Stuart Kauffman (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Thursday, February 05, 2015, 00:12 (3368 days ago)
Interviewed on ESP, evolution, Free will, God, and other subjects. A confirmed atheist:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2015/02/04/scientific-seeker-stuart-kauffman-on-free-will-god-esp-and-other-mysteries/-"Horgan: Some prominent modern scientists, such as Stephen Hawking and Francis Crick, have suggested that free will is an illusion. Comment?-"Kauffman: NOT a necessary forced conclusion. Free will in our normal sense means that I could have, contrary to fact, decided and done something else, so present moment could have been different. But if quantum measurement is real and indeterminate, measurement creates electron once measured as spin up or as spin down, so present could have been different. On causal closure of classical physics, present could not have been different unless god changes initial or boundary conditions acausally. Nuts. Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics rules out above, but multiple worlds does not, von Neumann does not, Copenhagen does not, non-locality does not. I can find NO direct evidence for free will, but the quantum enigma requires it and it is possible."
Stuart Kauffman
DAVID: Interviewed on ESP, evolution, Free will, God, and other subjects. A confirmed atheist:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2015/02/04/scientific-seeker-stuart-kau...-A fascinating interview, for which many thanks. In addition to his thoughts on free will, I was very taken with the two subjects tackled here:-Horgan: I recently interviewed biologist Rupert Sheldrake. Are you sympathetic toward his call for serious scientific investigation of psychic phenomena?-Kauffman: Yes, if mind is partially quantum, nonlocality is possible so psychokinesis is possible and testable, as is telepathy. We are arrogant not to look at this with open minds, pun intended. Dean Radin claims evidence, dismissed by almost all, but psychokinesis should be testable. He claims positive evidence and non-locality is obvious candidate explanation. We will never get beyond at most epiphenomenal mind with classical physics due to its causal closure. Only quantum mechanics offers a way out at present, that I can see. See history of panpsychism back to Spinoza using 17th century concepts of matter, superseded by quantum mechanics.-Firstly, how refreshing to hear of an atheist who takes psychic phenomena seriously enough to demand an open-minded approach. Secondly, note the reference to panpsychism, which he takes up again in the next quote:- Horgan: Are science and religion compatible?-Kauffman: Maybe, in some sense, if Penrose-Hameroff Orchestrated Objective Reduction or my “Beyond the Stalemate” ideas are right, we get a wildly panpsychist participatory universe. In such a view, measurement anywhere is associated with consciousness and responsible will, and for entangled particles a coordinated version of the above, a kind of “mind of God.” but not an omnipotent, omniscient, kind God in monotheistic sense at all. I wrote Reinventing the Sacred, Basic Books 2008, in part to find a sense of God as the natural creativity of universe.-The question still remains as to the origin of awareness - whether in your monotheistic scenario or my evolution through interacting energy and matter, but clearly Kauffman takes the atheistic panpsychist hypothesis seriously. That gives some comfort to an agnostic non-scientist who until now has felt all alone while exploring this particular avenue!
Stuart Kauffman
by David Turell , Thursday, February 05, 2015, 22:12 (3367 days ago) @ dhw
Kauffman: See history of panpsychism back to Spinoza using 17th century concepts of matter, superseded by quantum mechanics.[/i] > > dhw: Firstly, how refreshing to hear of an atheist who takes psychic phenomena seriously enough to demand an open-minded approach. Secondly, note the reference to panpsychism, -I've always been sympathetic to Spinoza's ideas, as it is from his thinking that I first came up with the idea of a universal consciousness affecting everything as Kauffman expresses below: > > Horgan: Are science and religion compatible? > > Kauffman: Maybe, in some sense, if Penrose-Hameroff Orchestrated Objective Reduction or my “Beyond the Stalemate” ideas are right, we get a wildly panpsychist participatory universe. In such a view, measurement anywhere is associated with consciousness and responsible will, and for entangled particles a coordinated version of the above, a kind of “mind of God.” > > dhw: The question still remains as to the origin of awareness - whether in your monotheistic scenario or my evolution through interacting energy and matter, but clearly Kauffman takes the atheistic panpsychist hypothesis seriously.-And his interest in Rupert Sheldrake, who believes in species consciousness, fits in with this discussion. The origin of consciousness is a supreme mystery. I don't believe an inorganic universe cab self-invent consciousness.
