The new science - Information Integration

[Cooky]

No, mainstream understanding of the English language ... got any?

What a foolish response.

 

[shunyadragon]

selection / information < No mind involved here folks ... just move along .. lol

Nothing here of substance that would falsify a hypothesis supporting Intelligent Design. He presents a philosophical/theological argument for ID and not a scientific one.

 

[Sapiens]

What a foolish response.

Only to one insufficiently wise to understand ... must I further embarrass you by explaining in detail? I do so hate shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[sealchan]

"Multilevel evolution leads to long-term information integration. Through genome, network, and dynamical structuring, the occurrence and/or effect of random mutations becomes nonrandom, and facilitates rapid adaptation. This is what does happen in the in silico experiments. Is it also what did happen in biological evolution?"

..

This sounds like it might be a demonstration of Kaufman's order for free. However, I suspect that gene pools have always been a little pre-ordered because as DNA molecules evolved some of that information integration already happened. So you get selection for more efficient DNA as DNA developed and you get new efficiencies built in to the range of existing DNA molecules in the spectrum of biological organisms.

 

[Cooky]

Nothing here of substance that would falsify a hypothesis supporting Intelligent Design. He presents a philosophical/theological argument for ID and not a scientific one.

Actually, there are two kinds of ID, from my understanding. There is Intelligent Design and intelligent Design -lower case i.

The latter deals with pure science, and includes the ideas of Memes and Information Integration.

Here's a video that I watched 30 min. of last night, which got better every minute. Daniel Dennett is an Atheist.

 

[Cooky]

The concept of the term "meme" comes from Darwins "selfish gene" theory.

 

[sealchan]

logic ?? .... information can only be generated by a mind

DNA sequence
your post above evolutionists ....... are the letters / spaces and punctuation - are they of A or B
A = random / mindless / no structured sequence (just where they happened to land) .. or
B = design / code / information / intent / writer-reader / speaker-listener / agenda driven / intelligence


07-01-2019 .. Origin of Life: Intelligence Required (Science Uprising 05)
06-18-2019 .. DNA Is Code: Who Coded It?
04-23-2019 .. DNA is a language / information storage system - google

Not true...information is intimately tied up in causality and is understood as non-entropic activity at its lowest level. Any system that "encodes input" from another system like a farmer's crop from last year's weather is an informational transfer.

 

[sealchan]

A little background on information Integration, is the notion that information transfers may or may not be a fundamental natural and universal law. In and of itself.

Here is my recommended reading list for those science-y types that are not familiar with this stuff...

Journalistic introduction to Complex Adaptive Systems
https://www.amazon.com/Complexity-E...exity+science&qid=1562940666&s=gateway&sr=8-4

Ground-breaking work on "order for free" that will hand science the keys to the kingdom of any last ToE skepticism:
https://www.amazon.com/At-Home-Univ...uart+kauffman&qid=1562940887&s=gateway&sr=8-3

Also on Information Theory...
https://www.amazon.com/Information-...mation+theory&qid=1562943831&s=gateway&sr=8-7

Here's a quick video that some might understand (highly compressed discussion) especially if you have read the above:

This science is going to transform how we think about evolution and consciousness as it will hopefully give us the stories and metaphors we need to make even ToE a more familiar and palatable reflection of our everyday reality.

 

[sealchan]

Actually, there are two kinds of ID, from my understanding. There is Intelligent Design and intelligent Design -lower case i.

The latter deals with pure science, and includes the ideas of Memes and Information Integration.

Here's a video that I watched 30 min. of last night, which got better every minute. Daniel Dennett is an Atheist.

Thanks! Love Daniel Dennett...added to my Watch Later list in YouTube

 

[tas8831]

selection / information < No mind involved here folks ... just move along .. lol

Dude - are you familiar with what is called 'metaphorical language'? Or do you really believe that the sun 'goes down' at night?

 

[tas8831]

logic ?? .... information can only be generated by a mind

Says who?

You are apparently unaware that the very concept of "information" is a human contrivance, and artificial construct.
Pity that so many creationists formulate 'arguments' on such notions.

DNA sequence
your post above evolutionists ....... are the letters / spaces and punctuation - are they of A or B
A = random / mindless / no structured sequence (just where they happened to land) .. or
B = design / code / information / intent / writer-reader / speaker-listener / agenda driven / intelligence

HUMAN intelligence, yes.


