This is exactly the train of thought I use daily to make decisions in the quantum bioinformatics research field aspects of counterintelligence information gathering risk/benefit analysis.”we are of nature not above it”!❤
TLDR: Put fungal-bacteria mix into a fertilizer and it will solve all our problems - GDP will be happy, bacteria happy, Kauffman happy, everyone will go to outer space and so on
@@andreys7729 Yeah. I realised, I'd spoken in haste. I have this idea, DBBC, is exists, so telepathic communication, using the most usual language, that Kauffman's work looking into the mind and consciousness, shows us how this could be possible, 'scientifically'. Is it possible then, that being able to communicate, ok, currently, sub/unconsciously, that developing this ability, may be not just the next stage in human evolution, but also that it is essential to our survival? Don't worry if these notions alarm you, 99% of the 'scientific community', apart I think from Kauffman, a few others, have already crapped their pants when they hear the words, telepathy, ESP. So please don't have any 'accident' yourself. Sincerely - - - 🖐️🖖☝️👇 🌍 🌍 🌎
I have another book titled The Adjacent Possible, by Nancy Hillis, Ph.D. Which is about evolving your art, from blank canvas to prolific artist. There’s probably a parallel. I haven’t finished the book yet.
As an engineer I can say the world-machine analogy still holds, it is just the definition of a machine expanded over the years and includes more probabalistic properties. Also, TV - 1928 Helicopter - 1929 Computer - ok, that one is questionable, but I'd still name Z1 in 1938 Jet engines - 1867, by 1930 we got turbojets already Rockets - Han Dynasty ~ 200 BC Plastics - first polimers described in 1833
As you are en engineer, that is hardly surprising. But you've fundamentally misunderstood the point of the adjacent possible (and might want to read up on complexity theory). The sample (phase) space is not infinite, but it is indefinite, and each novel idea or field of use for the metaphorical screwdriver is different from the previous, which means that they can only ever be put on a nominal scale. Put the two together and you will find that the future is non-algorithmic. You cannot calculate probabilities without a sample space. The mechanistic analogy falls down (which it does for a myriad of other reasons, not least human agency, but that is beyond the present point).
Like he said "possibilities are infinite but for a limited time". We might be in a Cambrian explosion but have to be aware that we might also be close to a(nother) extintion... Which this world has seen SIX major ones so far.
That’s really scary to think about; I’m hoping that we could make some sort of explosion that will patch up all the destruction we make, like sort of an inverse “Cambrian explosion” of the sort somehow
I got kindof lost after he said "the number of things reaches infinity in finite time" 6:09. Like, no, just say near infinite, which is almost certainly what you mean. It will not actually go infinite in finite time.
@@lemonsaverythey can't sustain hyperbolic growth because we'd hit brute physical limits. I suppose he could argue that *possibilities* will tend to infinity - but yeah, he shouldn't say 'things'.
A friend has... I assume it still exists, an old engine block in his yard. Near his back door for some reason. Right outside of the kitchen. His wife had an idea. They planted herbs in the ... holes for the pistons. Whatever they are called. Didn't see that coming.
So I feel like he skipped/cut some connective tissue in between the infinity of things and climate change/compost parts of his talk. I'm going to summarize the point of this video into a
Oh and I think the rush of AI assisted human creation of digital assets is also following a similar "hockey stick" pattern. Reinforcing the idea that the innovative explosion is an inherent feature of adjacent innovation.
I think he wanted to avoid expressly saying what he thinks because the infinite possibilities might become finite. It's one reason I didn't really care for Biology, as a Bio major. People hear something and run with it and that limits the possible ideas that could be born of an open-ended idea ended with a question mark. Let's say a thousand ultra intelligent people see this. If he expressly said what he was thinking, at least a portion of those people would lose the possible vision they could have had if he just hadn't finished the story. Judging from who he is, he probably has more than one competent grad student. Even I have a competent grad student, and I am not even affiliated with a university 😂
And now with LLMs being able to collect and process unstructured data, among a myriad of other technological innovations, curious what adjacent possibilities have emerged 🎉 how will these transform people’s lives? We get to shape the future to benefit Life.
