Michael Levin and John Vervaeke in Dialogos: Towards an Ontology of Causal Structures
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ค. 2024
- Dr. Michael Levin and Dr. John Vervaeke discuss findings on cognition, consciousness and placebo. Where is the line?
Links follow timestamps.
Timestamps:
00:00 Introduction
02:30 John begins with the question, “How do you define and differentiate cognition, intelligence, consciousness”
05:40 Mike tackles the same question
08:10 Can there be relevance realization at the cellular level?
14:00 Mike’s life turned upside down by the realization of the gradual development from oocyte to adult mind. Amazing plasticity. William James’ definition of intelligence
19:45 John asks about top-down causation and rejecting just a bottom up approach. The whole has a causal power not attributable just to the parts.
21:00 JV Identity going all the way down and emergence going all the way up. How to identify the ontology?
22:00 ML Let’s assume LaPlace’s demon could exist as a thought experiment. Tracking the micro states is an observer only, it cannot act. All the states are the same to you. But we want a worldview that helps you do things. A participatory worldview.
KW: is he saying that one cannot act without a substructure of value?
25:45 JV: I’ve been making epistemological arguments around the idea that any proper worldview has to give ontological status to scientists making measurements.
27:00 JV introduces neoplatonism, emanation down and emergence up as a way to integrate science and spirituality in an intellectually rigorous way
28:50 ML: I’ve been thinking hard about this Platonic worldview but not when in the biology circles, only in a forum like this, focused on meaning.
30:00 Logic gates come with a truth table. Where does that come from?
30:55 An index into the world of possibilities. Where does the capacity come from for xenobots to form within 48 hours?
33:00 Evidence for fractal levels of cognition, information exchange…
But have you ever looked at the placebo effect, which for a pure reductionist is a very hard thing to explain?
35:30 ML’s study on gene regulatory networks and the placebo effect.
38:30 Albert Mason on psycho dermatology (links below)
41:45 KW asks a “woo woo” question. Hilarity ensues.
45:00 JV The importance of rigorous scientific research to verify “experience”
49:30 ML Biochemical and bioelectrical signals and how they could eventuate change across layers
52:00 ML Can we train molecular networks to stimulate healing?
Useful links for further study:
Here’s the prep conversation I did with Glen, the physicist:
Worlds in Collision: Intelligence through the Lens of Wolfgang Smith, Michael Levin, Stephen Wolfram
• Worlds in Collision: I...
Background material
The full series of Awakening from The Meaning Crisis:
• Awakening from the Mea...
John Vervaeke's 4 P's of Knowing
• Playlist
Michael Levin: • What Matters to Me and...
Dr. Levin's work on limb regeneration: • Michael Levin; Regener...
The Levin Lab at Tufts U: ase.tufts.edu/biology/labs/le...
Erik Hoel: a great Substack column in addition to his science. See section "b)" on www.erikphoel.com/science.html
Albert Mason:
www7.bbk.ac.uk/hiddenpersuader...
npsi.us.com/uploads/documents...
The book on causation mentioned by John: The Vertical Ascent by Wolfgang Smith
A talk with Wolfgang Smith: Dr. Wolfgang Smith, Renowned Physicist, on Vertical Causation, Irreducible Wholeness and Meaning
• Dr. Wolfgang Smith, Re...
Karen's websites:
karenwongart.com
TheMeaningCode.com - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Let’s get more eyes on this. Like, share and subscribe so the algorithm fans it out beyond this little corner.
Once again, sterling work Karen. These collaborations are at last moving the conversations in this “Little Corner of the Internet” forward, thanks to you. I’m hoping now that more and more people can see how all these seemingly unrelated aspects of the meaning crisis are in fact related and complimentary to our understanding.
I was SO looking forward to seeing Johns’ reaction to the Xenobots. I wasn’t disappointed. Looking forward to the comments.
Thanks for realising and producing this wonderful collaboration Karen!
For real, these are vital connections that are being made across disciplines 🏆❤️
Crucial work Karen 👍, current numbers of views grossly undersell how such valuable convos will soon be in much more demand. ❤
You're truly soaring, Karen! Extremely intriguing dialogue.
The hypnotic suggestibility angle causes me to point out how dangerous it is for us to suggest things to others as impossible.
