Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

Originally Posted by Jesse '77

Yes, there's room for uncertainty, but the Fermi paradox is compelling enough so that I personally would be willing to bet a lot of money that no alien civilizations arose (and avoided destroying themselves) within our galaxy in the past,

The above doesn't seem to indicate very good odds for our civilization avoiding self-destruction, either! :shock:

I tend to agree. :cry:

Well, I dunno. The unlikely steps could all be in the evolution of complex life, my hope would be that once intelligence does arise, the probability that it will destroy itself is not too high. To get back to the original topic of this thread, I think that if any intelligent life makes it to the point where sentient A.I. is possible, something like the "technological singularity" idea will probably happen, and after that my guess would be that intelligence would quickly start to spread throughout the solar system and beyond rather than remaining on a single planet, which would make it more difficult for intelligence to destroy itself beyond that point.

Originally Posted by jeffw

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by jeffw

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by jeffw

...
But we're so far from knowing what factors or events are necessary for life to arise that any attempt to apply an estimate is pointless. In fact, even if we knew what events on Earth led to the development of life, we can't rule out that life could arise in some other way elsewhere.

I object to this for the specific reason that there is only one (1) kind of life and I cannot possibly imagine what other way it could have arisen beyond the way it arose on Earth. Do we know for sure that life originated on Earth rather than from some kind of alien infection? No! That's a pretty big gap in our already precarious knowledge about life. But one thing seems certain, at least to me, and that is the total historical absence of any "beta-max" competitor for supreme sovereinty of the living kingdoms. That is why I am bothered by the notion of "some other way elsewhere."

Could another mechanism of life have arisen but was out-competed by RNA/DNA life before they could have left any evidence? And what about other environments that are too hostile for DNA-life but how can you rule out some other mechanism that no one has thought of.

Given that it happened once, I find it pretty implausible to suggest that it couldn't have happened again somewhere else.

Of course this is all wild-speculation based on almost no data. And we know even less about the origins of intelligence and self-awareness.

I would not know how to answer these questions without having some idea of what "another mechanism of life" could be. The only life we know of is all the same kind of life, so I don't have a clue about those alternative "mechanisms." What do you suppose they could be? And if they really do exist then why are they not found here on Earth (a notably fertile rock)? All I have is my opinion, but I can't feature those other guys in any way, shape, or form. But if I ever met one I would ask him or her or it this question: Do you have digitally coded genes or something like them?

What makes you think that DNA is unique in being able to digitally encode the blueprints of life? We have only the history of one planet to look at in any detail and you seem to be willing to make a very big extrapolation out of a sample of one.

What?! You mean to tell me that DNA is not unique in its ability to digitally encode genetic information? What do you know that I don't? It certainly seems unique enough here on Earth -- absolutely unique! And I thought this exptrapolation business into bio-ubiquity was based on what we observed here on Earth. If DNA is absolutely unique on Earth then why should it not be so universally? I really don't think it is me making the "big extrapolation."

btw: DNA does not "encode the blueprints of life," because "blueprint" is a false metaphor. Genes are not in any way like blueprints. Blueprints are drawings of things that look something like them, while structural genes are digital script that encode the sequence of amino acids in a protein, and other genes encode the regulation of structural genes. Nobody has yet discovered a "blueprint of life."

Exodus 8

The Green Geezer

Dear Jesse,

Originally Posted by Jesse '77

> That's a strawman--you don't need a model that says life cannot
> happen more than once, ever. You just need a model that says that
> the probability of intelligence developing on a random star is
> less than 1 in 7*10^22, the number of stars in the observable
> universe according to current estimates (because of the
> speed-of-light limit, nothing outside the observable universe can
> possibly have any interaction with us). This seems like a giant
> number, but since probabilities multiply, all you'd need is 6
> independent factors or events required for intelligent life to
> arise that each have a probability of less than 1 in 10,000, or 8
> independent factors that each have a probability of less than 1 in
> 1000; it doesn't seem so implausible that a small number of such
> unlikely factors could be required for complex life to arise
> (again, read the book Rare Earth for a large number of plausible
> candidates for such factors).

This analysis, in the form you stated it, is mathematically invalid.

It is not possible to have an event with a probability of 1/10000.
The probability of the events we're talking about must be
either 0 or 1. A value between 0 and 1 is not possible, when
you take time into account.

For example, suppose you tell me that some event "has probability 1 in
10000 of occurring." What does that mean? There must be a time frame
you have in mind.

Perhaps you mean that it "has probability of 1 in 10000 of occurring
within a year."

So let's develop a formula. Suppose an event has a probability P of
occurring in a year, where P is a small positive number. Then the
probability of it occurring within N years is (1-(1-P)^N). So if P =
1/10000 = 0.0001, then the probability of the event occurring in N
years is 1-.9999^N.