7:42 when I see that, it confirms the recent UN Report on Freedom in relation to Economic Success - because Scribe, Solicitor, Clergy, Wealthy Merchants….. when has it not been about controlling information and people? If everyone who wanted to know, could know - I really think we could solve Any problem. Of course there will be new ones, stay the course and we can solve those too.
Fungus will save the world! And bacteria will help. I guess that was the conclusion. The run up was an interesting look at how novelty comes about both in evolution and in the history of human invention and innovation.
Its about three points I think. (1) Possibility and actuality are metaphysical concepts, the difference of which it helps to pay attention to. The difference is that possibility is like a awareness and representation of an absence while actuality is like a present existent thing. Still there are possibilities we are not aware of (possible possible vs actual possible... your not expected to understand that part!) (1) Tools (or instruments) have primary functions or purposes and they create a possible complementary tool (co-possibility). Still we *cannot list* all the uses or roles they can play in our "workshop of all tools" nor can we methodically (like a machine) just step by step describe how to do this. (3) The point about the fast growth of technology is just this: We can describe a circle in terms of quantities like the radius, circumference, and area. But think about how as the size of the circle grows the border with the outside, the circumference does too. > "'As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.'" - Albert Einstein Now the inside of the circle is what we know we know ("known knowns"), the edge is what we know we don't know (the *adjacent* possible or "known unknowns") and the far away is the what we don't know that we don't know ("unknown unknowns"). So he is saying although we become more aware of our ignorance we become more aware of stepping-stone possibilities too.
25 May 2017 - Imam Mahdi Muhammad Qasim saw that when people’s houses and businesses are destroyed by the evil forces that control Pakistan, then the people will be in despair of their situation and chaos will ensue. Imam Mahdi Muhammad Qasim Dreams
Stephen Jay Gould in one of his essays about 30 years ago made the same point that many adaptations that originated for one purpose were later modified for another purpose through evolution.
I love Stuart Kauffman's stuff but this is a bit of a muddled presentation. The adjacent possible is a wonderful idea, which explains *limitations* on innovation (you cannot skip directly to "non-adjacent possibilities" - in fact if they are not adjacent they are not even visible, so they are impossible - but you must go through all the intermediate adjacencies first) but I think grafting this onto Kurzweil's potty idea of the singularity misses the mark. As some adjacent possibilities come closer, others move further away. There is no exponential progress toward anything: we are rather exponentially progressing *away* from where we were, in no particular direction, towards nowhere in particular, like a deflating balloon. The universe is not waking up any time soon.
This presentation is absolutely perfect.
This is exactly the train of thought I use daily to make decisions in the quantum bioinformatics research field aspects of counterintelligence information gathering risk/benefit analysis.”we are of nature not above it”!❤
You've got no comments. Could you make your comment understandable?
TLDR: Put fungal-bacteria mix into a fertilizer and it will solve all our problems - GDP will be happy, bacteria happy, Kauffman happy, everyone will go to outer space and so on
Are they the same mushrooms you eat? What are you talking about? Sincerely, please?
@@Jonathan-z8j ask Kauffman, he’s the expert on mushrooms.
@@andreys7729 Yeah. I realised, I'd spoken in haste.
I have this idea, DBBC, is exists, so telepathic communication, using the most usual language, that Kauffman's work looking into the mind and consciousness, shows us how this could be possible, 'scientifically'.
Is it possible then, that being able to communicate, ok, currently, sub/unconsciously, that developing this ability, may be not just the next stage in human evolution, but also that it is essential to our survival?
Don't worry if these notions alarm you, 99% of the 'scientific community', apart I think from Kauffman, a few others, have already crapped their pants when they hear the words, telepathy, ESP.
So please don't have any 'accident' yourself.
