Cell Intelligence in Physiological & Morphological Spaces

[Federica]

I think he needs to approve it first.

Parhaps he's not eager to have too many critical comments. After all, this blog is there to create consensus around the research from a large and diverse basis, not to brainstorm with unidentified people about the validity of the overall approach.

[AshvinP]

I think he needs to approve it first.

Parhaps he's not eager to have too many critical comments. This blog is there to create consensus around the research from a large and diverse basis.

Yeah, a few later comments were approved but not mine, it seems. By the way, I just noticed the comment above yours mentions 'reinvigorating' Anthroposophy! Perhaps we can stimulate a discussion with Geoffrey and ML may also take some notice.

[Federica]

I think he needs to approve it first.

Parhaps he's not eager to have too many critical comments. This blog is there to create consensus around the research from a large and diverse basis.

Yeah, a few later comments were approved but not mine, it seems. By the way, I just noticed the comment above yours mentions 'reinvigorating' Anthroposophy! Perhaps we can stimulate a discussion with Geoffrey and ML may also take some notice.

Do you mean that we could colonize the comment morphological space guided by Anthroposophical ideal pattern from the Platonic space, and demonstrate that we can expand our cognitive light cone to solve meaningful problems by collaborating with other forms of Anthroposophical life? Yeah let's do it
He will have to take notice if we become a self-organizing experiment in his space/face

[AshvinP]

Parhaps he's not eager to have too many critical comments. This blog is there to create consensus around the research from a large and diverse basis.

Yeah, a few later comments were approved but not mine, it seems. By the way, I just noticed the comment above yours mentions 'reinvigorating' Anthroposophy! Perhaps we can stimulate a discussion with Geoffrey and ML may also take some notice.

Do you mean that we could colonize the comment morphological space guided by Anthroposophical ideal pattern from the Platonic space, and demonstrate that we can expand our cognitive light cone to solve meaningful problems by collaborating with other forms of Anthroposophical life? Yeah let's do it
He will have to take notice if we become a self-organizing experiment in his space/face

Yeah something like that

I drafted an initial response to Geoffrey, let me know what you think and if it should be modified in some way. Although, given the apparent rejection of my first comment, it may be even more likely to get approved if you were to submit it instead of me

Hi Geoffrey,

It's refreshing to hear someone link this exploration of the Platonic space of cognitive archetypes and their manifold embodiments with Anthroposophy, since the latter (as you probably know) intimately investigates the structure and dynamics of that space. A quote comes to mind:

"The world has in its shoals all sorts of spiritual beings. It is only a matter of an opportunity to bring them somehow to the right place. Although the following comparison is not beautiful, it is correct: In a clean room there are no flies. But if the house is badly managed, if all sorts of leftovers are lying around, flies will soon appear. It is the same in the invisible world that surrounds us—as long as a human being does not create the opportunity, spiritual beings are not there at all. But if we provide an opportunity, they will always be there. Then they step into our sphere. Then they begin to interact with us... The spiritual beings work into our world in the same way as the soul creates its countenance. A period of time will come for human beings when people by necessity will depend on their knowledge of the spiritual world to shape their lives. Nowadays, man can only tackle the world roughly through his senses. But we will see how we will again advance to a time where the human being will act out of the spirit. We will advance to a time where our whole environment is seen as an expression of the spirit..." (Steiner, GA 98)

Beginning with his early epistemological works, like Philosophy of Freedom, Steiner also emphasized that the Platonic space of cognitive beings can be most fruitfully approached where it is most 'in-phase' with its physical embodiments, which is within the real-time cognitive process by which we philosophize, theologize, mathematize, etc. This real-time cognitive process is the 'point transition' between Platonic ideal forms and physical manifestations that you mention. It is the 'phase space' of the physical (perceptual) experience where we feel the flow of that experience to very closely mirror our cognitive agency and acts.

For example, if we intend to count from 1 to 10 in our mind, we live in the meaningful intuition of our general intent. As we progress from pronouncing "1" to "2" to "3", etc., we have a very clear intuitive sense of how our momentary verbalizations are structured through time. The auditory vibrations of our inner voice, as we pronounce the words of the numbers, do not meet us like a mysterious foreign object, for example, the erratic movements of a fly buzzing around, but as an orderly progression of inner counting states guided by our meaningful intent to count. If we are currently at "5", even though we haven’t yet reached ten, we have a good intuitive sense of where the process is going and what inner state will soon condense at our mental horizon, even though we haven’t yet pronounced the next numbers in our mind. This intuitive sense also gives us orientation for how we have reached our present “5” state through the previously pronounced numbers.

