Sean, I will sidestep your points about ORP for a moment to mention that when I re-read this by Shapiro (as cited above) I begin to see some cracks:

One of the main realizations emerging from contemporary cell and developmental biology is that essentially all cellular functions are regulated by interactive ‘signal transduction’ networks composed of information transfer molecules, such as G proteins, protein kinases, second messengers and transcription factors. In effect, these signal transduction networks are now seen to be cellular computation systems allowing cells to evaluate multiple internal and external inputs in order to make appropriate decisions.

Too much is predicated on the assumption that cellular computers are making all the decisions.

Personally, I don’t think developmental biologists have their priorities straight. They are looking for decision makers in molecules produced by genes. Why couldn’t you say that the genes are producing these molecules as sensors and using them as automated decision makers to advance their own well being? I wonder what Dawkins will say about this.

--Croak

Although I don't imagine anyone will care, for the record "the singularity" is I believe quite a long way off.

After more than a century of neuroscience, we have now only a rudimentary understanding of the brain, and virtually no understanding of how consciousness (especially the higher functions of consciousness like synthesis, creativity, empathy, and intuition) works.

Processing power is one thing, but a computer or robot that can do albegra a bazillion times faster than human beings does not a self-conscious, artificial intelligence make, and until we can do more than show which part of the human brain lights up while doing which activity and be able to tell which neurotransmitters are responsible for which affect, we're still pretty much in the stone age.

Originally Posted by Milo

Although I don't imagine anyone will care, for the record "the singularity" is I believe quite a long way off.

After more than a century of neuroscience, we have now only a rudimentary understanding of the brain, and virtually no understanding of how consciousness (especially the higher functions of consciousness like synthesis, creativity, empathy, and intuition) works.

Processing power is one thing, but a computer or robot that can do albegra a bazillion times faster than human beings does not a self-conscious, artificial intelligence make, and until we can do more than show which part of the human brain lights up while doing which activity and be able to tell which neurotransmitters are responsible for which affect, we're still pretty much in the stone age.

Agreed.

And also, what I think is really happening is that our relationship to technology is changing drastically. However, if you understand the changes that are occurring, then I don't think that technological advance is out of the reach of human comprehension. Besides, I doubt that science is harder, or that technology is really more complex today than it was, say, 100 years ago. What I think is that people don't understand today's technology, and don't seem to care to. But the DIY revolution in science and technology is increasingly making this singularity talk look more ridiculous.

But there are astrologers, who will go unmentioned for the moment, who think more of "The Mars Effect" than they do of the Singularity. And, in the light of this, I really don't know why ".... this singularity talk [should] look more ridiculous."

I think you guys grew up with computers, causing you to value only the local effects. I was 30 when I entered computers at the CDC-6400 level (1969). Now, just 36 years later, we have seen unimaginable progress. For example, no sailor in 1969 had enough imagination to predict the GPS. (But I will admit that Dick Tracy anticipated the two-way wrist radio in the 1940s.) You should have been around when the first HP pocket calculator came on the scene, around 1972 or so. I took my last exam in engineering at the University of Washington with a slide rule in 1971, so the effect on me was duely amplified. The pocket calculator, all by itself, was revolutionary.

The Singularity is just another name for a morphing virtual reality that will become the focus of just about everything. The reason for this is the promise of a technological afterlife in some virtual domain. Electromagnetic immortality will become a hot item. Bill Gates already knows about this, and he works late in his basement every night on what he is secretly calling "...the best thing since MS-DOS."

Assisted living for the elderly is already a burgeoning business. Look at all the fancy new rest homes homes for those crabby old farts and wrinkled up prunes. Oh, and please tell me why they would turn down a chance to live forever, albiet not biologically, but virtually to remain in the hearts, minds, and computers of their loved ones.

The Singularity will come. But it still needs some work in the AI department. Bill's on top of that one, too. I feel more sure about the Singularity than I do about Hillary's troubles with Uranus.

--Croak

Dear Richard,

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I've moved to a
new address and my life has been total chaos, and I'm just now
getting to my e-mail backlog.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> On most of your other issues, I'm not quite sure how to respond.
> What seems to me to be most important thing is to understand how
> evolutionary mainliners attempt to explain it, and maybe why Gould
> and Dawkins agree on this and disagree on that.

We certainly do see this issue in fundamentally different ways. As a
point of reference, I did in fact buy Gould's Structure of
Evolutionary Theory three years ago when it first came out, and
despite what the gnat says, I did in fact read much of the book, and
even understood a substantial percentage of what I read. I don't
talk about this because my teaspoonful of knowledge about the science
and theory of evolution isn't worth mentioning, compared to your
ocean's worth. I looked through your paper on "transposable
elements," and my reaction is that it contains far more information
than I'd ever want to know about the tiny details of evolution.

So I have a two-part argument that uses mathematics to avoid the
details of evolution. This is just a rehash of those two arguments
that I've posted before.

*** Argument #1: Why is evolution possible?

As I've said before, I think of the earth as a laboratory where
"Nature" can conduct billions and trillions of "experiments."

The thing that confounds people who believe evolution is impossible
has to do with probability issues.

Here's the way you put it: "Kauffman is not an evolutionary
biologist, and his POV is what I would call "romantic." If it were
true we'd be pumping out all sorts of critters in our evolutionary
laboratories. I'm still waiting for the first such critter."

Let's take a simple example. Suppose that in the primordal soup,
eight amino acids had to come together in exactly the right way to
form "life." Suppose that the probability of that happening is
10^-15.

Now that's the problem, and that's why you don't have critters coming
out of evolutionary laboratories. The probability of that happening
in the lab is so low, that it's impossible. (Remember I said the
same thing about the 1000 coin flips.)

So how could such a low probability be overcome? Well, if "Nature"
could conduct 10^20 amino-acid-combining experiments over a period of
a million years, then the probability issues are turned upside down.
The probability of the right combination of amino acids combining in
the 10^20 trials is very close to 1. What was impossible before has
now become a certainty.

