Introduction and Core Concepts

• The problem of morphogenesis: How does DNA (a “brick factory”) produce complex structures (e.g., Cologne Cathedral) and a full organism, and not a mess, the focus of levins work.
• Levin admires Kastrup’s rigorous and clear work addressing large questions in science and philosophy, and having CS background.
• Kastrup admires Levin’s work on morphogenesis, as it provides a plausible scientific avenue and opens philosophical doors.
• Question: What reasons suggest some physics/chemistry configurations have “inner life,” and what markers indicate agency/boundaries in cells but not thermostats?
• Kastrup: reality of consiouness is, one, that can have ‘whirlpools’ and nested, agency-level conciousness.
• Metabolism might signify a dissociative boundary, suggesting a separate, distinct consciousness.
• Levin: Examines how minds scale and how boundaries between self and world are formed; nested autonomy (Nested agency), lower-level agents/goals like cells compose and comprise higher level agencies, e.g. organism. Bioelectric fields coordinate cells to act as a unified self.
• Levin doesn’t think separate consciousnesses “glue” together; it’s more likely re-association of mental processes in a unified field. Machines might have varying degrees of goal-directed intelligence, starting since the 40’s non-magically.

Consciousness and Cellular Intelligence

• Many assume a cell/organ/engineered thing lacks inner life, based on a philosophical stance. Most, however, attribute it to the Brain and Neruons. However, upon Neuron Examination, there appears to exist: Neurons share many properties with all other body cells; it’s non-trivial to distinguish what neural networks do that other cells *don’t*..
• The one sure about thing is that it (inner consiouness) must be present where a collection of Cells are present in any Body: Levin: if brains associate with consciousness, the same must be considered elsewhere in the body for similar reasons. You can’t “feel” your liver is conscious, but you also can’t “feel” anyone *else* is conscious.
• TAME framework: “Technological Approach to Mind Everywhere”. Addresses all Agents. Goal = Understand the need to develop ways to measure Agents with varying types of “minds” in unconventional forms. (hybrids of many materials). It’s implausible that minds only exist in our familiar biological architectures. Considers Agents having Goals.
• Cognitive light cone concept: Agents have goals and competencies to pursue them in various “spaces” (gene expression, anatomical configurations, physiology). These are overlapping. Many make us, but not exclusively. Claims about goals, spaces, and competencies are observer-relative, testing the observer as much as the observed.
• Humans are very poor IQ checkers in determining an outside Agents abilities, cognition and consciousness, for both Biologicals or AIs.
• Goal seeking appears Very early, with only minor complexity required, perhaps with 2 Genes; therefore is likley easy and probably fundamental, and maybe universal/general..
• Continuum of Inner Perspective. Some beings or Agents require a more careful look. E.G: You *need* to account for a *Mouse’s Perspective* over your own. You might get away with only considering Physics in some cases, e.G: Billiards balls/table..
• One critical aspect of the continuum is how much the system’s *inner perspective* must be considered for optimal interaction. (e.g., bowling ball on landscape vs. mouse on landscape). Biological systems are more along the spectrum of agents, however not excluseivly.
• Levin believes inner perspective consideration becomes important early in the complexity scale. Even simple chemical pathways exhibit learning, memory, and preferences. Tools can vary from behavior change tools, to psychoanalysis etc..