There is lucid clarity in this domain of experience, whereas if we intend to move our arm, the perceptions may or may not mirror our cognitive intent depending on the independent state of our body and, even when the arm movement faithfully reflects our intent, we have little clarity on the inner biophysical process of the nerves, muscles, cells, etc. that make this movement possible. Thus we find in Philosophy of Freedom (GA 4):

"The reason why it is impossible to observe thinking in the actual moment of its occurrence, is the very one which makes it possible for us to know it more immediately and more intimately than any other process in the world. Just because it is our own creation do we know the characteristic features of its course, the manner in which the process takes place. What in all other spheres of observation can be found only indirectly, namely, the relevant context and the relationship between the individual objects, is, in the case of thinking, known to us in an absolutely direct way. I do not on the face of it know why, for my observation, thunder follows lightning; but I know directly, from the very content of the two concepts, why my thinking connects the concept of thunder with the concept of lightning. It does not matter in the least whether I have the right concepts of lightning and thunder. The connection between those concepts that I do have is clear to me, and this through the very concepts themselves.

This transparent clearness concerning our thinking process is quite independent of our knowledge of the physiological basis of thinking. Here I am speaking of thinking in so far as we know it from the observation of our own spiritual activity. How one material process in my brain causes or influences another while I am carrying out a thinking operation, is quite irrelevant. What I observe about thinking is not what process in my brain connects the concept lightning with the concept thunder but what causes me to bring the two concepts into a particular relationship. My observation shows me that in linking one thought with another there is nothing to guide me but the content of my thoughts; I am not guided by any material processes in my brain. In a less materialistic age than our own, this remark would of course be entirely superfluous. Today, however, when there are people who believe that once we know what matter is we shall also know how it thinks, we do have to insist that one may talk about thinking without trespassing on the domain of brain physiology."

I am curious to hear any additional thoughts you (or Mike) may have on this topic!

[Federica]

Yeah something like that

I drafted an initial response to Geoffrey, let me know what you think and if it should be modified in some way. Although, given the apparent rejection of my first comment, it may be even more likely to get approved if you were to submit it instead of me

Hi Geoffrey,

It's refreshing to hear someone link this exploration of the Platonic space of cognitive archetypes and their manifold embodiments with Anthroposophy, since the latter (as you probably know) intimately investigates the structure and dynamics of that space. A quote comes to mind:

"The world has in its shoals all sorts of spiritual beings. It is only a matter of an opportunity to bring them somehow to the right place. Although the following comparison is not beautiful, it is correct: In a clean room there are no flies. But if the house is badly managed, if all sorts of leftovers are lying around, flies will soon appear. It is the same in the invisible world that surrounds us—as long as a human being does not create the opportunity, spiritual beings are not there at all. But if we provide an opportunity, they will always be there. Then they step into our sphere. Then they begin to interact with us... The spiritual beings work into our world in the same way as the soul creates its countenance. A period of time will come for human beings when people by necessity will depend on their knowledge of the spiritual world to shape their lives. Nowadays, man can only tackle the world roughly through his senses. But we will see how we will again advance to a time where the human being will act out of the spirit. We will advance to a time where our whole environment is seen as an expression of the spirit..." (Steiner, GA 98)

Beginning with his early epistemological works, like Philosophy of Freedom, Steiner also emphasized that the Platonic space of cognitive beings can be most fruitfully approached where it is most 'in-phase' with its physical embodiments, which is within the real-time cognitive process by which we philosophize, theologize, mathematize, etc. This real-time cognitive process is the 'point transition' between Platonic ideal forms and physical manifestations that you mention. It is the 'phase space' of the physical (perceptual) experience where we feel the flow of that experience to very closely mirror our cognitive agency and acts.

For example, if we intend to count from 1 to 10 in our mind, we live in the meaningful intuition of our general intent. As we progress from pronouncing "1" to "2" to "3", etc., we have a very clear intuitive sense of how our momentary verbalizations are structured through time. The auditory vibrations of our inner voice, as we pronounce the words of the numbers, do not meet us like a mysterious foreign object, for example, the erratic movements of a fly buzzing around, but as an orderly progression of inner counting states guided by our meaningful intent to count. If we are currently at "5", even though we haven’t yet reached ten, we have a good intuitive sense of where the process is going and what inner state will soon condense at our mental horizon, even though we haven’t yet pronounced the next numbers in our mind. This intuitive sense also gives us orientation for how we have reached our present “5” state through the previously pronounced numbers.

