Cell Intelligence in Physiological & Morphological Spaces

[Cleric]

Do you think there is any possiblility that the idea of DG specifically could help ML obtain opportunistic material breakthroughs (to exagerate for clarity: like cracking the code of how to regrow human anatomy)? I guess your answer should be no, otherwise it would mean that the algorithmic model with this feature would be (in the blind, but still) indirectly consistent with the NPSOC insight?

I don't know. I'm doubtful that this can be accomplished in a direct way - in the sense of first learning how to do it in the simulation and then translating it to biology. Simply because the simulation doesn't even try to mimic NPSOC.

In order not to be wholly criticizing, here's how theoretically we can extend the experiment toward truer NPSOC. For example, we can make a hybrid sorting algorithm that switches between two algotypes. Imagine that this switching happens randomly, through a computational pseudo-random generator that produces uniform distribution. Even though it is called 'random', it is in fact still an integral part of the Turing machine and produces the numbers fully deterministically. However, we can tap into a source of external randomness, some quantum event, for example, emission of an electron - if the electron is spin-up, the first algotype is chosen, if it is spin-down - the second.

Now imagine that we place certain dead cells that break the normal (fully computational algorithm). In other words, the algorithm can't circumvent the barrier it faces. We as humans may analyze and say "If this random generator could have a bias toward the first algotype, it would be able to sort the list. It fails only because on average it gives an equal chance to each of the algotypes, but with these particular constraints, this doesn't work. Yet if the generator could consistently choose the first algotype more often, it would be able to circumvent the barrier. This, however, doesn't happen because the generator is designed to be uniform."

Let's fantasize then, that if we plug the quantum event generator instead of the computational pseudo-random, the algorithm completes the sort. This means that there must have been more spin-down results, in order to select the first algotype more often and avoid the problem resulting from equal application. In order to eliminate simple bias, we swap the two algotypes. Now let's imagine that the sorting works again. This would mean that there must be now more spin-up results. 'Something' bends the probabilities such that a certain computational result is achieved. Now if this could happen it would be a spectacular result! This would be a much truer example of what ML tries to communicate. This would indeed mean that a different scale of cognition has been coupled to the system, which basically acts like "If I steer these quantum events more in this direction, the computational part will give a more interesting result."

This is a heavily fictional example but it aims to show that the rigid Turing machine needs to be open toward other aspects of Nature if it is to have truly emergent behavior. In such a case we can in full correctness say that the Turing machine does something that cannot be explained entirely through the application of the rigid rules of computation.

For example, the PEAR project tried to test whether human intents can steer true random generators (and not pseudo-random generators, which would imply the ability to meaningfully augment the workings of entire computational systems). I am personally not sure whether PEAR's results are accurate (it seems they haven't been replicated). As we have said many times, such manipulation of the external physical nature is in fact the most difficult and remote in relation to our living spiritual activity which presently reflects most clearly in the steering of the holistic neural activity. But is nevertheless conceivable. My point was only to show that to influence a computational system (electric or marble), we need a way to 'jailbreak' it, and allow it to interface with processes that can potentially be more conductive to spiritual intents.

So back to your question, maybe an insight about regeneration could come while working on such matters but I doubt that the insight can come as a direct result of a purely computational simulation.

[Federica]

Do you think there is any possiblility that the idea of DG specifically could help ML obtain opportunistic material breakthroughs (to exagerate for clarity: like cracking the code of how to regrow human anatomy)? I guess your answer should be no, otherwise it would mean that the algorithmic model with this feature would be (in the blind, but still) indirectly consistent with the NPSOC insight?

I don't know. I'm doubtful that this can be accomplished in a direct way - in the sense of first learning how to do it in the simulation and then translating it to biology. Simply because the simulation doesn't even try to mimic NPSOC.

In order not to be wholly criticizing, here's how theoretically we can extend the experiment toward truer NPSOC. For example, we can make a hybrid sorting algorithm that switches between two algotypes. Imagine that this switching happens randomly, through a computational pseudo-random generator that produces uniform distribution. Even though it is called 'random', it is in fact still an integral part of the Turing machine and produces the numbers fully deterministically. However, we can tap into a source of external randomness, some quantum event, for example, emission of an electron - if the electron is spin-up, the first algotype is chosen, if it is spin-down - the second.