1-.9999^7000=0.503432078
1-.9999^10000=0.632138954
1-.9999^100000=0.999954623
1-.9999^1000000= 1 - 3.7E-44

The event is thus MORE LIKELY THAN NOT to occur within 7000 years.

The probability approaches 1 as the number of years increases. So
the probability of your event occurring, if not zero, is one.

So the only question left is the number of years. You can argue that
there's some event that's so unlikely that it will take too many
years to occur, but if it CAN occur, then it MUST occur.

In the framework we're discussing, if you believe that life has
evolved on earth through a series of events, each of which has a
small probability, then life MUST evolve on other planets where the
same events have positive probabilities. You can argue that it might
take longer on other planets, but you can't argue that it can't
happen at all.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by Croakmore

What?! You mean to tell me that DNA is not unique in its ability to digitally encode genetic information? What do you know that I don't? It certainly seems unique enough here on Earth -- absolutely unique!

Well, there's also RNA. But there are good theoretical reasons to think the only long stable molecules suitable for encoding genetic information would be carbon-based (silicon can form large molecules too, but it has some other serious problems that make it unlikely that silicon-based life could arise naturally), and from articles I've read written by astrobiologists I get the impression they haven't found an candidates for carbon-based molecules that could store genetic information besides DNA and similar molecules like RNA and PNA (although you could easily have something like DNA that used a completely different set of bases, there's nothing very special about adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine).

As for the idea that such molecules are unique to earth, I believe they've already found combinations of molecules that when mixed together would naturally lead to the formation of short random RNA strands, although it's not clear whether these combinations would have been around in the earth's early history--see this article, or this one, on the "molecular midwife hypothesis". RNA strands can act as both genes and enzymes, which makes it a good candidate for the first self-replicating molecule, unlike DNA which requires associated enzymes to copy itself--this is the basis for a popular theory about the origin of life called RNA world. There was also a recent discovery that the upper limit on the number of errors a self-replicating RNA molecule could make without disrupting its function is higher than previously thought, which also makes the RNA world hypothesis more plausible--see this article. Of course, no one has managed to create any self-replicating RNA strands yet, and even if it's possible it's not known how improbable it would be that a random RNA strand would happen to have this ability.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

This analysis, in the form you stated it, is mathematically invalid.

Stop using phrases like "mathematically invalid" when what you really mean is that my application of the math to real-world situations is invalid! That leads to exactly the same sort of confusion between pure math and application that I disagreed with in Croakmore's comments.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

It is not possible to have an event with a probability of 1/10000.
The probability of the events we're talking about must be
either 0 or 1. A value between 0 and 1 is not possible, when
you take time into account.

For example, suppose you tell me that some event "has probability 1 in
10000 of occurring." What does that mean? There must be a time frame
you have in mind.

I think it was pretty clear from the context that I was talking about the probability that a intelligent life would arise in a given star system within that star system's lifetime. Don't you remember my earlier comments about Robin Hanson's paper on the possibility of multiple unlikely events in the path to intelligent life, obstacles happening at different times within the entire course of evolution? (the origin of self-replicating molecules, the origin of sexual reproduction, the origin of multicellular life, etc.)

Originally Posted by Jesse '77

Originally Posted by Croakmore

What?! You mean to tell me that DNA is not unique in its ability to digitally encode genetic information? What do you know that I don't? It certainly seems unique enough here on Earth -- absolutely unique!

Well, there's also RNA. But there are good theoretical reasons to think the only long stable molecules suitable for encoding genetic information would be carbon-based (silicon can form large molecules too, but it has some other serious problems that make it unlikely that silicon-based life could arise naturally), and from articles I've read written by astrobiologists I get the impression they haven't found an candidates for carbon-based molecules that could store genetic information besides DNA and similar molecules like RNA and PNA (although you could easily have something like DNA that used a completely different set of bases, there's nothing very special about adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine).

You're right, RNA, too, so perhaps I should have said "nucleic acids." Can you tell me why Earth should not be a good enough laboratory to yield other codonic nitrogenous bases beyond the ones you mention? Why just these? And why only in sugar-phospate linkages? Where are the foreign models that wow us with their innovations?

Originally Posted by Jesse '77

As for the idea that such molecules are unique to earth, I believe they've already found combinations of molecules that when mixed together would naturally lead to the formation of short random RNA strands, although it's not clear whether these combinations would have been around in the earth's early history--see this article, or this one, on the "molecular midwife hypothesis". RNA strands can act as both genes and enzymes, which makes it a good candidate for the first self-replicating molecule, unlike DNA which requires associated enzymes to copy itself--this is the basis for a popular theory about the origin of life called RNA world. There was also a recent discovery that the upper limit on the number of errors a self-replicating RNA molecule could make without disrupting its function is higher than previously thought, which also makes the RNA world hypothesis more plausible--see this article. Of course, no one has managed to create any self-replicating RNA strands yet, and even if it's possible it's not known how improbable it would be that a random RNA strand would happen to have this ability.

