<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">Dear Pedro, Dear Lou, Dear John, Dear Gordana, Dear Joe,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">Could you enlighten me on the point of discussing this topic in the year 2025?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">I think since Julien Offray de La Mettrie's book "Man A Machine" in 1747, triggering a long debate between the mechanist view and the vitalist view for 200 years, the debate had been finished by Macy Meetings, with the birth of Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics. Right? Am I missed something?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">Today, the concept of "machine" has been replaced by "system" - from Newton's clock system to the systems that self-regulate (cybernetics) and systems that unfold themselves via information (biological), all the way to today's highly hyped LLM systems (including Elon Musk's Optimus which just performed a good dance that boosted Tesla stock.) Why not we talk about "robots" instead of "machine" which sounds too old for me... </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">Yesterday, I was trying to ask LLM (Grok) to identify a beautiful pianist for me, in a simple question, "who is she?", but it failed miserably while producing almost a Ph.D. dissertation for me, offering many wrong answers. I was so frustrated and suggested a "HI-cooperate-with-AI" path, i.e. ask it to provide me its best guess of names only, and I Google the names to check the online images to see if it is the right person. The LLM machine ran into a Waterloo, and the end of the session is that I demanded it to report to their AI Team as a severe bug, which it agreed to do apologetically. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">If you're interested, here is the link of that funny conversation: </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1921775422104367167__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Sin9JEnph0OxI2pBetvpeZ-IfTJkWZ9-McIEotcQAtnt99fXU_FgGFBfiqN-DGJ0t_UMqPMGHL039snt-9DGyGQ9kM41$">https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1921775422104367167</a></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">If you are patient enough to reach the final round when Grok said "<span style="background-color:transparent;color:black;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:small">I deeply apologize for the repeated errors in my responses, ..... I recognize that my mistakes—such as .... This case has indeed exposed significant gaps in my ability to accurately filter and identify individuals based on specific criteria, especially in a niche domain like young Asian female pianists performing at a specific venue. I take full responsibility for these errors and agree that this issue needs to be escalated for improvement...</span>" It might be relevant to this discussion as well.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">Thoughts?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">Best regards, Jason</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 9:51 AM <<a href="mailto:joe.brenner@bluewin.ch">joe.brenner@bluewin.ch</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-size:13pt">Dear All,</span>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size:13pt">1. Because of the frequency with which the phrase "some of my best friends" has been used, it is conceivable that a machine could identify its original horrendous context. However, I doubt that a machine could define the meaning it had and still has for many people. </span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size:13pt"> </span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size:13pt">2. Wu Kun has defined the sets of all the information processes associated with an individual human being - past present and future - as an "informosome". I do not believe that machines can operate with informosomes that include, among other things, the meanings and feelings of the first paragraph above.</span>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size:13pt">3. I conclude that it is an open question whether mind and machines can be talked about in the same "breath", where breath is to be understood in its Chinese and other Eastern sense, that includes formlessness and non-being. </span>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size:13pt">4. Machines and machine thinking are powerful enough. There is no need for their handlers to try to explain everything with them.</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size:13pt">Having reached the summit of power, Trump still had to expose again his nullity by attacking Biden and claiming his election in 2020 was rigged.</span>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size:13pt">Thank you.</span>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size:13pt">Joseph</span>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
Le 14.05.2025 11:01 CEST, Louis Kauffman <<a href="mailto:loukau@gmail.com" target="_blank">loukau@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div> Well… the spiral for us is always open in a way that does not occur for machines or algorithms. But algorithms do spiral.
<div>
For example consider how we find prime numbers. We start with 2 and strike out all of its multiples then we strike out all multiples of 3 and so on.