Stuart Kauffman
DAVID: I've always been sympathetic to Spinoza's ideas, as it is from his thinking that I first came up with the idea of a universal consciousness affecting everything as Kauffman expresses below:-Horgan: Are science and religion compatible?-Kauffman: Maybe, in some sense, if Penrose-Hameroff Orchestrated Objective Reduction or my “Beyond the Stalemate” ideas are right, we get a wildly panpsychist participatory universe. In such a view, measurement anywhere is associated with consciousness and responsible will, and for entangled particles a coordinated version of the above, a kind of “mind of God.” but not an omnipotent, omniscient, kind God in monotheistic sense at all. I wrote Reinventing the Sacred, Basic Books 2008, in part to find a sense of God as the natural creativity of universe.-I have added in bold the section of the Kauffman quote that you left out, as it is the crucial difference between your concept and his.-Dhw: The question still remains as to the origin of awareness - whether in your monotheistic scenario or my evolution through interacting energy and matter, but clearly Kauffman takes the atheistic panpsychist hypothesis seriously. That gives some comfort to an agnostic non-scientist who until now has felt all alone while exploring this particular avenue! -DAVID: And his interest in Rupert Sheldrake, who believes in species consciousness, fits in with this discussion. The origin of consciousness is a supreme mystery. I don't believe an inorganic universe can self-invent consciousness. But you do believe in a disembodied consciousness that just is, and knew all about inorganic and organic bodies before they even existed. What is always surprising is your rational scepticism towards one unlikelihood set against your irrational faith in another. In the Kingdom of the Blind (I admit to being one of them), the one-eyed man is King...You and George will have to fight for the crown!
Stuart Kauffman
by David Turell , Friday, February 06, 2015, 18:41 (3366 days ago) @ dhw
Kauffman I wrote Reinventing the Sacred, Basic Books 2008, in part to find a sense of God as the natural creativity of universe[/b].[/i] > > dhw: I have added in bold the section of the Kauffman quote that you left out, as it is the crucial difference between your concept and his.-As you will note, I've just given Bbella some info about Kauffman. His 'natural creativity' is the self-organizational ability he proposes must e present to explain the universe and life. As an atheist he doesn't accept chance he can't let a 'divine foot in the door'. And that is your point also. You should enjoy his books; he is like me, all theory, no proof. But at least I'm happy with my choice.
Stuart Kauffman
Kauffman: Maybe, in some sense, if Penrose-Hameroff Orchestrated Objective Reduction or my “Beyond the Stalemate” ideas are right, we get a wildly panpsychist participatory universe. In such a view, measurement anywhere is associated with consciousness and responsible will, and for entangled particles a coordinated version of the above, a kind of “mind of God.” but not an omnipotent, omniscient, kind God in monotheistic sense at all. I wrote Reinventing the Sacred, Basic Books 2008, in part to find a sense of God as the natural creativity of universe.-dhw: I have added in bold the section of the Kauffman quote that you left out, as it is the crucial difference between your concept and his. -DAVID: As you will note, I've just given Bbella some info about Kauffman. His 'natural creativity' is the self-organizational ability he proposes must e present to explain the universe and life. As an atheist he doesn't accept chance he can't let a 'divine foot in the door'. And that is your point also. You should enjoy his books; he is like me, all theory, no proof. But at least I'm happy with my choice.-He is like all of us, because there can't be proof. That is why it is always absurd to be dogmatic about what is and isn't possible in relation to origins. I find it very reassuring that someone with his background is prepared to take seriously ideas which both theists and his fellow atheists like to dismiss, even though their own theories are riddled with uncertainties.-I know you are happy with your choice, and I would not want our discussions to cast even the slightest shadow over your happiness. I am by nature also quite a happy soul, and my choice not to choose does not impinge on my love of life. In some strange way, perhaps it is even an enhancement.