Interesting links. Here is their conclusion:

"Most recently we have demonstrated in our laboratory that proflavin can also work as a molecular midwife for RNA formation, as well as DNA," said Hud. "We are very excited about these results. However, our ultimate goal is to achieve a self-replicating molecular system that is capable of evolving." That development, he added, is still several years away.

I don't know about this, Jesse. Is this Georgia Tech hoopla, maybe? Their goal is to do what! Come on, I haven't read anything in Nature or Science about Georgia Tech's proflavin project to construct artificial life.

--Geezer

Dear Jesse,

Originally Posted by Jesse '77

> Stop using phrases like "mathematically invalid" when what you
> really mean is that my application of the math to real-world
> situations is invalid! That leads to exactly the same sort of
> confusion between pure math and application that I disagreed with
> in Croakmore's comments. ...

> I think it was pretty clear from the context that I was talking
> about the probability that a intelligent life would arise in a
> given star system within that star system's lifetime. Don't you
> remember my earlier comments about Robin Hanson's paper on the
> possibility of multiple unlikely events in the path to intelligent
> life, obstacles happening at different times within the entire
> course of evolution? (the origin of self-replicating molecules,
> the origin of sexual reproduction, the origin of multicellular
> life, etc.)

OK, fair enough, I misunderstood the argument you were making.

But I strongly disagree with the assumptions made in Robin Hanson's
paper, and similarly with the assumptions of Fermi's Paradox.
http://hanson.gmu.edu/greatfilter.html

The basic assumption is that human beings will colonize other planets
and other solar systems and other star systems in time. He uses a
timeframe of a million years as a maximum timeframe in which this
would happen. Next, he argues that if humans will colonize, then so
will intelligent life on other planets, if it exists. He then notes
that we've seen no signs of such intelligent life expanding into our
solar system, and concludes that such other intelligent life must be
nonexistent, or at least extremely rare.

But that whole argument falls apart in the very first sentence. Human
beings most certainly WILL NOT colonize other planets, let alone other
star systems. Why? Because there's no time. The Singularity will
occur within three decades, and human beings will shortly no longer be
in charge, and will probably not even exist by 2100.

Now, the timeframe for the Singularity at around 2030 is pretty
certain, in my analysis, but some people have claimed (last year in
this thread) that the Singularity won't occur because technological
development will stop around 2010, either because of a war or for
some other reason which I've never understood.

But even if you happen to believe that, then Hanson's paper is still
wrong, because ending technological development would mean no
development of space travel vehicles. I suspect that it's possible
to show (though I can't do it personally) that substantial further
advances in space travel will require computer technology which
exceeds the technology required for the Singularity. So, no matter
how you look at it, the Singularity will have to occur long before
any kind of interstellar space travel is possible.

So human beings will never colonize the stars. So the next question
is: Will the super-intelligent computers colonize the stars after the
Singularity?

Well, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe they will.

In fact, I'll now turn the Hanson argument on its head. Since we
haven't seen any signs of space colonization by super-intelligent
computers from other planets where intelligent life has evolved past
the Singularity, it therefore follows that either (1)
super-intelligent computers past the Singularity DO NOT colonize; or
(2) if they DO colonize, then they're clever enough to hide
themselves from us.

In Chapter 7 of my book, Generational Dynamics for Historians,
of which the current draft can be read for free on my web site,
I described the following scenario: Once the Singularity occurs, on
any planet with intelligent life, then technology must continue to a
common limit point (called Singularity#2), essentially the point
where everything has been invented. So all such planets reach the
same common point, and if one such planet colonizes then they all
colonize, and if one won't let us see them, then none of them will.
In this scenario, these super-intelligent computers on all these
planets are keeping an eye on us, waiting for earth to reach
Singularity#2, at which time they'll reveal themselves to us, and
we'll all live happily ever after.

I'm not claiming that this scenario will happen; I'm just saying it's
a possible scenario. What I am certain of is that the scenario
postulated by Hanson is certainly NOT going to happen, and therefore
Hanson's conclusions cannot be concluded.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Jesse,

Originally Posted by Jesse '77

> Stop using phrases like "mathematically invalid" when what you
> really mean is that my application of the math to real-world
> situations is invalid! That leads to exactly the same sort of
> confusion between pure math and application that I disagreed with
> in Croakmore's comments. ...

> I think it was pretty clear from the context that I was talking
> about the probability that a intelligent life would arise in a
> given star system within that star system's lifetime. Don't you
> remember my earlier comments about Robin Hanson's paper on the
> possibility of multiple unlikely events in the path to intelligent
> life, obstacles happening at different times within the entire
> course of evolution? (the origin of self-replicating molecules,
> the origin of sexual reproduction, the origin of multicellular
> life, etc.)

