Our thinker, Gary S. presented the first half of this article today. This writing is an original demonstration of very deep thinking. Gary has read several books which are mentioned in the article and very concisely has formulated some questions and then theories about our cosmology, our universe, our origins, and through these thought provoking ideas, asks us to question some ideas that most people accept without question. He contrasts a "Bottom-Up" theory of everything which basically says that everything comes from nothing -- eg. Big Bang theory versus a "Top-Down" theory which says that something dictates a theory of everything -- something determines what we are and what our universe is. What is that determinism? Gary begins us thinking that this is a world of information and maybe "information" is the determining factor.
The books he has read and used to formulate his ideas are: "The Ego Tunnel" by Thomas Metzinger; "Brain Trust" by Patricia Churchland; "Information and the Nature of Reality" by Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregerson; "the Ultimate Mystery of Inheritance Epi-Genetics" by Richard C. Francis; and "Mindful Universe" by Henry P. Stapp.
If you missed today, you have another chance. Gary is presenting the second half of this article at a later date.
Read on below to access Gary's entire article.
“Bottom–Up or Top–Down: How Did We Get Here? “
Let us begin by defining terms. “Bottom–up” includes theories that essentially involve going from nothing to something, or from less to more. Such theories include the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution. “Top–down” involves starting from something that informs something less to become something more. Extremes of this include creationism and intelligent design.
My exploration of this topic has been ongoing and is based on multiple issues. I have never ceased to be amazed at the way very intelligent and informed people, who write books about neurology, neurophysiology and neurophilosophy, can refer to Darwinian evolution as if it is the ultimate explanation for our current state of being. The core of this theory is genetically, and therefore chemically, based. As a result, it tends to be reductionistic. It is matter oriented and, as such, leads to significant difficulties in explaining the development of consciousness or mind. Further, evolution is purely random and chance oriented. The basis of evolution is genetic mutation, a process that is otherwise notoriously destructive. And yet, somehow this destructive process is responsible for a complex web of a plethora of life forms filling multiple niches on our earth. The emphasis was always on ”given enough time” these random, destructive mutations would do the job. I never quite understood this.
Further, the random genetic mutations lead to the evolution of increasing complexity by a process known as ”survival of the fittest.” However, examination of this phrase reveals a significant flaw. ”Survival” is an anthropomorphic term that has a certain meaning for us, but really no meaning for amino acids, polypeptides, proteins and simple cells that are the basis for evolution. Why survive? We don't question it. It is natural for us. Other anthropomorphic terms have been used to describe evolutionary changes. A kind of “mutual caring” has been postulated by some in an effort to understand how amino acids come together to make proteins that come together to make cells that come together to make simple organisms that come together to make complex organisms. But again, the word “caring” has a number of meanings to us that have nothing to do with amino acids, proteins etc.
We can make the term, ”survival of the fittest,” less anthropomorphic and consider that it really means better able to compete for available resources with a greater chance for survival. This would be consistent with the alternative term, “natural selection.” ”To compete for available resources” really involves more than a random genetic mutation, for better or worse, at this point. The paradigm has shifted. At the very least, there is feedback from the environment that influences survival, changing the exclusivity of the genetic influence. However, more liberally, consider that there are evolutionary transitions involving a process of co-opting something that is already in place for something else, in an incremental fashion called “exaptation,” as information is mutually exchanged. There is a kind of cooperation of information between the inside and the outside of cells and organisms. It is this process that allows for increased adaptation and survival. This cooperation of information may be the basis for what we later understand as “caring.” While I think most current authors subscribe to this notion on some level and discuss it in their theories, the prominence of the gene and mutation persists in these writings.
A couple of examples will illustrate this point. Thomas Metzinger, in his book “The Ego Tunnel,” skillfully weaves the incremental evolutionary development of the brain as a parallel to his central metaphor of the emergent self. He asserts the self continues to develop incrementally throughout our life, and, therefore, it is impossible to consider any individual entity as oneself. He proposes a phenomenal self-model (PSM) as the conscious model of the organism that is activated by the brain as a whole. The self is one way that we, as conscious beings, model reality. It is an illusion, if you will, that allows us to conceive of ourselves as a whole, in the service of survival. While the incremental evolutionary development of the brain is an essential element to his thesis, he explicitly presents evolution on multiple occasions as random and mutation directed, while developing his thesis. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. There is nothing incremental about random mutations. There is no room or need for exaptations.
