very first computer games, so it doesn't really offer anything for spoilt nintendo users who need good graphics to get a thrill.
However you must not look from the graphical angle, but if you see it from the logical perspective - When you look at the start situation you think: What can really happen, a few pixles will move in a circle, nothing exciting. The rules of these automata are so little and basic that nobody would expect these systems to just develop a BEHAVIOUR.
But then they behave.
I have never really seen self organization so in action.
Wow. I do really understand how somebody can imagine the whole universe being based on such simple functions.
If someone is interested, i downloaded the applet from Mirek's Cellebration Download Area ;
I just opened some of the projects in the must-see folder and regulated the speed of the simulation in 'animation -> set speed' .
I guess i will have to find a definition for the term 'behaviour'.
But these cell automaton models might serve very well for an explanation of how intelligent behaviour actually preceeds the appearance of an intelligent being by the means of self organization.

[Edit: Of course there might be some examples of cellular automata on youtube also. But i prefer that program because you can regulate it and even modify it, look at the rules and so on. ]
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 04:38 pm
@Exebeche,
Exebeche;89667 wrote:
Self organization in all its beauty ! The 'gliders' and the waves... it really took my breath !
I mean, ok, it looks like the very first computer games, so it doesn't really offer anything for spoilt nintendo users who need good graphics to get a thrill.
However you must not look from the graphical angle, but if you see it from the logical perspective - When you look at the start situation you think: What can really happen, a few pixles will move in a circle, nothing exciting. The rules of these automata are so little and basic that nobody would expect these systems to just develop a BEHAVIOUR.
But then they behave.
I have never really seen self organization so in action.
Wow. I do really understand how somebody can imagine the whole universe being based on such simple functions.
If someone is interested, i downloaded the applet from Mirek's Cellebration Download Area


... way cool, isn't it!? ... about a year and a half ago I downloaded the software and played with it a little ... the CA grid wasn't big enough for my taste, so I modified the source code to allow me to make some bigger CA grids ... one of the CA rule sets that was pretty boring at the smaller grid size all of a sudden took on a life of its own ... Is There Life on the Sun? ... (scroll down to December 12th, 2007) ...
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 04:40 pm
@Exebeche,
Maybe you could say that this is because life is mind, through and through. Mind is not 'something that thinks' but this kind of latent intelligence which is embedded in everything. This is completely different to the traditional image of the 'great architect and the grand design'. Instead you have embedded the principle in every single thing so it can more or less create itself....kind of like DNA. And in fact it must have been like this for DNA to have occurred, mustn't it?
 
Exebeche
 
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 04:46 pm
@hammersklavier,
hammersklavier;89511 wrote:
It would seem that intelligence has an inherent desire to order given how strongly ordering tendencies manifest themselves...

Interesting perspective.
It's also possible to see it this way. I'm not a hundred percent fine with it though.
Since i don't see intelligence as something that has an ontological existence, i don't see an a priori intelligence that can have a desire.
I see self organisation creating patterns of which some end up being eliminated, some end up being static and some being self-maintaining processes. (This is something that can perfectly be observed in the cellular automata models.)
Most self maintaining systems will be eliminated by factors coming from outside.
A system that self organises in a way that it resists disturbance coming from outside simply processes information in a way that keeps up a function of self-maintanence.
Being based on a function qualified for self maintanence is the requirement of reorganising itself over and over.
We can observe such a reorganisation permanently in a flock of birds for example.
Phenomenons that have this property: Processing information in a functional way (first function is self maintanence) show intelligent behaviour.
A complex molecule can have such as well as a flock of birds.

This means:
Intelligence is not attracted by order (since intelligence is not an entitiy).
Order does not create intelligence (since order is not an entitity).
Intelligence [edit: intelligent behaviour] is a phenomenon that condenses in very few areas of self organisation (metaphor for emergence).

---------- Post added 09-12-2009 at 01:07 AM ----------

jeeprs;89684 wrote:
Maybe you could say that this is because life is mind, through and through. Mind is not 'something that thinks' but this kind of latent intelligence which is embedded in everything. This is completely different to the traditional image of the 'great architect and the grand design'. Instead you have embedded the principle in every single thing so it can more or less create itself....kind of like DNA. And in fact it must have been like this for DNA to have occurred, mustn't it?


You totally got it !

:a-ok:

Wow, i really like this discussion.

---------- Post added 09-12-2009 at 01:31 AM ----------

paulhanke;89683 wrote:
... way cool, isn't it!? ... about a year and a half ago I downloaded the software and played with it a little ... the CA grid wasn't big enough for my taste, so I modified the source code to allow me to make some bigger CA grids ... one of the CA rule sets that was pretty boring at the smaller grid size all of a sudden took on a life of its own ... Is There Life on the Sun? ... (scroll down to December 12th, 2007) ...