OK, fair enough, I misunderstood the argument you were making.

But I strongly disagree with the assumptions made in Robin Hanson's
paper, and similarly with the assumptions of Fermi's Paradox.
http://hanson.gmu.edu/greatfilter.html

The basic assumption is that human beings will colonize other planets
and other solar systems and other star systems in time.

The Fermi Paradox doesn't specifically depend on it being humans who spread throughout the galaxy, machine intelligences will do fine too (in fact that was the idea behind my earlier comment about self-replicating probes). And Hanson only talks about "our descendants" colonizing the galaxy, I think he probably means this to allow the possibility of machine intelligences that we create along with actual biological descendants. Hanson is certainly aware of the singularity idea--witness idea #5 on his 14 Wild ideas page, which says By 2100, the vast majority of "people" will be immortal computers running brain simulations. (he has two papers on the subject titled If Uploads Come First and Economic Growth Given Machine Intelligence)

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

So human beings will never colonize the stars. So the next question
is: Will the super-intelligent computers colonize the stars after the
Singularity?

Well, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe they will.

I disagree--I'd think anything that qualifies as "intelligent" will likely have a certain number of basic motives in common with us, like curiosity and the desire for new knowledge, the desire for self-preservation, and so forth. I would guess that any A.I. civilization (including one composed of 'uploads' of human brains) would also desire to increase its available computing power as much as possible (for creating ever-increasingly complicated simulated worlds, for example, or room for an ever-increasing population, or room for individual minds to grow more and more complex), and the energy and material available for computing within the solar system is finite. And even if I'm wrong about this in the case of most A.I.s, all it would take is a very small number of A.I.s with the motive to send out self-replicating probes to colonize the galaxy, and I think it's very likely that the post-singularity world will contain a wide variety of different kinds of minds with different desires and goals.

In any case, leaving aside the Fermi paradox and Hanson's argument, do you agree that we have no basis for totally dismissing the possibility that there could be a small number of fairly improbable steps on the path to intelligent life that would lead the total probability of intelligent life emerging in a given star system during its entire lifetime to be less than 1 in 7*10^22?

Originally Posted by Croakmore

...
btw: DNA does not "encode the blueprints of life," because "blueprint" is a false metaphor. Genes are not in any way like blueprints. Blueprints are drawings of things that look something like them, while structural genes are digital script that encode the sequence of amino acids in a protein, and other genes encode the regulation of structural genes. Nobody has yet discovered a "blueprint of life."

I should also point out that my objection to using the word "blueprint" may be trivial, because, to many, "blueprint" may be just another word for code, but without any strictness of metaphor. Here's one example:

Dangerous Virus made from mail-order kits.
Should this have been done?
Thursday, 11 July 2002

CellNEWS


A small group of US researchers reported on Thursday they had built an infectious poliovirus from scratch, using only a genetic blueprint from the Internet as a guide and mail-order, and tailor-made sequences from a laboratory supply service to assemble the deadly virus. The man-made virus led to paralysis or death in mice engineered to carry the human receptor for poliovirus.

"The world had better be prepared. This shows you can recreate a virus from written information," Eckard Wimmer, who led the study, told newsagents.

And far more important than the use of the word "blueprint" is the news that Wimmer actually did make a polio virus from mail-order genes. Some might say this is equivalent to making it from scratch. But nobody actually made the genes from scratch. They were scavanged from viral cultures maintained in another laboratory. Nevertheless, I have to say that this gets us dangerously closer to "making life from scratch."

--Croak

Originally Posted by Croakmore

btw: DNA does not "encode the blueprints of life," because "blueprint" is a false metaphor. Genes are not in any way like blueprints. Blueprints are drawings of things that look something like them, while structural genes are digital script that encode the sequence of amino acids in a protein, and other genes encode the regulation of structural genes. Nobody has yet discovered a "blueprint of life."
--Croak

I realized it wasn't quite right, but it's a commonly used metaphor and I couldn't think of anything better.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Croakmore

...
btw: DNA does not "encode the blueprints of life," because "blueprint" is a false metaphor. Genes are not in any way like blueprints. Blueprints are drawings of things that look something like them, while structural genes are digital script that encode the sequence of amino acids in a protein, and other genes encode the regulation of structural genes. Nobody has yet discovered a "blueprint of life."

I should also point out that my objection to using the word "blueprint" may be trivial, because, to many, "blueprint" may be just another word for code, but without any strictness of metaphor. Here's one example:

Dangerous Virus made from mail-order kits.
Should this have been done?
Thursday, 11 July 2002

CellNEWS


A small group of US researchers reported on Thursday they had built an infectious poliovirus from scratch, using only a genetic blueprint from the Internet as a guide and mail-order, and tailor-made sequences from a laboratory supply service to assemble the deadly virus. The man-made virus led to paralysis or death in mice engineered to carry the human receptor for poliovirus.