What a surprising treat :)
As John said thank you very much for introducing these gentlemen to each other Karen, being able to see where the threads in the fabric run together takes a special sort of attunement, thank you Michael, John and the wonderful host Karen. Looking forward to the fruits from this tree. Peace
Thank you all very much John, Michael, and Karen, I was really looking forward to this conversation, like the guys said we're just scratching the surface of this relationship. Once again thank you Karen. Peace
Very interesting, there's quite a lot packed in here. Lots of implications... probably need to listen twice
Man Karen--you are getting down to (or up to!) they way Logos works. I love how your mind works, tracking down these foundational concepts and asking these important questions. Ever since I tried to grok the double slit experiment, I've tried to follow some of these threads, but you have really tracked down some great guests that have pushed the conversation and at least my understanding WAY forward here. Great work! Great great work. Thank you!!!
That makes my day :-)
Big discussion and my first time listening to Michael Levin, thanks Karen!
4:21 biology was on the verge of becoming philosophically dominant after Dawkins introduced the 'meme' concept in Selfish Gene. But models of cultural evolution couldn't get off the ground because it was deemed impossible to ascertain the boundary conditions of an equivalent 'unit of culture' to match the gene. It's been stagnant ever since but I agree with John's view on this. (maybe Wolfram wouldn't!)
14:49 the computational answer to 'how we become minds' would involve computational irreducibility, i.e. that we just have to progress through computations and see what happens. Similar to the German concept of Bildung perhaps, in terms of higher cognition.
25:27 Michael's right on the money, and the Principle of Computational Equivalence supports this.
28:02 John is also on the money. Western Culture needs to re-encounter its divine origins and purpose.
48:47 Even though John recognizes this as one of the great 'gifts' and also one of the great 'flaws', I would suggest that we are all struggling to understand the 'gift' view. The scientific worldview is founded on exposing flaws in the woo-woo, but how can it possibly expose the strength of woo-woo without simultaneously destroying its own credibility?
thanks for this very interesting conversation, Karen, and for posting the background material, I'll follow your channel.
Wow!!!! Beautiful conversation!!!!!
Thanks for bringing these two together, Karen! This was a fascinating video, and I will re-watch it a couple of times because there's a lot here.
We can have a conversation about it later:-)
@@TheMeaningCode I would love that. The thought that kept occurring to me throughout listening to this video was "Logos is at every level. Without Logos, everything falls apart and is indistinguishable."
wow that was definitely stirring up lots of concepts I held. I am very interested how this will continue!
Be sure to look at the show notes. There’s lots of good resources there.
Kudos to you Karen for bringing two to the smartest people on the planet together. Awesome! I for one want to see these two continue to talk.
Thanks Michael, John and Karen!
Wow, that was really wonderful!!
Yo, next level convo, thank you!
Karen's contribution to the conversation regarding transformational physical realignment through body work was a nice touch in a conversation that was already delightfully fascinating.
Thanks, James. The minute after I said it, I thought, "Wow, what a dumb thing to talk about right here with these two geniuses!" But then, I've always figured maybe that's part of the charm.
This is so nice and comforting
Great discussion! Placebo is such an unfortunate word for these effects. Dan Moerman's 'the meaning response' instead of placebo has a lot going for it. Placebo is often coloured with deception and it seems that people need to explain it away. Michael's comment is spot on about what he calls protocognitive features.
This was great! The information at 35:30 is fascinating. There is so much that could be explored through that gateway of understanding.
Very stimulating for me, since this conversation approaches the theory of life which I advance (but can't name or link without fear of removal of my comment). I expect that I will produce a brief video reply to JV's “I’ve been looking for ontologies that … have both bottom-up emergence and top-down emanation, top-down causation.”, since my work stands in such an ontology.
Thank you Karen for the carefully prepared show notes. I've printed out and expect to read Erik Hoel's first-listed paper with math. The link you give, leading to Hoel's work, didn't work for me till I deleted the semicolon at the end.
Thanks. I’ll fix it.
~ Have thou heard about our lord and saviour Hermes Trismegistus? ~ But to be serious, the whole discussion was amazing, really big thanks to you. The placebo effect on the small scale level blew my mind. Take care everyone and please keep up the good work. As above, so below.
Most excellent discussion
Please do a follow-up discussion! Such a great video...
I hope we get a follow-up too, plenty of potential in here to work with ❤
Facilitating a Fringe Encounter like a boss, wtg Karen :)
Extremely cool! Very interesting and cutting edge conversion.
Thank you very much!
Great and extraordinary !
put one on another plays of starting imaging !
Tnx
This was a wonderful conversation I was very excited to see these two together and they didn’t disappoint. It feels like we’re accelerating towards a major shift in the foundations of science and philosophy. Keep it coming. 🙏
appreciate the references to balancing efficiency vs. resilience in 4E cog sci! these talks are great! Also you 3 should all talk with Daniel Shmactenberger for like 4 hours.
That was a very short hour... I look forward to seeing the next conversation.