Now, I don't care how evolution occurs, or whether ORP is soft or
hard, or whether elements are transposable or non-transposable.

All I need to know about evolution is that it proceeds in a series of
steps, each of which has a low probability but can be accomplished by
a series of billions and trillions of "Nature's experiments," so that
in enough time, the probability that each evolutionary step will be
taken has a near-certain probability.

Now, that's my argument. It makes no difference to me whether we
understand how evolution works from a biological and chemical point
of view. All I have to know is that the assumption I stated in the
previous paragraph is true, and then evolutionary development of
"critters" is not only not impossible, but is actually a certainty
(by the "Law of Large Numbers" in Probability Theory).

It makes no difference whether each evolutionary step proceeds by
method A or method B. You keep saying that you have to know whether
A or B is how it was done before it's possible to conclude that
evolution is possible, but mathematically it's not necessary to know.
All you have to know the above assumption applies to BOTH methods A
and B, and then you can prove mathematically that evolution must
occur, even if you don't know which method was used.

(This is similar to a philosophical issue that comes up in
Mathematical Logic. You want to prove statement X. First, you prove
that A implies X -- that is, if A is true, then X must be true.
Second you prove that ~A implies X -- that is if A is false, then X
must be true. Then you apply the "Law of the Excluded Middle" --
that either A must be true or A must be false. Then you can conclude
that X must be true, even though you don't know whether A is true or
false. Some philosophers refuse to assume to Law of the Excluded
Middle, and claim that you can't claim that X has been proven until
you either prove A or prove ~A.)

Now it may be that you can't accept the theory of evolution until you
know how every detail works. That's the way your mind works. But
that's not necessary for me. I'm perfectly satisfied to accept
evolution based on the probabilistic argument above.

*** Argument #2: Intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

The second argument is different, though similar in spirit to the
preceding one.

In this case, I want to conclude that since intelligent life exists
on earth, then it must exist elsewhere.

In a sense I've already done that by Argument #1, since I've shown
that (based on the stated assumption), evolution is possible, and
therefore MUST occur in time. Therefore, it must also occur on other
planets.

But let's forget that. Let's not assume that evolution worked on
earth.

Just pick your favorite method for how intelligent life came to
appear on earth -- evolution, creation by God, spores from a distant
planet, or whatever you like.

Then it's most reasonable to assume that the same thing happened
elsewhere in the universe. If life evolved on earth, then life
evolved on other planets. If God created life on earth, then God
created life on other planets. If distant aliens sent spores to
earth, then they sent them to other planets as well.

This doesn't prove that life exists elsewhere, but it shows that
since life exists on earth, it must be POSSIBLE on other planets.
And if it's possible on other planets, then it's possible on many,
many other planets.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> On that one, I think the absence of evidence gathered by the SETI
> project speaks loudly in favor of a largely ignorant universe.

This conclusion cannot be reached by any stretch of the imagination.

One of the major assumptions of the SETI project is that some
far-away planet with intelligent beings will detect life on earth, and
will project radio waves at earth so that we'll know they're there.

The thought is that if there's intelligent life on billions and
trillions of planets, then the beings on one of them will undertake
that mission.

There's also an unstated assumption that if there are billions and
trillions of planets with intelligent life, then they'll all be
acting in their own individual ways, and out of the billions and
trillions of them, one of them would take a fancy to us.

But I show in Chapter 7 of my new book, Generational Dynamics for
Historians, which can be read for free on my web site, that all
planets with intelligent life are probably going to involve in
exactly the same way, following exactly the same generational
paradigm as on earth, developing technology exactly as on earth,
reaching The Singularity exactly as on earth, and then reach a limit
point (Singularity #2) which is identical on all planets with
intelligent life.

This would imply that there's no substantial difference between the
various planets with intelligent life, and so if one beams radio
signals then they'd all be beaming radio signals. So it's perfectly
possible that NONE of them have beamed radio signals to anyone, so
the SETI project wouldn't detect intelligent life, even if it existed
on billions and trillions of other planets.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
john@GenerationalDynamics.com
http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Hi John. Hope you are enjoying your new digs.

Our discussion about the inevitability of life and intelligence is interesting and relevant. And yes, we are very far apart on these issues. I’ll try again to differentiate our POVs.

Suppose you and I are walking down the street and we come up to a pink house. Standing before it, you say to me: “Richard, there’s a pink house on that lot, and you can’t deny it.”

And I say to you: John, all I see is a house with a pink front. Maybe it’s brown on the other three sides. How do you know it’s not a brown house with a pink front?”

And you say to me: “Doesn’t matter, Richard. We can assume that it’s pink on the other three sides, just because the front is pink.”

Well, as it turns out, we have a problem inspecting the other three sides of this house; it is fenced off and has too many trees and shrubbery all around to see them. So I say: “John, you can’t tell if the other three sides are white or black or pink or blue.”

And you say to me: “Don’t worry about that shrubbery, Richard. And the fence doesn’t matter either. Trust what you see prima fascia.”

And I say: “John, show me one tiny chip of evidence that the house is painted pink all around, and I’ll go along with your grand assumption that intelligence is everywhere just because it’s here."

What I find so daunting about this assumption is that no one, no one, has seen beyond that shrubbery or broken through that fence. In and of itself, this fact stands monstrously in the way of any assumption about the ubiquity of intelligence, let alone that of life itself.

From my POV, I cannot let go of my utter amazement that biologists do not really know what life is or where it came from, only that it reproduces in an evolutionary way. This paucity of knowledge is painful to my imagination. I expect biologists to know enough about life to make it from scratch in their laboratories. I want see Miller’s version of Darwin’s “warm pond.” I want to see the results of the experiment that reproduces even vaguely what went on that primordial puddle. But who’s got that kind of data? Those who hold onto your POV don’t seem to care about this trivial stuff. (John, I’ll respond in greater detail to your long post when I can.)