There is lucid clarity in this domain of experience, whereas if we intend to move our arm, the perceptions may or may not mirror our cognitive intent depending on the independent state of our body and, even when the arm movement faithfully reflects our intent, we have little clarity on the inner biophysical process of the nerves, muscles, cells, etc. that make this movement possible. Thus we find in Philosophy of Freedom (GA 4):

"The reason why it is impossible to observe thinking in the actual moment of its occurrence, is the very one which makes it possible for us to know it more immediately and more intimately than any other process in the world. Just because it is our own creation do we know the characteristic features of its course, the manner in which the process takes place. What in all other spheres of observation can be found only indirectly, namely, the relevant context and the relationship between the individual objects, is, in the case of thinking, known to us in an absolutely direct way. I do not on the face of it know why, for my observation, thunder follows lightning; but I know directly, from the very content of the two concepts, why my thinking connects the concept of thunder with the concept of lightning. It does not matter in the least whether I have the right concepts of lightning and thunder. The connection between those concepts that I do have is clear to me, and this through the very concepts themselves.

This transparent clearness concerning our thinking process is quite independent of our knowledge of the physiological basis of thinking. Here I am speaking of thinking in so far as we know it from the observation of our own spiritual activity. How one material process in my brain causes or influences another while I am carrying out a thinking operation, is quite irrelevant. What I observe about thinking is not what process in my brain connects the concept lightning with the concept thunder but what causes me to bring the two concepts into a particular relationship. My observation shows me that in linking one thought with another there is nothing to guide me but the content of my thoughts; I am not guided by any material processes in my brain. In a less materialistic age than our own, this remark would of course be entirely superfluous. Today, however, when there are people who believe that once we know what matter is we shall also know how it thinks, we do have to insist that one may talk about thinking without trespassing on the domain of brain physiology."

I am curious to hear any additional thoughts you (or Mike) may have on this topic!

This is so well formed, and with perfect quotes, but perhaps too long for the situation? I would probably end it after the counting example, which is striking. Then it would end on a memorable and very relatable example and invitation. There's probably less need to go full circle than to simply keep the question alive. So people are more likely to read it, also.
Perhaps use a pseudonym? For my part, I would feel bizarre to post under my name a comment I didn't author - again - especially if it's well written like this

Probably what I would have written is a very short reply, just inviting him to develop the idea connected with Anthroposophy, with a telegraphic reference to the point of transition, linking to Clerics words "right within our cognitive space" . I like your comment much better but I am also not sure how it would sound to someone who is not used to discussions like on this forum...

[AshvinP]

This is so well formed, and with perfect quotes, but perhaps too long for the situation? I would probably end it after the counting example, which is striking. Then it would end on a memorable and very relatable example and invitation. There's probably less need to go full circle than to simply keep the question alive. So people are more likely to read it, also.
Perhaps use a pseudonym? For my part, I would feel bizarre to post under my name a comment I didn't author - again - especially if it's well written like this

Probably what I would have written is a very short reply, just inviting him to develop the idea connected with Anthroposophy, with a telegraphic reference to the point of transition, linking to Clerics words "right within our cognitive space" . I like your comment much better but I am also not sure how it would sound to someone who is not used to discussions like on this forum...

Thanks, Federica, and that is a good point. I have submitted it without the PoF quote under my name.

You know what, this comment shows up on my screen with "your comment is awaiting moderation", but I don't see the first one. Now I am wondering if I didn't submit it properly

[Federica]

Thanks, Federica, and that is a good point. I have submitted it without the PoF quote under my name.

You know what, this comment shows up on my screen with "your comment is awaiting moderation", but I don't see the first one. Now I am wondering if I didn't submit it properly

Never mind, probably that comment will be relevant to a future article too.

On a completely different note, have you noticed that FB has published a piece called "The Phenomenological Standpoint"?
I haven't listened to it yet, but I will soon, I am curious




PS: OK, I've watched it now. It has nothing in common with true phenomenology. Rather is shows the condition of a mind who had the desire to detach from matter, but stumbled upon itself, and remained head turned down to the Earth.

[Federica]

Thanks, Federica, and that is a good point. I have submitted it without the PoF quote under my name.

You know what, this comment shows up on my screen with "your comment is awaiting moderation", but I don't see the first one. Now I am wondering if I didn't submit it properly

Never mind, probably that comment will be relevant to a future article too.

[Federica]

I haven't read the blog yet, or watched the entire IM conversation either. But I've posted it. Let's see

Great idea framing it as a question! If he's honest and understands the question, he would have to reply that he simply feels uncomfortable with this prospect because such direct investigation feels too 'slippery', constantly shape-shifting, and thus one needs to anchor himself in something consistent and reliable, which only the senses and their complementary world can presently provide.

ML has replied

"You are right, the third person science of engineering is not the complete story. It's the part I started with because that is how we make meaningful, reliable, undeniable progress and make these ideas palatable and usable to the mainstream community. Eventually it must certainly include the first person science, turning inwards, in which the investigator is altered by the process of investigation. Many people have tried starting on that end, and it has massive value but it hasn't connected to the scientific enterprise in a way that garners the buy-in of the scientific community or produced dependable benefits for those who are suffering and are waiting for actionable insights that will help them. We will try to combine them eventually."

