>>I agree that quantum systems also have semantic closure. But the
>>difference is that their semantics is NOT COMMUNICATED because
>>they are unable to reproduce (except nuclear chain reactions).
>
>So then non-locality counts for communication in space but not in time. Can
>this be the basis for awarenes of the "now" -- or "experience" as we've
>been discussing it?
These is a difficult question! My understanding is that we
(humans) can model communication of other systems in space and/or time,
but these systems create their own space/time BECAUSE of communication.
A hydrogen atom has a circular time (changing phase of an electron),
which is also internal space. Space and time become differentiated in
those systems that can change the rate of their processes. These
systems distinguish between their state (=space) and age (=time).
Apparently, "awareness" and "experience" are applicable only to these
systems. But may be you try to define "awareness" and "experience" in
a very broad sense, including entirely passive existence (e.g., of a
hydrogen atom)?
>Let me try to clarify my idea from the paper. "Autevolution" DOES involve
>the normal "modern synthesis" idea of biological evolution, which provides
>"communication." But it also claims that, in addition, what we might
>describe here as "the ability to produce semantic closure," meaning some
>form of awareness/experience or semantic ontology, must also have evolved
>along with form. If quantum phenomena can be identified as a valid semantic
>ontology (we keep changing the words, but I think you know what I mean here
>-- its the "whatever it is" that adds the necessary meaning to collapse the
>wave function, make a decision, create a physical state, achieve semantic
>closure, etc.), then it seems reasonable to suggest that mechanical
>biological evolution has managed to amplify this phenomena into what we
>experience as "self," free-will or awareness & choice (the "special
>theory").
I am very suspicious to any attempts to explain life or free will
(Penrose) on the basis of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is just
one of possible models of the world that seems satisfactory.
Quantum mechanics is interpreted using probabilities, but do
probabilities exist in nature? If we deny probabilities, the whole
building of quantum mechanics would crash. Quantum mechanics is simply
a way to describe contingency, but it is not the only possible model
for contingency. Ecologists often use "environmental noise" in their
models, which is a legetimate way to account for contigency. There is
no need to reduce it to quantum mechanics or to deterministic chaos.
People seem to be scared of the onthological status of contigency and
try to use some magic word (I mean "quantum mechanics") to tame it.
My major point here is that physics does not replace philosophy, it
can only help to understand philosophy.
>The paper began by considering where a more organismic concept of
>Gaia MIGHT be legetimately found (trying to rescue it from pure metaphore)
>and decided on quantum phenomena as the obvious candidate (because it is a
>valid existing theory structure). But it did not conclude that Gaia (or the
>ecosystem) was in fact an organism. Rather my conclusion was that "life
>itself" as Rosen puts it (I had not read Rosen) may indeed be responsible
>for those spiritual qualities some people attribute to Gaia, but that they
>REQUIRE a biologial structure capable of the magnification process
>(otherwise those qualities are as interesting as quantum popcorn).
some metaphors are more deep and more useful than others. I agree that
"magnification" is very important. It is important for integrating
multi-level hierarchical organizations (Pattee). But I don't see any
need for quantum mechanics. It is much easier to use "environmental
noise".
>Ecosystems have no such known structure, but organisms perhaps do. I left
>the question of Gaia with the thought that perhaps there are some
>intelligent system-level phenomena that result through complex interactions
>of organisms (a possible "general theory," which was left unexplored). The
>result is pretty much what we've written in the past several messages --
>that semantic closure seems most probable at the organismic level and not
>at the ecosystem level, but that ecosystems derive their self-organizing
>properties from the properties of organisms. Gaia, then, would do likewise,
>but would then only metaphorically fit Lovelock's original idea of a global
>organism.
Ok, I agree with this.
>In simpler words, free will can alter
>selective forces and thus decisions can reproduce themselves through this
>means and become "registered" in future forms, altering evolutionary
>pathways.
I like what you say here! Many biologists erroneously view selection
as a passive seive (Gould, Dawkins). They talk about fitness landscapes
as if an organism has no control of it. I like saying that death is
optional because there are numerous ways to live.
>We've mostly been discussing semantic
>closure in current time, which is ecological time. Semantic feedback
>(between form and function) through time (via generations) seems likely in
>evolution. That would produce semantic pathways which would affect
>phylogeny, getting very close to a causally effective end-directed process,
>or teleology. This is a very different conclusion than many evolutionary
>biologists believe (e.g., SJ Gould's "Full House").
I agree!
>At the other extreme, quantum phenomena, as you say, do not necessarily
>"communicate" to future generations without some other macroscopic process.
>But we also cannot get rid of it when we have mechanical evolution> So once
>quantum phenenomena are carried along with biological reproductive
>evolution, it seems that a means for communication of quantum phenomena to
>future generations exists. Without this form of communication, however, is
>seems reasonable to say that states are "communicated" only by their
>non-local effects, which I assume is thermodynamically limited as you say.
>But it is this non-local phenomena (communication in space) that I suggest
>is being magnified by biological evolution (communication in time). Is this
>consistent with what you are saying, or do I not understand what you mean
>by communication?
I am not sure I understand everything in this paragraph. What do you mean
by "mechanical evolution"? I agree that communication in space should be
accompanied by communication in time. Communication in space is like
transition of a seed of a form to new matter. But then there should be
a life-cycle by which the form becomes fully developed in new matter
(magnification or interpretation).
-Alexei
-------------------------------------------------
Alexei Sharov Research Scientist
Dept. of Entomology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Tel. (540) 231-7316; FAX (540) 231-9131; e-mail sharov@vt.edu
Home page: http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/alexei.html