--Croak

Dear Richard,

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> Our discussion about the inevitability of life and intelligence is
> interesting and relevant. And yes, we are very far apart on these
> issues. I’ll try again to differentiate our POVs.

> Suppose you and I are walking down the street and we come up to a
> pink house. Standing before it, you say to me: “Richard, there’s a
> pink house on that lot, and you can’t deny it.”

> And I say to you: John, all I see is a house with a pink front.
> Maybe it’s brown on the other three sides. How do you know it’s
> not a brown house with a pink front?”

> And you say to me: “Doesn’t matter, Richard. We can assume that
> it’s pink on the other three sides, just because the front is
> pink.”

> ...

> What I find so daunting about this assumption is that no one, no
> one, has seen beyond that shrubbery or broken through that fence.
> In and of itself, this fact stands monstrously in the way of any
> assumption about the ubiquity of intelligence, let alone that of
> life itself.

> From my POV, I cannot let go of my utter amazement that biologists
> do not really know what life is or where it came from, only that
> it reproduces in an evolutionary way. This paucity of knowledge is
> painful to my imagination. I expect biologists to know enough
> about life to make it from scratch in their laboratories. I want
> see Miller’s version of Darwin’s “warm pond.” I want to see the
> results of the experiment that reproduces even vaguely what went
> on that primordial puddle. But who’s got that kind of data? Those
> who hold onto your POV don’t seem to care about this trivial
> stuff. (John, I’ll respond in greater detail to your long post
> when I can.)

That was a really neat example, Richard, and it does apply to a
portion of my argument #2: If God created life on earth, there's no
way to conclude that God created life on other planes.

But the problem is that you've been trying to make the argument there
CAN'T be life on other planets in the universe, and your pink house
example doesn't support that argument. It's like saying, "The other
three sides CAN'T be pink." But if the front of the house is pink,
then you can't conclude that the other three sides aren't pink; if
the house was built under normal circumstances, with a woman calling
the shots, then chances are that the other three sides are all pink.

Similarly, if intelligent life exists on earth, then you're right
that there's no way to conclude that it exists on other planets; but
neither can you conclude that there's NO life on other planets. And
it's not unreasonable to conclude that the same process that led to
intelligent life on earth PROBABLY led to intelligent life on other
planets.

-------

But my argument #1 was much more powerful. Let me change your pink
house analogy to another analogy.

Suppose a huge tsunami hits a beach where 1000 people had been
sunbathing, and suppose you learn that Jack Jones drowned on the
beach. What can we conclude about the other 999 people?

In your pink house analogy, you said that one pink side doesn't mean
that there are other pink sides. And you're right.

But in the tsunami example, the probabilities go in the other
direction. If it was a big tsunami, and you know that one person
died, then you can be quite certain that other people died.

In my argument #1, I essentially proved that if evolution CAN happen
then it MUST happen. Since it happened on earth then it CAN happen.
Therefore it MUST have happened on similar planets.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> From my POV, I cannot let go of my utter amazement that biologists
> do not really know what life is or where it came from, only that
> it reproduces in an evolutionary way. This paucity of knowledge is
> painful to my imagination. I expect biologists to know enough
> about life to make it from scratch in their laboratories. I want
> see Miller’s version of Darwin’s “warm pond.” I want to see the
> results of the experiment that reproduces even vaguely what went
> on that primordial puddle. But who’s got that kind of data? Those
> who hold onto your POV don’t seem to care about this trivial
> stuff.

I think you know, Richard, that you're setting impossible conditions.
If scientists followed your philosophy, then then they could never
conclude anything. Galileo couldn't have concluded that the sun was
the center of the solar system, because he didn't know how gravity
works or how calculus works. Edison couldn't have invented the light
bulb, because he didn't understand how electrons flow through wires.

Furthermore you also know that biologists can't make life from
scratch in their laboratories because, in the sample computation I
gave, it would take 10^20 experiments, and no scientist has time to
perform 100 quintillion experiments.

But you already know that, Richard. There's some visceral issue
going on here that you don't want to talk about. But just go with it
anyway. You're entitled to your feelings and conclusions.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
john@GenerationalDynamics.com
http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

John, you’re a worthy debater on this issue of biological ubiquity. And I’m still miles away from agreeing with your POV, but I do have suspicions about my own POV. This may be my “visceral issue.”

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

So I have a two-part argument that uses mathematics to avoid the
details of evolution. This is just a rehash of those two arguments
that I've posted before.

You say, essentially, in Argument #1, that life must be everywhere just because is here; and in Argument #2 you say intelligence must be everywhere just because it’s here. Furthermore, you base your arguments on “mathematics”:

First, I’ll point out to you that probability and statistics should not be confused with mathematics. Although they look alike, a mathematical equation and a statistical calculation are two different things. They are built on different principles. One proves, the other samples. Mathematics is a system of rigorously derived proofs of numerical axioms, more or less, while probability and statistics is a system of numerical ratios that relate to estimates of central tendency. Nevertheless, I agree that both are useful ways of reasoning, although I’m still doubtful about Monad’s chance and necessity when it comes to biogenesis and cognition.

John, I don’t see how chance alone adds up to ubiquity, simply because we don't know anything about what is supposed to happen during biogenesis. Even Paul Davies says of biogenesis in “The Fifth Miracle” (1999, p. 260):”

…I assumed it was a case of “Darwinism all the way down.” Impressed by the laboratory work on the fabrication of replicator molecules, and the apparent ease with which simple organic blocks can form, I found it plausible that chance alone could produce a small replicator molecule rather quickly. After that, molecular evolution would take over, driving the system steadily toward cellular life. Having studied the many variants of that theory on offer, I am now much more skeptical. It seems to me very unlikely that all that is necessary is for the right chemical reaction or the right molecule to turn up. Real progress with the mystery of biogenesis will be made, I believe, not through exotic chemistry, but with something conceptually new.

But you insist that chance alone will produce ubiquity of life and intelligence. I, like Davies, have to ask: Is it Darwinian all the way down? Maybe this is my “visceral issue.”

