yoginho

yoginho, 14 days ago

The argument goes: in order for any molecule to be a message in an organism (to have a function) it must be embedded in the context of a larger network of physical constraints, which Pattee calls a "biological language" in analogy to grammar and the meaning of words in language.

yoginho, 14 days ago

This "language" must arise at (or even slightly before) the origin of life, in what Pattee calls the primeval ocean ecosystem. And the good news is: this language can be quite simple while still being able to generate an infinity of potentially meaningful messages.

yoginho, 14 days ago

This simplicity is suggested by work on formal languages, where a finite set of simple rules is able to generate an infinite of possible statements. The problem with data-driven biology is, however, that it focuses on those statements, not the rules of the language.

yoginho, 14 days ago

Basically, you can go on collecting data forever. You will never run out of stuff to characterize and analyze. But you will also never get any closer to understanding actual meaning (function) in living system, because this meaning lies in the rules, not the output ...

yoginho, 14 days ago

... which means we are nowadays missing the point in biology more than ever before. We have more data, but less actual insight into the central question of life than Pattee had in the late 1960s. It's quite humbling. And astonishing how far a little bit of clever thinking ...

yoginho, 25 days ago

... most important one (which is to pick out what is relevant in a given situation, a task which is not algorithmic in nature, see https://osf.io/preprints/osf/pr42k).

But if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And so, "diverse intelligence" simply means "something ... /4

yoginho, 25 days ago

... that looks like it's computing." This is completely missing the point. Levin calls everything, from the weather, to a molecular network (which apparently is something "deterministic," I did not know), to a cell and your whole body, an agent. Because if you can solve ... /5

yoginho, 25 days ago

... problems you have agency, or something like that. That all "diverse intelligences" are of the same kind is declared as a doctrine. Evil the one who makes a distinction between organisms that are actual agents, and algorithms or weather patterns, that are not. /6

yoginho, 25 days ago

The only thing I'm missing here is any kind of philosophically valid justification for this totally insane approach. It's a maximally superficial view of everything that is supposed to have meaning, everything reduced to the semblance of computation. Why? What good ... /7

yoginho, 25 days ago

... is supposed to come from that? Fortunately, Levin also tell us this. It is the second big delusion in his argument.

2. We can and must build a better humanity for the future. Away with back pain and bacteria! Short lifespans and cognitive biases! Away, in fact, with... /8

yoginho, 25 days ago

... everything imperfect, and on to "optimize and scale up our creative performance."

If this sounds creepy to you, it is! It's a weird mixture of the good old Catholic narrative of eternal salvation (as I explain here http://johannesjaeger.eu/blog/machine-metaphysics-and-the-cult-of-techno-transcendentalism), and a good measure of ... /9

yoginho, 25 days ago

... eugenicism, as argued by @timnitGebru &
@xriskology here: https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/13636.

It is creepy as hell! And it won't work, because the whole construct is philosophically unsound. /10

yoginho, 25 days ago

Levin is the absolute master of bullshit in contemporary biology. Individualized medicine is around the corner just because he generated some mobile 3D cell cultures in a dish. Everything is intelligent because everything computes. Electric fields will cure cancer, etc etc... /11

yoginho, 25 days ago

Apparently, we crave such hype these days, but I'll remain skeptical about how much of it will eventually be delivered. It seems unlikely to me. There are so many gaps. So many important sounding concepts used in a careless way. /12

yoginho, 25 days ago

"Our self-models are the stories that we build." Okay. That's deep. "Pavlovian conditioning in molecular networks." Okay. Recently, Levin claimed that sorting algorithms have volition: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.05375.pdf. It's all based on the most shallow thinking possible. /13

yoginho, 25 days ago

Just like Levin is a master at fitting his models to the data, he is a master at fitting his narrative and the evidence to his purpose. You have to grant him that. It's all one big sales exhibition. But like pretty much all marketing, it's as vacuous as it can be, behind ... /14

yoginho, 25 days ago

... the shiny facade. It's based on nothing. A castle built on air, not sand. Don't be a fool and buy into it. Levin is a fad that will quickly pass. But the eugenic techno-optimism he promotes may not. It's utterly dangerous and deluded. And it's backed by powerful people. /15

yoginho, 25 days ago

The reason this kind of shit is so successful at the moment (I think) is that people are really desperate for a salvation myth, even if it's hollow. And on this, Levin delivers. He's the science equivalent of a cult leader, publishing AI-generated pseudo-indigenous ... /16

yoginho, 25 days ago

... pseudo-poetry on his blog: https://thoughtforms.life/the-struggle-of-the-parts-how-competition-among-organs-in-the-body-contributes-to-morphogenetic-robustness. And his followers are the science equivalent of cult followers, lapping up the kool aid like there is no tomorrow if we don't believe in his salvation by bio-blob. /17

yoginho, 25 days ago

In the end, it's all just a really sad reflection on our times. This kind of social construct won't hold for very long. We are bullshitting ourselves when we buy into it. The profundity is pseudo, but the bullshit is real. And we're drowning in it, voluntarily. /18

yoginho, 25 days ago

What we really need, instead of these corporate-sounding pseudo-visions, is good solid work, based on deep philosophical thinking and in tune with what the evidence says. And it says that humanity is going to have a really tough time in the next few decades. It says ... /19

yoginho, 25 days ago

... we need to get through this time with pragmatic solutions, not high-tech technicolor dreams of unattainable shangri-las. We need grounding in reality. You need to see past the smokescreen. Only then will you realize that there is no there there. Nothing at all. /END