Re: The difference between a human and a rock

2004-04-18 Thread Hal Ruhl
At 09:15 PM 4/17/2004, you wrote:


I believe it is a mistake to concentrate only on the reductionist theory 
of the very small, and to assume that there
is nothing else interesting about systems that are larger.
I do not necessarily disagree.

 Theories of spacetime and matter's unit composition
are not the be all and end all. To explain emergent system behaviour, you 
have to have a theory whose language
is a vocabulary of various kinds of complex properties. This is because 
emergent systems, as one of their
interesting properties, do not depend on all of the properties of their 
substrate. They only depend on those properties
of the substrate which are essential to the interaction constraints that 
determine the macro behaviour of the system.
Thus, in theory, you can change the system's substrate and still have the 
same complex system, at its relevant
level of description.
I am trying to identify those components of the substrate that support 
observation.  I am currently of the opinion that these components are 
shared by all dances or alternatively there are no such components.  Either 
way observer would not be a useful label for any dance.

However, that being  said, I think, Hal, that we're on a similar 
wavelength re. fundamental info physics.
Ref. my previous everything-list posts on the subject:
Snip

I took a quick look.  My approach is to forge a system containing no net 
information that nevertheless expresses no net information in the form of a 
randomly shifting normal real.

Yours

Hal   




Re: Re:The difference between a human and a rock

2004-04-17 Thread John M
Eric,
an apology:
I just misplaced a remark to this post of yours into my response
to Eugen as a PS.
Please forgive

John Mikes
- Original Message - 
From: Eric Hawthorne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 3:03 AM
Subject: Re:The difference between a human and a rock


 How does a human differ in kind from a rock?
 
 -Well both are well modelled as being slow processes (i.e. localized 
 states and events) in spacetime.
 - A process is a particular kind of pattern of organization of some 
 subregion of spacetime.
 - We share being made of similar kinds of matter particles that stay 
 close to each other in spacetime for
 some finite time period, and some finite spatial extent.
 
 Oh, but you said how do we differ?
 
 Well, a human roganism is a sub-unit of a longer-lived species pattern 
 within an organic emergent system eco-system
 pattern.
 A rock does not appear to have that much complexity of form and 
 autopoietic function.
 
 A rock is one of those kind of local spacetime patterns or systems that 
 doesn't have much choice about how it is.
 The laws of physics, and the nature of the rock's components and the 
 thermodynamics of its vicinity are such that it
 pretty much collects into how it's going to be at some time, then is 
 physically constrained to stay just that way,
 at macro scales anyhow, for a long period of time. Of course, being a 
 big physical process pattern subject to
 the laws of thermodynamics, it is, actually, changing, and usually 
 dissipating (disorganizing), just very, very slowly.
 
 A human organism pattern is existing at a thermodynamic range 
 internally, and in a thermodynamic regime in its
 environment, that allows for more options. for how (and e.g. where) to 
 be (over short time scales.) Interestingly,
 this makes for the presence of all kinds of other similar organic 
 patterns with options, and interesting behaviours
 (like eating you for dinner, or infecting you and eating your cell 
 structure.) In other words, this thermodynamic
 regime, and the particular kinds of atoms and chemical bonds in 
 ecosystems, make for active competition for
 which should be the dominant pattern of organization of matter and 
 energy in the vicinity. i.e. You can't always
 just be a rock, because there might be a creature with a hammer wanting 
 to break you down into cement.
 Or you can't live for ever, as an organism, because something else wants 
 to re-pattern your matter and energy;
 that is, the matter and energy your pattern has competed successfully to 
 borrow for its form for a while.
 
 Clear as oozing primordial subterranean sulphur-vent mud?
 
 Ok but here's the interesting part of the story. Because there are 
 options for how to be i.e. how to hold together
 at our organic ecosystem thermodynamic regime, there is 
 pattern-competition for who is the most auto-poietic
 (i.e. what forms of matter and energy collection can hold together best, 
 at the expense of others).
 
 And it turns out that life-like ecosystem patterns, species patterns, 
 and organism patterns win out for a time,
 precisely because their main function is autopoiesis, and they 
 eventually, through natural selection, get very
 good at it.
 
 And it may turn out that the way you survive best as a pattern in 
 spacetime, assuming you have a certain
 thermodynamic range to work with, is to store inside yourself 
 INFORMATION about that which is
 outside yourself and nearby. i.e. about your environment. In otherwords, 
 pattern, if you want to live, get
 out there and start RE-PRESENTING aspects of your environment WITHIN 
 YOURSELF (in some
 partly abstract form within some aspect of your own form.)
 Eventually, if you do that, simple representation
 of your environment. Ouch that hurt. I'm going to flail the other way 
 outa here. or
 hmmm, my complex molecules like the smell and molecular fit of YOUR 
 complex molecules
  will give way to complex representation within the organism of its 
 environment, and complex action plans
 to be carried out to protect the organism (and its kin's) pattern from 
 nastier aspects of the environment.
 So we get Hmmm. I think that guy and his army is out to get me and 
 mine. I think I will pre-emptively
 strike on that other guy's country because he vaguely looks like the 
 first guy. Ok, bad example.
 or you get Hmmm. What an intelligent (accurate 
 environment-representer), capable (effective environment
 modifier and pacifier), and beautiful (pattern-form-average-conformant) 
 woman she is. I'll ask her to marry me.
 
 Or something like that.
 
 And that's the major difference between humans and rocks. Our 
 thermodynamic regime necessitates that
 we navigate options for our existence/non-existence as stable patterns 
 by representing informationally, then
 navigating and affecting, our surrounding  space, time, matter, and 
 energy forms.
 
 Eric
 
 
 Hal Ruhl wrote:
 
  Hi Stephen:
 
  

Re: The difference between a human and a rock

2004-04-17 Thread Eric Hawthorne


Hal Ruhl wrote:

I see nothing in the rest of your post that makes my believe there is 
a difference of kind between rocks and humans.


I believe it is a mistake to concentrate only on the reductionist theory 
of the very small, and to assume that there
is nothing else interesting about systems that are larger. Theories of 
spacetime and matter's unit composition
are not the be all and end all. To explain emergent system behaviour, 
you have to have a theory whose language
is a vocabulary of various kinds of complex properties. This is because 
emergent systems, as one of their
interesting properties, do not depend on all of the properties of their 
substrate. They only depend on those properties
of the substrate which are essential to the interaction constraints that 
determine the macro behaviour of the system.
Thus, in theory, you can change the system's substrate and still have 
the same complex system, at its relevant
level of description.

However, that being  said, I think, Hal, that we're on a similar 
wavelength re. fundamental info physics.
Ref. my previous everything-list posts on the subject:

Riffing on Wolfram http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4123.html
Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's? 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4174.html
Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's? 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4183.html
Constraints on everything existing 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4412.html
Re: Constraints on everything existing 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4414.html
Re: Constraints on everything existing 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4427.html
Re: Running all the programs 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4525.html
Re: 2C Mary - How minds perceive things and not things 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4534.html
Re: are we in a simulation? http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4566.html
Re: Fw: Something for Platonists 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4594.html
Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4896.html
Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4900.html
Re: Is the universe computable? 
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4950.html

Warning, my vocab in these posts is a little informal.Go for the
fundemental concepts if you can get them out of the writing.
Cheers, Eric