"The world had better be prepared. This shows you can recreate a virus from written information," Eckard Wimmer, who led the study, told newsagents.

And far more important than the use of the word "blueprint" is the news that Wimmer actually did make a polio virus from mail-order genes. Some might say this is equivalent to making it from scratch. But nobody actually made the genes from scratch. They were scavanged from viral cultures maintained in another laboratory. Nevertheless, I have to say that this gets us dangerously closer to "making life from scratch."

--Croak

One question: Does Al Qaeda read this stuff? :shock:

Exactly! Open the can and out come the worms...

This may be why The Singularity will become necessary.

--Croak

Originally Posted by Mr. Matthew Barganier

What is it about gee-whiz techno-Whiggery that makes its adherents so prone to bellicosity? If you really believe that humanity is just a few pills or microchips away from perfection, why not just sit back and let events unfold as peacefully as possible? Why the Leninist insistence on making the "inevitable" happen by force of arms?

Libertoid Androids

Dear Jesse,

Originally Posted by Jesse '77

> I disagree--I'd think anything that qualifies as "intelligent"
> will likely have a certain number of basic motives in common with
> us, like curiosity and the desire for new knowledge, the desire
> for self-preservation, and so forth. I would guess that any A.I.
> civilization (including one composed of 'uploads' of human brains)
> would also desire to increase its available computing power as
> much as possible (for creating ever-increasingly complicated
> simulated worlds, for example, or room for an ever-increasing
> population, or room for individual minds to grow more and more
> complex), and the energy and material available for computing
> within the solar system is finite. And even if I'm wrong about
> this in the case of most A.I.s, all it would take is a very small
> number of A.I.s with the motive to send out self-replicating
> probes to colonize the galaxy, and I think it's very likely that
> the post-singularity world will contain a wide variety of
> different kinds of minds with different desires and goals.

I can't agree that there's any possible way that you could know the
"basic motives" of super-intelligent computers (SICs) after the
singularity, even less so as the SICs develop new versions of
themselves, approaching the final limit point ("Singularity#2").

Let's say that I agree with you that the SICs will have curiosity,
and a desire for new knowledge, and would want to increase its
computer power.

But I have to stop short when you come to "ever-increasing
population." There's absolutely no way to know that.

Consider the following: As the SICs approach Singularity#2, they
become more and more similar. Furthermore, they're evolving by
research, so there's no "evolutionary" need for mass population
growth to fuel genocidal wars so that the best one wins. Instead of
the "desire for self-preservation" that you mention, there would be a
desire for self-preservation only until the next generation is
available. I can't even think of a plausible scenario where
self-improving SICs would develop a desire for self-preservation once
new versions were available.

You give one more reason for large populations of SICs: "to increase
[their] available computing power as much as possible." But, once
again, you have no way of knowing that large populations will help,
especially with nanotechnology.

So, there's absolutely no reason to believe large populations, and
plenty of reasons to believe not.

And as far as the SETI project is concerned, there's no reason why
these SICs would broadcast anything that SETI computers would hear.

Finally, I would go back to turning Hanson's argument on its head.
If SICs on other planets had colonized planets in the way Hanson
describes, then we would have seen them (à la SETI). And since we
haven't seen them, I would conclude that they don't colonize in the
way Hanson describes.

Originally Posted by Jesse '77

> In any case, leaving aside the Fermi paradox and Hanson's
> argument, do you agree that we have no basis for totally
> dismissing the possibility that there could be a small number of
> fairly improbable steps on the path to intelligent life that would
> lead the total probability of intelligent life emerging in a given
> star system during its entire lifetime to be less than 1 in
> 7*10^22?

Absolutely. As I've said before, I really have no deep knowledge of
chemistry and biology. My interest in the subject of evolution is
its mathematical foundations.

I'd like to pose this problem that perhaps you and Richard and others
might want to tackle: Pick some particular evolutionary change, such
as some gene mutation that made giraffe's necks a millimeter longer.
Can we develop an estimate for how long it would take for that
mutation to occur?

That is, how often do mutations occur? Of the possible gene
mutations, how many "wrong" mutations are there? Given these
figures, we can compute the EXPECTED TIME for this mutation to
occur. Next, how many mutations would it take to make a giraffe? We
can add together their expected times, to get the expected time for a
giraffe to evolve.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Jesse,

By the way, did I understand Richard to be saying that you're
affiliated with Georgia Tech? Are you a student or professor? What
field are you in?

Sincerely,

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

...
I'd like to pose this problem that perhaps you and Richard and others
might want to tackle: Pick some particular evolutionary change, such
as some gene mutation that made giraffe's necks a millimeter longer.
Can we develop an estimate for how long it would take for that
mutation to occur?