Stuart Kauffman
by David Turell , Sunday, February 08, 2015, 00:32 (3365 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I have added in bold the section of the Kauffman quote that you left out, as it is the crucial difference between your concept and his. > [/i] > > DAVID: But at least I'm happy with my choice.[/i] > > dhw: I know you are happy with your choice, and I would not want our discussions to cast even the slightest shadow over your happiness. I am by nature also quite a happy soul, and my choice not to choose does not impinge on my love of life. In some strange way, perhaps it is even an enhancement.-I find the 'fact' of our lives extraordinary. The richness of our aesthetic accomplishments gives us a life to enjoy and love. That alone indicates the gap I am fond of pointing out. Do you think silverbacks have the same view?
Stuart Kauffman
by BBella , Friday, February 06, 2015, 08:04 (3367 days ago) @ dhw
Horgan: Are science and religion compatible? > > Kauffman: Maybe, in some sense, if Penrose-Hameroff Orchestrated Objective Reduction or my “Beyond the Stalemate” ideas are right, we get a wildly panpsychist participatory universe. In such a view, measurement anywhere is associated with consciousness and responsible will, and for entangled particles a coordinated version of the above, a kind of “mind of God.” but not an omnipotent, omniscient, kind God in monotheistic sense at all. I wrote Reinventing the Sacred, Basic Books 2008, in part to find a sense of God as the natural creativity of universe. > -Thanks, dhw, for pulling out this quote. I may order his book (Reinventing the Sacred) in hopes to find time to read it. The "participatory universe" he speaks of, I believe, is along the path of ideas I've been hoping some of the discussions here will eventually lead to.
Stuart Kauffman
by David Turell , Friday, February 06, 2015, 18:29 (3366 days ago) @ BBella
> > Bbella: Thanks, dhw, for pulling out this quote. I may order his book (Reinventing the Sacred) in hopes to find time to read it. The "participatory universe" he speaks of, I believe, is along the path of ideas I've been hoping some of the discussions here will eventually lead to.-I've read Kauffman's book, At Home in the Universe,, 1995, and quoted him extensively in my book, Science vs. Religion, 2004. He is extremely widely educated with an M.D. to start with. He does not think an RNA world can create life and evolution and insists the universe and life must be self-organizing. He points to theoretical 'auto-catalytic sets' as a possibility for this self-organization and did a great deal of work in computers to prove the point. The problem he has, as I see it, is in any computerized evolutionary program, a human being has to insert information so the program can evolve. In our evolution we still don't know scientifically where the underlying genomic information came from. It can't just invent itself. I'm not surprised at his evolution to wondering about panpsychism since he insists that an organizing principal or an organizer is required. He is with me. He doesn't accept chance.
Stuart Kauffman: evolutionary program information
by David Turell , Friday, February 06, 2015, 20:39 (3366 days ago) @ David Turell
An article on the subject of the need for information:-"According to conservation of information theorems, performance of an arbitrarily chosen search, on average, does no better than blind search. Domain expertise and prior knowledge about search space structure or target location is therefore essential in crafting the search algorithm. The effectiveness of a given algorithm can be measured by the active information introduced to the search. We illustrate this by identifying sources of active information in Avida, a software program designed to search for logic functions using nand gates. Avida uses stair step active information by rewarding logic functions using a smaller number of nands to construct functions requiring more. Removing stair steps deteriorates Avida's performance while removing deleterious instructions improves it. Some search algorithms use prior knowledge better than others. For the Avida digital organism, a simple evolutionary strategy generates the Avida target in far fewer instructions using only the prior knowledge available to Avida."-http://evoinfo.org/publications/evolutionary-synthesis-of-nand-logic-avida/-"III. CONCLUSIONS A. Active Information The Avida program uses numerous sources of active information to guide its performance to successful discovery of the EQU logic function. The sources include the following. • Stair step active information. In the initial description of Avida, the authors write [16] “Some readers might suggest that we stacked the deck by studying the evolution of a complex feature that could be built on simpler functions that were also useful.” This, indeed, is what the writers of Avida software do when using stair step active information. The importance of stair step active information is evident from the inability to generate a single EQU in Avida without using it [16]. • Active information from Avida's initialization. The initialization in Avida recognizes the essential role of the nop-C instruction in finding the EQU. Initializing using all nonessential nop-A or nop-B instructions results in the a decrease in NAIPI in Avida. • Mutation, fitness, and choosing the fittest of a number of mutated offspring [5] are additional sources of active information in Avida we have not explored in this paper.