You are claiming that Yahweh is a human?

 

[shunyadragon]

The concept of the term "meme" comes from Darwins "selfish gene" theory.

It wa Dawkins that proposed the 'selfish gene' theory not Darwin. The 'selfish gene' theory is based on the facts of evolution, but remainx a philosophical view that the survival of the gene is the driving force for evolution.

Dawkins did invent the term meme, and the 'meme theory,' but separate from the 'selfish gene' theory, and for different reasons, the concept of evolution applies to both as far as Dawkins and others propose.

From: Meme - Wikipedia
"A meme (/miːm/ MEEM[1][2][3]) is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture—often with the aim of conveying a particular phenomenon, theme, or meaning represented by the meme.[4] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures."

 

[ecco]

This science is going to transform how we think about evolution and consciousness as it will hopefully give us the stories and metaphors we need to make even ToE a more familiar and palatable reflection of our everyday reality.

Care to give us a quick synopsis in your own words.

 

[shunyadragon]

Here is my recommended reading list for those science-y types that are not familiar with this stuff...

Journalistic introduction to Complex Adaptive Systems
https://www.amazon.com/Complexity-E...exity+science&qid=1562940666&s=gateway&sr=8-4

Ground-breaking work on "order for free" that will hand science the keys to the kingdom of any last ToE skepticism:
https://www.amazon.com/At-Home-Univ...uart+kauffman&qid=1562940887&s=gateway&sr=8-3

Also on Information Theory...
https://www.amazon.com/Information-...mation+theory&qid=1562943831&s=gateway&sr=8-7

Here's a quick video that some might understand (highly compressed discussion) especially if you have read the above:

This science is going to transform how we think about evolution and consciousness as it will hopefully give us the stories and metaphors we need to make even ToE a more familiar and palatable reflection of our everyday reality.

I am a long term fan of Gleick since is first book Chaos: Making a New Theory.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually, there are two kinds of ID, from my understanding. There is Intelligent Design and intelligent Design -lower case i.

The latter deals with pure science, and includes the ideas of Memes and Information Integration.

Here's a video that I watched 30 min. of last night, which got better every minute. Daniel Dennett is an Atheist.

I easily acknowledge human intelligent design no problem and nothing new. Yes, Daniel Dennett is an atheist, and we probably agree on the facts of science, but we have a different philosophy, and an interpretation of what we may call the 'information integration.'

I share Dennett's belief in compatibilism, but believe in a different version that is more open ended.

 

[sealchan]

Care to give us a quick synopsis in your own words.

This won't do Stuart Kauffman justice I'm sure...

A system exists in a space divided into orderly and chaotic regions. At the interface of these regions is a critical zone where order and chaos are "balanced". Systems that can find this critical zone are stable and creative. Such systems give rise to self-organizing behaviors out of random interactions. These self-organizing behaviors "grow" taking up more and more of the space of total interactions until they reach a maximum. This maximum becomes a strong or even dominant determinant of behavior in that system. This behavior can persist long term and is adaptive to many changes in the systemic environment.

This happens naturally for many natural and human systems which are allowed sufficient degrees of freedom and enough interactions between largely, but not entirely, similar and consistent parts. As such we see order "arising for free" in systems largely, initially, governed by random behavior. This basic mathematical aspect of a system indicates that for organisms in an ecosystem, the same thing applies. The gradual formation and continual drift of species represents an emergent order which has converted a great deal of the space of random inputs into self-organizing and persistent behaviors.

Certain planets such as the Earth allow for chemical interactions to emerge into progressively more complex and adaptive behaviors because their environments are conducive to the existence of critically balanced order and chaos.

I should add that the self-organizing behavior produces adaptations faster than random response does. As such it represents implicit knowledge, wisdom or information in the system that makes it appear to be more intelligent than a random system.

 

[shunyadragon]

This won't do Stuart Kauffman justice I'm sure...

A system exists in a space divided into orderly and chaotic regions. At the interface of these regions is a critical zone where order and chaos are "balanced". Systems that can find this critical zone are stable and creative. Such systems give rise to self-organizing behaviors out of random interactions. These self-organizing behaviors "grow" taking up more and more of the space of total interactions until they reach a maximum. This maximum becomes a strong or even dominant determinant of behavior in that system. This behavior can persist long term and is adaptive to many changes in the systemic environment.