Now, back to your Argument #1:

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

In my argument #1, I essentially proved that if evolution CAN happen
then it MUST happen. Since it happened on earth then it CAN happen.
Therefore it MUST have happened on similar planets.

The state of the art of biology today is roughly where the state of the art of human anatomy was before Vesalius, or the state of the art of blood circulation was before Harvey. Phlogiston, humors, and all, the metaphors hold true for biogenesis. It is a sad state of affairs.

But here’s one idea I happen to be drawn to that, I must admit, supports your assumption of bio-ubiquity (see Davies, 1999, p. 242):

For the past twenty years, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, in the face of much skepticism, have been pushing the theory that comets contain living organisms. They offer support for their idea through an analysis of medical records, and claim that the passage of comets is correlated with the outbreak of diseases. They suggest that various pandemics, such as the great Justinian plague of A.D. 540, in which possibly a hundred million people died, are actually of extraterrestrial origin. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe do not suppose that life in space is restricted to comets. They back Arrhenius’ original proposal that individual microbes can float unprotected around the galaxy. Pointing to the fact that many interstellar grains are about the size of bacteria, they argue that substantial quantities of material in interstellar space are actually of biological origin. As evidence of this audacious theory, they cite the fact that the infrared spectrum of dry E. coli looks uncannily close to that of interstellar dust.

So maybe that gets us ubiquitous life, but it does nothing to explain biogenesis. To me, it is silly and romantic to believe, as Kauffman does, that biogenesis is occurring in warm ponds everywhere…over and over again…just because they’re there. But is the evolution of intelligence quarantined on the basis of good statistics? Nah, I don’t think so. Now, in my senescing years, I worry that it’s not "Darwinian all the way down," and maybe not even all the up, either. Ye Gods!

Oh, and one more thing about that SETI project. Are you as impressed as I am that SETI has not produced one single murmur of intelligence from all the vast cosmos it has so expensively surveyed? Gives me a lonely feeling. How about you?

--Croak

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Oh, and one more thing about that SETI project. Are you as impressed as I am that SETI has not produced one single murmur of intelligence from all the vast cosmos it has so expensively surveyed? Gives me a lonely feeling. How about you?

--Croak

Upon reading the above, I'm reminded of another line from the 'Babylon 5' based book I've been rereading, titled 'Dark Genesis: The Birth of the Psi Corps'. Earth Alliance Senator Lee Crawford, from the former United States, is speaking. The year is 2115.

Originally Posted by J. Gregory Keyes

"With the technology available in the last hundred years, we couldn't even find one of our own space probes without knowing exactly where it is, much less intelligent life among a trillion trillion worlds."

The above quoted line is on page 5 of the book. :wink:

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Oh, and one more thing about that SETI project. Are you as impressed as I am that SETI has not produced one single murmur of intelligence from all the vast cosmos it has so expensively surveyed? Gives me a lonely feeling. How about you?

--Croak

Upon reading the above, I'm reminded of another line from the 'Babylon 5' based book I've been rereading, titled 'Dark Genesis: The Birth of the Psi Corps'. Earth Alliance Senator Lee Crawford, from the former United States, is speaking. The year is 2115.

Originally Posted by J. Gregory Keyes

"With the technology available in the last hundred years, we couldn't even find one of our own space probes without knowing exactly where it is, much less intelligent life among a trillion trillion worlds."

The above quoted line is on page 5 of the book. :wink:

Oh, I like that one, Sabinus!

Dear Richard,

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> You say, essentially, in Argument #1, that life must be everywhere
> just because is here; and in Argument #2 you say intelligence must
> be everywhere just because it’s here. Furthermore, you base your
> arguments on “mathematics”:

> First, I’ll point out to you that probability and statistics
> should not be confused with mathematics. Although they look alike,
> a mathematical equation and a statistical calculation are two
> different things. They are built on different principles. One
> proves, the other samples. Mathematics is a system of rigorously
> derived proofs of numerical axioms, more or less, while
> probability and statistics is a system of numerical ratios that
> relate to estimates of central tendency. Nevertheless, I agree
> that both are useful ways of reasoning, although I’m still
> doubtful about Monad’s chance and necessity when it comes to
> biogenesis and cognition.

Well, probability and statistics are both valid branches of
mathematics. However, politicians and pundits tend to use them in
invalid ways to reach phony conclusions that match their ideology. I
assure you that I haven't done that.

I made a valid probabilistic argument, but as I said at the time, my
conclusion was based on an assumption: "All I need to know about
evolution is that it proceeds in a series of steps, each of which has
a low probability but can be accomplished by a series of billions and
trillions of "Nature's experiments," so that in enough time, the
probability that each evolutionary step will be taken has a
near-certain probability."

So if you want to attack my argument, the way to do it is to attack
my assumption, not call probability a phony branch of mathematics.

With your knowledge of the theory of evolution, I assume that you
should be able to find something to attack. In your mind, go through
all the individual steps required for life to evolve on earth, or at
least all the different methods by which those steps occur. Find a
step or a method that's so improbable that it can't possibly occur,
even by means of millions or billions of "experiments" by Nature.
The chain of evolution is as weak as its weakest link, and if just
one step is impossible, or too improbable, and can't be bypassed by
a different sequence of steps, then the whole argument falls apart.

Actually, there's one more assumption that's implied: That the
results of a successful step are "sticky." It does no good for a new
something to evolve if that new something immediately disappears --
but I believe that "survival of the fittest" covers that.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> Oh, and one more thing about that SETI project. Are you as
> impressed as I am that SETI has not produced one single murmur of
> intelligence from all the vast cosmos it has so expensively
> surveyed? Gives me a lonely feeling. How about you?

For reasons that I've already explained, I don't believe that the
SETI project could find life, even if it existed.