Sincerely - - -
🖐️🖖☝️👇
🌍 🌍 🌎
@@Jonathan-z8j I didn’t read, too many letters:)
@@andreys7729 You stopped reading before you,. .
..., that's ok. Just as well.
I am reminded of Earthship Technology and how it may be the way forward for many. We have to allow this type of architecture.
We need thinkers and feelers like Dr. Kauffman now more than ever.
Great presentation, although I wished this video showed more of the slides.
I have another book titled The Adjacent Possible, by Nancy Hillis, Ph.D. Which is about evolving your art, from blank canvas to prolific artist. There’s probably a parallel. I haven’t finished the book yet.
As an engineer I can say the world-machine analogy still holds, it is just the definition of a machine expanded over the years and includes more probabalistic properties.
Also,
TV - 1928
Helicopter - 1929
Computer - ok, that one is questionable, but I'd still name Z1 in 1938
Jet engines - 1867, by 1930 we got turbojets already
Rockets - Han Dynasty ~ 200 BC
Plastics - first polimers described in 1833
This Kauffman dude wasted 12 minutes of my life
As you are en engineer, that is hardly surprising. But you've fundamentally misunderstood the point of the adjacent possible (and might want to read up on complexity theory). The sample (phase) space is not infinite, but it is indefinite, and each novel idea or field of use for the metaphorical screwdriver is different from the previous, which means that they can only ever be put on a nominal scale. Put the two together and you will find that the future is non-algorithmic. You cannot calculate probabilities without a sample space. The mechanistic analogy falls down (which it does for a myriad of other reasons, not least human agency, but that is beyond the present point).
@@Lessdeth14 no, I do not want to read up schoolboy essays on actual science of cybernetics.
OMG! He ended with "soil" and "composts". See "terra preta"! How I miss Sir Ken Robinson.
Like he said "possibilities are infinite but for a limited time". We might be in a Cambrian explosion but have to be aware that we might also be close to a(nother) extintion... Which this world has seen SIX major ones so far.
That’s really scary to think about; I’m hoping that we could make some sort of explosion that will patch up all the destruction we make, like sort of an inverse “Cambrian explosion” of the sort somehow
Yes, also, in general with the kind of exponential graph he showed, what comes up must come down. Hard.
I got kindof lost after he said "the number of things reaches infinity in finite time" 6:09. Like, no, just say near infinite, which is almost certainly what you mean. It will not actually go infinite in finite time.
Hyperbolic growth really does reach infinity in a finite time.
@@nathaniel771 Of course, but things can't grow hyperbolically.
@@lemonsaverythey can't sustain hyperbolic growth because we'd hit brute physical limits. I suppose he could argue that *possibilities* will tend to infinity - but yeah, he shouldn't say 'things'.
Good grief. I really wanted to hear a lecture by Kauffman, but this was even harder to go through than his writings.
A friend has... I assume it still exists, an old engine block in his yard. Near his back door for some reason. Right outside of the kitchen. His wife had an idea. They planted herbs in the ... holes for the pistons. Whatever they are called. Didn't see that coming.
So I feel like he skipped/cut some connective tissue in between the infinity of things and climate change/compost parts of his talk. I'm going to summarize the point of this video into a
Oh and I think the rush of AI assisted human creation of digital assets is also following a similar "hockey stick" pattern. Reinforcing the idea that the innovative explosion is an inherent feature of adjacent innovation.
I think he wanted to avoid expressly saying what he thinks because the infinite possibilities might become finite. It's one reason I didn't really care for Biology, as a Bio major. People hear something and run with it and that limits the possible ideas that could be born of an open-ended idea ended with a question mark. Let's say a thousand ultra intelligent people see this. If he expressly said what he was thinking, at least a portion of those people would lose the possible vision they could have had if he just hadn't finished the story. Judging from who he is, he probably has more than one competent grad student. Even I have a competent grad student, and I am not even affiliated with a university 😂
One problem. It's statistically impossible for a protein to form by chance no matter how much time there is.
