Information Interpretation in Biology

• Biological systems at all levels (subcellular, cellular, organs, etc.) interpret information, not passively receiving it. They “hack” each other’s signals, using them in ways not necessarily intended by the sender. This comes from Bongard work where, a physical system computing a task to an observer may be observed, by a seperate, other oberserver computing another thing.
• This challenges the binary distinction between “data” (passive) and “the machine” (active). Levin seeks to create a continuum between these concepts.

Caterpillar to Butterfly: Beyond Memory Storage

• The caterpillar-butterfly transformation is not primarily interesting because of *where* memory is stored, but *how* it is interpreted. The caterpillar’s learned information is largely useless to the butterfly in its raw form.
• What’s preserved is not the specific data, but an *inferred salience* (“what does this mean to me?”). The physical trace (engram) is subject to interpretation by the new form.
• An “engram” is the physical embodiment of a memory – anything that stores information interpretable by a later observer (cell, organism, scientist, etc.). Even DNA can be considered an engram, messages of prior generations in a large linage agent, with incredible plasticity.

Implications for Regenerative Medicine

• Understanding how biological systems interpret engrams (memories) is crucial for regenerative medicine. The goal is to communicate with cells/tissues/organs to rewrite their memories and direct them to build specific structures.
• If one could better understand persistent agents maintaining itself, then one could use that as a foundation for better inter communication between things, including communication which can redirect cells.

Self as Continuous Sense-Making

• The “self” should be defined as a continuous process of sense-making, not a fixed, permanent structure. This relates to process philosophy. The same goes for evolutionary processes, where a species fails to change then becomes extinct. However if it *does* change, it becomes *something else*, which also fails, in its own way.
• The “self” is constantly trying to make sense of its own memories (engrams left by its past self). This is an active, creative process.
• Memories are highly compressed, requiring “reinflation” and interpretation in the new context. Good compression looks random; deduction is insufficient, requiring creative interpretation.
• Learning necessitates compression. Without it, one overtrains on particulars, lacking the ability to generalize and abstract, important to concepts, which would also assist survival.
• Even with a brain in the wrong part (a tadpole having eyes on tail) there exists a strong sense-making procedure such that biology is so tolerant such that things “work out.” Biology, is robust because is assumes failure will be the rule of all material and biological systems and therefore does not hold onto assumption that everything “is to continue.”

The Ship of Theseus, Planaria, and Flexibility

• The “Ship of Theseus” paradox (replacing parts over time) applies to the self. Constantly changing (learning, maturing) means “you” are not the same as your past self.
• This flexibility is true for organisms, most champions being the Planaria due to not having a transgenic, they disregard DNA. They accumulate junks due to somatic mutation and clean it away (instead of normal means, sex). Then hardware cannot be reliable such that all resources will move into competent reconstruction.
• Planaria demonstrate extreme flexibility, highlighting the role of bioelectric algorithms (and other factors) in overriding genetic “junk” for regeneration and error correction.
• Other animals will sit in this specturm from salamanders (competent, but not like planaria), and mammels. C Elegans or Drop may sit at the extreme opposite, they being completely “hard-wired.”
• The discussion shifts on evolutionary scales of things, it becomes obvious to define “self” by degree:
• All on a continuum, between being defined and non-defined. Self, intelligence, sensient and congnizant. It refers to interactions, it has utilty: for instance mechanical when interacticing with machines or a body part when orthopedic surgeon. But “psychotherapy and spouses should be very cautious about applying a mechanistic viewpoint.
• A way to apply is to simply apply then ask the questions:
  • Can some utitly be gainied (for instance cells?). Can we then apply it further and use biomedical intervention for network molecules. Can particles be considered to have cognition? Maybe so.
• “What do we mean by bioilogical world”: Levin states: The biological world is simply something which has good *scaling*.
• Toni’s integrated informational, or goals and how goals might apply. However when scaling, rocks won’t have scaled utility. There is not an inner world, so bioelectricity, is, on a continuoum.