Another example is illustrated in the book, “Braintrust” by Patricia Churchland. The central theme of her thesis is that attachment, as the basis for pain from separation and the pleasure of company, is the essence of morality. She outlines the neural circuitry and neurochemicals that serve as the neural platform for attachment. She discusses the role of oxytocin, vasopressin and the endorphins. She discusses how these neurochemicals were initially used for hydration status. They were subsequently co-opted incrementally to be used for nurture and caring of the young, and, as a result, in the sense of belonging. She asserts this was generalized to bonds with spouse, family, friends and community. Her theory is well thought out and presented, like much of this literature I have read. I largely use this example to illustrate the ubiquity and variety of the evolution/mutation mindset, however, from a more implicit standpoint, than Metzinger’s explicit one above. At one point in her book she discusses the significance of the prefrontal cortex in social development and uses the phrase, “Mother Nature seems to have found a winner.” Randomness is suggested, but is nowhere a part of her thesis. “Mother Nature” is anthropomorphized as a euphemism for evolution.
There is one other element of this notion of “survival of the fittest” that is bothersome to me. It has to do with the fight or flight response, which is very much entangled with this notion, at least in the animal world. To fight or flee is a means to survive. This paradigm is the focus for much of our everyday existence. Does it still serve us well, as it did the animal kingdom and our ancestors to this point? Perhaps a shift in paradigms needs to be considered, as we are no longer in a Newtonian era of cause and effect. I will address this further toward the end of this discussion.
Through the many genetics-based classes I have taken over the years, I was always profoundly fascinated that early developmental cells, known as blastula cells, which are genetically totipotent (all genetic information is available to be copied), become complex organisms, like us, made up almost entirely of cells that are far from genetically totipotent, as they differentiate and specialize to become our various organs. (This is the basis for stem cell research.) Even 30 to 40 years ago, when I started taking such classes, it was clear that the eventual development of the notochord (the eventual spinal chord) and subsequent organs from these previously undifferentiated genes and cells depended on cellular orientation and chemical differences between cells, i.e. external environmental influences, leading to the cellular differentiation and specialization that leads to the development of our various organs. This magnificent fact of every day development of every organism was forever overlooked when considering genetics, mutations and survival of the fittest. No longer gene centered, the relatively new field of epi-genetics begins to explore the role of the environment and information, the profound feedback loop that may, in all likelihood, be at the heart of phase transitions, adaptations and evolution.
Religious and theological questions have also been a part of the curiosity that led to my exploration of this topic. Creationism and intelligent design are necessarily deterministic. Such considerations are consistent with a Newtonian perspective, formulated at a time when the highest technology was that of a watch, that became a fitting metaphor. However, this is not consistent with the quantum principles of uncertainty, complementarity and non-locality. It is also not consistent with the multiple potentials, that exist in wave forms, of even the most basic particles and, then, the eventual choice of an observer.
Further, I could never understand the origins of right and wrong. Ultimately, even with the concept of sin, the source of all wrong, decay and death is a supposed loving and creative God, the source of everything. This was difficult to resolve, even with a nonpersonal, “little–g,” god.
Thus, have I come to this topic. I will largely be considering two books. As I dictate this, I cannot tell how I will weave these books together but they include “Information and the Nature of Reality” edited by Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregersen, and also “The Ultimate Mystery of Inheritance Epi-Genetics” by Richard C. Francis. “Information and the Nature of Reality” consists of 16 essays by different authors that are somewhat interrelated. The focus is on a top-down perspective. I have already introduced two recent books that I will use as foils. They exemplify some of my concerns with the evolution literature, concerns regarding the ubiquitous nature of anthropomorphic terms and the insidious contradictions that seem to be inherent, to me at least, in this literature. Evolution is a fact, but it seems some pursue it as a religion.
The first several chapters of the information book explore the downfall of the concept of matter in understanding our universe. Einstein's theories of relativity, both special and general, stated the equivalence of mass and energy. Particles came to be seen as manifestations of underlying fields of mass and energy. Space and time came to be understood as relative to an independent observer, making the observer primary. Quantum notions of uncertainty (an inability to determine place and momentum at the same time), complementarity (the notion of particles as points and waves), entanglement and non-locality (shared processes, whereby information is instantaneously exchanged between related particles) further undermine the primary significance of matter, space and time, as we have discussed in previous groups.
