[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Re: Evolution-inLimited model?

Hi John M.

There's a lot to talk about here. Your post addresses many different aspects of numerous different subjects. The following are just my preliminary thoughts about a few of them.

JM: "Speaking about "us" and our (open to evolution)
DNA<: brings up the thought that "we" are also models
cut and limited by program potentials of our DNA - not
free to 'nature as a total'. That makes us really a
'species' and cuts our evolution to 'within' the
species' boundaries. We do not grow gears and wings to
fly. Or gills. Or magnetic resonance receptors.

There are at least two big issues here. The first is whether our DNA is a limit or simply a component in a series of relational interactions which, all together, make us a species. With all the talk lately about mitochondria and chloroplast DNA (and all the other organelles which may have independent DNA) it seems to me that we cannot wallow in the human chauvinism about our "genome" or believe that it's all we need to understand why and how we are the way we are. To my knowledge, the human genome mapping effort is concentrating entirely on nuclear DNA. What's more; RR felt quite strongly that DNA is, in and of itself, not the full story-- even if we add the organelle DNA into the "human" genome. In fact, the whole concept of "genetic blue print" is a mechanistic viewpoint. The DNA are simply the material parts; tangible aspects of a larger, interactive, story.

The second issue raised in the above paragraph is one of human identity as a species. This is a real "toughie"-- human beings have been arguing about this particular subject amongst ourselves since the dawn of our species' ability to perceive and argue at the same time. My view is that the human mind is what defines us as human. It's not just our "living-organism-ness"-- shoot even a slime mold has that. It's not just intelligence-- plenty of other species are intelligent. But, out of all the living creatures who have ever lived on this Earth, in the fossil record up to now, only humanity has the abstract creative ability to generate innovative new ideas and thoughts which we then transform/manufacture into material reality. Evidence of human artistic and intellectual activity is everywhere. It's even visible from space, and has been for millennia. We create art-forms and modes of play for each of our senses and capabilities, including our imaginations. Because of this capability, we really do, in essence, "grow gears and gills and sprout wings". Someone once said to me that human beings are actually beginning to direct our own evolution, and I think this is the truth. We are directing it with our minds, for good or ill (probably both). So our bodily evolution is being influenced by our intellectual capacities even more, it could be argued, than by our entire genetic complement.

Artificial Intelligence is our label for a concept we have in our minds. It's intended to refer to our attempts at recreation of certain aspects of our intellectual capability, insofar as we perceive them whilst we are both observer and observed. We are attempting to transmute the capability of "intelligence" into a disembodied form. AI is supposed to repesent essentially a functional capacity of ours, recreated using entirely different means. Will we succeed? If we do, what have we achieved? Intelligence changes according to definition but I doubt anyone would say that this alone defines humanity or "human life". There is far more to human conscious awareness than intelligence.

All of that begs the question, though: Have we succeeded in artificially re-creating our own intelligence in a machine? In my opinion; no. Not even close. We have created a more interactive form of a reference library, with a few other labor-saving devices thrown into the mix at the same time. But computers are rated as "stupid" on my intelligence meter. Talk about linear! Sheesh! My dog has better problem solving abilities than my computer. The way I see it; computers are empty of intelligence but full of knowledge-- human knowledge. The only trouble is that all human knowledge, detached from its contextual meaning, is just a pile of empty meaningless data. Electronic zeros and ones... You can't even compost that.

The internet, however, is something else again. It's a social/intellectual complex system of a completely unique nature. I've been fascinated with the development of it, and privileged to be around to observe and participate from close to the beginning of it (certainly as a widespread phenomena, anyway). The internet represents human mental interaction on a species-wide scale... disembodied from any material aspects. It's completely different from the "hive mentality" that insects like bees and ants manifest (where there are behaviors and capabilities seen in a hive which are not present in the behavior of individuals).

Well... it seems I'm being hailed by the troops downstairs and I have to go; it's my oldest daughter's 21st birthday today. Yikes, I feel OLD! I've been rambling for long enough here anyway. Cheers, everyone; enjoy the day.

Judith


Web address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com
BioTheory: An electronic journal of general science based on the Relational (Rosennean) Complexity Paradigm
On Sep 10, 2005, at 11:50 AM, John M wrote:

List-friends who know a lot about ModRel, I have a
question asking for remarks.
On another list upon phantasms of utopistic physicists
and their philosophical nightmares i wrote among
others (saving the back-and-forth):
----------
...
"Speaking about "us" and our (open to evolution)
DNA<: brings up the thought that "we" are also models
cut and limited by program potentials of our DNA - not
free to 'nature as a total'. That makes us really a
'species' and cuts our evolution to 'within' the
species' boundaries. We do not grow gears and wings to
fly. Or gills. Or magnetic resonance receptors.
(This is a new idea in my views and I thank you (NN)
profusely for triggering that up in me. I have to
think about it. We are not so open either to every
(possible? or even impossible) effect to respond.
Which makes me doubt about the correctness when I
opposed the validity of AI's claim to represent
limitless(?) human thinking.
[Maybe I have to reconsider AI (and also AL?) as the
way to imitate the 'model human'??? even 'bio-life'???
The last par is absolutely unchecked, a new idea and a
new view. I am not ready to argue it in any ways.]
...
-------------------------------
The remark to AI and AL referred to their imitation
IMO of the 'so far discovered' knowledge of mind and
world, as contrasted to our (human?) and life's -
natural model - in infinity. I assigned the alleged
'Eliza' computer-experiment's unlimited 'openness' to
limited to its (her?) design conditioning in accepting
certain information - not beyond - . Then it may be
open to unlimitedly handle just those.

Our mind (whatever we identify it by) is not limited
to DNA or other restrictions. Our bodily evolution IS.
What kind of a 'unit' are we? Are the mind-body
separatists right? eternal soul? frail body? it
negates briefly a total worldview!

I am working on a position concerning "what are WE" as
a limited unlimited 'attractor' or 'model', the self
in a mental the body in a matterly aspect, with much
more interreltaions than acknowledged by the
reductionist sciences - yet functioning in observation
of certain restrictions. How the 'network' human
selects its close or remote connections. The above
question is highly disturbing in my adjusting to RR's
modeling relation.
(Or to whatever I guess to know about it).

John M