The easiest way to see that is just to turn the situation around.
Suppose there's a SETI project on some other planet somewhere. How
would we make them aware of us? First we'd have to find them, and we
have no way of doing that. Then we'd have to project radio waves at
them, and I doubt that we could transmit waves with another strength
to reach a planet that far away. So that's two good reasons why we
couldn't let a SETI project on another planet know we're here, so
there's no reason to believe that someone on another planet would
ever be able to let us know about them.

So even if there were life on 10^10^10 planets in the universe, I
don't see how the SETI project would ever hear from any of them.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
john@GenerationalDynamics.com
http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Richard,

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> You say, essentially, in Argument #1, that life must be everywhere
> just because is here; and in Argument #2 you say intelligence must
> be everywhere just because it’s here. Furthermore, you base your
> arguments on “mathematics”:

> First, I’ll point out to you that probability and statistics
> should not be confused with mathematics. Although they look alike,
> a mathematical equation and a statistical calculation are two
> different things. They are built on different principles. One
> proves, the other samples. Mathematics is a system of rigorously
> derived proofs of numerical axioms, more or less, while
> probability and statistics is a system of numerical ratios that
> relate to estimates of central tendency. Nevertheless, I agree
> that both are useful ways of reasoning, although I’m still
> doubtful about Monad’s chance and necessity when it comes to
> biogenesis and cognition.

Well, probability and statistics are both valid branches of
mathematics. However, politicians and pundits tend to use them in
invalid ways to reach phony conclusions that match their ideology. I
assure you that I haven't done that.

I made a valid probabilistic argument, but as I said at the time, my
conclusion was based on an assumption: "All I need to know about
evolution is that it proceeds in a series of steps, each of which has
a low probability but can be accomplished by a series of billions and
trillions of "Nature's experiments," so that in enough time, the
probability that each evolutionary step will be taken has a
near-certain probability."

So if you want to attack my argument, the way to do it is to attack
my assumption, not call probability a phony branch of mathematics.

John, I have two comments – one trivial and one not so trivial.

The trivial one is that you are confusing probability theory and statistical methodology with mathematics. The distinction is important. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what four credible scientists have said about this distinction:

“It is not meaningful to ask the question, ‘What is the probability that a particular set of fitted parameters a-1…a-m [insert your own parameters of life] is correct?’ The reason is that there is no statistical universe of models from which the parameters are drawn. There is just one model, the correct one, and a statistical universe of data sets that are drawn from it! In other words, we identify the probability of the data given the parameters (which is a mathematically computable number), as the likelihood of the parameters given the data. This identification is entirely based on intuition. It has no formal mathematical basis in and of itself; as we already remarked, statistics is not a branch of mathematics.” (W. H. Press, Harvard astrophysicist; B. P. Flannery, EXXON engineer; S. A. Teukolsky, Cornell physicist, and W. T. Vetterling, Polaroid mathematician; Numerical Recipes/The Art of Scientific Computing, 1986, p. 500).

Thus G. H. Hardy's famous Cambridge Toast: “Here's to pure mathematics! May she never be of any use to anybody.”

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

With your knowledge of the theory of evolution, I assume that you should be able to find something to attack. In your mind, go through all the individual steps required for life to evolve on earth, or at least all the different methods by which those steps occur. Find astep or a method that's so improbable that it can't possibly occur,
even by means of millions or billions of "experiments" by Nature.
The chain of evolution is as weak as its weakest link, and if just
one step is impossible, or too improbable, and can't be bypassed by
a different sequence of steps, then the whole argument falls apart.

Now, on to your romantic notions of statistical biogenesis and coin tossing. For biogenesis (let alone cognition), you have an insurmountable sampling problem. Statistical methods are nevertheless employed, sometimes even to build a creationist’s argument:

The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies.

At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modeling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.

However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying, not coin flipping.

Wow, I feel so lucky that three billion years ago bluegreen algae pumped oxygen into our atmosphere (nevermind all the lucky "steps" in between). Otherwise we’d all be suffocating. Too many coin tosses in a mere three billion years is required to evolve to the point that we are actually talking about it. I am unimpressed with the use of probability theory here; biogenesis, so far as we know, did not come out of a statistical universe.

All we got is only one planet with only one kind of life -- DNA/RNA life. This creates an nasty sampling problem.

--Croak

Dear Richard,

"The most important questions of life are, for the most part,
really only problems of probability.--Pierre Simon Laplace

I spent several years as a Ph.D. math major at MIT. I never
completed my Ph.D. thesis, but even so, I know more about mathematics
than a Harvard astrophysicist, an EXXON engineer, and a Cornell
physicist, and probably more than a Polaroid mathematician. And I'm
telling you that probablity and statistics are important and valid
branches of mathematics.

Many books have been written on the subject, "How to lie with
statistics." I myself have criticized such stuff on my web site.
But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with statistics. I've
seen people lie with calculus too, but that doesn't mean that
calculus isn't a branch of mathematics.

If you want to find out something about probability and statistics as
branches of mathematics, a good place to start is to google the
phrase "probability space." Probability spaces are the fundamental
mathematical constructs that lead to the theory of probability. I
just did that and was led to the site
http://www.math.uah.edu/stat/prob/index.xhtml . That's where I got
the quote above from Laplace.

That site also provided the following biography of Laplace:

"Laplace, Pierre Simon (1749-1827)

Pierre Simon Laplace was born in Normandy, France in 1749, and was
educated at the military school in Beaumont.

Laplace's greatest scientific contribution was the application of
Newton's universal law of gravitation to the motion of the planets.
He also developed an early cosmological theory of the origin of the
solar system. Laplace wrote Triaté de Céleste Méchanique
(Treatise on Celestial Mechanics), published in five volumes
from 1799 to 1825, and Exposition de Systeme de Monde
(Explanation of the World System) in 1796.

Laplace contributed greatly to the early mathematical theory of
probability. He wrote Theorie Analytique des Probabilites,
(Analytical Theory of Probability) in 1812 and
Philosophical Essay on Probabilities in 1814. One of his
contributions was an improvement on the normal approximation to the
binomial distribution, that had been derived by Abraham
DeMoivre."

