Sic et Non self deconstructs

[_Physics Guy]

[One thing left to dispute would be] whether the taste of steak fully reduces to properties of neurons or alternatively, to some kind of functional role of neurons that other materials like transistors could fulfill. As you pointed out, it's not guaranteed one way or another. If something isn't settled, then that indicates people will debate it.

I'm still not clear why people are debating this now, though. It seems like arguing about whether there is alien life in the Centauri system. Obviously there could be; obviously there might not be. It might well be that Centauri has stuff that is kind of like life but also kind of not, in ways that aren't even going to occur to us until we actually find them. Obviously we don't yet know enough to say more. There's no point in discussing this until we do know more.

Another would be whether the taste of steak reduces to a functional role at all or alternatively, violates a minimal standard of physicalism.

Do people really try to argue for little ghosts in our taste buds? I thought that was off the table.

Another would be whether or not there really is a such thing as a sensation. Eliminativism refers to eliminating mind or some aspect of mind. So back to Dennett, his computational model of mind differs from functionalism in that he doesn't see qualia, or sensations, as stable ideas. Some say he's an eliminativist in this regard e.g., we actually don't have feelings.

Of course there is such a thing as sensation. The only way I can see to make that debatable is to get finicky about exactly what it means for anything to "really be a thing". So sensation might not "be a thing" in the same way that a rock naïvely seems to be a thing. Not even rocks are really things in the way that they naïvely seem to be, though. I'm sure that minds are much more complex than rocks but non-trivial relationships between different levels of description are not a special feature of the philosophy of mind. Everything is a concise and self-consistent abbreviation for the longer story of its microscopic mechanism. It's turtles all the way down everywhere.

[_Gadianton]

I'm still not clear why people are debating this now, though.

I haven't read about any of this in several years. Back in 2010 or so, David Chalmers wrote a book you can do a search on, and that re-kindled relative public interest. But the stuff I've covered is the really high level stuff, I'm not sure how much people were debating that back then. They were debating the minutia of in-between positions. I participated on a few blogs for a while until I reached my limit. My interest was high level. I don't have the same satisfaction that you do that things are settled. You're okay with God replicating a pattern (or the instantiation of the pattern in something) that isn't identical to you, and I don't see how that helps. At the same time, there don't seem to be any more big ideas for now that would move the ball forward, and so I'm not frantically reading about it any more either.

Do people really try to argue for little ghosts in our taste buds? I thought that was off the table.

Substance dualism is more or less off, I think, but property dualism (Chalmers) is (or was as of a few years) debated. You're really not going to like this, but the high level distinction here is the difference (if there is one) between logical possibility and nomological possibility, or what's logically possible vs. what's physically possible. Some people say that a great number of things are logically possible that aren't physically possible in the real world. And so property dualism hinges on that space.

Of course there is such a thing as sensation.

There are stories of philosophers striking their hands with objects or kicking stones to make this kind of a point to their colleagues who don't believe it, and so I'm not really feeling your investment here, Physics Guy.

If I were ever to do the deep dive, my best guess as to where a big idea is, is the relation between logic and the real world. Does physics come before logic or logic before physics? Most would say logic comes before physics, even physicists, (rule time travel out a priori etc).

[_DrW]

To the point: it's not "atoms in motion". It may supervene on "atoms in motion" but it doesn't reduce to "atoms in motion".

Upthread, I indicated agreement with the statement above, in particular the underlined portion. This was marked change of perspective and this post is intended to make more specific the reasons that our esteemed philosopher, Dean Robbers, was correct. Biological processes, including consciousness, cannot be reduced to atoms in motion. That is, they cannot be well understood in terms of the laws of physics alone.