This gap created by the downfall of the primary significance of matter is filled, from a quantum perspective, particularly by the concept of complementarity. As you may recall, this concept essentially relates the notion that matter is both particle and wave. It exists as a wave of objective possibilities, consisting of things like charge and spin. These waves of possibility are then collapsed, in a process known as decoherence of the wave function, when measured or observed, to become the reality around us. These waves of objective possibilities are another way of conceptualizing the notion of information. Thus, we really live in an interconnected web of potential, made up of information that can be exchanged instantaneously, independent of the speed of light and, therefore, time.
Perhaps the significance of this for genes and evolution involves genes being a biological carrier of information, not a source of information. They are, after all made up of chemicals, i.e. atoms, that are quantum in nature, and, therefore, defined by information that exists in a wave of potential. As Richard C Francis points out, perhaps genes should no longer be considered as directors of the play but as members of an ensemble cast. To this point, genes have been considered causal. With research into epi-genetics, genes are now being seen as having a responsive aspect. They are as much effect as cause, a profound change in the paradigm, if accurate.
This may go a long way in helping us understand how eyes have likely evolved along multiple divergent lines, as opposed to one random mutation being the source of vision in all it’s various forms. Each line would be modified according to the needs of that developmental line. The electromagnetic spectrum gives us much information about our environment, information that is necessary for survival. It only makes sense that different organisms, as they interact with their environment, would find some way to understand this spectrum of information, as different environments present unique developmental pressures. The information potential carried by the genes essentially interacts with the available information potential in the environment in a mutual form of cooperation that we call feedback.
Francis describes the environmental effect on the behavior of our genes both in the short and the long term. This can be transgenerational, both directly and indirectly. Direct transgenerational effects occur when an epigenetic mark is transmitted from parent to offspring via the egg or sperm. Indirect effects are observed when things like stress produce a change in the behavior of a mother that then leads to changes in the expression of genes that affects her offspring. There are essentially three forms of epigenetic regulation. They include what is called DNA methylation, histone modifications and RNA interference. I will not address these in any detail but refer the interested reader to Francis’ book, which is largely non-technical, as an introductory read on this topic.
So, to this point, we have bridged the gap from matter to information. Can the gap between information and consciousness be bridged also? The sixth essay of the information book takes steps in this direction. It is written by Henry P. Stapp and is a summary of a previously published book, by the same author, entitled “Mindful Universe.” While noting that the matter and neurochemicals that make up the brain are, themselves, made up of chemicals and atoms, he asserts that the brain exists in a quantum state as a collection of parallel potentialities of wave potentials that are continuously decohered to specific particles, like increased levels of potassium ions, that may effect cellular charge and transmission of neural information.
The brain, therefore, is a continuously “evolving cloud of essentially classically conceivable potentialities.” These potentialities are envisioned as a cloud of potential that includes the neural correlates of many mutually exclusive possible experiences. These experiences are associated with a certain element of intent and effort in the person that presumably affects the size and intensity of the cloud of potentialities. This would allow past experiences to be considered before a choice is made. A person can “pose a question of his or her own choosing at any time of his or her own choosing.” We can then make a choice, which decoheres the cloud of potentialities. Each human experience is then seen as an aspect of a “psycho-physical event.”
Objective and subjective elements are combined. Objective information is carried by the physical structure (e.g. photons) that communicates the potentialities. These objective potentialities are decohered upon observation or feedback in the brain, which is subjectively dependent on past experience, weighted by intent and effort. Stapp wonders if these processes of choosing are miniature versions of the choices that were made at the start of the universe. He believes this may be consistent with the idea of a powerful God that gets things started, then giving some of his power to his/her creation.
Until recently, it was difficult to consider information as having any real hard-core consequences because it didn't seem to have any real substantial properties. This played a significant part in the mind-matter dualism of the past. This is also a significant struggle for Thomas Metzinger, referred to previously. He introduces the notion of “subjectivity,” while describing our evolutionary position as “transitional.” “We are special. We manifest a significant phase transition. We brought a strong form of subjectivity into the physical universe-a form of subjectivity mediated by concepts and theories. In the extremely limited part of reality known to us, we are the only sentient creatures for whom the sheer fact of our existence poses a theoretical problem.”
