Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Robin Berjon: on 4/27/17 at 0:58am UTC, wrote Hi Joe, many thanks for those kind words :) I'll admit I had missed your...

Joseph Brisendine: on 4/26/17 at 21:59pm UTC, wrote Very sorry that I missed this excellent entry before voting closed :/...

Lorraine Ford: on 4/8/17 at 1:20am UTC, wrote Robin, I was impressed by your essay, and your approach to analysing and...

Robin Berjon: on 4/7/17 at 22:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Simon, it is certainly true that I regularly find that discussions of...

Robin Berjon: on 4/7/17 at 22:13pm UTC, wrote Dear Cristinel, thank you very much for your kind words, I have to say...

Robin Berjon: on 4/7/17 at 22:11pm UTC, wrote Dear Miles, you are right, maybe that is confusing. I think that it...

Robin Berjon: on 4/7/17 at 21:41pm UTC, wrote Dear Inés, thank you very much. Indeed, our approaches are similar and I...

Robin Berjon: on 4/7/17 at 21:28pm UTC, wrote Dear Gavin, I disagree that I dismiss the problem as inconsequential. The...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

adel sadeq: "Victor I think Tegmark had some theory in mind that resembles..." in What Is...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Anthony Aguirre, The mission of the Foundational Questions Institute..." in FQXi's New Large Grant...

Suhani Mahajan: "I am a attractive female for pleasurable and delight service in only on..." in Is the Past Infinite?

thuy lien: "9 THINGS WE WERE SEEN FROM RED DEAD REDEMPTION 2 TRAILER ROCKSTAR HAVE US..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

Anthony Aguirre: "Our mission at FQXi has always been to push boundaries, and to try to focus..." in FQXi's New Large Grant...

John Cox: "Victor, I have reread your post and still find agreement. Realism vs...." in What Is...

Anonymous: "hello Bob" in The Complexity Conundrum

shery williams: "Office Setup is the full suite of Microsoft productivity software that..." in Are We Merging With Our...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.


FQXi FORUM
December 17, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: The Necessary Agency by Robin Berjon [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Robin Berjon wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 16:52 GMT
Essay Abstract

We start from issues with teleogical accounts of nature. From there we proceed to simplify the notion of purpose and intersect it with the information theory of individuality to obtain agency. We observe how such a grounded notion of agency relates to other aspects of biology and philosophy.

Author Bio

Robin Berjon is CTO of science.ai, a science publisher. He has worked extensively on defining the technological standards that collectively make up the Web. He lives in Brooklyn with his wife, two daughters, and a vicious cat.

Download Essay PDF File




Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 21:50 GMT
Hi Robin,

Re the "vicious cat":

The article How to make your cat happy at http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/how-make-your-cat
-happy.html might help.

report post as inappropriate

Author Robin Berjon replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 21:56 GMT
Thanks, but she's not unhappy — she's just vicious :)




Gavin William Rowland wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 07:14 GMT
Dear Robin

Apologies for the criticism, but this one fell away for me. Starting nicely (I wish I had your writer's toolbox!) you followed a well-trodden path of emphasising the teleological aspects of objectively observable systems, and then just touching on conscious intention. At that stage "poof!" the magic happens...or is supposed to. It doesn't really work for the core problems of consciousness. More exploration of the subjective would be nice.

Of course, others may disagree.

Regards

Gavin

report post as inappropriate

Author Robin Berjon replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 14:51 GMT
Dear Gavin,

please do not apologise for criticism, if I didn't want any I would simply keep this to myself. And thanks for liking the writing at least!

I think that the core issue here is that based on what you say we would appear to disagree as to what the very problem at hand is. I do not believe that it is related to the problem of consciousness at all (except perhaps in the very limited sense that conscious entities we know of are purposive, but that's barely a link).

My take is that in order to be scientifically interesting, the question of teleology needs to be treated far ahead of that of consciousness. The issues might interact somewhere down the line — but not yet.

I would be curious to hear what makes you think that consciousness needs be involved in this problem.

Thanks!




Anonymous wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 11:43 GMT
Dear Robin

Thanks for inviting me to elaborate further. My view is that the teleology you describe is very different to that seen in consciousness. Indeed, i think it is debatable whether biology can be seen as teleological at all. Biological systems, while very complex, are not generally seen as evolving "for" a particular purpose. They are considered merely to be the product of environmental pressures, with innumerable other failed models having fallen along the wayside. Of course, that is debatable, but the question in fact asked about "mindless mathematical laws" - I think we are talking here about the laws and constants of the universe. You did mention these briefly early on, but by the time you got to the crux of your argument it was couched in abstract or biological terms. While you tend to inflate the sense of purpose in nature, you deflate the nature of conscious free will by making statements thus:

"A similar reasoning applies to our view of agency. By establishing it atop gradual, continuous measures rooted in simpler constructs we make the case that there is no mysterious teleologic force that uniquely distinguishes purpose, intention, or will any more than there is an élan vital categorically distinguishing living from nonliving systems. Aims and intention appear naturally, necessarily, as processes aggregate"

I think the essay question is asking us to address the stark difference between the "mindless" laws of nature and the "aims and intention" and therefore volition, motivation, decision making etc of the mind. By the end of your essay i felt you had minimised the mindlessness of nature and omitted the province of mind, and had thereby dismissed the problem as inconsequential.

Glad I didn't offend :)

Regards

Gavin

report post as inappropriate

Author Robin Berjon replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 21:28 GMT
Dear Gavin,

I disagree that I dismiss the problem as inconsequential. The approach I took essentially looks for a continuous spectrum of individualised function such that you cannot all of a sudden find "aims and intention" where they did not exist at a simpler level, but rather you can note properties that gradually look like something that we would recognise as aims and intention. Like life, it is not a boolean property but something that you can have more or less of. I find that makes its arising less mysterious.