Biological vs. Artificial Systems

• The human body represents mental processes. Every metabolizing being (even single-celled) likely has private consciousness. Even Brain organells might have perspective, because neurons do.
• Reassociation Not Required. Individual cells do not, however require reassiciation, we grow together and reassociation will occur upon injury (E.g: cancer is the dissasociation) . Humans may be unitary organisms, and their individual cells likely don’t have separate viewpoints, cells simply give us appearance of inner structure. Cancer might be the dissociation of a collective of cells.
• Chimeras (two embryos fusing) are seen as initially dissociated mental processes associating. Possible within a unified field.
• Kastrup: Current AI is mechanistic, a collection of basic componenets of an unlimited number, very simple and non-comparable to biology. Electricity/silicon/metal are used in computers for cost/size, not because they are fundamental. You could in theory, compute with other materials, e.G: “Water”
• Levin: agrees tables/rocks likely have vanishingly small goal-seeking abilities; living systems scale up these minimal capacities. Current AI/computers are also very low on this scale (maybe zero), but potentially *could* be otherwise.
• Standard mechanical biological reductionism is present. A Fertilised human egg contains *rules* or mechanisms. Yet at some point: human cognition develops with no *magical jump/threshold*. There’s no clear place in *developmental biology* where a line exists, no switch, therefore the spectrum of Agents, Agency and *mind* and perspective *exists*: Biology (development, regeneration etc) reveals gradual scaling from simple rules to complex cognition.
• Human origin story: blastoderm of ~50,000 cells. Typically yields *one* human, a collective ‘alignment’ for growth, but capable of yielding many separate Humans. The cells have to traverse anatomial paths with ‘problem-solving’ capacities.
• Embryos are Self-Aware; and determine a self-other (inner-outter) boundary, making it Agentic..
• Scratches in blastoderm experiment (e.g., duck embryos) show the number of resultant individuals is NOT fixed by genetics. Cells self-organize. The cells make their own *decision*.
• Nested selves: L and R Hemispheres can have differing Opinions. Nested Levels exist; cooperation, homeostasis, agency all present. Humans likely comprise nested selves (primitive to advanced) operating in problem spaces, competing/cooperating.
• Levin sees all *non-Agentic* objects, rocks and tables with nearly vanishing-scale, and therfore Epsilon Goal oriented capability, using action principles. Goal capability scales rapidly to very capable, e.G. in a Cell, *life*.
• Analytic idealism views experiments like embryo-scratching as a dashboard representing *fundamental mental interference* processes.
• Individual identity as epiphenomenal, therefore able to be manipulated (e.g., surgically inducing dissociation), doesn’t need special treatment or explanation.
• Nature’s priority may not be on an individual, but rather the wider process and life-form, therefore not important. Nature is interested in Spreading/Diversity of *life* in general, less-so in individual.
• Computers do their “Goal Seeking” due to being programmed or instructed to behave as-so; just an illusion of reality and real goals, imitation, E.G. *Shop-manequines*.
• If aliens claimed they made the human oocyte, Levin would not conclude, “I’m a mannequin”. Levin concludes from potential metal innards: “Wow, cogs can achieve this consciousness!”, and this is fine..

Metabolism, Autopoiesis, and Artificial Life

• Private conscious inner life correlates with *metabolism*, so artificially creating that should, in theory produce “life”. Private inner consciousness can therefore be artifically synthesized and re-created in theory, E.G: through non-conventional biological materials like computers or AI, *not* through *non*-metaoblism like a shop-maniquinne.
• Kastrup thinks future artificial consciousness will look more like (synthetic) *life*; a “cell”, like created by venter, *not* metal or computers; metabolism is what correlates..
• Levin views Metabolism as form of “autopoiesis”; is fundamental. “Magical” self-construction process is “essential”, where the being defines it’s existential beginnings. Requires agents, fighting for energy in-take (from the environemnt) requires agent-environment interactions (forces self and outside “world”).
• Artificial “life”: a key criteria will involve beings having, struggling *Autopoiesis*.
• Life: “is the *Scaling-Up* from existing fundamental agency.
• Need Perturbation (to understand a system) is how a non-superfical and fundamental way of truly understading of an agent. Observation will never get you enough info; perturb and “Test it”; apply intervention to see/reveal its hidden capacity for *change*, *not* for *simple action*.
• Game of Life critique: While it looks complex it actually is “Simple physics/rules/mechancism”, because there are No goals involved and No interventions/obstacles being solved. Lacks, Problem-solving capability..
• Very simple systems (e.g., sorting algorithms) exhibit goal-directed properties and generalization. Levin thinks we will find surprising capacities very “early” or minimal..
• Levin/Kastrup agreed. The outward look for disassociation is *Metabolism*, so we should follow that rule; is not conclusive of a test, but strong starting point/rule/marker.
• Biological Intervention Techniques. All biomedical treatment is simply changing Biology; there is an implied “Goal Seeking” by the agent, or biology or self-tissue: it may be best to co-opertate with tissues/selves instead. Cooperation of biology with the organism, vs. trying to manipulate at molecular or micro levels..
• Cooperation & Collabarion is not to Force Will, and requires the same level of Intervention and Care that, for example, that may come form hypnotising. The process is a fundamental *communication* and can manifest it many ways.