Metzinger really has no satisfactory explanation for the source of the subjectivity he proposes. It seems to arise out of the complexity of our neural network, with it’s many neural variations. He suggests that the source for the subjectivity is the self, which seems to be a distinctly human phenomenon. The self gives rise to theories and science, as we struggle with our desire for immortality and our ever increasing awareness of our existential limits.
While I agree that we are special and represent a phase transition, and will speak to this subsequently, Metzinger’s bottom-up approach merely disguises the mind-matter problem. The dependence on Darwinian evolution is a major, but necessary, flaw. He repeatedly asserts the notion of randomness as the source of self and subjectivity because it gives rise to complexity. Somehow, subjectivity arises out of objective physicality because of the sheer weight of complexity. The roles of feedback and information are endorsed in the form of exaptation but then ignored. I believe it is quite likely understood, on some level, that this would significantly change the paradigm, by adding a kind of external organizational influence, if you will. It would no longer be random, as previously noted.
Finally, his argument depends, as so many do, on the assertion of our problem with our mortality and related search for immortality. This is really only another way of stating the fight or flight paradigm. Mysterious phrases like “burned into our brains” or “longing for” are used without any sense of etiology. This presumption cannot be proven; it is assumed that we are motivated by our fear of death and pursue the delusion of immortality. Nowhere does it seem to be allowed for that we may be curious seekers of information trying to understand our place in the scheme of things, that things like individual spirituality and social religion (ritualized, legalistic and liturgical spirituality) may be efforts to understand, as adequately as we can, the information around us.
Once you have allowed for the importance of information and the process of feedback, a top-down model is in play. Something that is more than physical is a part of the process. The physical grows as a function of the information, and the information grows as a function of the feedback between the physical and the information, etc. If this serves as the basis for our role and place in the universe (and beyond?), then all dualities evaporate. This is perfectly consistent with quantum physics and quantum notions like uncertainty, complementarity, entanglement and non-locality. All else, like Stapp’s notion of the quantum role in consciousness, would naturally flow from this, without mind-matter distinctions. Epi-genetics would be a logical extension of this. The role of exaptation in evolution would be most consistent with this. As evolution progressed, things like cooperation and caring would naturally follow, as we examine the role of oxytocin and it’s exaptation. All of life, in all its complexity, would fill the multiple niches provided by the richness of available information. The richness of this information would continue to expand infinitely, as niches were filled and feedback continued. Just imagine.
Notions of creationism and intelligent design would be inconsistent with, and unnecessary in, such a process. Potentials, possibilities and choice would be limited. While I might concede that a sovereign God would have the power to co-opt such things, why? It would be inconsistent with what we have been given to understand. I am not trying to say that quantum information is the end-all-and-be-all, but I am saying it is worth considering our understanding of the quantum physics of the day as a more accurate paradigm. This may provide a more satisfying means of addressing a number of philosophical and intellectual questions we have wrestled with for millennia.
Other dualities, like right and wrong, life-and-death, would blur, if not dissolve. Everything would be a part of the information and feedback process, adding to the richness and complexity of everything. The trials and tragedies of our biological life would be transcended. Please don't misunderstand. This is not an argument for ignoring what we currently term as “evil”, or accepting blithely the pain of life. It is, rather, an alternative perspective. Such things as “evil” are to be resisted because they ultimately limit the potential for information. Rather than using terms that separate us from others, cause fear and ignorance, and also limit the potential and possibility of information and communication of information, we would strive to improve the complexity and beauty of life and the universe, by limiting “evil” and lessening the pain of life. In the most positive of terms, it is “good,” if you will, to pursue communication, sharing of information and understanding, whenever possible. Dualisms dissolve as sources of information that can be embraced and add to the story of the universe, if you will. Tragedies, like the unexpected death of a loved one, can be the source of other growth and beauty. God, then, is no longer the source of sin, suffering and death, but rather of possibility, potential and choice.