I have since read a similar line of reasoning (but much clearer) in "Complexity and the Arrow of Time". Here is an extract: https://twitter.com/robinberjon/status/847925822828761089.

Re
gards,




Ines Samengo wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 02:01 GMT
Hi, Robin, thanks for the good writing. I resonate with the minimal approach to goals and agency that you have proposed, and with many of your comments. I myself have focused more in the role of the observer, but I daresay that even in spite of the different focus, many of the ideas look quite similar. I will (slowly) look up some of the references you mention.

thanks for the good read!

inés.

report post as inappropriate

Author Robin Berjon replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 21:41 GMT
Dear Inés,

thank you very much. Indeed, our approaches are similar and I very much like many of your ideas. I was particularly interested in the way in which you brought Fredkin into play, with garbage variables.

Also, you state that "The task of the observer is to design the borders of the subsystem so as to allow ordered degrees of freedom to be progressively incorporated, and/or disordered ones to be eliminated." I wonder how that might be combined with the intrinsic approach to the same coarse-graining that I based on information-theoretic notions of individuality.

Thanks, and best of luck!




Anonymous wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 12:19 GMT
Nice essay Berjon,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent on the definition of life etc. Some of your good quotes...

1. That is, we tacitly assume that biological systems and structures are ‘for’ something: for example, eyes are for seeing, wings are for flying, and ribosomes are for making proteins. By contrast, in physics we would not say that an electron, or a turbulent eddy,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 12:22 GMT
This is my post only, I was logged out

Best Regards

=snp. gupta

report post as inappropriate


Simon DeDeo wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 14:51 GMT
Dear Robin,

It is fun to see a number of essays (Larissa's as well, on the animats) wrestle with the problem of defining "information processing" in a deeper, more rigorous fashion. And it's exciting to think that OK, we may actually be getting beyond what computer scientists have done in the past, which is to define computation as something useful to a third party.

Perhaps because computer scientists had to cleave off from the engineering department, they've been very reluctant to examine the underlying "physics" of their field—the study of the causal/mechanistic structures that underlie computation, and the generic properties we expect them to have.

It would be fun to apply the paradigm from the Information Theory of Individuality paper to a few toy examples. You could give some of your functions to agents in a little interacting system and give it a shot. I'd be curious to see what would happen, and whether the results would be illuminating. It would make a fun little paper.

Yours,

Simon

report post as inappropriate

Author Robin Berjon replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 22:48 GMT
Dear Simon,

it is certainly true that I regularly find that discussions of information could benefit from, as it were, "a hacker's touch", or at the very least a dabbling in the implications of actually implementing a given idea. In fairness though, I am not sure that computer scientists are necessarily the worst offenders. Cosmologists maybe? :)

I have been thinking indeed about experimenting in silico with these ideas, but writing this up has made painfully clear to me that I am missing solidity in a number of important intellectual tools, so I'm teaching myself more of the basics that I need — it might therefore be a few months before I return to this.

I very much enjoyed your paper, it is very rich in ideas and highly stimulating. I wanted to take the time to write some more detailed feedback before the end of this phase but I'll admit that it's still percolating through my brain. At any rate many thanks for that!




Anonymous wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 12:26 GMT
Thank you for this well written and referenced essay.

From the comments here it seems that you intended to leave questions of the nature of consciousness out of your essay. The appearance of free will in the last part is therefore a bit confusing to the reader

Maybe you could have split the last chapter to two, "Conclusions" and "For Further Study"?

report post as inappropriate

Miles Mutka replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 12:31 GMT
Miles Mutka, not anonymous

report post as inappropriate

Author Robin Berjon replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 22:11 GMT
Dear Miles,

you are right, maybe that is confusing. I think that it largely depends on writing traditions. In the classic French essay one is expected to use the conclusion to "open things up", and that's essentially what I'm doing here. (Also, I wrote it up in a hurry, so there's no doubt it's far from clear in places :)

Thanks a lot for your feedback!




Cristinel Stoica wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 00:35 GMT
Dear Robin,

I enjoyed reading your essay, and the approach you proposed to "make the case that there is no mysterious teleologic force that uniquely distinguishes purpose, intention, or will any more than there is an élan vital categorically distinguishing living from nonliving systems." Also, your proposal to see free will not as an on-or-off property, and not as the absence of determinism, but rather as a metric of purposiveness, as a specifically parametrised measure of individuation".

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Author Robin Berjon replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 22:13 GMT
Dear Cristinel,

thank you very much for your kind words, I have to say that I very much liked your essay as well, as commented there :)

Kind regards,




Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 07:59 GMT
Dear Sirs!

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 01:20 GMT
Robin,

I was impressed by your essay, and your approach to analysing and discussing the issue of agency and purpose. It is an excellent contribution to this essay contest.

Regards,

Lorraine

report post as inappropriate


Joseph Murphy Brisendine wrote on Apr. 26, 2017 @ 21:59 GMT
Very sorry that I missed this excellent entry before voting closed :/ Frankly, the variance of the entries was so high that I just lost motivation, but this was an awesome entry and I flatter myself to say that it is similar in spirit to my own. Great work!

Joe

report post as inappropriate

Author Robin Berjon replied on Apr. 27, 2017 @ 00:58 GMT
Hi Joe,

many thanks for those kind words :) I'll admit I had missed your entry as well — not only is there indeed high variance (which does contribute to the charm however, I love this contest) but I find the forum quite painful to use, such that engaging in discussions here is a lot less natural than it could be. I wish they would use something a decade or two more modern.

Off to read your essay — best of luck!




Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.