Communication and Higher-Order Systems

• Bioelectricity acts as “cognitive glue” in the body, used to merge individual cell goals into larger computational networks. Allows the potential and a clear framework, path forward or path onwards in controlling the direction/type of communication in-between Cells, e.g. when wanting tissue, cells or collectives.
• Orthopedic surgery example: Illustrates levels. “Smashing” parts together, then letting the body *heal*. We have no hope of controlling healing from the “bottom up,” is is Motiviated by something; *Biology is more then Simple “Parts*”, having “bottom-up” *only* construction or theory.
• Hypnodermatology: Illustrates that higher cognitive levels may exist, not just molecular/biological interventions. The level to access this (goal direction), can vary (even with words), not simple cells, with non-simple agents.
• Hypn dermatology as not being a rare occurrence or event. It demonstrates the everyday example, connection and effect of Mind/Cognitive, and its ability to interface and connect *to/with/through* Biology: Example: when you want to do something *your body can listen/react, simply by thinking and *intending*, with No other interaction and requirement*. This is an active process 24/7..
• Higher-Order Agents?. Could there exist other Agency, higher in Level; can human societies form them, beyond the known or biological mechanisms? Potentially yes, but maybe limits to knowing.
• Potential girdl limits in being a subsystem AND determining your participation in the larger structure is unknown, *unlikely*.
• Gap Junctions allow direct signal passage, removing ‘metadata’/owner-identification (leading to no-Me and we; Mind Meld) which create a ‘connectivitiy of consiouness. This may create/induce/allow the nested goal-seking collectives; the core mechanist behind Biology.
• Making larger systems through connection might be more efficient, *however* might come at *risk*: A Large Collective might have an interest seperate and disticnt for individuals. For example. Skin: There’s no *Guarantee* that a collective of biological Agents have benefit or ‘goodness’ from its constituents, cells etc..
• Cell-Perspective or Cognition may give an idea to what ‘Goal-Direction/Goals’ a Cell might have; e.g. with cancer: cells no longer *care*, and can act and re-arrange the body, for its individual or collective own survival; or no, no good; only, as it relates to ‘reconnectiveess.
• Policies might arise that make way to help and maintain Large and Beneficial (not ‘cancerous’) Collective(s) of Organisms (E.G: people); may or should be an *existential-level goal* for Humanity; preserve benefit with no individual downside, or compromise, potentially by creating a collective with no compromise of its individual; hard.
• Open to artificially generated consciousness if it embodies similar core biological (and especially metabolic) properties. Not against artificiallity per-se. Current computers lack, not necessarily “couldn’t” potentially have consciousness; future computers may differ.
• The underlying principles are Self Construction (autopoiesis), Goal/survival direction (which makes one care/cooperate/model for “others”/outside”), is fundamental, beyond (potentially) metabolism.
• Ethical Implications for the Future; will *need* a new framework beyond current biological frameworks. New Ethics needed: Cognition might be *more* fundamental than previously thought (implications for lower “life”)..
• Augmentation will lead to ethical questions on what defines, has worth, and the future meaning of what’s ‘Responsbile’, and, how to deal and manage those things, individuals and types/variances of ‘selves’. The definition will become “soft”, because of modifications.
• Levin’s research challenges, *tweaks*, standard neo-Darwinian evolution (while not suggesting a direction/purpose to it); potential ability to engineer that goal. *Examples/conjectures given:*
  • Giraffes + Lamarckian evolution, neck problem example (what genes get manipulated). If the Cells *knew/Know* then it’s doable. Might be generalized from “past” problems (in a similar type), potentially allowing for strong Lamarkin Evolution.
  • Evolution, Intelligence and Mutation *Generalization* (key term): Evolution leverages an intelligent medium (cells). Intelligence could give rise in Cells to *potentially* solve its OWN problems. Levin hypothesizes that cell adaptation is *generalizing from known/past issues*.
  • Planeria in barium experiment; example. When applied Barium = new (potentially generalized) solution found with (quick rapid response and quick and successful modification; not evolutionary-selectionist)..

