Philosophy of life science

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
miosim
miosim's picture
Philosophy of life science

I am looking for scientists or science enthusiasts who are interested in discussion of the various aspects of life phenomena (its origin, evolution, consciousness, intelligence, etc.) and who wouldn’t mind to step out of the boundaries of existing scientific paradigms.
 
For example, I am developing the concept that intelligence is a fundamental property of matter that is not recognizable in nonliving, equilibrium systems. However, if a system steers far enough from equilibrium and passes the critical point, the inevitable mistakes in the goal directed search for equilibrium push the development of this system further away from a goal in the direction of complexity and self-organization, revealing system’s intelligent abilities. However, we don’t recognize this property as intelligence; instead, we call it LIFE.

jackclj
jackclj's picture
This looks more like sementic

This looks more like sementic than science to me... You took the fact that living things can share and perceive information and called it intelligence. However I may be missing something and if this is the case, please go on and explain it to me.

miosim
miosim's picture
My concept isn't just new

My concept isn't just new semantic, but is a radical explanation of life phenomena.
If I would present the short version of my theory it would be rejected as out of sync with modern sciences. The more detailed discussion of this concept could have more sense, but would require diving into fairly complicated issues of philosophy of science, theory of intelligence, complexity and discussion of the interpretation of quantum phenomena. I have an essay (“The Simplicity of Complex Systems: The Inquiry into the Nature of Life, Mind, and Death Phenomena") that describes my concept in more details, but this is 40 page long labored reading materials. Therefore I prefer to introduce my theory in smaller steps for those who have enough interest in this subject to invest their time and attention and who has enough ‘stomach acid’ to digest this ideas.
 The Abstract below, demonstrates how ‘bizarre’ this theory is. 
In the introduction section of this essay the emergence phenomenon was analyzed and rejected as an artifact caused by hidden properties of parts that are observable only during interactions in the system; a system acts as ‘litmus test’ or a ‘magnifying glass’ that just reveals the parts’ properties not observable otherwise. This approach, named Holistic- Reductionism is proposed to lead the explanation of the complex system phenomena.

The application of this methodology leads to the inference favoring panpsychism that views mind as the fundamental property of matter. It is argued that the interpretation of the quantum events in terms of mind-like properties is superior to the orthodox quantum interpretations. The new interpretation restores realism in physics and bridges it with life sciences.
To account for the relation between higher- and lower-order minds, the Relativistic Theory of Intelligence is proposed that is inclusive for living, nonliving, and artificial systems. It is shown that systems can accumulate the intelligence from one hierarchical level to another. Based on the proposed theory of intelligence, the consciousness of a system is viewed as collective experience shared by the members of the system.

The further discussion of intelligence in conjunction with thermodynamics of non-equilibrium systems leads to the hypothesis of the emergence of life: ‘Intelligence is a fundamental property of matter that is not recognizable in nonliving, equilibrium systems. However, if a system steers far enough from equilibrium and passes the critical point, the inevitable mistakes in the search for equilibrium push the development of this system further away from a goal in the direction of complexity and self-organization, revealing system’s intelligent abilities. However, we don’t recognize this property as intelligence; instead, we call it LIFE.’

While briefly discussing the theory of biological evolution, the concept of random mutation is criticized for its failure to explain the results of computer evolution algorithms. Instead, it is proposed to marry the Darwinian theory of evolution with the theory of Intelligent Design; to accomplish this, Darwinian theory of evolution needs to divorce the mechanism of random mutation and the theory of Intelligent Design needs to divorce the external intelligence (god-like entity) and adapt internal intelligence instead.

