http://leonmaurer.info/resume.
And great view of it:
http://knol.google.com/k/how-
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Leon Maurer
Not to forget someone with a truly rich life story:
http://leonmaurer.info/resume.
And great view of it:
http://knol.google.com/k/how-
http://leonmaurer.info/resume.
And great view of it:
http://knol.google.com/k/how-
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Evolution is local?
This is a post of mine to a very nice newsgroup I will probably write about soon as I collect my thoughts about it ;)
I have, mostly in Estonian, written about the same things a lot of time ago, but as my ability to express and clarify has grown considerably, I write again :) BTW. thanks to Ben Tilly, whose post about relations between physical equilibrums and status quos, especially the part of physical equilibrums, written as post in his blog, made me considerably more confident in those ideas - before that I mostly thought about crystal growth etc. and probably added some missing pieces of puzzle to me, but definitely is worth mentioning as a thoughtline, which could have eventually lead to something very similar to what is expressed here. I mean, I am not sure if it contained the degree of "logical mysticism" my posts often contain, but I think it would have contained some conclusions about evolution. Given that he has time and will to ponder more on those topics :) So, he should be credited for confidence I show here (and I have started to hide confidence in many cases as I am sometimes proven to be wrong and it's a shame to have had confidence in such cases) as I am really confident in those things right now. His blog, by the way, contains many good insights, especially for scientifically-minded person.
And I also credit many other people for trying to prove me wrong - this has helped me to find out what I lack in assumptions. It has especially led me to word my claims in acceptable form (this is why I do not link to my years-old text trying to prove things about evolution, but being formed as ..ok, I do not tell, what:) - but you can Google it. I only claim that given how most people understand it, it's wrong; I personally understand it as proving the same thing I show here, but in more local context - some people pointed out that some parts of this old proof only hold in case the Universe as we know it is the only one and the laws as we know them universal).
This, by the way, is first time I have confidence to write also about my thoughtline about how causal laws change - this is an idea from early childhood, but back then I did not have evidence. Now I have mathematical proof for myself. I mean, laws wont change in themselves, but for observer - yes.
And the post itself:
After a while of thinking about evolution, I have got two *rules* of it:
1. It uses all means to achieve more fit [fit = synergy/dominance optimum].
2. It uses all means to boost itself.
The first rule explained:
Feedback of evolution is holistic. It does not depend on any specific parameter, but only on outcome of the whole. This means that all means possible are taken into consideration. It means, say, that in case random mutations give us 3 possible proteins of which one has a side-result that it makes an animal little bit more alert in case of process on whatever effect, which is accompanied with danger, then this life form will have some advantage. I mean - evolution uses _all means possible_. In case some food contains whatever random molecule, which reacts to whatever quantum, string, gravity or lightwave effect A in such way that the reaction triggers whatever neurons are able to register, animals eating that food will be able to subconsciously react to that A [as nerves learn]. This happens also in situations, where there is some radiation producing that kind of change or whatever. All things are taken into account, all changes in environment producing new possibilities will make choices; if it's so that when there is sunstorm, it's possible to register something, which otherwise can not be registered, we can be simply sure that all sunstorms of history have chosen the life forms, who will somehow use that possibility. If there are quantum effects, then this is plain nonsense to even consider the possibility that life forms simply ignore them. We are a _process_ two trillion years old - each of our cells is two trillion years old. It has, in two trillion years, divided probably hundreds of trillions of times, exchanged genetical and other information with others, gone through many successful mutations between every two divisions and in process of them. It has eated other cellular and other organisms, viruses and parts of them, always making the right choice and going into synergy with whatever was able to form a synergy - joined in addition to division. It's _one_ cell so old, not many cells with short lifespan. Some cells die, but cells alive have lived that long. Some separated parts of them have died, but not the wholes. And died cells have left proteins, DNA parts and other stuff to others.
