[Fis] Mind, Life & Machines

Fri May 23 13:25:39 CEST 2025

Hi Howard,

I've done a video to try to explain this, which you can see here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://youtu.be/T6YPdP3osS0__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RE9Aa6FlWcf93ND2CSldXtru4u16F2w1wJEUr_JJcR2QCob5JqFfj-0iACPmoB9nNU9115-aY_oOv7sxxvCQDOA$ . I'm using VR as a tool for diagramming - that
in itself is fascinating me because drawing in 3D when I am in 3D (and in
my incredibly messy office!) is a unusual experience. I think it allows us
to both experience being in a topology and abstract from it.

The video is all about movement in a mechanism. I'm tempted to turn Lou's
very elegant definition of a machine upside-down: if a machine is an
"activated formal system", what is in the "activation" other than movement
and space, and which is lacking in its abstract formalisation? Since all
life moves, wouldn't it be reasonable to suggest that movement and space
precede abstraction and formalisation? I remember Maxine Sheets Johnstone's
presentation about the primacy of movement (see The Primacy of Movement |
Maxine Sheets-Johnstone
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://benjamins.com/catalog/aicr.14?srsltid=AfmBOopJl7vtH2qNs4vgauwkeIjMiUqH0hYx5NmdqTSQxGlX5sN_bp4W__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RE9Aa6FlWcf93ND2CSldXtru4u16F2w1wJEUr_JJcR2QCob5JqFfj-0iACPmoB9nNU9115-aY_oOv7sxP--2a2M$ >)
to FIS many years ago which touched on this. Perhaps we should revisit
this.

If we accept this, then a lot our logic, which is abstract and divorced
from movement, looks deficient. I would like to think (maybe he can correct
me) this is why Mike seemed to suggest that "binary is not as binary as we
think" in the video discussion. Binary is an abstraction from movement in a
mechanism which we can only partially perceive. It's also throws the
spotlight on movement in thought and society - dialectic.

I'm being exploratory in my thinking here and interested to know what
others think, but perhaps a bit of playful suggestion with some powerful
new tools is helpful to stimulate deeper reflection.

It's also interesting to reflect on generative AI - is it in the tube or in
the field? My feeling is that we are the field for it, and have provided
the means for it to construct tubes (by letting it absorb the field of
language) to which we can relate as simulacra of our experience of moving
through the field of our living.

Best wishes,

Mark

On Fri, 23 May 2025 at 03:18, Howard Bloom <howlbloom at aol.com> wrote:

> Mark, hi.
>
> could you explain what the topology of a mechanism is?
>
> with warmth and oomph--howard
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, May 22, 2025 at 05:46:30 PM EDT, Mark Johnson <
> johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Mike, Bill, all,
>
> I must confess to have slightly lost the plot with the present discussion.
> It could be just me, but FIS feels like a broken record sometimes. It
> certainly isn't caused by Bill or Mike - personally I blame the
> technology... (for reasons of trust and truth which I mentioned earlier -
> incidentally, on that topic, Ian McGilchrist here is great -
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_KNgKQVkcFI__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RE9Aa6FlWcf93ND2CSldXtru4u16F2w1wJEUr_JJcR2QCob5JqFfj-0iACPmoB9nNU9115-aY_oOv7sxBcGoJeo$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_KNgKQVkcFI__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SmLLx1TFqMvqpGJQrHLAuNtEZYGxm_0B5tm6d7uFSZQLN1wIgZekbPCydezUubeuvQlOPiUQp40U-VWFu2_47gI$>
> )
>
> I want to suggest a few propositions, relating particularly to Mike's
> concern for the distinction between machines and living things, and I'm
> interested if Bill, Mike or others agree.
>
> 1. Although we humans are living things, in the context of a mechanised
> world, we (and perhaps only we) can behave like machines. The irony of this
> is that if we knew how machine-like the organic substrate of our
> consciousness is, we would behave more humanely, organically and less
> mechanically. This is the essential message of cybernetics.
>
> 2. Our apprehension of what it is to be mechanical is a charicature of
> mechanism. Essentially human perception of "mechanical" is low-variety,
> unadaptive and by definition, inorganic - Von Foerster's trivial machine.
> It is from this charicature that our apprehension of "binary" systems
> comes.
>
> 3. Our mechanistic charicature comes from an inability to perceive the
> topology of mechanism. I think this is more than Von Foerster's non-trivial
> machine, although it may be the case that to build a non-trivial machine a
> spatial dimension in its behaviour is necessary (see Tom Fischer's work on
> the Ashby's box:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337959136_Learning_the_Ashby_Box_an_experiment_in_second_order_cybernetic_modeling__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RE9Aa6FlWcf93ND2CSldXtru4u16F2w1wJEUr_JJcR2QCob5JqFfj-0iACPmoB9nNU9115-aY_oOv7sxP-Q8Mgw$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337959136_Learning_the_Ashby_Box_an_experiment_in_second_order_cybernetic_modeling__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SmLLx1TFqMvqpGJQrHLAuNtEZYGxm_0B5tm6d7uFSZQLN1wIgZekbPCydezUubeuvQlOPiUQp40U-VWFCies8ks$>
> ). We miss the full dimensional picture, and so attenuate it, and things
> like the Ashby box make no sense to us.
>
> 4. If we could perceive the full topology of mechanism we would revise our
> understanding of logic, binary, distinction, evolution and organisation. I
> wonder if such a new logic may resemble Joe's work, or Lou's topological
> work.
>
> 5. Our present rapidly advancing AI technologies are scientific
> instruments that may yet extend our perception to apprehend the topology of
> mechanism. Alongside this, empirical biological work (particularly Mike's
> bioelectricity work) may well complement the technology and help establish
> a coordinated scientific understanding.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Best wishes
>
> Mark
>
> Dr. Mark William Johnson
> Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health
> University of Manchester
>
> Department of Science Education
> University of Copenhagen
>
> Department of Eye and Vision Science (honorary)
> University of Liverpool
> Phone: 07786 064505
> Email: johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com
> Blog: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RE9Aa6FlWcf93ND2CSldXtru4u16F2w1wJEUr_JJcR2QCob5JqFfj-0iACPmoB9nNU9115-aY_oOv7sxjQmZed4$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SmLLx1TFqMvqpGJQrHLAuNtEZYGxm_0B5tm6d7uFSZQLN1wIgZekbPCydezUubeuvQlOPiUQp40U-VWFKLJkN30$>
>
> On Tue, 13 May 2025, 14:31 Pedro C. Marijuán, <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Mind, Life & Machines
>
>
> *From Mike Levin: Living Things Are Not Machines (Also, They Totally Are)*
>
> To start with, different contexts require us to adopt diverse perspectives
> as to
> how much mind, or mechanism, is before us. The continuing battle over
> whether
> living beings are or are not machines is based on two mistaken but
> pervasive
> beliefs. First, the belief that we can objectively and uniquely nail down
> what
> something is. And second, that our formal models of life, computers or
> materials
> tell the entire story of their capabilities and limitations.
>
> Despite the continued expansion and mainstream prominence of molecular
> biology, and its reductionist machine metaphors, or likely because of it,
> there has
> been an increasing upsurge of papers and science social media posts
> arguing that
> “living things are not machines” (LTNM). There are thoughtful, informative,
> nuanced pieces exploring this direction, such as this exploration of “new
> post-
> genomic biology” and others, masterfully reviewed and analyzed by cognitive
> scientist and historian Ann-Sophie Barwich and historian Matthew James
> Rodriguez at Indiana University Bloomington. (A non-exhaustive list
> includes
> engineer Perry Marshall’s look at how biology transcends the limits of
> computation, computer scientist Alexander Ororbia’s discussion of “mortal
> computation,” biologist Stuart Kauffman and computer scientist Andrea
> Roli’s
> look at the evolution of the biosphere, and the works of philosophers like
> Daniel
> Nicholson, George Kampis and Günther Witzani.)
>
> Many others, however, use the siren song of biological exceptionalism and
> outdated or poorly defined notions of “machines” to push a view that
> misleads lay
> readers and stalls progress in fields such as evolution, cell biology,
> biomedicine,
> cognitive science (and basal cognition), computer science, bioengineering,
> philosophy and more. All of these fields are held back by hidden
> assumptions
> within the LTNM-lens that are better shed in favor of a more fundamental
> framework.
> In arguing against LTNM, I use cognitive science-based
> approaches to understand and manipulate biological substrates.
> I have claimed that cognition goes all the way down to the molecular
> level; after all,
> we find memory and learning in small networks of mutually interacting
> chemicals, and studies show that molecular circuits can act as agential
> materials.
> I take the existence of goals, preferences, problem-solving skills,
> attention,
> memories, etc., in biological substrates such as cells and tissues so
> seriously that
> I’ve staked my entire laboratory career on this approach.
>
> Some molecular biology colleagues consider my views — that bottom-up
> molecular approaches simply won’t suffice, and must be augmented with the
> tools