</div>
<div>
If we strike out e.g. all multiples of 2,3 and 5 then the numbers that are left < 25 are all the primes less than 5^2 = 25. But now we know a lot of primes:
</div>
<div>
2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23, And if we strike with these we get all the primes less than 23^2 = 529. Knowing these … So finding the primes, spirals in this way.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
We stand back and appreciate, think about, ask questions of this spiraling process. The fact that in principle we can always stand back is key.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
This is probably why some of our best friends are machines.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Penrose likes to use a diagram of a chess position to point out the difference between humans and machines. In the position, a human can see at once from the distinction made by the pawn structure that the game is a draw. No calculation needed, just an understanding of structure. A nearsighted robot only calculating moves would not see it. A better programming might see it, but the point about how understanding trumps calculation is important. And a machine structure following rules only “does not have understanding”. Ha! Maybe this is wrong. Go speak to ChatGPT about it.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<br>
<div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
On May 14, 2025, at 2:43 AM, <a href="mailto:joe.brenner@bluewin.ch" target="_blank">joe.brenner@bluewin.ch</a> wrote:
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">
<span style="font-size:13pt">Dear Lou and All,</span>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">
<span style="font-size:13pt">This is my idea of a good question. Another is what is the distinction, if not mind, between</span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span> </span>human life and machines. The systems we call human beings instantiate lots of machines: pumps, levers, on-off switches and so on. However, their recursive behavior, to use Lou's term is for me solely circular or "cyclic", not "spiral".</span>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">
<span style="font-size:13pt">We have here, I think, a case for simplexity in the acceptation of A. Berthoz (<em>La Simplexité</em><span> </span>(Jacob, Paris, 2009). M</span><span style="font-size:13pt">achines operate<span> </span><em>with</em><span> </span>information; human minds operate<span> </span><em>on<span> </span></em>information. </span>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">
<span style="font-size:13pt">With apologies to the American humorist Will Rogers (1879 - 1935): "I never met a machine I didn't like!"</span>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">
<span style="font-size:13pt">Thank you and best wishes,</span>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none">
<span style="font-size:13pt">Joseph</span>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
Le 13.05.2025 20:53 CEST, Louis Kauffman <<a href="mailto:loukau@gmail.com" target="_blank">loukau@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Dear Folks,
</div> A key question for this discussion is: What is a machine?<span> </span>
<div>
One working definition of a machine is that it is an instantiation in physical processes of a specified system of rules and procedures.<span> </span>
<div>
In other words a machine is a realization of a formal system in the sense of mathematical logic. Thus realized Turing machines are machines in this sense.
</div>
<div>
Note that behaviors of such machines, happening recursively, are not mathematically predictable in general. Machine behaviours go beyond the possibilities of mathematical prediction to processes unfolding in time.
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
One may want to extend this definition to at least machines that are<span> </span><span style="font-size:13pt">self-modifyinDeg</span><span> </span>in terms of their own rules and procedures, and one may want to discuss the extent to which a biological organism's behaviours can be “captured” by such a set of rules, and how our finding such rules is a reflection of our interaction/observation leading to knowledge of the organism.