This happens naturally for many natural and human systems which are allowed sufficient degrees of freedom and enough interactions between largely, but not entirely, similar and consistent parts. As such we see order "arising for free" in systems largely, initially, governed by random behavior. This basic mathematical aspect of a system indicates that for organisms in an ecosystem, the same thing applies. The gradual formation and continual drift of species represents an emergent order which has converted a great deal of the space of random inputs into self-organizing and persistent behaviors.

Certain planets such as the Earth allow for chemical interactions to emerge into progressively more complex and adaptive behaviors because their environments are conducive to the existence of critically balanced order and chaos.

I should add that the self-organizing behavior produces adaptations faster than random response does. As such it represents implicit knowledge, wisdom or information in the system that makes it appear to be more intelligent than a random system.

Kauffman and I agree on the scientific facts, but we disagree on many issues of interpretation. First I do not divide into orderly and chaotic regions(?). I consider the Laws of Nature determine the order of our physical existence, and variations in possible range of cause and effect outcomes is fractal based on Chaos Theory as describe by Gleick. I avoid the use of random, 'random behavior?' and chance, because it would only apply to the timing and degree of outcome of events, and not the long term outcome of chains of cause and effect events that are determined by Natural Law.

 

[sealchan]

Kauffman and I agree on the scientific facts, but we disagree on many issues of interpretation. First I do not divide into orderly and chaotic regions(?). I consider the Laws of Nature determine the order of our physical existence, and variations in possible range of cause and effect outcomes is fractal based on Chaos Theory as describe by Gleick. I avoid the use of random, 'random behavior?' and chance, because it would only apply to the timing and degree of outcome of events, and not the long term outcome of chains of cause and effect events that are determined by Natural Law.

The orderly and chaotic "regions" thing was my language. I was thinking about some of those diagrams, actually, from Chaos theory where they show a variable graphed against the value that a system comes to and showing that at a certain point their is a transition from a single state to bifurcation to chaos. This is all from memory so you may have a clearly understanding/memory of all this.

Kauffman talks about the critical state of being poised between chaos and order that typifies, I think, natural systems.

 

[ecco]

This science is going to transform how we think about evolution and consciousness as it will hopefully give us the stories and metaphors we need to make even ToE a more familiar and palatable reflection of our everyday reality.

Care to give us a quick synopsis in your own words.

This won't do Stuart Kauffman justice I'm sure...

A system exists in a space divided into orderly and chaotic regions. At the interface of these regions is a critical zone where order and chaos are "balanced". Systems that can find this critical zone are stable and creative. Such systems give rise to self-organizing behaviors out of random interactions. These self-organizing behaviors "grow" taking up more and more of the space of total interactions until they reach a maximum. This maximum becomes a strong or even dominant determinant of behavior in that system. This behavior can persist long term and is adaptive to many changes in the systemic environment.

This happens naturally for many natural and human systems which are allowed sufficient degrees of freedom and enough interactions between largely, but not entirely, similar and consistent parts. As such we see order "arising for free" in systems largely, initially, governed by random behavior. This basic mathematical aspect of a system indicates that for organisms in an ecosystem, the same thing applies. The gradual formation and continual drift of species represents an emergent order which has converted a great deal of the space of random inputs into self-organizing and persistent behaviors.

Certain planets such as the Earth allow for chemical interactions to emerge into progressively more complex and adaptive behaviors because their environments are conducive to the existence of critically balanced order and chaos. I should add that the self-organizing behavior produces adaptations faster than random response does.

Thank for posting a synopsis. Many people in these forums post links and it quickly becomes clear that they do not really understand what they are talking about. You, on the other hand, obviously do.


To here, I see little that would "transform how we think about evolution".
However, there are parts...

A system exists in a space divided into orderly and chaotic regions.
Systems that can find this critical zone are stable and creative.​

...that, in context, sound like they border on woo.

As such it represents implicit knowledge, wisdom or information in the system that makes it appear to be more intelligent than a random system.

Your last sentence makes it quite clear that Stuart Kauffman has stepped over the line and is fully into woo. As such, I doubt his views will have any effect on how we think about evolution and consciousness.


Perhaps you can point to something in his 1993 book The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution that has found its way into ToE.

 

[Cooky]

Your last sentence makes it quite clear that Stuart Kauffman has stepped over the line and is fully into woo.

Why do you say that?