> and concepts of cognitive science — to be an extreme form of animism.
> Thus, my
> quarrel with LTNM is not coming from a place of sympathy with molecular
> reductionism; I consider myself squarely within the organicist tradition of
> theoretical biologists like Denis Noble, Brian Goodwin, Robert Rosen,
> Francisco
> Varela and Humberto Maturana, whose works all focus on the irreducible,
> creative, agential quality of life; however, I want to push this view
> further than
> many of its adherents might.
>
> LTNM must go, but we should not replace this concept with its opposite,
> the dreaded presumption that living things are machines;
> that is equally wrong and also holds back progress.
> Still, it is easy to see why the LTNM-lens persists. The LTNM framing
> gives the
> feeling that one has said something powerful — cut nature at its joints
> with
> respect to the most important thing there is, life and mind, by
> establishing a
> fundamental category that separates life from the rest of the cold,
> inanimate
> universe. It feels as if it forestalls the constant, pernicious efforts to
> reduce the
> majesty of life to predictable mechanisms with no ability to drive
> consideration or
> the first-person experiences that make life worth living.
> “Many use the siren song of biological exceptionalism and outdated
> or poorly defined notions of ‘machines’ to push a view that misleads
> lay readers and stalls progress.”
>
> But this is all smoke and mirrors, from an idea that took hold as a
> bulwark against
> reductionism and mechanism; it refuses to go away even though we have
> outgrown it. The approach I am advocating for is anchored by the
> principles of
> pluralism and pragmatism: no system definitively is our formal model of
> it, but if
> we move beyond expecting everything to be a nail for one particular
> favorite
> hammer, we are freed up to do the important work of actually
> characterizing the
> sets of tools that may open new frontiers.
>
> As scientists and philosophers, we owe everyone realistic stories of
> scaling and
> gradual metamorphosis along a continuum — not of magical and sharp
> transitions — and a description of the tools we propose to use to interact
> with a
> wide range of systems, along with a commitment to empirical evaluation of
> those
> tools. We must battle our innate mind-blindness with new theories in the
> field of
> Diverse Intelligence and the facilitating technology it enables, much as a
> theory
> and apparatus for electromagnetism enabled access to an enormous, unifying
> spectrum of phenomena of which we had previously had only narrow,
> disparate-
> seeming glimpses. We must resist the urge to see the limits of reality in
> the limits
> of our formal models. Everything, even things that look simple to us, are
> a lot
> more than we think they are because we, too, are finite observers —
> wondrous
> embodied minds with limited perspectives but massive potential and the
> moral
> responsibility to get this (at least somewhat) right.
>
>
> *See an enlarged version of this text at: *
>
> *https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.noemamag.com/living-things-are-not-machines-also-they-totally-are/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RE9Aa6FlWcf93ND2CSldXtru4u16F2w1wJEUr_JJcR2QCob5JqFfj-0iACPmoB9nNU9115-aY_oOv7sx9HeY-jI$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.noemamag.com/living-things-are-not-machines-also-they-totally-are/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TuRf27kMqxXb6vn61GDuY5SQFOpW-2bJsv9g_xjpV95LAvd4KXEvjSvlYJyKOCwm5VRzNhHx_qeJdN1pix7IJbKTwFLX$>*
>
>
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
>
> * From William B. Miller, Jr. : **Information in a cellular framework* –
> abstract for discussion
>
> See in the accompanying attached file (for technical reasons)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas 
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es 
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas 
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es 
> ----------
>
>
> __________________________
> Howard Bloom
> The Howard Bloom Institute
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://howardbloom.institute__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RE9Aa6FlWcf93ND2CSldXtru4u16F2w1wJEUr_JJcR2QCob5JqFfj-0iACPmoB9nNU9115-aY_oOv7sxpoqGMQc$ 
> Author of: The Case of the Sexual Cosmos: Everything You Know About Nature
> is Wrong ("A massive achievement, WOW!"  Richard Foreman, MacArthur Genius
> Award Winner, Officer of the Order of Arts & Letters, France)
> Previous books: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the
> Forces of History ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post),
> Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st
> Century ("reassuring and sobering"-The New Yorker),
> The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism ("A
> tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National Correspondent, The
> Atlantic),
> The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates ("Bloom's argument will rock
> your world." Barbara Ehrenreich),
> How I Accidentally Started the Sixties (“Wow! Whew! Wild! Wonderful!”
> Timothy Leary),
> The Mohammed Code (“A terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on Islam.”
> David Swindle, PJ Media),
> Einstein, Michael Jackson & Me: a Search  for Soul in the Power Pits of
> Rock & Roll ("Amazing. The writing is revelatory." Freddy DeMann, manager
> of Michael Jackson and Madonna), Best Book of 2020, New York Weekly Times
>
> A Quartz Magazine Pro
> Professor of Practice, Kepler Space University
> Co-founder, The Asian Space Technology Summit
> Former Visiting Scholar, Graduate Psychology Department, New York
> University, Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute;
> Founder: International Paleopsychology Project. Founder, Space Development
> Steering Committee.  Member Of Board Of Governors, National Space Society.
> Founding Board Member: Epic of Evolution Society. Founding Board Member,
> The Darwin Project.
>
> BRIC-TV's 66-minute film, The Grand Unified Theory of Howard Bloom,
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atYmiEZ6YDU__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RE9Aa6FlWcf93ND2CSldXtru4u16F2w1wJEUr_JJcR2QCob5JqFfj-0iACPmoB9nNU9115-aY_oOv7sx6gb67Yk$ 
> Best Picture, Science Design Film Festival. Best Documentary Feature, Not
> Film Festival, Italy. Available  on Apple TV, Amazon, Google Play,
> Microsoft, Vimeo, Vudu, and Fandango.
>
>
>

-- 
Dr. Mark William Johnson
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health
University of Manchester

Department of Science Education
University of Copenhagen

Department of Eye and Vision Science (honorary)
University of Liverpool
Phone: 07786 064505
Email: johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com
Blog: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RE9Aa6FlWcf93ND2CSldXtru4u16F2w1wJEUr_JJcR2QCob5JqFfj-0iACPmoB9nNU9115-aY_oOv7sxjQmZed4$ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250523/f55e412d/attachment-0001.html>