</div>
<div>
Best,
</div>
<div>
Lou Kauffman
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
On May 13, 2025, at 8:27 AM, Pedro C. Marijuán <<a href="mailto:pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com" target="_blank">pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:x-large">Mind, Life & Machines</span></p>
<p><strong><span style="font-size:large">From Mike Levin: Living Things Are Not Machines (Also, They<br>
Totally Are)</span></strong></p>
<p>To start with, different contexts require us to adopt diverse perspectives as to<br>
how much mind, or mechanism, is before us. The continuing battle over whether<br>
living beings are or are not machines is based on two mistaken but pervasive<br>
beliefs. First, the belief that we can objectively and uniquely nail down what<br>
something is. And second, that our formal models of life, computers or materials<br>
tell the entire story of their capabilities and limitations.</p>
<p>Despite the continued expansion and mainstream prominence of molecular<br>
biology, and its reductionist machine metaphors, or likely because of it, there has<br>
been an increasing upsurge of papers and science social media posts arguing that<br>
“living things are not machines” (LTNM). There are thoughtful, informative,<br>
nuanced pieces exploring this direction, such as this exploration of “new post-<br>
genomic biology” and others, masterfully reviewed and analyzed by cognitive<br>
scientist and historian Ann-Sophie Barwich and historian Matthew James<br>
Rodriguez at Indiana University Bloomington. (A non-exhaustive list includes<br>
engineer Perry Marshall’s look at how biology transcends the limits of<br>
computation, computer scientist Alexander Ororbia’s discussion of “mortal<br>
computation,” biologist Stuart Kauffman and computer scientist Andrea Roli’s<br>
look at the evolution of the biosphere, and the works of philosophers like Daniel<br>
Nicholson, George Kampis and Günther Witzani.)</p>
<p>Many others, however, use the siren song of biological exceptionalism and<br>
outdated or poorly defined notions of “machines” to push a view that misleads lay<br>
readers and stalls progress in fields such as evolution, cell biology, biomedicine,<br>
cognitive science (and basal cognition), computer science, bioengineering,<br>
philosophy and more. All of these fields are held back by hidden assumptions<br>
within the LTNM-lens that are better shed in favor of a more fundamental framework.</p> In arguing against LTNM, I use cognitive science-based <span> </span>
<br>
approaches to understand and manipulate biological substrates.<span> </span>
<br>
I have claimed that cognition goes all the way down to the molecular level; after all,<span> </span>
<br>
we find memory and learning in small networks of mutually interacting<span> </span>
<br>
chemicals, and studies show that molecular circuits can act as agential materials.<span> </span>
<br>
I take the existence of goals, preferences, problem-solving skills, attention,<span> </span>
<br>
memories, etc., in biological substrates such as cells and tissues so seriously that<span> </span>
<br>
I’ve staked my entire laboratory career on this approach.<span> </span>
<br>
<br>
Some molecular biology colleagues consider my views — that bottom-up<span> </span>
<br>
molecular approaches simply won’t suffice, and must be augmented with the tools<span> </span>
<br>
and concepts of cognitive science — to be an extreme form of animism. Thus, my<span> </span>
<br>
quarrel with LTNM is not coming from a place of sympathy with molecular<span> </span>
<br>
reductionism; I consider myself squarely within the organicist tradition of<span> </span>
<br>
theoretical biologists like Denis Noble, Brian Goodwin, Robert Rosen, Francisco<span> </span>
<br>
Varela and Humberto Maturana, whose works all focus on the irreducible,<span> </span>
<br>
creative, agential quality of life; however, I want to push this view further than<span> </span>
<br>
many of its adherents might.<span> </span>
<br>
<br>
LTNM must go, but we should not replace this concept with its opposite, <span> </span>
<br>
the dreaded presumption that living things are machines;<span> </span>
<br>
that is equally wrong and also holds back progress.<span> </span>
<br>
Still, it is easy to see why the LTNM-lens persists. The LTNM framing gives the<span> </span>
<br>
feeling that one has said something powerful — cut nature at its joints with<span> </span>
<br>
respect to the most important thing there is, life and mind, by establishing a<span> </span>
<br>
fundamental category that separates life from the rest of the cold, inanimate<span> </span>
<br>
universe. It feels as if it forestalls the constant, pernicious efforts to reduce the<span> </span>
<br>
majesty of life to predictable mechanisms with no ability to drive consideration or<span> </span>
<br>
the first-person experiences that make life worth living.<span> </span>
<br>
“Many use the siren song of biological exceptionalism and outdated<span> </span>
<br>
or poorly defined notions of ‘machines’ to push a view that misleads<span> </span>
<br>
lay readers and stalls progress.”<span> </span>
<br>
<br>
But this is all smoke and mirrors, from an idea that took hold as a bulwark against<span> </span>
<br>
reductionism and mechanism; it refuses to go away even though we have<span> </span>
<br>
outgrown it. The approach I am advocating for is anchored by the principles of<span> </span>
<br>
pluralism and pragmatism: no system definitively is our formal model of it, but if<span> </span>
<br>
we move beyond expecting everything to be a nail for one particular favorite<span> </span>