导言与核心概念

• 形态发生问题：DNA（一个“砖块工厂”）如何产生复杂的结构（例如科隆大教堂）和一个完整的生物体，而不是一团糟，这是莱文工作的重点。
• 莱文欣赏卡斯特鲁普在解决科学和哲学中的重大问题方面所做的严谨而清晰的工作，以及他拥有的计算机科学背景。
• 卡斯特鲁普钦佩莱文在形态发生方面的工作，因为它提供了一条可行的科学途径，并打开了哲学之门。
• 问题：有什么理由表明某些物理/化学配置具有“内在生命”？什么标志表明细胞具有自主性/边界，而恒温器却没有？
• 卡斯特鲁普：意识的现实是，一，可以有“漩涡”和嵌套的、自主性层面的意识。
• 新陈代谢可能标志着一种分离的边界，表明一个独立的、不同的意识。
• 莱文：研究思维如何扩展，以及自我和世界之间的边界是如何形成的；嵌套自主性（嵌套自主性），较低级别的自主体/目标（如细胞）构成并包括更高级别的自主性，例如生物体。生物电场协调细胞以统一的自我行动。
• 莱文不认为独立的意识会“粘合”在一起；更有可能是统一场中精神过程的重新关联。 自 40 年代以来，机器可能具有不同程度的目标导向智能，而不是魔术般地开始。

意识和细胞智能

• 许多人基于哲学立场假设细胞/器官/工程事物缺乏内在生命。然而，大多数人将其归因于大脑和神经元。然而，在神经元检查中，似乎存在：神经元与所有其他身体细胞共享许多属性；区分神经元网络所做的而其他细胞*不*做的事情并非易事。
• 唯一可以肯定的是，它（内在意识）必须存在于任何身体中的细胞集合中：莱文：如果大脑与意识相关联，那么出于类似的原因，必须在身体的其他地方考虑同样的情况。你无法“感觉”到你的肝脏是有意识的，但你也无法“感觉”到任何*其他*人是有意识的。
• TAME 框架：“无处不在的心智技术方法”。解决所有自主体的问题。目标 = 理解需要开发方法来测量具有各种形式的“思维”的不同类型的自主体（多种材料的混合体）。思维只存在于我们熟悉的生物结构中是不可能的。考虑具有目标的自主体。
• 认知光锥概念：自主体具有在各种“空间”（基因表达、解剖结构、生理学）中追求它们的目标和能力。这些是重叠的。许多造就了我们，但并非唯一。关于目标、空间和能力的声明是观察者相对的，既测试观察者，也测试被观察者。
• 人类在确定外部自主体的能力、认知和意识方面是非常糟糕的智商检查者，无论是对于生物体还是人工智能。
• 目标寻求似乎很早就出现了，只需要很少的复杂性，也许只需要 2 个基因；因此可能很容易，可能是根本性的，也许是普遍的/一般的。
• 内在视角的连续统一体。一些存在或自主体需要更仔细的观察。例如：你*需要*考虑*老鼠的视角*而不是你自己的视角。在某些情况下，您可能只需考虑物理学就可以过关，例如：台球/球桌。
• 连续统一体的一个关键方面是，为了最佳互动，必须考虑多少系统的*内在视角*。（例如，景观上的保龄球与景观上的老鼠）。生物系统更接近于自主体的范围，但并非排他性的。
• 莱文认为，内在视角考虑在复杂性尺度上很早就变得重要了。即使是简单的化学途径也表现出学习、记忆和偏好。工具可以从行为改变工具到精神分析等多种多样。