Now imagine that we place certain dead cells that break the normal (fully computational algorithm). In other words, the algorithm can't circumvent the barrier it faces. We as humans may analyze and say "If this random generator could have a bias toward the first algotype, it would be able to sort the list. It fails only because on average it gives an equal chance to each of the algotypes, but with these particular constraints, this doesn't work. Yet if the generator could consistently choose the first algotype more often, it would be able to circumvent the barrier. This, however, doesn't happen because the generator is designed to be uniform."

Let's fantasize then, that if we plug the quantum event generator instead of the computational pseudo-random, the algorithm completes the sort. This means that there must have been more spin-down results, in order to select the first algotype more often and avoid the problem resulting from equal application. In order to eliminate simple bias, we swap the two algotypes. Now let's imagine that the sorting works again. This would mean that there must be now more spin-up results. 'Something' bends the probabilities such that a certain computational result is achieved. Now if this could happen it would be a spectacular result! This would be a much truer example of what ML tries to communicate. This would indeed mean that a different scale of cognition has been coupled to the system, which basically acts like "If I steer these quantum events more in this direction, the computational part will give a more interesting result."

This is a heavily fictional example but it aims to show that the rigid Turing machine needs to be open toward other aspects of Nature if it is to have truly emergent behavior. In such a case we can in full correctness say that the Turing machine does something that cannot be explained entirely through the application of the rigid rules of computation.

For example, the PEAR project tried to test whether human intents can steer true random generators (and not pseudo-random generators, which would imply the ability to meaningfully augment the workings of entire computational systems). I am personally not sure whether PEAR's results are accurate (it seems they haven't been replicated). As we have said many times, such manipulation of the external physical nature is in fact the most difficult and remote in relation to our living spiritual activity which presently reflects most clearly in the steering of the holistic neural activity. But is nevertheless conceivable. My point was only to show that to influence a computational system (electric or marble), we need a way to 'jailbreak' it, and allow it to interface with processes that can potentially be more conductive to spiritual intents.

So back to your question, maybe an insight about regeneration could come while working on such matters but I doubt that the insight can come as a direct result of a purely computational simulation.

Thank you, I see, more or less. About PEAR, there seems to be a 2.0 version of the old project.

[Cleric]

Thank you, I see, more or less. About PEAR, there seems to be a 2.0 version of the old project.

It's worth noting that we can always turn these things into living phenomenological experiences.

When we develop a program or any kind of technology our goal is to condense our spiritual activity in such a way that we metamorphose the World state, augmenting the World riverbed, so to speak, such that the future flow can manifest in a predictable way. This can be taken even in a quite literal sense. For example, diverting an actual river for irrigation, or placing the parts on the board of the marble computer. In all cases, however, the impulse leading to such meaningful transformations of the World state manifests at our thinking horizon.

When we observe ourselves, we can recognize that our elemental nature is indeed weaved of 'macros' and 'sub-routines'. These can be loosely seen as processes that are triggered in a more or less predictable manner. A person who is not too innerly active, to a large extent flows through the curvatures of the elemental nature. The condensing flow is molded into forms that somewhat repeat past rhythmic patterns. However, when we strive to be consciously active, whatever condenses at our thinking horizon is more like the quantum event generator. It feels that we trigger our elemental gates and switches through inner activity and thus steer the 'algorithm' in ways that do not proceed from the elemental workings themselves (analogy with the quantum generator selecting the algotype).

This, of course, has been the apple of discord for many generations of scientists and philosophers. Probably the most distilled example that points at the problem is that brought by Penrose, who believes precisely that there are non-computable processes in nature, that switch the classical gates of neurobiology. Things, of course, cannot be solved in such an external manner. If we are to find the non-computable process, we can only do it in the experience of our thinking flow.

So we again arrive at the issue at hand. As long as we are open that there's something at play in our thinking process that is not the result of purely elemental computation, we maintain a certain openness - whether we call that something a different causal plane or the non-computable aspect of nature. However, the Ahrimanic ideal basically says "If I don't understand the reasons for my thinking going spin-up or down, this could only be because I have an incomplete view of the elemental nature. There are hidden variables. There's no need to postulate different causal planes. The more I unveil the elemental view, the more I'll see that all processes are fully comprehensible as causal flows within the elemental plane." This is what secretly pulls ML. The more we can see all characteristics of life and cognition simply as unexpected patterns resulting from the iterations of simple rules, the more the need for other sources of causation becomes unnecessary. In the end, one will conclude that these planes are simply temporary placeholders for the as-of-yet veiled variables of the elemental view.