According to the Periodic Table, in the 13.8 billion years or so since the big bang, the universe has managed to come up with 118 elements. Some of the heavier elements required the help of humans for their creation and many are highly unstable, existing for less than seconds once formed. The naturally occurring elements can deterministically (according to the laws of physics) combine to form all of the inanimate, mainly inorganic, solids, liquids, gases and plasmas found in the solar system, as well as those that can be observed in the universe. The number of stable, inorganic molecules and minerals in the universe is large, but probably not unbounded.

Consider that a very small subset of elements, namely; carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur, (CHONS) can combine to form more different species of stable molecules than the entire universe has had time to come up with since its inception. It has been pointed out that there are 20 amino acids, and that an average animal protein consists of approximately 200 of them in various combinations. Given the amino acid combination reaction rates, 13.8 billion years is not enough time to have randomly achieved all of the combinations of 20 amino acids taken 200 at a time. Only an infinitesimally small proportion of possible amino acid combinations are needed to create and maintain the proteins that life as we know it depends on. (See Kauffman references below.) How nature selected these proteins, or the DNA that coded for them, simply cannot be explained by the equations of physics.

Creationists may look at this statement and exclaim, “Ah-ha, see, told you so, there had to be a designer!” The fact is that there arose processes in the evolution of the universe that were non-deterministic in the sense that they were not precisely predictable (“nonprestatable”) based solely on the laws of physics.

Self-organizing systems are well known in inorganic chemistry. Formation of highly ordered crystalline structures, such as snowflakes for example, can be understood and reasonably predicted by application of the laws of physics. In the biochemistry of life, things can be non-predictable. Leaving aside theory (see references below), here is a practical example of how the equations of physics alone are incapable of an explanation. As is well known, and mentioned on this board in threads discussing evolution, RNA molecules can catalyze the synthesis of themselves or other RNA molecules. This means that RNA molecules can use available individual nucleic acid bases (mainly adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine) to spontaneously reproduce themselves or close variants of themselves.

Furthermore, these "autocatalytic" molecules can spontaneously form autocatalytic sets that can become self-sustaining by catalyzing reactions that produce intermediates and end products allowing the set to grow and reproduce. A simple example would be RNA polymers AB and BA, wherein AB catalyzes the formation of BA, and BA catalyzes the formation of AB. The set’s auto catalytic property makes the formation of AB and BA (the process) much more likely than the formation of other possible base combinations. Thus, due to the process, AB and BA eventually come to dominate the reaction mixture to the detriment or exclusion of the myriad of other possible combinations.

If conditions are such that the additional energy and material (food) needed for continued synthesis is available from the environment, and if random variations or mutations can occur in the process, we now have a non-deterministic system that has a basic attribute of life. On the micro scale example given, a catalyst is designated as a constraint on the process, in that its availability determines the rate and direction of the process. On the macro sense, constraints and boundaries to the process can include the environment, the availability of “catalytic” or enabling entities, be they minerals, proteins, nucleic acid polymers, cells, or larger organisms.

As I have described before, these kinds of self-organizing and evolutionary processes using RNA polymers and nucleic bases can be readily demonstrated in the laboratory. As studied in nature, these processes become more complex. As they do, they open up yet more possibilities for evolution. This, in turn, creates diversity in the biosphere environment, creating more environmental niches to be filed by evolution. Evolution and biodiversity become positive feedback loops which, although constrained, are non-deterministic and may not be limited in any historical time frame.

This general model for biological organization has been in development for decades but seems to have gained traction since the turn of the century. It is formally designated as “Closure of Constraints” as described in a paper by Maël Montévil and Matteo Mossio entitled, Biological organization as closure of constraints.

This general approach to non-deterministic self-organization in biological systems has led to advancements over Tononi’s IIT theory of consciousness (mentioned upthread by Arc). One such advance, by Chang et al., is designated as ICT for the Information Closure Theory of consciousness. This paper, which appeared in September of this year, includes a formal mathematical description of the theory. A PDF version is available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.13045.pdf

Other, more readily accessible information, on the closure of constraint model for biological organization includes:

The End of a Physics Worldview: Heraclitus and the Watershed of Life, and A World Beyond Physics: The Emergence and Evolution of Life , both by Stuart Kauffman. The latter is available on Kindle from Amazon.