But that's not the whole story. Before they became cells, they had gone through many trillions more years of evolution. Each part of cells, each part of atom, has gone into many different patterns, started to vibrate in many different rates, which have propagated just like life does. Each pattern able to stay has stayed, many patterns not able to stay have changed. Whatever we consist of, it has gone through evolution a lot longer than this cell - the way particles act today, the metainformation surrounding them, has always been evolving. It's intelligent. Water is intelligent - it becomes ice and back to water, but keeps some overall structure; there were elements before, which could not go through changes of environment, but they are gone. Those patterns are more complex than just the pattern of one element going through some complex cycle - they involve rain, clouds, oceans and much more, but they are evolved and that's a fact. Every system consisting of parts, which can be more or less intelligent in terms of stability, dominance and synergy, will go through evolution long before anything like life will evolve. This is not just empiric fact, but it's a mathematical fact - patterns, which are unable to propagate; states of matter, which do not have some chain of potential random changes leading back to something with similar properties; structures, which do not produce supportive effects on all fit structures-patterns around them; all that will be gone. And this, mathematically, will not maybe, but certainly produce complex networks of interdependences between all aspects possibly thinkable when knowing everything about matter. In whatever paradigm we could use to explain things, if it involves some basic rules about time and causality and a few other things, evolution does happen in that paradigm. This gives, logically, the solution that whatever we could find out from physics, will be already taken into consideration by our cellular evolution, if it has any reasonably strong effects upon what's going on here on Earth. And it guarantees that whatever stable properties needed by subatomic particles to remain stable in whatever conditions in very large part of space around us are needed, almost all or all particles on earth will have those properties. This is madness to think that the matter we consist of and it's structures thereof are not able to show some degree of intelligence and reaction to conditions so old as those measured by quantum physics. This also makes me think that as well as there are some unstable molecular structures extremely rare at earth, there are many quantum patterns so unstable that they will possibly never be registered by physics; there are potentially many other subatomic patterns having just the right degree of danger upon current equilibrium that patterns still resonating in our universe have developed such structures that we could not reproduce such patterns with _any_ physical device we could possibly build, given that the building process uses only the patterns available and reachable to us and we have only the patterns currently in effect as reality of potential to produce them. Laws of nature do change in such ways that what is nonsynergetic with what is stable, will not just be gone, but will be impossible after some time has passed.
The second rule explained:
The second rule is about intelligence of development patterns themselves. If we look our cells as something so old, not as something, which appear and disappear all the time, we can see that intelligence of them, in fact, must involve the intelligence needed to not only reproduce organisms and act as organisms, but only to reproduce more efficient and fit organisms over time and to intelligently respond to new needs of environment. Most of us will lose it's molecular structure for some time after each cycle, but some parts of us will hopefully live forever (or until they have gone through so many learning-steps/mutations that they are unrecognizable). I hope that matter in my cells will form new organisms and not become a part of some electronic device or nuclear bomb (anyway, if it does, those might be good experiences just growing it stronger and more intelligent).
Cells have mechanisms to repair DNA, change DNA and change their resistance to mutation.
I seriously think that we should, in our thinking, reposition us in relation to environment.
-------------------------------
Some related references:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/12/fruit-fly-evolution.html
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/090111-creating-life.html
Anna-Carin Karlsson, S Kerje, L Andersson and Per Jensen, Genotype at the PMEL17 locus affects social and explorative behaviour in chickens, BRITISH POULTRY SCIENCE, 2010, (51), 2, 170-177.
I have, mostly in Estonian, written about the same things a lot of time ago, but as my ability to express and clarify has grown considerably, I write again :) BTW. thanks to Ben Tilly, whose post about relations between physical equilibrums and status quos, especially the part of physical equilibrums, written as post in his blog, made me considerably more confident in those ideas - before that I mostly thought about crystal growth etc. and probably added some missing pieces of puzzle to me, but definitely is worth mentioning as a thoughtline, which could have eventually lead to something very similar to what is expressed here. I mean, I am not sure if it contained the degree of "logical mysticism" my posts often contain, but I think it would have contained some conclusions about evolution. Given that he has time and will to ponder more on those topics :) So, he should be credited for confidence I show here (and I have started to hide confidence in many cases as I am sometimes proven to be wrong and it's a shame to have had confidence in such cases) as I am really confident in those things right now. His blog, by the way, contains many good insights, especially for scientifically-minded person.
And I also credit many other people for trying to prove me wrong - this has helped me to find out what I lack in assumptions. It has especially led me to word my claims in acceptable form (this is why I do not link to my years-old text trying to prove things about evolution, but being formed as ..ok, I do not tell, what:) - but you can Google it. I only claim that given how most people understand it, it's wrong; I personally understand it as proving the same thing I show here, but in more local context - some people pointed out that some parts of this old proof only hold in case the Universe as we know it is the only one and the laws as we know them universal).
This, by the way, is first time I have confidence to write also about my thoughtline about how causal laws change - this is an idea from early childhood, but back then I did not have evidence. Now I have mathematical proof for myself. I mean, laws wont change in themselves, but for observer - yes.