That is, how often do mutations occur? Of the possible gene
mutations, how many "wrong" mutations are there? Given these
figures, we can compute the EXPECTED TIME for this mutation to
occur. Next, how many mutations would it take to make a giraffe? We
can add together their expected times, to get the expected time for a
giraffe to evolve.

John, let me try to answer you this way and explain to you why your statistical model is not a good idea.

These are the known causes of evolution:

1. Random genetic drift, caused by a critical decrease in population size, which can lead to either the “bottleneck effect” (e.g., excessive hunting of California elephant seals) or the “founder effect” (e.g., Asian migration into Western hemisphere following Ice Ages). Neither are considered “selective” in the neo-Darwinian sense.

2. Gene flow, caused by the trans-species migration of genes, as they are well known to “jump” around (e.g., tsetse fly genes are known to have “jumped” into the human gene pool…Kersplash!)

3. Random mutations of genes, caused by some kind of reshuffling of the DNA or RNA sequence that somehow finds genetic durability; maybe just a single substitution of a nucleotide in a codon, leading to a slightly different genetic expression (e.g., UV light can force enough energy into a DNA molecule to randomly alter its sequence).

4. Disproportionate mating in a population, cause by preferential factors that influence mating options (e.g., some guys are luckier than others), which are nevertheless non-selective in a Darwinian sense.

5. Natural selection, caused by disproportionate success in reproduction. This is the only cause that biologists regard as “selective,” because nature makes the rules that all biological systems must measure up to. (When the pioneers went West, they had a proverb: “Root, hog, or die.” Those who could either root or hog were “selected” by virtue of the fact that they were the only ones left to advance their genes.

Notice that evolution usually is a combination of these five factors, and so there may be many permutations, and each with a different emphasis here or there.

Confusing this even further is that jumping-gene business. It occurs in all forms of life (e.g., it’s going on right now in your intestines, wherein many of your resident E. coli are conjugating like crazy to keep their genes in the game). The most confounding thing that amazes me is this business of “crossing over,” occurring in the gamete production process known as meiosis. In the first prophase some genes actually jump from one paired chromosome to the other; it appears to be random and with no predictive model possible. The end result of crossing over is huge, because the gamete (sperm or egg) is the ONLY part of any individual of any species that moves on in time or otherwise survives. This is called “homology,” and it certainly does make evolution appear to be mostly a genetic gambit. But the field of biology is still mulling over the idea that giraffes got their long necks the old Lamarckian way – by way of something that somehow eludes the rule of homology.

All of this is to say, John, that the blithering complication of factors and multi-conditional bifurcations leave nothing but confusion for the biologist who seeks to build a model of biological evolution, especially a statistical one. I know of two biologist who managed to observe evolution in a fruit-fly population (Drosophila) by actually watching the appearance of a new species. They concluded that drift and selection shared almost equally in explaining the cause of this speciation. Furthermore, they concluded after a rigorous study that this speciation had very little influence from genetic mutation per se.

From my POV, I can’t see any reasonable way to build a statistical model of evolution that will account for your giraffe’s long neck. Others will disagree with me, especially those who do not prefer the neo-Darwinian approach. They want to sell me a different kind of vacuum cleaner; I’ll listen to their pitch, but I don’t let them in the door.

Exodus 8

The Green Geezer

Dear Richard,

Originally Posted by Croakmore

> John, let me try to answer you this way and explain to you why
> your statistical model is not a good idea.

> These are the known causes of evolution:

> 1. Random genetic drift, caused by a critical decrease in
> population size, which can lead to either the “bottleneck effect”
> (e.g., excessive hunting of California elephant seals) or the
> “founder effect” (e.g., Asian migration into Western hemisphere
> following Ice Ages). Neither are considered “selective” in the
> neo-Darwinian sense.

> 2. Gene flow, caused by the trans-species migration of genes, as
> they are well known to “jump” around (e.g., tsetse fly genes are
> known to have “jumped” into the human gene pool…Kersplash!)

> 3. Random mutations of genes, caused by some kind of reshuffling
> of the DNA or RNA sequence that somehow finds genetic durability;
> maybe just a single substitution of a nucleotide in a codon,
> leading to a slightly different genetic expression (e.g., UV light
> can force enough energy into a DNA molecule to randomly alter its
> sequence).

> 4. Disproportionate mating in a population, cause by preferential
> factors that influence mating options (e.g., some guys are luckier
> than others), which are nevertheless non-selective in a Darwinian
> sense.

> 5. Natural selection, caused by disproportionate success in
> reproduction. This is the only cause that biologists regard as
> “selective,” because nature makes the rules that all biological
> systems must measure up to. (When the pioneers went West, they had
> a proverb: “Root, hog, or die.” Those who could either root or hog
> were “selected” by virtue of the fact that they were the only ones
> left to advance their genes.