Thoughts and Thinkers: Blurring the Distinction

• The distinction between “thoughts” (patterns within a cognitive system) and “thinkers” may be less clear-cut than we assume.
• A continuum exists: fleeting thoughts -> persistent intrusive thoughts -> multiple personality alters -> “full-blown” personalities. Each represents a pattern with varying degrees of persistence and self-reinforcement.
• Later stages (“alters” and personalities) can *spawn* other thoughts, blurring the line between the pattern and the “thinker” generating it. Thoughts don’t need a *physical brain, only a substraight to exist, in the cosmos or an AI*.
• All this is analogous to self-sustaining electromagnetic waves (without an ether) and being *cogniferous* without *brains.*

Consciousness and Self-Construction

• It has a cost, computationally speaking, to engage and observe another consciousness. The computer executes computations and cost, at times without needing cost. Perhaps this computation can be used.
• Consciousness might be “what it feels like to be in charge of constant self-construction,” driven to reinterpret available data (including one’s own memories) to choose what to do next. This builds on Mark Solms’s idea of consciousness as “palpated uncertainty about the future.”
• This reinterpretation is a constant, largely subconscious process, essential for maintaining a coherent sense of self. Trauma could cause the trauma/memory process.
• A question regarding waking up every morning, having amnesia. Having to rewrite is like externalized “normal” version for the anti colony, just, having their “instructions outside.” Dreams might then stem from inability to reconsolidate with past and create a coherent set.
• The social world aids in this process, reminding and helping/limiting the formation and growth of the self, by giving definitions to who the subject might. For instance: when ego dissolution then things end up coming in a completely different manner and way due to psychadelics, having some unique abilities and capabilities and utility (or loss of them). The speakers state “Talk to your thoughts” as advice therapists state.

Transcending the Self

• Humans both cherish the idea of a stable, continuous self *and* seek experiences that transcend it (drugs, travel, awe, religion, etc.).
  • A possible explaination may be 2 drives of Evolution, stability, and change/improvement, respectively. Similar to the exploration/expliotation in humans and cellular activity (aging can then represent getting stuck on *expliot* for instance, and “people” as being similar)
• This might be due to competing drives: a deep-seated, evolutionarily-driven need for self-preservation versus a drive for exploration and growth (avoiding stagnation). There is fear about non-binary/stable states and love, due to being stuck on these hardcoded states. There is *exploring and exploting*.
• Exploit being “having more stable-self” with the expliot mode can then also cause this stagnation.
• Advantage of loosening concept of “self” to be kinder to *future selves*. Then caring about “future creatures.”
• The question about self continuity goes all over different categories (the self) however these questions end up making “pseudo problems” with having this discussion with hard categories and should be avoided and reoriented towards discussions such as how *useful* is having an internal representation as “it”, and a practical perspective is emphasized, which states there are, perhaps other types of consciousness in different kinds of organizations.
• It could allow a greater understanding and appreciation of minds, which exists across differerent minds. For example, when discussing evolution there is different forms for everything (i.e. body and perspective is very different. And so on…

Perspectives, Idealism and Computer Brains

An “idealist model”: Perspectives may propagate from biological processes (this has the “caveot”, the discussion states to ask Bernard as to expand this further)

A computer “Yes!” but on the context what type and perspective. Reprogammability and softwork works, Von Neumann model should be scraped out. Blind “meanings” is worse compared to making something purposeful (the assumption would then fall as such that anything “can” then happen from these means).

And so this can then result as: *Making moral consideration on *new congnizant patterns of other beings**. Mark Z, states Levin as well, have their own means in their respective researches.

Trade Book and Academia?

Pollan encourages a “general audience” instead of being overly technical due to broad reaching of audiences for more impactful/academic pursuits/fields.

