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)..