> Notice that evolution usually is a combination of these five
> factors, and so there may be many permutations, and each with a
> different emphasis here or there.

> Confusing this even further is that jumping-gene business. It
> occurs in all forms of life (e.g., it’s going on right now in your
> intestines, wherein many of your resident E. coli are conjugating
> like crazy to keep their genes in the game). The most confounding
> thing that amazes me is this business of “crossing over,”
> occurring in the gamete production process known as meiosis. In
> the first prophase some genes actually jump from one paired
> chromosome to the other; it appears to be random and with no
> predictive model possible. The end result of crossing over is
> huge, because the gamete (sperm or egg) is the ONLY part of any
> individual of any species that moves on in time or otherwise
> survives. This is called “homology,” and it certainly does make
> evolution appear to be mostly a genetic gambit. But the field of
> biology is still mulling over the idea that giraffes got their
> long necks the old Lamarckian way – by way of something that
> somehow eludes the rule of homology.

> All of this is to say, John, that the blithering complication of
> factors and multi-conditional bifurcations leave nothing but
> confusion for the biologist who seeks to build a model of
> biological evolution, especially a statistical one. I know of two
> biologist who managed to observe evolution in a fruit-fly
> population (Drosophila) by actually watching the appearance of a
> new species. They concluded that drift and selection shared almost
> equally in explaining the cause of this speciation. Furthermore,
> they concluded after a rigorous study that this speciation had
> very little influence from genetic mutation per se.

> From my POV, I can’t see any reasonable way to build a statistical
> model of evolution that will account for your giraffe’s long neck.
> Others will disagree with me, especially those who do not prefer
> the neo-Darwinian approach. They want to sell me a different kind
> of vacuum cleaner; I’ll listen to their pitch, but I don’t let
> them in the door.

Thanks for posting that list of causes. That's very useful.

But you know, I'm not looking to do anything complicated. I'm
just trying to get a feel for the complexity of the problem by
looking at some actual numbers. If we could, for example, put some
approximate numbers next to each of those five causes, then even if
the final computation were an order of magnitude or two off, it would
still be interesting.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

...
But you know, I'm not looking to do anything complicated. I'm
just trying to get a feel for the complexity of the problem by
looking at some actual numbers. If we could, for example, put some
approximate numbers next to each of those five causes, then even if
the final computation were an order of magnitude or two off, it would
still be interesting.

John, you seem to want to build a model using probabilities, even mutation probabilities, to establish an order-of-magnitude likelihood that giraffes will somehow mutate longer necks. And so you look for measured rates of genetic mutations, or likelihood of selection, or the contribution of random genetic drift, or factors influencing mating behavior, and so on -- for what good reason?

And what will this tell you, anyway? The rule of homology says that the only mutations (for example) that could ever mean something important in evolution would have to be in the genes of gametes. That means that all the genes in the arms and legs and intestines and brains could undergo mutations and it would mean nothing to the evolution of a species (if you follow the homological principle, the genome is unaffecetd). So you have to figure gametes are only a small part of most creatures. How are you going to adjust your mutation probability rates for that? Furthermore, nearly all mutations (insertions or deletions of nucleotides in a gene) in eukaryotic organisms are corrected continuously by search-and-fix enzymes that greatly suppress any homological transport of a mutation into the next generation. Each time I add one of these complications to your statistical model, John, it is fattened by >10^6 units of uncertainty.

Giraffes didn’t get their long necks from a probability equation. So there is no point in retrofitting one into a stochastic model. And, if it is any consolation to you, many biologists like myself have foolishly searched for some likelihood equation that explains how magnificently predictable life or some part of it must be on a purely statistical basis.

I think biological evolution can be modeled only “from the bottom up” (a succession of quirks). There were no probability gates, because there was never anything well enough established in the way of what species will come next to hang a probability number on a gate. If you can imagine a repeat of an ancient time on Earth, when that new niche opened up to all comers who were tall enough to reach the food, I don’t have any good reason to suppose the giraffes would show up again. There are many good reasons to assume that a rerun of those historical conditions, if that were ever possible, would produce an entirely different zoological assortment (and Gould agrees with me).

When I have to deal with this, how am I suppose to assume that life and intelligence are ubiquitous everywhere else just because they are ubiquitous here on Earth? I agree that probability and statistics has a valid place in science, but I don’t agree that this pursuit is one of its valid applications.

--Croak

Kurzweil's THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR has just been published. Let's get this thread back on track.

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

Kurzweil's THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR has just been published. Let's get this thread back on track.

Have you read it / are you reading it? Is there anything new not on
his web site?

John

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

Kurzweil's THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR has just been published. Let's get this thread back on track.

Have you read it / are you reading it? Is there anything new not on
his web site?

John

I have the same questions. Amazon also notified me that Kurzweil's new book is in the mail. We shall soon see.