Jesus Paulhanke, that simulation you made really blows my mind!
How long did you run the simulation to get this result?
Have you tried to continue?
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 05:51 pm
@Exebeche,
Exebeche;89685 wrote:
Jesus Paulhanke, that simulation you made really blows my mind!
How long did you run the simulation to get this result?
Have you tried to continue?


... it blows my mind, too Smile ... it doesn't take long before the growing cell-like structures first appear - maybe 5 minutes at most ... unfortunately, there is no feedback to control the growth - eventually, all of the cell-like structures merge into a single cell that encompasses the whole grid ... I think this would be akin to one of the multitude of false-starts I feel certain there were in the history of life on earth ...
 
Exebeche
 
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 06:16 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;89696 wrote:
... it blows my mind, too Smile ... it doesn't take long before the growing cell-like structures first appear - maybe 5 minutes at most ... unfortunately, there is no feedback to control the growth - eventually, all of the cell-like structures merge into a single cell that encompasses the whole grid ... I think this would be akin to one of the multitude of false-starts I feel certain there were in the history of life on earth ...


Yes, i understand.
Do you see a chance for me of running this modified software on my computer? I'm really excited about it.

(Oh, by the way... i was surprised to see some kind of terminology used by R. Sheldrake.
You can imagine that i am more than curious about that...)
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 08:14 pm
@Exebeche,
Exebeche;89700 wrote:
Yes, i understand.
Do you see a chance for me of running this modified software on my computer? I'm really excited about it.


... if you have Windows with Java installed, you should be able to run it ... I just uploaded it to the web: http://www.paulhanke.com/alife/MJCell.zip ... unzip it somewhere and then double click on Start.html ... then click the "Start MJCell" button in the browser ... in the first pulldown on the left, select "User DLL" ... in the second pulldown, select "Digital Inkblots" ... from the menu bar, select "Board", then "Board Size", and then "User size" ... set it to the new maximum size (1600x1200) ... from the menu bar, select "Board" and then "Zoom Out" - repeat until you have as much of the grid visible as possible ... press the "Rand" button ... press "Start" ... enjoy! ... (it is interesting to repeat this at the old maximum size of 800x600 - I have never been able to get the cell-like structures to appear at this grid size ... in the words of Phil Anderson, "More is different"! Smile) ...

Exebeche;89700 wrote:
(Oh, by the way... i was surprised to see some kind of terminology used by R. Sheldrake.
You can imagine that i am more than curious about that...)


... I don't know the specific terminology you are referring to, but if it originates from R. Sheldrake it comes to me second-hand via other authors (I had to Google R. Sheldrake to find out who he was!) ...
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 06:09 am
@Exebeche,
Sheldrake is interesting but regarded as "New Age' (to put it mildly) by the establishment. I had the good fortune to be invited to a private talk by him in the 1990's. I found him fascinating and a very charming individual. His idea of 'morphic resonance' is that nature has habits; crystals could form in millions of potential ways, but once having formed once in a certain way, they tend to do so again. They do this through morphogenetic fields. The editors of Science (or Nature, can't remember which) thought this was outrageous, and declared his first book 'fit for burning'. They still think he works in magic rather than science.

(It is interesting to note that when Richard Dawkins interviewed Sheldrake about telepathic phenomena, he had been sent journal papers about Sheldrake's findings in this area and had declined to read any of them or to discuss any such evidence.)
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 01:39 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;89810 wrote:
His idea of 'morphic resonance' is that nature has habits; crystals could form in millions of potential ways, but once having formed once in a certain way, they tend to do so again. They do this through morphogenetic fields.


... where I've run into the use of the term "morphogenesis", there has been no mention of fields ... the closest to something along those lines I've seen is reference to broken symmetries (e.g., the fact that the chemistry of terrestrial life is "left handed") and chemical gradients (e.g., that a human cell's phenotypic expression is influenced by the chemical bath it finds itself in and that the development of a human body is controlled/enabled to a certain extent by chemical gradients) ... so if broken symmetries and chemical gradients are components of "morphogenetic fields", then I suppose I have been (indirectly) exposed to R. Sheldrake's ideas ... with respect to my use of the term "terra-morphic", however, this is just to imply my own leanings toward the uniqueness of terrestrial morphology - that life in other places in this universe (perhaps even in computer simulations) may express a potentially unrecognizable (to humans) morphology ...
 
salima
 
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 05:22 pm
@Exebeche,
i had written myself a couple of notes and now i dont know where i got them from...