And now with LLMs being able to collect and process unstructured data, among a myriad of other technological innovations, curious what adjacent possibilities have emerged 🎉 how will these transform people’s lives? We get to shape the future to benefit Life.
Very similar to what I understood out of emergentism from Mary Midgley (science and poetry)
7:42 when I see that, it confirms the recent UN Report on Freedom in relation to Economic Success - because Scribe, Solicitor, Clergy, Wealthy Merchants….. when has it not been about controlling information and people? If everyone who wanted to know, could know - I really think we could solve Any problem. Of course there will be new ones, stay the course and we can solve those too.
I feel like he's teaching the alphabet but only including a few Greek letters and some Sanskrit in some order that only he understands.
😂😂😂😂❤
The element we put in the air is the element that makes soil grow.
Rain helps too. Unfortunately, climate change means more flooding and droughts. Plenty of rain, but not where farmers need it.
A very linear chart with a very linear - singular, simplistic - solution.
Soil is good metaphor for stretching his analysis to the entire biosphere.
Humans are the paperclip maximiser
Fungus will save the world! And bacteria will help. I guess that was the conclusion. The run up was an interesting look at how novelty comes about both in evolution and in the history of human invention and innovation.
I heard about this via Josh Scott from jhs pedals lol
Human progress is finite.
Read Gunther Stent, John Horgan, Robert J. Gordon and Russell Funk.
Дякую
NK Modele
Alan Cromer is for the end of progress.
He said science is conservative. And he is right. Every rational person know that.
Life is chance and natural selection.
Not a complex theory.
I'm a little bit confused but I guess that's because I haven't gone to college or I just don't pay attention to this sort of thing .
Kauffman is confused too, just ignore him
Its about three points I think.
(1) Possibility and actuality are metaphysical concepts, the difference of which it helps to pay attention to. The difference is that possibility is like a awareness and representation of an absence while actuality is like a present existent thing. Still there are possibilities we are not aware of (possible possible vs actual possible... your not expected to understand that part!)
(1) Tools (or instruments) have primary functions or purposes and they create a possible complementary tool (co-possibility). Still we *cannot list* all the uses or roles they can play in our "workshop of all tools" nor can we methodically (like a machine) just step by step describe how to do this.
(3) The point about the fast growth of technology is just this: We can describe a circle in terms of quantities like the radius, circumference, and area. But think about how as the size of the circle grows the border with the outside, the circumference does too.
> "'As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.'" - Albert Einstein
Now the inside of the circle is what we know we know ("known knowns"), the edge is what we know we don't know (the *adjacent* possible or "known unknowns") and the far away is the what we don't know that we don't know ("unknown unknowns").
So he is saying although we become more aware of our ignorance we become more aware of stepping-stone possibilities too.
25 May 2017 - Imam Mahdi Muhammad Qasim saw that when people’s houses and businesses are destroyed by the evil forces that control Pakistan, then the people will be in despair of their situation and chaos will ensue. Imam Mahdi Muhammad Qasim Dreams
What on Earth is he saying 18% of the time
First
Hurry
What a waste of time.
Stephen Jay Gould in one of his essays about 30 years ago made the same point that many adaptations that originated for one purpose were later modified for another purpose through evolution.
I love Stuart Kauffman's stuff but this is a bit of a muddled presentation. The adjacent possible is a wonderful idea, which explains *limitations* on innovation (you cannot skip directly to "non-adjacent possibilities" - in fact if they are not adjacent they are not even visible, so they are impossible - but you must go through all the intermediate adjacencies first) but I think grafting this onto Kurzweil's potty idea of the singularity misses the mark. As some adjacent possibilities come closer, others move further away. There is no exponential progress toward anything: we are rather exponentially progressing *away* from where we were, in no particular direction, towards nowhere in particular, like a deflating balloon. The universe is not waking up any time soon.
sad you have no likes yet, this is a very good comment on this idea
This is perfect! I get a little teary-eyed thinking about these concepts. It usually is a simple answer for complex things.