Thank you for this! Would love to hear the three of you talk about collective intelligence.
Great combination, Karen!
Woo alarm, but your physiotherapy anecdote reminds me of Jerry Tennant’s model where the fascia act as semiconductors carrying charge for each muscle circuit.
Fascinating discussion, thank you, and Karen I hope you will talk more about your bio electric response to trauma. Interesting connection. It reminds me too of an experience some have in charismatic healing services.
This explains why the Norman kings in Sicily were fascinated with knowledge from the Islamic world and floored their buildings in geometry.
Could you say more? To what idea are you referring?
My friend Ryder sent me here.
Thank you for this. I hope you will get these two together again, preferably for an even longer talk, it would be great. If you haven't checked out Irvin Kirtch's book The Emperor's New Mind, I think you will find it very interesting - it is about placebo.
Another conversation between them is coming up soon. Stay tuned. And if you like this content, it really helps get more eyes on these conversations if you like, subscribe and share. I don’t monetize, so this will benefit only other potential viewers.
Could we also get some link for Albert Mason and Erick Hole, I'm struggling to find both scientists unfortunately...
The links are towards the bottom of the description section in the notes under the video. Click the little down arrow under the video and a box will open up with lots of resources.
Regarding "35:30 ML’s study on gene regulatory networks and the placebo effect" the paper he's likely referring to is called "Gene regulatory networks exhibit several kinds of memory: Quantification of memory in biological and random transcriptional networks" by Biswas, Manicka, Hoel, & Levin from Jan 2021. Should be the only result in a Google Scholar search (I'd post a link but I'm not sure how YT filters comments and whatnot)
Levin's discoveries are revolutionary but he plays cool. It is not the time yet.
@karen What is the name of the "massage therapist" you spoke about? I'd like to contact him to speak about a particular experience of body practice I'm developing.
Here’s one conversation I had with him. There are two others if you want them. The Healing Pattern that Arises via Differentiation and Integration: Aaron Parnell, Posture Genius
th-cam.com/video/1r-yNh55QGM/w-d-xo.html
Very nice interview! Thanks for sharing! To repay the generosity of the three of you, I offer the following ontological perspectives. (1) The referral to “fractal levels of cognition” echos Arthur Koestler’s theory of holons and the holarchy (from The Ghost in the Machine, 1982), and these also carry the connotation of a nested hierarchy. (2) The holarchy is not the same as the hierarchy because that association is by appearance only, and to equate the two is to confuse the appearance with the thing-in-itself (as Kant warned against). (3) I don’t believe I am wrong to assert that the bio-electric field with communicating photons is by definition a quantum system. Hence, what is being described is another example of warm-body quantum mechanics. (4) Quantum systems are innately two-sided, it seems to me, as in standing in front of a mirror and not knowing which side of the mirror you are on. Hence, the middle proto-stuff representing Kant’s thing-in-itself can be well beyond the appearance showing in the mirror. But this two-sidedness implies that causation can move up and down the holarchy, as the proto-stuff awakens. Gone is the blind watchmaker!
Thanks for reminding me of Koestler’s work on the holarchy! Have you looked at any of the electric universe stuff? Some of it is woo, but some of it is worth looking into.
@@TheMeaningCode I have, but I have not studied the electric universe theory much. I believe Nick Harvey (of TH-cam channel, Dyslexic Artist Theory on the Physics of 'Time' ) does take a closer look at the theory. Cheers!
@@stephensmith6524 Thanks! I'll check it out.
@@TheMeaningCode Forgive me if I offer more on this subject.
Electromagnetism was united with the strong and weak forces by Yang and Mills in 1954, while at about the same time Lüders and Pauli showed that the laws of the resulting unified field theory were CPT invariant. The only thing left out of the theory was the action of gravity and the assignment of mass and constants. Gravity does seem to have a closer connection to time. Proponents of the Electric Universe Theory go further in their attempt to refute Einstein, however. I don’t need to go that far. Even if Einstein was not completely correct with his assessment of relativity and reference frames, some sort of relativity must be stipulated when measurements are made of the visible universe. There is always a reference frame upon which measurements are permitted, and this two-sidedness never goes away. Science is all about relations (as Whitehead noted), and absent a reference frame traditional science can say little. Moreover, I can’t get too excited with any theory that might turn into a dispute having to do with simple naming conventions; I am not saying that proponents of the Electric Universe Theory are definitely doing this, but it is not my dispute and there must be the possibility of "relevance realization" beyond the naming convention. From my point of view, the only thing that really matters is that CPT invariance is two-sided. Moreover, general relativity and the 2nd law of thermodynamics have no ability to look different to us in a CPT inverted world. So, everything in physics is found complying with two-sidedness, as something that defines the visible universe, naming conventions aside. Meanwhile, that which is timeless and spaceless is invisible, because these have no reference frames and are part of Kant’s noumena.