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
john@GenerationalDynamics.com
http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Richard,

"The most important questions of life are, for the most part,
really only problems of probability.--Pierre Simon Laplace

I spent several years as a Ph.D. math major at MIT. I never
completed my Ph.D. thesis, but even so, I know more about mathematics
than a Harvard astrophysicist, an EXXON engineer, and a Cornell
physicist, and probably more than a Polaroid mathematician. And I'm
telling you that probablity and statistics are important and valid
branches of mathematics.

Many books have been written on the subject, "How to lie with
statistics." I myself have criticized such stuff on my web site.
But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with statistics. I've
seen people lie with calculus too, but that doesn't mean that
calculus isn't a branch of mathematics.

If you want to find out something about probability and statistics as
branches of mathematics, a good place to start is to google the
phrase "probability space." Probability spaces are the fundamental
mathematical constructs that lead to the theory of probability. I
just did that and was led to the site
http://www.math.uah.edu/stat/prob/index.xhtml . That's where I got
the quote above from Laplace.

That site also provided the following biography of Laplace:

"Laplace, Pierre Simon (1749-1827)

Pierre Simon Laplace was born in Normandy, France in 1749, and was
educated at the military school in Beaumont.

Laplace's greatest scientific contribution was the application of
Newton's universal law of gravitation to the motion of the planets.
He also developed an early cosmological theory of the origin of the
solar system. Laplace wrote Triaté de Céleste Méchanique
(Treatise on Celestial Mechanics), published in five volumes
from 1799 to 1825, and Exposition de Systeme de Monde
(Explanation of the World System) in 1796.

Laplace contributed greatly to the early mathematical theory of
probability. He wrote Theorie Analytique des Probabilites,
(Analytical Theory of Probability) in 1812 and
Philosophical Essay on Probabilities in 1814. One of his
contributions was an improvement on the normal approximation to the
binomial distribution, that had been derived by Abraham
DeMoivre."

John, Laplace is too ancient to know very much about life and biological evolution. The Origin of Species was published 32 years after his death.

We will just have to disagree on the "mathematics" of statistics. If you were a math student then you should know the difference beween a proof and a sample. I do agree that probability and statistics is a very important field of study. I majored in it at UW. Most of it was performed using linear algebra, but that doesn't qualify it as a form of mathematics. You can have a proof of algebraic principles, but no such proofs are possible in statistics when all you're doing is sampling populations for which you must rely on unknown distruibutions of data. In probability theory everything hinges on alpha and beta error with respect to a null hypothesis. You use mathematics to perform those error calculations, of course, but you aren't proving anything. You're only getting likelihoods of occurrence.

I'll leave it there.

No matter what you might think of my differentiation, I still doubt that you can effectively apply probability and statistics to argue the ubiquity of life and intelligence. Your alpha and beta errors will be unmanagable.

--Croak

Dear Richard,

I wasn't claiming that Laplace knew anything about biological
evolution. Duh. I was responding to your claim that probability and
statistics are not mathematics. My argument, which uses probability
theory but has nothing to do with statistics, is mathematicaly valid,
but depends on the "Nature's laboratory" assumptions about how
evolution works.

I do not know nearly as much about biology or evolution as you do,
but I know enough to know that the mathematical argument that I gave
is the mathematical underpinning of the argument that evolutionary
experts themselves use. What most of evolution is about is proving
that the "Nature's laboratory" assumptions are valid. The
mathematics is perfectly valid, but the conclusion cannot be
considered to be "true" in the real world until the assumptions have
been shown to be "true." You might want to focus on the assumptions,
rather than disparaging the Theory of Probability.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
john@GenerationalDynamics.com
http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Richard,

I wasn't claiming that Laplace knew anything about biological
evolution. Duh. I was responding to your claim that probability and
statistics are not mathematics. My argument, which uses probability
theory but has nothing to do with statistics, is mathematicaly valid,
but depends on the "Nature's laboratory" assumptions about how
evolution works.

This poor old dead horse deserves another beating, I guess. John, probability and statistics uses mathematics, but it is not, in and of itself, a branch of mathematics. Astrology uses mathematics, but it is not even a branch of science. And, furthermore, the derivation of mean X involves both probability and statistics; that's why they are conventionally lumped together.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I do not know nearly as much about biology or evolution as you do,
but I know enough to know that the mathematical argument that I gave
is the mathematical underpinning of the argument that evolutionary
experts themselves use. What most of evolution is about is proving
that the "Nature's laboratory" assumptions are valid. The
mathematics is perfectly valid, but the conclusion cannot be
considered to be "true" in the real world until the assumptions have
been shown to be "true." You might want to focus on the assumptions,
rather than disparaging the Theory of Probability.

Probably not true!

Really, I don't know very much about biology and evolution. I don't know anything about biogenesis; and even worse, I don't know whether biological evolution is "Darwinian all the down" (please see earlier post containing Pauls Davies' quote). What I don't know impresses me more than what I do know about life. And this places severe limits on what I can assume about its universal ubiquity. As far as universally ubiquitous intelligence goes, I just can't afford to take that romantic vacation in Paradise.

--Croak

Dear Richard,

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> This poor old dead horse deserves another beating, I guess. John,
> probability and statistics uses mathematics, but it is not, in and
> of itself, a branch of mathematics. Astrology uses mathematics,
> but it is not even a branch of science. And, furthermore, the
> derivation of mean X involves both probability and statistics;
> that's why they are conventionally lumped together.

You're driving me nuts with this. If what you say were anywhere near
being true, it would mean that I was hallucinating during the almost
ten years I was in the Math department at MIT as an undergrad and
grad student.

As I said, you can google "Probability Spaces" and get a list of
dozens of courses given by math departments at colleges around the
country (or world). Or check out this PDF file from the Rutgers
University math department:
www.math.rutgers.edu/courses/591/nchap1.pdf

This file introduces the basic concepts in the foundations of
probability theory, gives some philosophical remarks, and also gives
a couple of examples, including a coin-tossing example. These basic
concepts are common to all studies of the Theory of Probability. You
don't even have to read it -- just take five minutes to SKIM through
it, and tell me where this stuff isn't mathematics. Beyond that I
don't know what I can add, because what you're writing doesn't make
any sense. You must mean something completely different by
"probability."