However, in all fairness, I should note that the previous discussion is largely based on the notion of quantum information. Information theory is currently incomplete. The remaining essays in the information book explore the notion of digital information, from a top-down perspective. I will address these essays briefly. Three types of digital information are discussed in a couple of the essays, the most meaningful being semantic information. One of the essays develops the notion of a panentheistic concept of God, based on the sciences of complexity contrasted with the uniformity of the material world. Panentheism, as opposed to pantheism, is the notion that God permeates the universe from within, consistent with pantheism, while being greater than the universe in its entirety. This is similar to the concept I attempted to describe just above. Other ideas include consideration of the triad of mass, energy and information as an analogue to the notion of a triune God. All God language can really be considered as analogical. The idea of God as an informational principle is presented as far richer than God as a designer.
The interested reader can explore these ideas further. They compliment what I have presented above, but are not central to it. The lack of a consistent theory of information is consistent with the various names by which it can be called: consciousness, organizing principal, ultimate source, creator, etc. I speculate, without any rigorous thought, that many of these names suggest a commonality to our understanding of the information we all observe in the world from an endless variety of perspectives. These may be the source of the repeated patterns observed in various cultural beliefs by men like Joseph Campbell, as well as the theory of a collective unconscious, developed by Carl Jung.
I would now like to turn to a discussion of our special place in a transitional phase in the universe, the concept introduced by Thomas Metzinger, above. To this point, we have lived in a world largely ruled by a fight or flight response and best understood using a Newtonian paradigm. “Survival of the fittest” and “natural selection” are fitting terms for what can be considered an amygdala driven brain. Fear is a most prominent emotion. Fear separates us, as we seek to survive. Our ego serves as the guiding principle for this separation and survival. Attachments and concern for our biological limitations are prominent. We emphasize differences and struggle with commonalities.
This emphasis is gradually changing, as we transition to the relative enlargement and increasing dominance of the prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex is the anterior part of the frontal brain lobes. According to Wikipedia, it “has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behaviors, personality expression, decision-making and moderating correct social behavior. The basic activity of this brain region is considered to be orchestration of thoughts and actions in accordance with internal goals.”
“The most typical psychological term for functions carried out by the prefrontal cortex area is executive function. Executive function relates to abilities to differentiate among conflicting thoughts, determine good and bad, better and best, same and different, future consequences of current activities, working toward a defined goal, prediction of outcomes, expectation based on actions, and social ‘control’ (the ability to suppress urges that, if not suppressed, could lead to socially unacceptable outcomes).“ In other words, we are no longer at the mercy of our amygdala and the fight or flight response.
In short, the prefrontal cortex seems to allow us to consider how we are alike, our entanglement, if you will. We seem to be coming full circle to quantum terminology and understanding. Perhaps it is no accident that we are increasingly able to plumb and understand these kinds of concepts. Perhaps the prefrontal cortex and the quantum paradigm are consistent with one another. Concepts like information, decoherence, entanglement and complementarity may come to be better understood with time. They may, in fact, come to be understood as spiritual terms. It is possible that spiritual leaders like Jesus and Buddha anticipated this transition. The materialism, ego and “reality” of the Newtonian paradigm may be giving way to the ever-becoming notion of Buddhism. Jesus’ call for us to leave our families and follow him may not be so harsh and incomprehensible, as it seems on first blush. Our ego would be transcended, and we may better be able to comprehend and appreciate our place in this wonderful universe.
In summary, I think it has become fairly clear that an either/or answer to a top-down versus bottom-up discussion is less than satisfying. An entirely bottom-up approach to the theory of evolution is wanting. Information is a necessary ingredient, even in the barest bones, survival of the fittest paradigm. The limits of matter as a prevailing source of this information, within the framework of a Newtonian paradigm, have been explored. The potential value of quantum physics as a source for this information has been discussed. The inconsistencies of an entirely top-down perspective with the quantum paradigm have been noted. While information theory is far from complete, there are many nagging questions that can more consistently and satisfyingly be explored using the new paradigm. Dualisms like matter/mind-objectivity/subjectivity seem to resolve. The potential role of the prefrontal cortex in the transition from a fear oriented existence to a more spiritual one has been considered and found to be consistent with the information paradigm presented. It is hoped this transition will help us to more clearly understand the information paradigm and our place, as both biological and spiritual beings, in the scheme of things.
Thank you for your consideration and thoughtfulness in these matters.
This is dedicated to Darryl, without whose influence these thoughts would never have been organized, put to paper and presented to others. I only hope this has been a worthy effort.
No comments:
Post a Comment