And the post itself:
After a while of thinking about evolution, I have got two *rules* of it:
1. It uses all means to achieve more fit [fit = synergy/dominance optimum].
2. It uses all means to boost itself.
The first rule explained:
Feedback of evolution is holistic. It does not depend on any specific parameter, but only on outcome of the whole. This means that all means possible are taken into consideration. It means, say, that in case random mutations give us 3 possible proteins of which one has a side-result that it makes an animal little bit more alert in case of process on whatever effect, which is accompanied with danger, then this life form will have some advantage. I mean - evolution uses _all means possible_. In case some food contains whatever random molecule, which reacts to whatever quantum, string, gravity or lightwave effect A in such way that the reaction triggers whatever neurons are able to register, animals eating that food will be able to subconsciously react to that A [as nerves learn]. This happens also in situations, where there is some radiation producing that kind of change or whatever. All things are taken into account, all changes in environment producing new possibilities will make choices; if it's so that when there is sunstorm, it's possible to register something, which otherwise can not be registered, we can be simply sure that all sunstorms of history have chosen the life forms, who will somehow use that possibility. If there are quantum effects, then this is plain nonsense to even consider the possibility that life forms simply ignore them. We are a _process_ two trillion years old - each of our cells is two trillion years old. It has, in two trillion years, divided probably hundreds of trillions of times, exchanged genetical and other information with others, gone through many successful mutations between every two divisions and in process of them. It has eated other cellular and other organisms, viruses and parts of them, always making the right choice and going into synergy with whatever was able to form a synergy - joined in addition to division. It's _one_ cell so old, not many cells with short lifespan. Some cells die, but cells alive have lived that long. Some separated parts of them have died, but not the wholes. And died cells have left proteins, DNA parts and other stuff to others.
But that's not the whole story. Before they became cells, they had gone through many trillions more years of evolution. Each part of cells, each part of atom, has gone into many different patterns, started to vibrate in many different rates, which have propagated just like life does. Each pattern able to stay has stayed, many patterns not able to stay have changed. Whatever we consist of, it has gone through evolution a lot longer than this cell - the way particles act today, the metainformation surrounding them, has always been evolving. It's intelligent. Water is intelligent - it becomes ice and back to water, but keeps some overall structure; there were elements before, which could not go through changes of environment, but they are gone. Those patterns are more complex than just the pattern of one element going through some complex cycle - they involve rain, clouds, oceans and much more, but they are evolved and that's a fact. Every system consisting of parts, which can be more or less intelligent in terms of stability, dominance and synergy, will go through evolution long before anything like life will evolve. This is not just empiric fact, but it's a mathematical fact - patterns, which are unable to propagate; states of matter, which do not have some chain of potential random changes leading back to something with similar properties; structures, which do not produce supportive effects on all fit structures-patterns around them; all that will be gone. And this, mathematically, will not maybe, but certainly produce complex networks of interdependences between all aspects possibly thinkable when knowing everything about matter. In whatever paradigm we could use to explain things, if it involves some basic rules about time and causality and a few other things, evolution does happen in that paradigm. This gives, logically, the solution that whatever we could find out from physics, will be already taken into consideration by our cellular evolution, if it has any reasonably strong effects upon what's going on here on Earth. And it guarantees that whatever stable properties needed by subatomic particles to remain stable in whatever conditions in very large part of space around us are needed, almost all or all particles on earth will have those properties. This is madness to think that the matter we consist of and it's structures thereof are not able to show some degree of intelligence and reaction to conditions so old as those measured by quantum physics. This also makes me think that as well as there are some unstable molecular structures extremely rare at earth, there are many quantum patterns so unstable that they will possibly never be registered by physics; there are potentially many other subatomic patterns having just the right degree of danger upon current equilibrium that patterns still resonating in our universe have developed such structures that we could not reproduce such patterns with _any_ physical device we could possibly build, given that the building process uses only the patterns available and reachable to us and we have only the patterns currently in effect as reality of potential to produce them. Laws of nature do change in such ways that what is nonsynergetic with what is stable, will not just be gone, but will be impossible after some time has passed.
The second rule explained:
The second rule is about intelligence of development patterns themselves. If we look our cells as something so old, not as something, which appear and disappear all the time, we can see that intelligence of them, in fact, must involve the intelligence needed to not only reproduce organisms and act as organisms, but only to reproduce more efficient and fit organisms over time and to intelligently respond to new needs of environment. Most of us will lose it's molecular structure for some time after each cycle, but some parts of us will hopefully live forever (or until they have gone through so many learning-steps/mutations that they are unrecognizable). I hope that matter in my cells will form new organisms and not become a part of some electronic device or nuclear bomb (anyway, if it does, those might be good experiences just growing it stronger and more intelligent).
Cells have mechanisms to repair DNA, change DNA and change their resistance to mutation.
I seriously think that we should, in our thinking, reposition us in relation to environment.