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> Really, I don't know very much about biology and evolution. I
> don't know anything about biogenesis; and even worse, I don't know
> whether biological evolution is "Darwinian all the down" (please
> see earlier post containing Pauls Davies' quote). What I don't
> know impresses me more than what I do know about life. And this
> places severe limits on what I can assume about its universal
> ubiquity. As far as universally ubiquitous intelligence goes, I
> just can't afford to take that romantic vacation in Paradise.

Then what are we talking about????? I thought you had some expertise
in the theory of evolution. If now you say you don't, then what's
the point of this conversation? How can you and I possibly reach any
conclusions on the subject we've been discussing, if neither of us
knows anything about it????? We're just two blind men walking around
in circles, bumping into tables, chairs and each other because
neither of us can see anything. We might as well be discussing the
use of ideographs in Confucius' time, or some other subject that
neither of us knows anything about.

Originally Posted by Confucius

> If you are not the emperor, you cannot determine the rules of
> propriety, set weights and measures or create ideographs.
> http://praxeology.net/confucius.htm

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
john@GenerationalDynamics.com
http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

All right, John, have it your way: Probability and statistics is a valid application of mathematical principles (e.g., dividing by 0 is forbidden), useful for making numerical estimations about certain measures of populations, derived from samples taken there of. I could not have gone anywhere in my career as a scientist without understanding the ways of these crafty pirates of chance who ply the waters of probability and statistics. If you don’t know exactly what you are doing then you’re just playing with bend-and-fit models that rely on extremely shaky principles – those where their operative assumptions are not thoroughly examined; one of them being the mistaken belief that probability and statistics is, IN AND OF ITSELF, a branch of mathematics. And, furthermore, anyone who knows anything about probability and statistics knows this: When all you have is only one (1) planet to sample in the universe and only one (1) kind of life to sample for, then the model collapses from insufficient degrees of freedom (0, to be exact) needed to calculate alpha and beta errors. Without knowing those you don’t know very much.

So, all right, I’ll agree that it can argued on flaky statistical grounds that DNA could be viably drifting around all over the universe, pollinating warm ponds everywhere they can be found (nevermind where the DNA came from). And from there we make a romantic leap of faith into that deep, forbidden lake known as the “universally ubiquitous intelligence” assumption. And where does that intelligence come from? Some latent potential in the universe for writing Shakespeare? Jesus, why not just go on and assume that God did it all because He was either overjoyed or pissed off? For me the null hypothesis stands firm: There is only one (1) kind of life and it occupies only one (1) planet in this universe, and therefore intelligence is Earth bound.

John, you can’t get Shakespeare no way no how by having 10 to the power of 1000 monkeys whacking away on their typewriters. And where do all those monkeys come from? I just don’t buy those kinds of lottery tickets. And besides, long before those monkeys finish up on their typewriters, Earth will be so terribly modified as to make Shakespeare historically irrelevant.

Why is life so hard to understand? And maybe I should ask: Why is intelligence so hard to understand? I think the answers might appear when we appreciate life as a digital enterprise of genes (to wit; Dawkins, Hamilton, etc.), and when we connect that somehow to the digital enterprise of computers. Wouldn’t you agree that such a connection, if it occurs, would be the most important fusion allowed by The Singularity?

--Croak

Dear Richard,

Look, Richard, you're talking about two different things, and I've
said this before. Probability and statistics are real branches of
mathematics, but they can be misused, as you say. But just because a
hammer can be misused does't mean it isn't a tool. Just because a dog
can be misused doesn't mean it isn't an animal. Just because a
tomato can be misued doesn't mean it isn't a fruit. Just because
probability and statistics can be misused doesn't mean that they
aren't mathematics.

Nor am I playing with a "bend-and-fit model," as you imply. I've
described a mathematical model for evolution in a certain way, and I
was completely up front from the beginning that I was making a
certain set of assumptions. I said that the assumptions had to be
proved, and I indicated some ways in which the assumptions could be
attacked. So I've been very careful and completely open about the
logic I've used, so I don't appreciate your indirect implication that
I'm trying to be dishonest. And frankly, I also don't appreciate,
after all this time, your remark about "the mistaken belief that
probability and statistics is, IN AND OF ITSELF, a branch of
mathematics."

Hey look, believe what you want Richard.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
john@GenerationalDynamics.com
http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

But my argument #1 was much more powerful. Let me change your pink
house analogy to another analogy.

Suppose a huge tsunami hits a beach where 1000 people had been
sunbathing, and suppose you learn that Jack Jones drowned on the
beach. What can we conclude about the other 999 people?

In your pink house analogy, you said that one pink side doesn't mean
that there are other pink sides. And you're right.

But in the tsunami example, the probabilities go in the other
direction. If it was a big tsunami, and you know that one person
died, then you can be quite certain that other people died.

In my argument #1, I essentially proved that if evolution CAN happen
then it MUST happen. Since it happened on earth then it CAN happen.
Therefore it MUST have happened on similar planets.

This type of argument ignores the problem of selection bias. The fact that Jack Jones dies is only helpful in estimating the average probability of death if you picked his name randomly from all the people on the beach; if instead he was picked by a person who is specifically trying to scare you, so that even if only 1 person died he's guaranteed to pick the name of a person killed by the tsunami rather than a survivor, then it's a lot less informative, at most it just tells you that the probability of death can't have been too much less than 1/1000.