The comment to which the reply applies is:

"On my view, mind precedes and is a superset of life, but we call "living" those things which are very good at scaling up the lowly competencies of their parts into aligned collective intelligences with bigger cognitive light cones that project into new spaces to which the parts have no access, thus bringing down new patterns and increasingly more sophisticated cognitive agents all of which coexist in one material embodiment."

How can this fruitful view be brought to its ultimate fulfillment if, in parallel, our own cognitive process remains as if cemented unquestioned? When everything about investigating these other ideal patterns results in building models - logical arrangements of mental pictures that is and testing them against physical experiments, isn't the crucial factor left out? In other words, is it enough to be adept at exploring these other minds, interacting with them, if it's only through the interface of biological or technological embodiment? The insight that we are collective intelligences is taken to apply to everything except our own cognitive process. It is grasped that our cells and organs embody ideal patterns that are independent of us, yet our intellectual sphere remains self-enclosed with its mental pictures. Could it be that we can begin discovering the interference of intelligences right within our cognitive space?


Awating moderation:

Thanks for your reply!
This new piece - Encountering the 'Platonic Space' of Cognitive Archetypes - builds on the Platonic space intuitions and tests you laid out here, to suggest lawful ways to make that connection to the scientific enterprise viably and logically, and orient future research in the morphological spaces.

[AshvinP]

ML has replied

"You are right, the third person science of engineering is not the complete story. It's the part I started with because that is how we make meaningful, reliable, undeniable progress and make these ideas palatable and usable to the mainstream community. Eventually it must certainly include the first person science, turning inwards, in which the investigator is altered by the process of investigation. Many people have tried starting on that end, and it has massive value but it hasn't connected to the scientific enterprise in a way that garners the buy-in of the scientific community or produced dependable benefits for those who are suffering and are waiting for actionable insights that will help them. We will try to combine them eventually."

The comment to which the reply applies is:

"On my view, mind precedes and is a superset of life, but we call "living" those things which are very good at scaling up the lowly competencies of their parts into aligned collective intelligences with bigger cognitive light cones that project into new spaces to which the parts have no access, thus bringing down new patterns and increasingly more sophisticated cognitive agents all of which coexist in one material embodiment."

How can this fruitful view be brought to its ultimate fulfillment if, in parallel, our own cognitive process remains as if cemented unquestioned? When everything about investigating these other ideal patterns results in building models - logical arrangements of mental pictures that is and testing them against physical experiments, isn't the crucial factor left out? In other words, is it enough to be adept at exploring these other minds, interacting with them, if it's only through the interface of biological or technological embodiment? The insight that we are collective intelligences is taken to apply to everything except our own cognitive process. It is grasped that our cells and organs embody ideal patterns that are independent of us, yet our intellectual sphere remains self-enclosed with its mental pictures. Could it be that we can begin discovering the interference of intelligences right within our cognitive space?


Awating moderation:

Thanks for your reply!
This new piece - Encountering the 'Platonic Space' of Cognitive Archetypes - builds on the Platonic space intuitions and tests you laid out here, to suggest lawful ways to make that connection to the scientific enterprise viably and logically, and orient future research in the morphological spaces.

Thanks, Federica, for sharing this reply and also linking him (and others, if approved) to the essay!

At first blush, his reply seems promising, but on the other hand, it speaks precisely to what we have been discussing here lately regarding the carrot and donkey, asymptotical approach, etc. In other words, ML is expecting the bridge between inner investigation and natural science to come from some other direction than his own intuitive exploration of his cognitive process and is happy to wait until the relevant insights miraculously arrive, pursuing "dependable benefits" and "actionable insights" that are rewarded by the corrupted scientific establishment in the meantime. If attention is pointed to something like Steiner's spiritual science, the implicit objection will be that it didn't garner the 'buy-in' of the wider scientific community, so that must be the proof that it isn't the actual bridge. It becomes a vicious intellectual cycle of avoiding the intimate bridge (that was truly established 2k years ago).

Alas, "eventually" becomes "never" as long as one refuses to dive into the imaginative waters of their thinking process. It isn't realized that the higher-order activity which establishes the bridge isn't experienced as the result of natural human development, but requires an effortful extension of cognitive development once the natural and cultural development of the intellect has come to its completion. Somewhat ironically, mathematical thinking is one of the few domains of experience for modern man that is comparable, and can actually be a useful stepping stone to imaginative thinking, but most people simply get stuck there, enchanted by the seeming unlimited practical power of their mathematical thinking.