We make models of the universe as part of consciousness. That is, we reflect the world in our mind. This is a two-sided operation. It is possible to adopt a radical two-sidedness and use a model that is itself two-sided, and with mindfulness the universe and it’s reflection will become closer in tune. At this point, one of Levin’s free lunches will be served, in my estimation, and insights will bubble up from the subconscious. Levin referred to this as a neo-Platonism. However, I refer to this as an intuitionism because during mindfulness it is emotion that is being centered in the mirror universe.
@@stephensmith6524 Thanks for this insightful addition.
👏👏👏👏👏
Thank you Karen, allow me to remind you the wonderful job you are doing.
What a very nice thing to say:-) I heard today that when a video is shared on other platforms, it really helps the algorithm.
@@TheMeaningCode It is my great pleasure to share these conversations with my friends, and maybe if I am bold enough, I will share them and out myself publicly on twitter or Instagram as a youtube-armchair-intellectual. Hahah
Tantraloka in sanskrit explains bioelectric pathways. Let us do it again.
Is relevance realization the same as semantic information content?
No. Take all of the semantic information content, all of the personal thoughts and emotions you might have regarding that content, add in the context of that content and the events and environment surrounding the absorbing of the content, and you have what John calls combinatorial explosion. How then does our brain/ mind achieve the near miracle of zeroing in (instantaneously) on the one bit of that which is relevant for the moment? That’s relevance realization.
@@TheMeaningCode As I understand it, semantic information is the subset of all information that contains meaning to continued existence. That sounds like semantic information is necessary to realize what part of information is relevant to us. It seems like they are connected in some way. Relevant information is at least a part of information that has meaning to us.
There is Shannon information about how likely symbols or events will occur. Then there is syntactical information about how well that information conforms to rules. Then there is semantic information about how likely that information is useful for a purpose or intention. And then there is relevant information about how that information is likely it is to be about us. It seems there is a connection in all this.
@@mikejurney9102 Yes, absolutely. All of those ( plus more) are a part of relevance realization.
🤯🤯🤯🤯
?.?.?.?
I think both are Professors.
Does this mean needs and the recognition of such in oneself and others fine-tunes relevance realization thereby meaning created: Dante and Misericordia: Mercy and the Great Medieval Understanding that practising mercy creates the flourishing city.
This explains the Madonna Della Misericordia icon in Florence that shows the faces of the person receiving help shining as the focal point of the image, not the person helping. To this day, when someone helps me with my heavy suitcase in Italy, the interaction feels numinous. It is as if the person helping me feels a sense of centuries-old honour and depth.
This kinda explains the big drive for social justice and infinite diversity to the point of craze. You neglect mercy and justice too long: you get a big reaction. There is always a reason for behavior ubril you reach just the reality of sheer evil.
Just thinking out loud here. Will erase in a bit.
That picture of personal sacrifice to maintain flourishing extends all the way down to the particle level, I think. At least, that’s the way my explorations are heading. Choice at any level means making a choice at the expense of all other choices, and if the choice to maintain cohesion means that all other choices are circumscribed, then that is the picture of sacrifice. Connection is at the root of everything.
This is also tied into attention, perception, memory and free will. Dante centres his Commedia on free will. It is literally in the centre of the work, the centre of Purgatory. At L’Abri there was a great emphasis on choice-making, very intentional and attentional. What we call sacrifice is just process of preservation of epistemology so we can see anything at all. It is the narrowing of attention to create defined action In order to live in the physical world. It is Dr McGilchrist’s left hemispheric narrow, focused attention.
Dante is also clear that the patterns exist at every level, although he plays with the concept of level as well, just to break the language restriction, which we all intuitively understand. Reality is definitely not linear or vertical, for that matter. It is the centre and the moving out to the fringe, place of madness and exploration. Sacrifice is so you can see enough that you don’t die because seeing means growing food among other things. It is the narrowing of attention in time and space, in physical reality. As Carlo Rovelli says, we are time-making machines. In order to have existence.
It doesn’t surprise me that work/responsibilities can be assumed by new beings, cells, areas of the brain etc. Christ does the work of the father. That is the working of mercy: love. Without mercy, there is no dance. Reality ceases to exist. Mercy is connection. This concept is brilliantly conveyed in the Madonna della Misericordia fresco in Florence.