Similarly, there is a type of selection bias in looking at the example of the earth to guide our guesses about the probability life will appear on a suitable planet--it's what's commonly called "the anthropic principle". Even if the probability of life appearing and evolving to intelligence on a random planet is ridiculously low--say, 1 in 10^1000--as long as intelligent life appears somewhere, then the planets where it does evolve will be the only places where conscious observers exist who are capable of making arguments about probability in the first place! So your argument doesn't really hold water, because regardless of how rare life was, intelligent beings on the few planets that did develop it could make exactly the same argument. And current cosmological observations are consistent with the idea that the universe is infinite in extent, which tells us that as long as there is some finite probability of intelligent life arising, no matter how small, it's bound to happen occasionally.

Speaking of probabilities, Robin Hanson makes a clever probabilistic argument in his paper The Great Filter, noting that if intelligent life depended on a series of very unlikely milestones, then on the few planets which do develop intelligent life, we should expect a high probability that these milestones will be about evenly spaced in the lifespan of the planet--he makes the analogy of a safecracker who has to guess a series of numbers in the correct order in a short amount of time, where you just look at the small subset of trials in which he does happen to get all the numbers in the allowed time and find that the correct guesses will tend to be evenly spaced in this small subset. Hanson then analyzes the history of life on our planet, and observes that we do seem to see significant milestones occur about every 500 million - 1 billion years or so (and he doesn't note it in his paper, but intelligent life probably evolved 'just in time', since in about 500 million - 1 billion years from now carbon dioxide levels are expected to get too low for photosynthesis--see this article).

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

. . . so I don't appreciate your indirect implication that I'm trying to be dishonest. And frankly, I also don't appreciate, after all this time, your remark about "the mistaken belief that
probability and statistics is, IN AND OF ITSELF, a branch of mathematics."

Hey look, believe what you want Richard.

Dude, if you have a problem with Mr. E., then your report card must say "doesn't work or play well with others". Jeez.

Interestingly, most simple dictionaries support your claim:

Originally Posted by Encarta Dictionary

A branch of mathematics that deals with the analysis and interpretation of numerical data in terms of samples and populations

But more detailed stuff supports Mr. E. For example:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia Article

Statistics is a type of data analysis which practice includes the planning, summarizing, and interpreting of observations of a system possibly followed by predicting or forecasting of future events based on a mathematical model of the system being observed. Statistics is a branch of applied mathematics specifically in the area of statistical theory which uses probability theory in the mathematical models . . .

. . . The word statistics ultimately derives from the modern Latin term statisticum collegium ("council of state") and the Italian word statista ("statesman" or "politician"). The German Statistik, first introduced by Gottfried Achenwall (1749), originally designated the analysis of data about the state. It acquired the meaning of the collection and classification of data generally in the early nineteenth century. It was introduced into English by Sir John Sinclair. Thus, the original principal purpose of statistics was data to be used by governmental and (often centralized) administrative bodies. The collection of data about states and localities continues, largely through national and international statistical services; in particular, censuses provide regular information about the population. Today, however, the use of statistics has broadened far beyond the service of a state or government, to include such areas as business, natural and social sciences, and medicine, among others . . .

--Your friendly "Gnat"

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Interestingly, most simple dictionaries support your claim:

Originally Posted by Encarta Dictionary

A branch of mathematics that deals with the analysis and interpretation of numerical data in terms of samples and populations

But more detailed stuff supports Mr. E. For example:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia Article

Statistics is a type of data analysis which practice includes the planning, summarizing, and interpreting of observations of a system possibly followed by predicting or forecasting of future events based on a mathematical model of the system being observed. Statistics is a branch of applied mathematics specifically in the area of statistical theory which uses probability theory in the mathematical models . . .

. . . The word statistics ultimately derives from the modern Latin term statisticum collegium ("council of state") and the Italian word statista ("statesman" or "politician"). The German Statistik, first introduced by Gottfried Achenwall (1749), originally designated the analysis of data about the state. It acquired the meaning of the collection and classification of data generally in the early nineteenth century. It was introduced into English by Sir John Sinclair. Thus, the original principal purpose of statistics was data to be used by governmental and (often centralized) administrative bodies. The collection of data about states and localities continues, largely through national and international statistical services; in particular, censuses provide regular information about the population. Today, however, the use of statistics has broadened far beyond the service of a state or government, to include such areas as business, natural and social sciences, and medicine, among others . . .

--Your friendly "Gnat"

How does that quote support the idea that statistics isn't a branch of mathematics? Of course it is, it's got its own theorems and everything.

Originally Posted by Jesse '77

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Interestingly, most simple dictionaries support your claim:

Originally Posted by Encarta Dictionary

A branch of mathematics that deals with the analysis and interpretation of numerical data in terms of samples and populations

But more detailed stuff supports Mr. E. For example:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia Article

Statistics is a type of data analysis which practice includes the planning, summarizing, and interpreting of observations of a system possibly followed by predicting or forecasting of future events based on a mathematical model of the system being observed. Statistics is a branch of applied mathematics specifically in the area of statistical theory which uses probability theory in the mathematical models . . .

. . . The word statistics ultimately derives from the modern Latin term statisticum collegium ("council of state") and the Italian word statista ("statesman" or "politician"). The German Statistik, first introduced by Gottfried Achenwall (1749), originally designated the analysis of data about the state. It acquired the meaning of the collection and classification of data generally in the early nineteenth century. It was introduced into English by Sir John Sinclair. Thus, the original principal purpose of statistics was data to be used by governmental and (often centralized) administrative bodies. The collection of data about states and localities continues, largely through national and international statistical services; in particular, censuses provide regular information about the population. Today, however, the use of statistics has broadened far beyond the service of a state or government, to include such areas as business, natural and social sciences, and medicine, among others . . .

--Your friendly "Gnat"

How does that quote support the idea that statistics isn't a branch of mathematics? Of course it is, it's got its own theorems and everything.

I think the argument is pure mathematics v. applied mathematics. Since I'm an 'applier', not a 'purist', I've stayed out of the discussion.

Is pinochle a branch of mathematics?


The Green Geezer

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Is pinochle a branch of mathematics?


The Green Geezer

Yes, as is bridge - although duplicate bridge is an experimental science.