生物系统与人工系统

• 人体代表精神过程。每个新陈代谢的生物（甚至是单细胞）都可能具有私人意识。即使是大脑细胞器也可能有视角，因为神经元有。
• 不需要重新关联。然而，单个细胞不需要重新关联，我们会一起生长，并且在受伤时会发生重新关联（例如：癌症是解离）。人类可能是单一的生物体，它们的单个细胞可能没有单独的观点，细胞只是给我们提供了内在结构的外观。癌症可能是细胞集合的解离。
• 嵌合体（两个胚胎融合）被视为最初分离的精神过程相关联。在统一场内是可能的。
• 卡斯特鲁普：当前的人工智能是机械的，是无限数量的基本组件的集合，非常简单，无法与生物学相比。计算机中使用电/硅/金属是为了成本/尺寸，而不是因为它们是根本性的。理论上，您可以使用其他材料进行计算，例如：“水”
• 莱文：同意桌子/岩石可能具有极小的目标寻求能力；生命系统放大了这些最小容量。当前的人工智能/计算机在这个尺度上也很低（也许为零），但可能*可以*有所不同。
• 存在标准的机械生物还原论。受精的人类卵子包含*规则*或机制。然而，在某个时刻：人类认知的发展没有*神奇的跳跃/阈值*。在*发育生物学*中没有明确的位置存在一条线，没有开关，因此存在自主体、自主性和*思维*和视角的范围*存在*：生物学（发育、再生等）揭示了从简单规则到复杂认知的逐渐扩展。
• 人类起源故事：约 50,000 个细胞的胚盘。通常产生*一个*人，一个集体“对齐”以实现生长，但能够产生许多单独的人类。细胞必须以“解决问题”的能力穿越解剖路径。
• 胚胎具有自我意识；并确定一个自我-他者（内在-外在）边界，使其具有自主性。
• 胚盘划痕实验（例如，鸭胚）表明，产生的个体数量不是由遗传学固定的。细胞自组织。细胞做出自己的*决定*。
• 嵌套自我：左半球和右半球可以有不同的意见。存在嵌套级别；合作、稳态、自主性都存在。人类可能包含在问题空间中运作、竞争/合作的嵌套自我（原始到高级）。
• 莱文将所有*非自主性*物体（岩石和桌子）视为具有几乎消失的尺度，因此具有 Epsilon 目标导向能力，使用行动原则。目标能力迅速扩展到非常强大，例如，在一个细胞中，*生命*。
• 分析唯心主义将胚胎划痕等实验视为代表*基本心理干扰*过程的仪表板。
• 个体身份作为附带现象，因此可以被操纵（例如，手术诱导解离），不需要特殊处理或解释。
• 自然的优先事项可能不是个人，而是更广泛的过程和生命形式，因此并不重要。自然对一般*生命*的传播/多样性感兴趣，而不是对个体感兴趣。
• 计算机之所以执行其“目标寻求”，是因为它们被编程或指示这样做；只是一种现实和真正目标的错觉，模仿，例如*商店人偶*。
• 如果外星人声称他们制造了人类卵母细胞，莱文不会得出结论，“我是一个人体模型”。莱文从潜在的金属内部结构中得出结论：“哇，齿轮可以实现这种意识！”，这很好。

新陈代谢、自创生和人工生命

• 私人的有意识内在生命与*新陈代谢*相关，因此理论上人为地创造它应该会产生“生命”。因此，理论上可以人为地合成和重建私人的内在意识，例如：通过非常规的生物材料，如计算机或人工智能，而不是通过像商店人偶这样的*非*新陈代谢。
• 卡斯特鲁普认为，未来的人工意识将更像（合成的）*生命*；由 Venter 创造的“细胞”，*不是*金属或计算机；新陈代谢是相关的。
• 莱文将新陈代谢视为“自创生”的一种形式；是根本性的。“神奇的”自我构建过程是“必不可少的”，其中生物定义了它的存在开始。需要自主体，为摄入能量而战（来自环境）需要自主体-环境相互作用（迫使自我和外部“世界”）。
• 人造“生命”：一个关键标准将涉及生物具有、挣扎的*自创生*。
• 生命：“是从现有的基本自主性*扩展*而来。
• 需要扰动（以理解系统）是一种非表面的、基本的方式来真正理解自主体。观察永远不会给你足够的信息；扰动和“测试它”；应用干预来查看/揭示其隐藏的*改变*能力，而不是*简单的行动*。
• 生命游戏批判：虽然它看起来很复杂，但实际上它是“简单的物理/规则/机制”，因为没有涉及目标，也没有解决干预/障碍。缺乏，解决问题的能力。
• 非常简单的系统（例如，排序算法）表现出目标导向的属性和泛化。莱文认为，我们将非常“早”或最少地发现令人惊讶的能力。
• 莱文/卡斯特鲁普同意。向外寻找分离是*新陈代谢*，所以我们应该遵循这个规则；它不是测试的结论，但却是强有力的起点/规则/标记。
• 生物干预技术.所有生物医学治疗都只是改变生物学。 这暗示agent/生物学/自我组织正在追求某种“目标”：与其在分子或微观层面上试图操控，倒不如与组织/自我进行协作.
• 合作与协作不是为了强迫意志，需要相同程度的干预和关怀，例如，这可能来自催眠。这个过程是一种基本的*交流*，并且可以用多种方式体现出来.