Non-reality is Dante’s frozen hell. Just repetitive actions going nowhere: addiction. And we are definitely all addicts. That is why we avoid obvious addicts, street people, the dispossessed. We don’t want to meet our selves. Christ goes constantly to the dispossessed in society: mercy and visioning. He is basically instantiating the patterns of reality.
@@thesecondlawandthetowerhou6026 Thanks for these insights.
Actually Donalds work in physics is groundbreaking
I wonder why Platonism always needs reviving.
30:01 Logic gates lead to xenbots
Wow! Mirror neurons or whatever they would be called at all levels. Imitative behavior.
29:50
"As soon as you (evolution) discovered the transistor, you can now make logic gates."
Nonsense. Review how the logic gate functionswork which are involved in rotation direction of flagella in chemotaxis.
The nano-scale machines which enact the voltage gate/transistor/logic gate functions have an absurdly complexity his statement completely ignores.
The Platonic worldview is a mental abstraction/simplification, and does not match the reality.
Scientists speak like mystics when they calculate the math of their own ontology.
Physics and biology are both types of philosophy according to the ancient Greeks. I have no idea why anyone would cross the concept of modern philosophy with any type of science, this sounds a lot like the errors of Emmanuel Kant.
Scale free principles? I think Taleb puts that to bed, scale doesn't work in the way they suspect even in mathematics.
Problem space - as a concept - requires cognition, telos, good vs. bad and measurement at a minimum. This seems like a circular reference to me. Sounds a lot like projecting an Objective Material Reality and trying to start from there.
Self making? How does that work? This seems to violate a bunch of science.
Some of our knowing? All of our base knowledge and most of our knowledge might be of the embodied type. This would seem to be required, given the constraints of growth from baby to adult.
Biology operates at the level of mechanical physics, this is an important distinction.
Why does anyone believe that they can discern an ontology which is beyond them? This isn't a philosophical discussions, this is pure religion.
Looking for ontologies? What sense of this word? There seems to be quite a bit of equivocation (as there always seems to be) with the use of this word, it has at least five common definitions and people seem to switch between them all the time without even noticing.
Why do we think integration of science and spirituality is possible, required, etc?
Why do we believe that evolution is the only thing in operation here? All of biology is not explained by evolutionary theories and hypothesis (plus those ideas that are neither). There seem to be adaptations operating at the non-evolutionary scale which are simply unexplained, but no need to invoke evolution for those, it's likely not something working at the same level.
Evolution discovers things?! Where did those things come from? Perhaps those 'truths' were created somehow. Hrm.
Wait, evolution finds hardware too?
Access to things you did not have to evolve seem like it's something which precedes (as Peterson pointed out to Dawkins, rather recently) evolution means that there is a creation process of some kind which evolution is operating within and on. So you don't need a telos for evolution, but you certainly do for whatever it is 'discovering'.
Again, why do you need evolution to solve all problems at all scales? This is just a mistaken understanding of evolution.
Free gifts?! Who or what provided these gifts? Must have been created somehow.
Placebo isn't hard to explain, it has not been explained and likely cannot be explained.
Explaining the placebo effect puts the mystery back under science does it? Interesting. So this is just an attempt to use science to understand all the world.
Has some attractors? Where are these from? Genetics has three parts at least, genes, epigenetics (which turns genes on and off) and messenger RNA (which transmit the information, likely imperfectly).
Evolution 'likes this'? Wow, what an interesting statement.
The placebo effect doesn't involve using two drugs, just one inert drug. So this example doesn't at all explain the placebo effect, there is literally zero training involved.
So hypnosis (which seems to have many qualities of prayer) works without material interference. Almost as if religions were right all along about how the world works.
If your brain can filter down to control cells (which Whim Hoff states rather clearly) then Peterson's proposition to Dawkins is more than merely plausible, that he saw DNA and that ancients would be able to do the same thing.
The body alignment is very important, I had a hip out of place for months, but it fixed itself when I was trying out an inversion table (just once, just because it was something new my friend wanted to show off) and I could feel my hip get hot and slide into place.
Why do you need to be empirical with a reliable phenomena that works?
All this post modern breakdown to isolate something specific, but this is all about the connected relationship.
All you need to make this work, and many chiropractors do this type of treatment, is fixing the signaling of your nerves by removing blockages. There is no need to have a single cause for this type of phenomena
Science is all about talking, creating propositions and testing them (validating) so I'm not sure why there is utility is going down this road of wanting the science side.
Great example of middle out thinking, starting in the middle of the story.
Wow! Before I even read this I think we need to have a conversation about this :-)
@@TheMeaningCode I hope my meaty comment was intelligible. Anytime you wish to have a chat, please let me know.