生物学中的信息解读

• 所有层次的生物系统（亚细胞、细胞、器官等）都在解读信息，而不是被动地接收信息。 它们“入侵”彼此的信号，以发送者未必预期的方式使用它们。 这来自于Bongard的研究，其中，一个物理系统为一个观察者计算一个任务，可能被另一个观察者观察到，计算另一个事物。
• 这挑战了“数据”（被动）和“机器”（主动）之间的二元区分。 莱文试图在这两个概念之间建立一个连续体。

毛毛虫到蝴蝶：超越记忆存储

• 毛毛虫到蝴蝶的转变之所以有趣，主要不是因为记忆存储在*哪里*，而是*如何*被解读。 毛毛虫学到的信息，以其原始形式，对蝴蝶来说基本无用。
• 保留下来的不是具体的数据，而是一种*推断出的显著性*（“这对我意味着什么？”）。 物理痕迹（印迹）受新形式的解释。
• “印迹”是记忆的物理体现——任何可以被后来的观察者（细胞、生物体、科学家等）解释的信息存储。 甚至DNA也可以被认为是印迹，是大型世系中的先前世代的信息，具有难以置信的可塑性。

对再生医学的启示

• 理解生物系统如何解读印迹（记忆）对于再生医学至关重要。 目标是与细胞/组织/器官沟通，重写它们的记忆，并引导它们构建特定的结构。
• 如果人们能更好地理解持续存在的自主体如何维持自身，那么就可以将其作为事物之间更好沟通的基础，包括可以重定向细胞的沟通。

自我作为持续的意义构建

• “自我”应该被定义为一个持续的意义构建过程，而不是一个固定的、永久的结构。 这与过程哲学有关。 进化过程也是如此，一个物种未能改变就会灭绝。 然而，如果它*确实*改变了，它就会变成*其他东西*，这也会以它自己的方式失败。
• “自我”不断地试图理解自己的记忆（过去自我留下的印迹）。 这是一个积极的、创造性的过程。
• 记忆是高度压缩的，需要在新的环境中“重新膨胀”和解释。 良好的压缩看起来是随机的；演绎是不够的，需要创造性的解释。
• 学习需要压缩。 没有它，一个人会在细节上过度训练，缺乏泛化和抽象的能力，这对概念很重要，也有助于生存。
• 即使大脑在错误的位置（蝌蚪的眼睛在尾巴上），也存在一个强大的意义构建过程，以至于生物学是如此宽容，以至于事情“顺利”。 生物学是稳健的，因为它假定失败将是所有物质和生物系统的规则，因此不坚持一切“都将继续”的假设。

忒修斯之船，涡虫和灵活性

• “忒修斯之船”悖论（随着时间的推移更换零件）适用于自我。 不断变化（学习、成熟）意味着“你”与你过去的自我不同。
• 这种灵活性对于生物体来说是正确的，由于涡虫不是转基因的，它们不理会DNA,它们成为佼佼者。它们由于体细胞突变而积累垃圾，并将其清除（而不是正常的手段，性）。 然后硬件就不可靠了，以至于所有资源都将转移到有能力的重建中。
• 涡虫表现出极度的灵活性，突出了生物电算法（和其他因素）在再生和纠错方面超越遗传“垃圾”的作用。
• 其他动物会位于这个光谱中，从蝾螈（有能力，但不像涡虫）到哺乳动物。 秀丽隐杆线虫或果蝇可能位于极端相反的位置，它们完全是“硬连线”的。
• 讨论转移到事物的进化尺度上，通过程度来定义“自我”变得很明显：
  • 一切都处于一个连续体中，在被定义和未定义之间。 自我、智力、感性和认知。 它指的是相互作用，它具有效用：例如，当与机器或骨科医生交互时是机械的。 但是“心理治疗师和配偶在应用机械论观点时应该非常谨慎。”
• 一种应用方法是简单地应用，然后问以下问题：
  • 可以获得一些效用吗（例如细胞？）。 然后我们能否进一步应用它，并将生物医学干预用于网络分子。 粒子是否可以被认为具有认知？ 也许可以。
• “我们所说的生物世界是什么意思”：莱文说：生物世界只是具有良好*尺度*的东西。
• 托尼的综合信息，或目标以及目标如何应用。 然而，在缩放时，岩石不会有缩放效用。 没有内在世界，所以生物电是一个连续体。