[_Physics Guy]

How nature selected these proteins, or the DNA that coded for them, simply cannot be explained by the equations of physics.

Now you're sounding mystical to me, and I thought I was the theist.

I'm puzzled when you seem to argue that processes which could not have occurred randomly could therefore not be explained by physics. Physics is not randomness. By no means whatever would physics predict that every numerically possible combination of amino acids should be equally likely to show up as a protein in nature. Every amino acid has a different distribution of protons and electrons in it; some structures stick together easily and others don't. Figuring out which structures are which is hard but it's not any assumption of physics to suppose there's no difference. Physics is not random. Physics is deterministic.

The laws of physics are deterministic. The only wiggle room they allow is at the very beginning of time, when the initial conditions are set. So there isn't any room left for any causal principles outside physics, unless biology can actually violate physics. There is no point at which any atoms are left at loose ends by physics and have to turn to biology or chemistry for advice on what to do.

So in what sense do you think that biochemistry can be non-predictable? Prohibitively difficult to predict in practice? Or unpredictable even in principle?

What do you mean by "explained"? If by "explanation" you mean a story that humans can follow, then I think you might well be right, but if you mean that the atoms need some kind of extra guidance besides their equations of motion then I disagree.

[_Gadianton]

physics guy, if you believe in God, and you're not a substance dualist, then what substance is God?


Dr. W,

I think I follow you to a point, but I will have to take some time to look over Tononi's IIT theory, I haven't heard of it before.

Clearly, the notion of supervenience would fit with what you're talking about, but I would have to learn a little about it and maybe read some commentary before saying anything.

[Guest]

So in what sense do you think that biochemistry can be non-predictable? Prohibitively difficult to predict in practice? Or unpredictable even in principle?

What do you mean by "explained"? If by "explanation" you mean a story that humans can follow, then I think you might well be right, but if you mean that the atoms need some kind of extra guidance besides their equations of motion then I disagree.

By "explanation", I of course meant the former. No one I know would claim that biological systems do not obey the laws of physics. The second law of thermodynamics will eventually have it's way. However, considering sets or assemblages of auto-catalytic polymers (proteins or RNA at the micro scale) as being "open" thermodynamic systems, taking in energy and materials from the environment, you will agree that they can ignore, or at least postpone, the ultimate consequences of the second law for a while - just as we are doing now.

Perhaps a better way to express the point would be to say that the equations of physics, being deterministic as you state, would not have predicted the evolution of life given the state of the universe once all the natural elements were available and environments such as that on the early pre-biotic Earth had formed.

The emergence of the auto-catalytic RNA and protein polymers, and the random errors that naturally occurred due to chance and the changing environment as they grew, reproduced and evolved, was a decidedly non-deterministic processes. There needed to be a level of insight, built upon the laws of physics but not predicted by them, in order to understand the biosphere at a practical level.

As an example, I would claim that Newton's equations, Maxwell's equations, Einstein's equations, all four laws of thermodynamics, and the QM and QFT equations from Dirac to Feynman, applied together or in part, would not have predicted the evolution of the cyanobacteria that worked their tiny tails off for millions of years pumping oxygen into Earth's atmosphere. Their work allowed the emergence of animal life as we know it. This highly significant alteration in the the terrestrial environment by living organisms helped set the stage for evolution of the millions of plant and animal species, past and present, that have occupied their niches in the environment.

[_DrW]

physics guy, if you believe in God, and you're not a substance dualist, then what substance is God?


Dr. W,

I think I follow you to a point, but I will have to take some time to look over Tononi's IIT theory, I haven't heard of it before.

Clearly, the notion of supervenience would fit with what you're talking about, but I would have to learn a little about it and maybe read some commentary before saying anything.