沟通和高阶系统

• 生物电在体内充当“认知胶水”，用于将单个细胞目标合并到更大的计算网络中。允许在细胞之间控制通信的方向/类型的潜力和一个清晰的框架，前进的道路或前进的道路，例如当需要组织、细胞或集体时。
• 骨科手术示例：说明级别。“粉碎”部件，然后让身体*愈合*。我们没有希望从“自下而上”控制愈合，这是由某种东西激发的；*生物学不仅仅是简单的“部件”*，具有“自下而上”*仅*构造或理论。
• 催眠皮肤病学：说明可能存在更高的认知水平，而不仅仅是分子/生物干预。进入这个（目标方向）的水平可以变化（即使是文字），而不是简单的细胞，而是具有非简单自主体的细胞。
• 催眠皮肤病学并非罕见的发生或事件。它展示了日常的例子、联系和思想/认知的影响，以及它通过生物学进行交互和连接的能力: 你想做某件事的时候，身体是会回应/感知的，只需要想一想并且去*做*. 并不需要额外做其他操作。
• 更高阶自主体？。是否存在其他更高层次的自主性；人类社会能否形成它们，超越已知或生物机制？可能是的，但可能存在认识的局限性。
• 作为子系统并确定您参与更大结构的潜在界限限制是未知的，*不太可能*。
• 间隙连接允许直接信号传递，消除“元数据”/所有者身份（导致无我和我们；思维融合），这创造了“意识的连接性”。这可能会创建/诱导/允许嵌套的目标寻求集体；生物学背后的核心机制。
• 通过连接创建更大的系统可能更有效，*但是*可能会有*风险*：一个大的集体可能对个人有单独和不同的利益。例如。皮肤：无法*保证*生物自主体的集体对其组成部分、细胞等具有益处或“善意”。
• 细胞视角或认知可能会提供一个想法，了解细胞可能具有的“目标方向/目标”；例如癌症：细胞不再*关心*，并且可以为了其个人或集体的生存而行动和重新排列身体；或者没有，不好；只有，因为它与“重新连接”有关。
• 可能会出现有助于维持有机体（例如：人）的大型和有益（不是“癌性”）集体的政策；可能是或应该是人类的*生存级目标*；在没有个人不利因素或妥协的情况下保留利益，可能通过创建一个不损害其个体的集体；难的。
• 对人工生成的意识持开放态度，如果它体现了类似的生物学核心（尤其是代谢）特性。本身并不反对人为性。当前的计算机缺乏，不一定“不能”潜在地拥有意识；未来的计算机可能会有所不同。
• 基本原理是自我构建（自创生）、目标/生存方向（这使得一个人关心/合作/为“他人”/外部建模），是根本性的，超越（潜在的）新陈代谢。
• 未来的伦理含义; 将来会*需要*比现在的生物体系 *更进一步* 的理论结构。 未来需要新的理论，对“思考认知”有比过去更加*根本性* 的认识 （也意谓对那些“更低等“的“生命”有启发）。
• 增强将导致关于什么定义、有价值以及未来“负责任”的含义的伦理问题，以及如何处理这些事物、个人和“自我”的类型/差异。由于修改，定义将变得“软”。
• 莱文的研究挑战、*调整*了标准的neo-达尔文进化论（虽然没有暗示它的方向/目的）；可能有能力设计这个目标。 举例说明如下：
  • 长颈鹿+拉马克进化，颈部问题示例（哪些基因被操纵）。如果细胞*知道/知道*，那么它是可行的。可能从“过去”的问题（在类似类型中）中推广，可能允许强烈的拉马克进化。
  • 进化、智力和突变*概括*（关键词）：进化利用智能介质（细胞）。智能可以让细胞*有可能*解决自身的问​​题。莱文假设细胞适应是从已知/过去的问题中*概括*的。
  • 在钡实验中的 Planeria；例子。当应用钡时 = 找到新的（可能概括的）解决方案（快速快速响应和快速成功修改；不是进化选择论）。