思想和思想者：模糊区别

• “思想”（认知系统中的模式）和“思想者”之间的区别可能比我们想象的更不清晰。
• 存在一个连续体：转瞬即逝的思想 -> 持久侵入性思想 -> 多重人格改变 -> “成熟的”人格。 每个都代表一个具有不同程度的持久性和自我强化的模式。
• 后期阶段（“改变”和人格）可以*产生*其他思想，模糊了模式和产生它的“思想者”之间的界限。 思想不需要*物理大脑，只需要一个存在的基质，在宇宙中或人工智能中*。
• 所有这些都类似于自持电磁波（没有以太），并且在没有*大脑*的情况下*具有认知能力*。

意识与自我构建

• 参与和观察另一种意识是有成本的，在计算上来说。计算机执行计算和成本，有时不需要成本。也许这种计算可以被利用。
• 意识可能“类似于负责持续自我构建的感觉”，驱使人们重新解释可用的数据（包括自己的记忆）来选择下一步做什么。 这建立在Mark Solms的意识是“对未来不确定性的感知”的概念之上。
• 这种重新解释是一个持续的、主要是潜意识的过程，对于保持连贯的自我意识至关重要。 创伤可能导致创伤/记忆过程。
• 一个关于每天早上醒来，失忆的问题。 必须重写就像外部化的蚁群“正常”版本，只是，让他们的“指令在外面”。 然后，梦可能源于无法与过去重新巩固并创建一个连贯的集合。
• 社会世界有助于这个过程，提醒和帮助/限制自我的形成和成长，通过对主体可能成为的人给出定义。 例如：当自我消解时，由于迷幻药，事情最终会以完全不同的方式和方式出现，具有一些独特的能力和效用（或失去它们）。 演讲者说“与你的思想交谈”是治疗师提出的建议。

超越自我

• 人类既珍视一个稳定、连续的自我的想法，*也*寻求超越它的体验（药物、旅行、敬畏、宗教等）。
  • 一种可能的解释可能是进化的两种驱动力，分别是稳定性和变化/改进。 类似于人类和细胞活动中的探索/利用（例如，衰老可以代表卡在*利用*上，而“人”是相似的）
• 这可能是由于竞争驱动力：对自我保护的根深蒂固的、进化驱动的需求，与对探索和成长（避免停滞）的驱动力。 对非二元/稳定状态和爱的恐惧，是由于被困在这些硬编码状态上。 有*探索和利用*。
• 利用是“拥有更稳定的自我”，利用模式也可能导致这种停滞。
• 放松“自我”概念的优势在于对*未来的自我*更友善。 然后关心“未来的生物”。
• 关于自我连续性的问题遍布不同的类别（自我），然而，这些问题最终会因为与硬类别进行这种讨论而产生“伪问题”，应该避免并重新定向到诸如拥有一个作为“它”的内部表示有多么*有用*之类的讨论中，并强调了一个实用的观点，即可能存在不同类型组织中的其他类型的意识。
• 它可以让人们更好地理解和欣赏思想，这存在于不同的思想中。 例如，当讨论进化时，一切都有不同的形式（即身体和视角非常不同。等等……

视角、理想主义和计算机大脑

• “理想主义模型”：视角可能源于生物过程（这有“警告”，讨论说要问伯纳德进一步扩展）
• 一台计算机“是的！” 但关于类型和视角的上下文。 可重新编程性和软工作有效，冯诺依曼模型应该被废弃。 与制造有目的的东西相比，盲目的“意义”更糟糕（那么假设就会这样认为，任何事情“都”可以从这些手段中发生）。
• 因此，这可以导致： *对*其他存在的新认知模式进行道德考虑**。 Mark Z，也包括莱文，在他们各自的研究中都有自己的方法。

商业书籍和学术界？

Pollan鼓励“普通受众”，而不是过于技术化，因为受众广泛，对更具影响力/学术追求/领域的影响。