"intelligence is the force in a state of nothing"
"awareness is duality, i.e. intelligence aware of something,
(subject--> process --> object)"

must be from something i read in a link jeeprs posted-or i might have made up some part of it...

i think that life -no, i dont like to use that term...i think that anything existing in any universe must be based on the same principles. now that i think about it, i suppose there may be other universes that do not have as their underpinning 'intelligence', but not sure we would be able to recognize them or even detect them.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 06:01 pm
@Exebeche,
I think this is straying from this particular thread somewhat. I have posted a response to that observation (which is really pretty important) back at your blog.
 
salima
 
Reply Sat 12 Sep, 2009 11:09 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;89913 wrote:
I think this is straying from this particular thread somewhat. I have posted a response to that observation (which is really pretty important) back at your blog.


thanks-i am having a hard time trying to figure out which observations belong to which threads these days! i am thinking i am probably oversubscribed, but they do overlap somewhat, and if i miss an important point on one i will be driving blind on another, you know?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 05:36 am
@Exebeche,
I have thought throughout this dialog that the tendency of living or even proto-living systems to spontaneously form and develop must be due to an underlying form. I found the following passage describing Plotinus' interpretation of the nature of the Forms and how they engender living forms, which seems peculiarly appropriate:

"The world of Forms is animated by a single Life: a constant movement which engenders the different forms. It is like a single organism, which finds its raison d'etre within itself, and differentiates itself into living parts. The Forms become complex and subdivide from the original Plant to the different kinds of plants, and from the original Animal to various kinds of animals. Each Form develops that which it implies: the form "human" requires reason, but also feet and fingers.... Each form, that is to say, wills itself to be complete and perfect in its own way, according to its own theme. The World of Forms does not carry a program or plan above and beyond itself. It is...'a melody that sings itself'. It is an immediate wisdom, "which is not acquired by calculations, since it has always been present as a whole; because it lacks nothing, it does not need to be sought after. (comment: this implies the 'plenitude' of The One.) This wisdom does not need to be constructed out of theorems; it is complete, and it is a unity,....it does not derive from anything else, nor is it in anything else....

"Life is, for [Plotinus], is a formative, simple and immediate activity, irreducible to all our analyses. It is a totality present all at once, within itself; a Form which forms itself'. (my emphasis and comment).

Not bad, for first century AD, eh?

From Plotinus: or The Simplicity of Vision; by Pierre Hadot; University of Chicago Press, Pp 40-41.
 
salima
 
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 01:32 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;89963 wrote:
I have thought throughout this dialog that the tendency of living or even proto-living systems to spontaneously form and develop must be due to an underlying form. I found the following passage describing Plotinus' interpretation of the nature of the Forms and how they engender living forms, which seems peculiarly appropriate:

"The world of Forms is animated by a single Life: a constant movement which engenders the different forms. It is like a single organism, which finds its raison d'etre within itself, and differentiates itself into living parts. The Forms become complex and subdivide from the original Plant to the different kinds of plants, and from the original Animal to various kinds of animals. Each Form develops that which it implies: the form "human" requires reason, but also feet and fingers.... Each form, that is to say, wills itself to be complete and perfect in its own way, according to its own theme. The World of Forms does not carry a program or plan above and beyond itself. It is...'a melody that sings itself'. It is an immediate wisdom, "which is not acquired by calculations, since it has always been present as a whole; because it lacks nothing, it does not need to be sought after. (comment: this implies the 'plenitude' of The One.) This wisdom does not need to be constructed out of theorems; it is complete, and it is a unity,....it does not derive from anything else, nor is it in anything else....

"Life is, for [Plotinus], is a formative, simple and immediate activity, irreducible to all our analyses. It is a totality present all at once, within itself; a Form which forms itself'. (my emphasis and comment).

Not bad, for first century AD, eh?

From Plotinus: or The Simplicity of Vision; by Pierre Hadot; University of Chicago Press, Pp 40-41.


told ya! plotinus rules! :bigsmile: does that make me a plotinusian?
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2009 08:20 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;89963 wrote:
It is...'a melody that sings itself'.


... I like this analogy better than the "Form which forms itself" analogy ... much of modern thought seems to be so oriented around matter/substance that "form" by default implies material expression (e.g., a finger) ... but what we really find is the creative interplay between processual forms (e.g., life) and material forms (e.g., body) ... and as you go down the ladder of levels of description, what are material forms dissolve into processual forms (e.g., the cells that make up a body are themselves life processes grounded in chemical forms; the chemicals that make up a cell are molecular processes grounded in atomic forms; and so on) ... so it really seems to be the world "singing" itself that makes the world what it is Smile ...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 11/26/2020 at 01:03:20