<br>
hammer, we are freed up to do the important work of actually characterizing the<span> </span>
<br>
sets of tools that may open new frontiers.<span> </span>
<br>
<br>
As scientists and philosophers, we owe everyone realistic stories of scaling and<span> </span>
<br>
gradual metamorphosis along a continuum — not of magical and sharp<span> </span>
<br>
transitions — and a description of the tools we propose to use to interact with a<span> </span>
<br>
wide range of systems, along with a commitment to empirical evaluation of those<span> </span>
<br>
tools. We must battle our innate mind-blindness with new theories in the field of<span> </span>
<br>
Diverse Intelligence and the facilitating technology it enables, much as a theory<span> </span>
<br>
and apparatus for electromagnetism enabled access to an enormous, unifying<span> </span>
<br>
spectrum of phenomena of which we had previously had only narrow, disparate-<span> </span>
<br>
seeming glimpses. We must resist the urge to see the limits of reality in the limits<span> </span>
<br>
of our formal models. Everything, even things that look simple to us, are a lot<span> </span>
<br>
more than we think they are because we, too, are finite observers — wondrous<span> </span>
<br>
embodied minds with limited perspectives but massive potential and the moral<span> </span>
<br>
responsibility to get this (at least somewhat) right.<span> </span>
<br><em><br></em>
<br><em>See an enlarged version of this text at:<span> </span></em>
<br>
<p><em><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:serif" role="presentation"><a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.noemamag.com/living-things-are-not-machines-also-they-totally-are/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TuRf27kMqxXb6vn61GDuY5SQFOpW-2bJsv9g_xjpV95LAvd4KXEvjSvlYJyKOCwm5VRzNhHx_qeJdN1pix7IJbKTwFLX$" target="_blank">https://www.noemamag.com/living-things-are-not-machines-also-they-totally-are/</a></span></em></p>
<p><em><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:serif" role="presentation">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span><span style="font-size:large"><strong> From William B. Miller, Jr. :<span> </span></strong></span></span><span style="font-size:large"><strong><span>Information in a cellular framework</span></strong><span><span> </span>– abstract for discussion</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:large"><span>See in the accompanying attached file (for technical reasons)<br></span></span></p>
<div align="left">
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align:center">
<span style="font-size:x-large"><span> </span></span>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div style="text-align:justify">
<span> </span>
</div>
<div style="text-align:justify">
<span> </span>
</div>
</div><span id="m_5401463317880931907cid:47CD06F7-FD49-44BD-88F5-6D7C30D846B1"><Information in a cellular framework - FIS.doc></span>_______________________________________________<span> </span>
<br>
Fis mailing list<span> </span>
<br><a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><span> </span>
<br><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><span> </span>
<br>
----------<span> </span>
<br>
INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL<span> </span>
<br>
<br>
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<span> </span>
<br>
Puede encontrar toda la informaci�n sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace:<span> </span><a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><span> </span>
<br>
Recuerde que si est� suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicaci�n en el momento en que lo desee.<span> </span>
<br><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a><span> </span>
<br>
----------
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div> _______________________________________________<span> </span>
<br>
Fis mailing list<span> </span>
<br><a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><span> </span>
<br><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><span> </span>
<br>
----------<span> </span>
<br>
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL<span> </span>
<br>
<br>
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<span> </span>
<br>
Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace:<span> </span><a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><span> </span>
<br>
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.<span> </span>
<br><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a><span> </span>
<br>
----------
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div> _______________________________________________
<br>
Fis mailing list
<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a>
<br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a>
<br>
----------
<br>
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
<br>
<br>
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
<br>
Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a>
<br>
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.
<br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a>
<br>
----------
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
----------<br>
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL<br>
<br>
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br>
Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><br>
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.<br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a><br>
----------<br>
</blockquote></div>