-------------------------------
Some related references:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/12/fruit-fly-evolution.html
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/090111-creating-life.html
Anna-Carin Karlsson, S Kerje, L Andersson and Per Jensen, Genotype at the PMEL17 locus affects social and explorative behaviour in chickens, BRITISH POULTRY SCIENCE, 2010, (51), 2, 170-177.
Mind is a brain?
For a moment, let's look this at materialist viewpoint.
Assumption: mind is in brain.
Assumption: mind is separate from environment.
Brain, to exist, needs environment support.
- Brain would be destroyed instantly, if there would be unsupporting environment.
- If we can build an artificial environment, it must have properties of natural environment, thus it must be prostheses of it in the same way we can have heart prostheses.
- Biological reactions of brain, to make sense, must thus be in connection with _correct_ environmental reactions.
Thus, assumptions that mind is brain and mind is separate from environment contain contradiction.
-------------
The case is somewhat related to following observations:
- We can not find strict definition to separate some object from environment in such way that we could tell about every electron if it's part of an object or part of an environment using the same definition on both.
- This is easier to see if we physically connect (put very near to each other) two objects and say that there should be such definition of borders that this is the same for both objects and for every electron, we must be able to say if it's part of one or another.
- We run into more complexities, anyway, if we want such distinction to make sense.
- Any kind of processes in brain are directly dependent on many processes in environment.
-------------
As those run into contradiction, there comes another logic:
- Assume that mind is brain.
- Thus, environment is a part of mind.
-------------
For non-materialist viewpoint, the logic to connect environment and brain is different, but if environment is part of a mind, then it becomes nonsense to say that mind gets information from environment only through "five senses".
Doing any kind of brain research assuming that it's separate entity does not, thus, research the whole physical object. It researches logic of a part of it, taking a supporting environment as granted - change environment and none of this logic applies anymore.
This becomes more clear through the following:
- We can actually get proteins from air or through skin [and we can not exactly say, when it enters our body.
- All activities of our brain are directly related to the structure of electromagnetic and other fields around us - this is very easy to show that reactions of neurons without those fields do not support life.
- To say that we can not directly sense those fields in any way is to say that we could not sense if activity of our neurons is going to end through death if those change into non-life-supporting condition.
Or, in short: there is no such system as "brain" to be looked in isolation in case we want to explain anything with brain. Many other processes are _part of_ reactions in brain and thus, if mind is reactions in brain, mind must be bigger than brain. Many other fields are part of structure of brain and if mind is brain, those fields should be removed from it, which is physically impossible.
-------------
Mind is not brain.
Assumption: mind is in brain.
Assumption: mind is separate from environment.
Brain, to exist, needs environment support.
- Brain would be destroyed instantly, if there would be unsupporting environment.
- If we can build an artificial environment, it must have properties of natural environment, thus it must be prostheses of it in the same way we can have heart prostheses.
- Biological reactions of brain, to make sense, must thus be in connection with _correct_ environmental reactions.
Thus, assumptions that mind is brain and mind is separate from environment contain contradiction.
-------------
The case is somewhat related to following observations:
- We can not find strict definition to separate some object from environment in such way that we could tell about every electron if it's part of an object or part of an environment using the same definition on both.
- This is easier to see if we physically connect (put very near to each other) two objects and say that there should be such definition of borders that this is the same for both objects and for every electron, we must be able to say if it's part of one or another.
- We run into more complexities, anyway, if we want such distinction to make sense.
- Any kind of processes in brain are directly dependent on many processes in environment.
-------------
As those run into contradiction, there comes another logic:
- Assume that mind is brain.
- Thus, environment is a part of mind.
-------------
For non-materialist viewpoint, the logic to connect environment and brain is different, but if environment is part of a mind, then it becomes nonsense to say that mind gets information from environment only through "five senses".
Doing any kind of brain research assuming that it's separate entity does not, thus, research the whole physical object. It researches logic of a part of it, taking a supporting environment as granted - change environment and none of this logic applies anymore.
This becomes more clear through the following:
- We can actually get proteins from air or through skin [and we can not exactly say, when it enters our body.
- All activities of our brain are directly related to the structure of electromagnetic and other fields around us - this is very easy to show that reactions of neurons without those fields do not support life.
- To say that we can not directly sense those fields in any way is to say that we could not sense if activity of our neurons is going to end through death if those change into non-life-supporting condition.
Or, in short: there is no such system as "brain" to be looked in isolation in case we want to explain anything with brain. Many other processes are _part of_ reactions in brain and thus, if mind is reactions in brain, mind must be bigger than brain. Many other fields are part of structure of brain and if mind is brain, those fields should be removed from it, which is physically impossible.
-------------
Mind is not brain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)