We can mention the other polar opposite, which absolutizes the non-computable aspect of the inner process (the Lu pole). This doesn't in the least give better orientation to the thinking being, but simply leads to the dreamlike dance of whatever the secret processes in the background are (pure consciousness, MAL, etc.). So Ahri tries to expand consciousness and encompass the total elemental Cosmos such that it can be understood and manipulated. Lu wants to dream the Cosmos in full unconstrained spontaneuity.

But overall, I just wanted to point attention to how everything can be traced back to our inner activity - if we are willing to do so! Then even such abstract things as a Turing machine switched by a quantum process can become a living artistic expression of experiential reality.

[Federica]

It's worth noting that we can always turn these things into living phenomenological experiences.

When we develop a program or any kind of technology our goal is to condense our spiritual activity in such a way that we metamorphose the World state, augmenting the World riverbed, so to speak, such that the future flow can manifest in a predictable way. This can be taken even in a quite literal sense. For example, diverting an actual river for irrigation, or placing the parts on the board of the marble computer. In all cases, however, the impulse leading to such meaningful transformations of the World state manifests at our thinking horizon.

When we observe ourselves, we can recognize that our elemental nature is indeed weaved of 'macros' and 'sub-routines'. These can be loosely seen as processes that are triggered in a more or less predictable manner. A person who is not too innerly active, to a large extent flows through the curvatures of the elemental nature. The condensing flow is molded into forms that somewhat repeat past rhythmic patterns. However, when we strive to be consciously active, whatever condenses at our thinking horizon is more like the quantum event generator. It feels that we trigger our elemental gates and switches through inner activity and thus steer the 'algorithm' in ways that do not proceed from the elemental workings themselves (analogy with the quantum generator selecting the algotype).

This, of course, has been the apple of discord for many generations of scientists and philosophers. Probably the most distilled example that points at the problem is that brought by Penrose, who believes precisely that there are non-computable processes in nature, that switch the classical gates of neurobiology. Things, of course, cannot be solved in such an external manner. If we are to find the non-computable process, we can only do it in the experience of our thinking flow.

So we again arrive at the issue at hand. As long as we are open that there's something at play in our thinking process that is not the result of purely elemental computation, we maintain a certain openness - whether we call that something a different causal plane or the non-computable aspect of nature. However, the Ahrimanic ideal basically says "If I don't understand the reasons for my thinking going spin-up or down, this could only be because I have an incomplete view of the elemental nature. There are hidden variables. There's no need to postulate different causal planes. The more I unveil the elemental view, the more I'll see that all processes are fully comprehensible as causal flows within the elemental plane." This is what secretly pulls ML. The more we can see all characteristics of life and cognition simply as unexpected patterns resulting from the iterations of simple rules, the more the need for other sources of causation becomes unnecessary. In the end, one will conclude that these planes are simply temporary placeholders for the as-of-yet veiled variables of the elemental view.

We can mention the other polar opposite, which absolutizes the non-computable aspect of the inner process (the Lu pole). This doesn't in the least give better orientation to the thinking being, but simply leads to the dreamlike dance of whatever the secret processes in the background are (pure consciousness, MAL, etc.). So Ahri tries to expand consciousness and encompass the total elemental Cosmos such that it can be understood and manipulated. Lu wants to dream the Cosmos in full unconstrained spontaneuity.

But overall, I just wanted to point attention to how everything can be traced back to our inner activity - if we are willing to do so! Then even such abstract things as a Turing machine switched by a quantum process can become a living artistic expression of experiential reality.

Thanks again, Cleric. In fact, this is exactly what I was wondering about. When I saw your post, I was writing this: "I have to admit I am struggling with the idea that a fully computational system or pseudo-random event generator can't lead to manifestations that correlate with things in nature and provide insight, while quantum devices can."