Based on the proposed mechanism of the emergence of life, the death phenomenon is viewed as an inevitable result of the goal directed development process. Finally, the feasibility of reincarnation and the opportunity to bridge science and spiritual knowledge are briefly discussed.
 

jackclj
jackclj's picture
Indeed you have made your

Indeed you have made your point, it is bizzare.
First, this part: “In the introduction section of this essay.... properties not observable otherwise.'' is barely understandable... Anyways, are you trying to talk about the role of the observer's influence in the functionnality of the system he observes?
Oh no... not quantum physics... You've watched What the bleep do we know and you wrote an assay on that? That didn't make any sense to me. They seem to take parts of theories that we know are not totally correct and extrapolate them to make a kind of ''New''- New-age-like theory.
Maybe I'm juging a bit too quick. Why don't you send me the document so I can read it and then we can try to discuss it. Cuz for your intro to be intelligible, there are lots of concepts that you need to define, especially you non-equilibrium state. What's not at equilibrium? What drives it away? What's your threshold? Why is there a threshold? What force makes it that passed this threshold something happens?  You said:''the inevitable mistakes in the search for equilibrium push the development of this system further away from a goal in the direction of complexity and self-organization'' What's the goal, Equilibrium? Why couldn't complexity be the answer to the re-establishment of the equilibrium? If Hydrogen molecules are extremely hot, they fuse to make a more complex helium molecule, which is more stable in these conditions...
And intelligent design, if there's such a thing, you need an intelligent being, or thing, to make the design. That you call it God or not doesn't change anything. Your trying to solve a question by bringing an even bigger question.
Anyways, I'm not even sure that I am on the correct path to argue with you because there's no way of understanding what you believe in by simply reading your post. I need the whole thing... If your interested in sending it, let me know and I'll send you an e-mail adress as a private message.

miosim
miosim's picture
-This is not about “the role

-This is not about “the role of the observer's influence in the functionality of the system he observes?”
- I know nothing about  “What the bleep …”
 
You criticize the abstract of my essay (which a compressed version of highly controversial ideas) for lock of clarity. Indeed I am having problem to strike a balance between simplicity and presenting the most important conclusions. However, I hope that one who closely follows philosophy of life science would recognize the key words like emergence, reductionism, holism, emergence of life, etc. to start constructive discussion.   
If you want to immerse you self into this ‘mess’ I attached the introduction section that describes the foundation of the methodology that led me to this theory.

miosim
miosim's picture
Sorry, but for some reason I

Sorry, but for some reason I don't see attached document. I have to leave now and will try to fix this later.

miosim
miosim's picture
Aha, now I know what is wrong

Aha, now I know what is wrong with my attachment. Now it should work.

jackclj
jackclj's picture
Now I know what to do in my

Now I know what to do in my spare time at work!!

jackclj
jackclj's picture
I've just finished reading

I've just finished reading the intro! This is much easier to read than the abstract. I know though how hard  it is to write a clear abstract on a complicated subject...

I totally understand the arguments to reject emergence as I have writen counter arguments similar to yours in the margins as I was reading. I think this point is very well explained and supported. However, I still don't quite understand why reductionism does not satifies you and how holism can fill the gap (I guess these interrogations could be answered by reading more of this essay).

Just before I get back to my mice, I want to mention to other readers that might be reading this conversation that my previous reply from feb 11th was, as I feared, not on the right path and that your idea/argumentation doesn't seem as wacky as I first suspected (althought I might turn out to disagree with you). But beware... my wack-o-meter is still on!! :)

One more point, I didn't know about Cellular Automata so I've learned a new thing today! And that's exactly why I like having those conversations!

miosim
miosim's picture
jackclj

jackclj
"I still don't quite understand why reductionism does not satisfy you and how holism can fill the gap (I guess these interrogations could be answered by reading more of this essay)."
 

  
This is a very good question. Indeed, reductionism, if properly applied, is self-sufficient methodology. I just acknowledge the positive roll of Holism that opposes overreaching application of “narrow minded” reductionism (that don’t take in account parts’ “hidden” properties).
 
I think that you are ready for the next chapter that is just a sort of brainstorming. Therefore, it isn’t well explained and supported.