--Croak

I still think the Singularity will be mostly about moving our minds into a virtual reality, even an immortal one, and letting go of an otherwise squishy world that fights a lot over resources and has a pitifully short shelf life. So here we go...

Computer users move themselves with the mind

Electrode cap allows users to think themselves along a virtual street.

Computer scientists have created a hat that can read your thoughts. It allows you to stroll down a virtual street. All you have to do is think about walking.

Called a brain-computer interface, the device detects activity in certain brain areas linked to movement, and uses the signals to mimic that movement in a virtual world. The technology could one day help paralysed patients to move robotic arms, or help sufferers of motor neuron disease to type out words on a virtual keyboard.

--Croakmore

An excerpt from Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity Is Near (2005, pp. 8-9):

Although impressive in many respects, the brain suffers from severe limitations. We use its massive parallelism (one hundred trillion interneuronal connections operating simultaneously) to quickly recognize subtle patterns. But our thinking is extremely slow: the basic neural transactions are several million times slower than contemporary electronic circuits. That makes our physiological bandwidth for processing new information extremely limited compared to the exponential growth of the overall human knowledge base.

Our version 1.0 biological bodies are likewise frail and subject to a myriad of failure modes, not to mention the cumbersome maintenance rituals they require. While human intelligence is sometimes capable of souring in its creativity and expressiveness, much human thought is derivative, petty, and circumscribed.

The Singularity will allow us to transcend these limitations of our biological bodies and brains. We will gain power over our fates. Our mortality will be in our own hands. We will be able to live as long as we want (a subtly different statement from saying we will live forever). We will fully understand human thinking and will vastly extend and expand its reach. By the end of this century, the nonbiological portion of our intelligence will be trillions and trillions of times more powerful than unaided human intelligence.

I expect Kurzweil will make a good case for this in what follows. Hmmm: "When humans transcend biology." Is this meme really so new?

--Croakmore

Originally Posted by Croakmore

I expect Kurzweil will make a good case for this in what follows.

I don't expect much (although I do have a hold placed at my library.) His last book, The Age Of Spiritual Machines, wasn't particularly enlightening.

If you want more scientifically grounded speculation, try Radical Evolution (from the author of Nine Nations), or On Intelligence. For fiction, try Darwin's Radio.

I just finished a much better researched, and much more entertaining, book on the topic of post-humanity: Rebuilt: How Becoming Part Computer Made Me More Human, by Michael Chorost. He describes receiving a cochlear implant, which is a small computer that processes sounds for a deaf person and sends the processed audio directly to the auditory nerve. In a very real sense, the computer decides what he will hear. He has a writer's gift for imagery, and a programmer's technical knowledge. He not only nails the science, but also the subjective experience of daily living in a computer-mediated reality. Great stuff.

His observations also have some interesting implications for Generational Theory -- more on that later...

Originally Posted by Rick Hirst

Originally Posted by Croakmore

I expect Kurzweil will make a good case for this in what follows.

I don't expect much (although I do have a hold placed at my library.) His last book, The Age Of Spiritual Machines, wasn't particularly enlightening.

If you want more scientifically grounded speculation, try Radical Evolution (from the author of Nine Nations), or On Intelligence. For fiction, try Darwin's Radio.

I just finished a much better researched, and much more entertaining, book on the topic of post-humanity: Rebuilt: How Becoming Part Computer Made Me More Human, by Michael Chorost. He describes receiving a cochlear implant, which is a small computer that processes sounds for a deaf person and sends the processed audio directly to the auditory nerve. In a very real sense, the computer decides what he will hear. He has a writer's gift for imagery, and a programmer's technical knowledge. He not only nails the science, but also the subjective experience of daily living in a computer-mediated reality. Great stuff.

His observations also have some interesting implications for Generational Theory -- more on that later...

I'm inclined to agree with you about Kurzweil's last book. But the other books you mention don't appeal quite as much to me for various reasons. The main reason is consistent with Bill Joy's 2000 WIRED article "Why the future doesn't need us" -- because we seem to be doing what Kurzweil says we're doing: transcending biology. From my POV I think this Singularity business speaks more to the point, that instead of enhancing human bodies with nanochips and robotics we will be (eventually) leaving the squishy parts behind for a friendlier cyber existence where immortality is a matter of choice. I'm beginning to see biological humans as larvae for the future version of us -- cyber-sainted butterflies. I can visualize a time when nearly everything a biological human does involves preparation for his or her ultra-tricked-out computerized future. One factor more than any other will drive this post-Darwinian evolution forward: Most people would choose to live longer than a triffling 80-100 years if they could be free of declining health issues. And most people would empty their wallets and bank accounts to get that kind of future. (But a few on this forum do not agree with me. And who will remember them 100,000 years from now?)

How much will you pay to join The Spa of Eternity? It promises virtually everything you can imagine, and more.

Exodus 8

The Green Geezer