[AshvinP]

On the topic of attaining modern insights, Vervaeke makes an interesting observation in this 'Cognitive Science of Religion' portion of a discussion. He says biology has become the science fueling a scientific renaissance, feeding back ideas and insights into all the other sciences, in a way that can fundamentally transform our sense of who and what we are. He contrasts that with physics, saying there has been no significant theoretical advances at the quantum level for 50 years, and no significant advance in relativity for over a century. He also mentions the Nobel Prize was given to a cognitive scientist and not a physicist.





Of course, he is much more optimistic about these developments than is warranted because he still feels simply modeling the 'real' processes that explain the inner side of thinking is what it means to advance and transform ourselves, perhaps coupled with some Eastern-style meditation and traditional ritual practices. Nevertheless, these indications point to consciousness resonating more with the etheric/life spectrum and beginning to sense the depth of inner activity that animates our thinking movements, redirecting attention from first-order content (theoretical physics) to second-order process (autopoietic biology). Vervaeke has also been in conversation with ML a few times, for example here, although I've only seen bits and pieces so far.

This distinction between biology and physics, the former ascending in its utility for insight (which we know is symbolical for the depth of our real-time spiritual activity) and the latter descending in some ways, seems to reflect ML's inner tension as well. The more he can stick with open-endedly studying biological dynamics (that are not entirely computable) and letting his intuitive activity flexibly interact with the ideas reached, the more chance there is an intimate spark of insight that points to the critical import of his own inner activity that is discerning the meaning of 'cognitive agency' and so on. On the other hand, the more he is enchanted with the computable elemental aspect of nature and its 'hidden properties' that could potentially explain away inner activity as a complexification of such properties, the more distance is put between the meaning he discerns and the real-time inner activity discerning the meaning. Such Ahr-inspired logical errors can never lead to genuine insights into the truthful flow of spiritual activity at the life, soul, and spiritual scales.

[Federica]

Nonetheless, ideas such as the ones elaborated in this essay go to show how these impulses are becoming emergent in current science, pulling it away from a purely bottom-up understanding of reality (though still in the intellectual form of external modeling).

Certainly we can see that thinking consciousness is growing into the etheric strata across many different domains of inquiry, which gives a sense that there is some depth of activity behind/within the phenomenal manifestations of life. I think you are correct that these sorts of ideas are proliferating in current science, as they previously did within philosophy, religion, and art.

On the other hand, without an intimate phenomenology of cognition, it becomes increasingly difficult for people to get a proper orientation to this depth of intentional activity. The condensation process by which these new insights flow into consciousness remains tightly laminated into the intuitive background, and therefore all the multiscale dynamics tend to be recast in the mold of familiar intellectual gestures over time.

I have always felt JP is one of the very few modern creative thinkers who guards against this tendency toward functional reductionism. I think that relates to his intimate exploration of cognitive activity, even to the point of exploring the psycho-spiritual underpinnings of the Biblical narratives. He also has a very well-rounded familiarity with the scientific literature across many disciplines and continually tries to integrate those disciplines with the Christ impulse as he sees it continuing to unfold its potential, not only in ancient times, but also in our current time. The latter has become the explicit underpinning of his intuitive orientation to the World flow.

It would be nice if JP could get into a conversation with Levin - I think the latter could especially benefit greatly from it, if he here willing to explore JP's intuitions. Right now, JP is going in the somewhat opposite direction of Levin - instead of finding human-like agency at all lower order scales, he has explored the way in which we imaginatively think and innovate enough to know what is uniquely human (the superconscious flow), and therefore the general inner axis along which genuine spiritual freedom can be found. That is expressed here, for example:





That clip is part of a larger discussion with the other JP which is highly illuminating and reveals a somewhat finely-tuned intuitive sensitivity for both of them to higher-order spiritual activity (which also provides the intuitive curvatures for elemental goal-directed activity), at least the fact that it cannot be found as contained within the sphere of our familiar intellectual gestures. Rather the latter can only be used as analogical portals that bring us into the ideal vicinity of the former. That is why, for example, they seem very comfortable exploring the hierarchy of Be-ing in terms of sociocultural, mythological, and religious examples, and feel this brings us closer to its true essence than the elemental dynamics we discover via natural science. I think they generally intuit that the latter can only be analogical portals to the higher-order activity in the same sense, and actually that the elemental dynamics are originally rooted in human spiritual activity. That is quite explicitly discussed here:

I did notice you are in a don’t-talk-to-F phase, Ashvin, but just a note in general, or for later. Without any context beyond this conversation, it seems to me that, for them, the idea of the hierarchical structure of reality is like a one directional gradient, spiritual-general-formless at the top, which gets more and more material-particular towards the bottom. The more the “meta-categories” (concepts and ideas) are thought in terms of their sub-parts, down to particles and fields, the more we are dealing with science. It’s not that much an “as above so below” conception, but more like a “from above to below” one. They see it more like a pyramid (this symbol seems very ingrained in their view) than a yin-yang, let's say. They don’t seem to see it as a 'hyper-symmetrical' (convoluted) interconnectedness. At least as far as my first impression goes.