Dean Robbers,

I suggest skipping Tononi and go directly to Chang et al., and their new ICT. Their paper builds on Tonnoni's IIT and just came out in September, They have done a great job (in typical Japanese style). Best of all, the paper is available at no cost at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.13045.pdf

[_Physics Guy]

physics guy, if you believe in God, and you're not a substance dualist, then what substance is God?

Deuterium with a hint of vanilla.

I take it to be the standard conception of theism that God is the author of the play, not one of the props on the stage. Concerning how God may be beyond this universe I plead the seventh: darüber muss man schweigen. Insofar as God acts within this universe I figure God does so in the same basic way we ourselves do. Certain patterns represent the character of God.

I suppose God does have more wiggle room than we do. Conceivably God can press Pause on the flow of time and diddle a few things here and there before again pressing Play. Even if not, the ability to set the initial conditions of the universe might well be tantamount to ongoing miraculous intervention anyway. I used to gamemaster table-top RPGs. You can retcon practically anything.

[_Physics Guy]

The second law of thermodynamics will eventually have it's way. However, considering sets or assemblages of auto-catalytic polymers (proteins or RNA at the micro scale) as being "open" thermodynamic systems, taking in energy and materials from the environment, you will agree that they can ignore, or at least postpone, the ultimate consequences of the second law for a while - just as we are doing now.

The Second Law has its way all the time; biological processes don't postpone its consequences at all. Entropy isn't the bad guy. It's not even precisely "disorder". It increases in all spontaneous processes—whether the processes are ones that we find constructive or destructive. Entropy increases in death and decay; it also increases in birth and growth. If entropy didn't increase as life evolves we wouldn't be here. The idea that entropy has to be overcome by life is a creationist myth.

Perhaps a better way to express the point would be to say that the equations of physics, being deterministic as you state, would not have predicted the evolution of life given the state of the universe once all the natural elements were available and environments such as that on the early pre-biotic Earth had formed.

I'm not sure I agree because I'm not sure what you mean. I quite agree that physicists would not have predicted the evolution of life. We wouldn't have known the initial conditions accurately enough and we wouldn't have been able to solve the equations accurately enough. The equations themselves, however, have unique solutions for given initial conditions, and so whatever the initial conditions were that led to today, the equations specify that they had to lead to today. In that sense I would say—and it's the usual way of talking in physics—that the equations absolutely would have predicted the evolution of life.

The emergence of the auto-catalytic RNA and protein polymers, and the random errors that naturally occurred due to chance and the changing environment as they grew, reproduced and evolved, was a decidedly non-deterministic processes.

What was non-deterministic about it? Sensitively dependent on initial conditions, sure; impossible for us to predict in practice, fine; but those don't mean "non-deterministic" to me.

There needed to be a level of insight, built upon the laws of physics but not predicted by them, in order to understand the biosphere at a practical level.

As a statement about human intellectual history and the limitations of the human brain I would agree with this. Very little even within physics has ever been predicted by pure theory alone.

Why is this, though? I don't think there's any deeper reason than the fact that humans aren't very clever. We can't hold enough details in our minds without losing track of the big picture, or vice versa. So we have to summarize things and work at an outline level. It's nice that we can usually get away with this.

[_DrW]

How nature selected these proteins, or the DNA that coded for them, simply cannot be explained by the equations of physics.

Now you're sounding mystical to me, and I thought I was the theist.

physics guy, if you believe in God, and you're not a substance dualist, then what substance is God?

Deuterium with a hint of vanilla.

I'm a bit surprised. Deuterium? All the time we lived and worked in Germany, the only theists I ever met were Germans or Americans who belonged to the LDS Church we attended, or some of die Gastarbeiter we knew. Professionally, I cannot recall ever meeting a non-LDS German citizen, or any other scientist, engineer or technician on the continent, who even hinted that they were in any way religious.