[AshvinP]

I did notice you are in a don’t-talk-to-F phase, Ashvin, but just a note in general, or for later. Without any context beyond this conversation, it seems to me that, for them, the idea of the hierarchical structure of reality is like a one directional gradient, spiritual-general-formless at the top, which gets more and more material-particular towards the bottom. The more the “meta-categories” (concepts and ideas) are thought in terms of their sub-parts, down to particles and fields, the more we are dealing with science. It’s not that much an “as above so below” conception, but more like a “from above to below” one. They see it more like a pyramid (this symbol seems very ingrained in their view) than a yin-yang, let's say. They don’t seem to see it as a 'hyper-symmetrical' (convoluted) interconnectedness. At least as far as my first impression goes.

Check out 'How Moses got us to the Moon' section, particularly around 37:30 min. JP comments on how 'at bottom' there are 'patterns in the material world' and "God only knows what that's ultimately reflective of". He hasn't reached any firm conclusions but certainly does not think we are necessarily dealing with particles and fields as independent structures. They also mentioned how pure potential is found at both the macro-scale and the quantum scale, so I think they intuit the 'as above so below' principle of spiritual activity, and I'm sure Pageau has explicitly commented on it before since that's also implicit in some Orthodox theological traditions and writings.

As we know, science is still the best method of exploring the 'patterns of the material world', except its method needs to be extended into the inner dynamics as well to gain more comprehensive insight of those patterns, and that requires it to be imbued with imaginative artistry and moral virtue. I would say JP heavily leans in that direction with his psycho-spiritual understanding of science and its aims, and most importantly, the implicit means by which it is pursued. That is why he places so much emphasis on the Judeo-Christian cultural foundations of modern science.

[Federica]

However, when we strive to be consciously active, whatever condenses at our thinking horizon is more like the quantum event generator.

This means: what condenses is as if coming from a quantum event generator, correct?
[/quote]

[Cleric]

However, when we strive to be consciously active, whatever condenses at our thinking horizon is more like the quantum event generator.

This means: what condenses is as if coming from a quantum event generator, correct?

Correct. Of course, we should always remember that calling this generative process anything, already externalizes it into a receding mental image. We can only speak concretely if we understand that what we speak of invites us into a concentrative experience, where "spacetime tells energy how to move and energy tells spacetime how to curve." IOW it's not about the definition but the real-time experience.

[Federica]

However, the Ahrimanic ideal basically says "If I don't understand the reasons for my thinking going spin-up or down, this could only be because I have an incomplete view of the elemental nature. There are hidden variables. There's no need to postulate different causal planes. The more I unveil the elemental view, the more I'll see that all processes are fully comprehensible as causal flows within the elemental plane." This is what secretly pulls ML. The more we can see all characteristics of life and cognition simply as unexpected patterns resulting from the iterations of simple rules, the more the need for other sources of causation becomes unnecessary. In the end, one will conclude that these planes are simply temporary placeholders for the as-of-yet veiled variables of the elemental view.

Is this the full story about ML? I get the flattened approach that doesn't suspect the existence of cognitive modes other than intellectual. That's what moved me to reactivate this thread in the first place. But there's also something else, right? At least he strives not to passively accept the usual slots and pathways of typical reductionist modeling. Maybe it's just my positive bias towards this kind of innovative thinking that doesn't take the conceptual forms and their piecing together for granted, and the fact that he's way more truth-oriented than meaning-oriented doesn't help. But do his efforts simply boil down to other equally flat arrangements? He feels like he's descovering a new fire with these hidden properties. Is this secret really only a plain materialistic Ahriman-fueled impulse? Ashvin likened it to the Christ impulse, which I can't wrap my head around either. So what is this exactly?