Royce's Theorem: Intelligence Is Not Computational

[StatusX]

Your answer would degrade cells, spinal cords and cognitive brains to happenstance, that’s not an adequate reason for the emergence of intelligence.

From this point, intelligent life begins and all biological systems have these things in common.

Something abruptly different changes innate matter to what we call living things that show an organizational intelligence.

Two things. First, and most important to your specific point, the way molecules polarize light has nothing to do with information or intelligence. It has to do with polarizing light. Using your own example, a dead body has the same type of molecules, and it certainly isn't a living thing. So this can't be the only difference, and it is extremely doubtful that it makes any difference at all. If you think it can, it is on you to provide evidence, or at least a coherent theory of how it could even be possible. Second, there is no need for some non-physical difference between living things and non-living things. From simple, naturally occurring molecules capable of self-replication, survival of the fittest over billions of years has allowed the (relatively) simple laws of physics to shape systems of amazing complexity. Perhaps there is an explanatory gap in this process, but it is not one that cannot be closed in principle by current methods like the gap with consciosness. An "elan vital" does not solve anything whatsoever. It is analagous to saying that the sun has an inherent, unexplainable "bright substance" flowing throughout it, and stopping right there.

 

[loseyourname]

Your answer would degrade cells, spinal cords and cognitive brains to happenstance, that’s not an adequate reason for the emergence of intelligence.

No. It just reduces the specific structure of constituent molecules to happenstance. Although I will say that all biological structures, including those you listed above, are also generally considered to be the results of happenstance.

There is a sequence from which biological organisms form, carbon bonding is fundamental but only if the molecules are left-handed, why they could not be right handed, we do not know but what we know, is it works when there left handed. From this point, intelligent life begins and all biological systems have these things in common.

But they can be right-handed - that's the thing! Right-handed enantiomers of organic molecules are not found in nature, but right-handed enantiomers can be engineered and they follow all of the same behavioral characteristics that left-handed enantiomers do. They could not be integrated into biological systems because all of the receptors only receive left-handed molecules, but this is again just evolutionary happenstance. Had the molecules been right-handed, then the receptors would have received right-handed molecules.

This whole philosophical debate is about duplicating human intelligence. I argue that even without knowing all the reasons in a chain of sequences whether they be physical or not, there is no reason to believe that with a different chain of sequences, that were not the human sequence, that we could duplicate human intelligence because we do not know what the missing facts are.

Okay, but that isn't a philosophical impediment, it's a practical impediment. It's just a knowledge gap.

 

[selfAdjoint]

It would be interesting to see if viruses, which can now be built out of off-the-shelf chemicals, can be made to work using right handed enantiomers.

 

[loseyourname]

It would be interesting to see if viruses, which can now be built out of off-the-shelf chemicals, can be made to work using right handed enantiomers.

I doubt it, honestly. We could build the virus, but it wouldn't function as it wouldn't be able to infiltrate its host cells, which all have left-handed receptors. It could do everything but multiply, which is about the only function that a virus serves.

 

[Rader]

Two things. First, and most important to your specific point, the way molecules polarize light has nothing to do with information or intelligence. It has to do with polarizing light. Using your own example, a dead body has the same type of molecules, and it certainly isn't a living thing. So this can't be the only difference, and it is extremely doubtful that it makes any difference at all. If you think it can, it is on you to provide evidence, or at least a coherent theory of how it could even be possible.

Specific functions are carried out on all levels of nature, when you impede one of the functions, the next level is not reached. Left handed molecules are not all the evidence, they are only a part in the chain, that if all the parts were not there, we would not be here discussing this. If a living thing did not have them, it would not be classified living. Nothing living is known not to have them, this goes beyond theory. Dead things still have them but then that could only be because something additional is also missing, for they were once living with them.

Second, there is no need for some non-physical difference between living things and non-living things. From simple, naturally occurring molecules capable of self-replication, survival of the fittest over billions of years has allowed the (relatively) simple laws of physics to shape systems of amazing complexity.

Your very statement implies that physics has something built into it that we do not understand yet or something interacting with it for simple laws to organize simple systems into complex systems, I tend to agree with you.

Perhaps there is an explanatory gap in this process, but it is not one that cannot be closed in principle by current methods like the gap with consciousness.

It depends what your answer is. What method is that?

An "elan vital" does not solve anything whatsoever. It is analogous to saying that the sun has an inherent, unexplainable "bright substance" flowing throughout it, and stopping right there.

It was not I, who suggested you could duplicate human intelligence by any other process than how it was done originally.

 

[Rader]

But they can be right-handed - that's the thing! Right-handed enantiomers of organic molecules are not found in nature, but right-handed enantiomers can be engineered and they follow all of the same behavioral characteristics that left-handed enantiomers do. They could not be integrated into biological systems because all of the receptors only receive left-handed molecules, but this is again just evolutionary happenstance. Had the molecules been right-handed, then the receptors would have received right-handed molecules.

You are adding fuel to my fire, the very fact that right-handed enantiomers, can not interact with left-handed enantiomers, says something about duplicating human intelligence. Non integration of your right-handed enantiomers into biological systems only shows that you can not duplicate human intelligence that way. Why are we sidetracking the issue?

 

[StatusX]

Specific functions are carried out on all levels of nature, when you impede one of the functions, the next level is not reached. Left handed molecules are not all the evidence, they are only a part in the chain, that if all the parts were not there, we would not be here discussing this. If a living thing did not have them, it would not be classified living.

Your last sentence is wrong. Left-handed molecules appear nowhere in any definition I've ever read of life. If you met your clone, but he had right-handed molecules or mixed molecules, would you not consider him alive? Again, you need to at least try to explain how there could conceivably be a theoretical link between left-handed molecules and life. As of now, it's just a coincidence, no more significant than the fact that most life as we know it is based on carbon and has DNA. These are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for life in general.

Your very statement implies that physics has something built into it that we do not understand yet or something interacting with it for simple laws to organize simple systems into complex systems, I tend to agree with you.

Simple rules can give rise to complex behavior. Read a paragraph or two about Chaos theory, or for a concrete example, look at the simple computer game "Life". With rules like those in Life, you can get patterns that grow forever without any discernable pattern.

 

[Rader]

Your last sentence is wrong. Left-handed molecules appear nowhere in any definition I've ever read of life.

In organic chemistry, subtle differences in spatial arrangements can give rise to prominent effects.
E.g. the isomers of butenoic acid:
The cis isomer (maleic acid) is toxic, whereas the trans isomer (fumaric acid) is an essential metabolite for plants and animals.

Certain optical arrangements in molecular formation make the difference.
http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~alroche/Ch05.doc

If you met your clone, but he had right-handed molecules or mixed molecules, would you not consider him alive?

Clones have the same molecules as its counterpart, you could not make one any other way. The cells are already organic material. Why do you make up the strangest impossible questions?

Again, you need to at least try to explain how there could conceivably be a theoretical link between left-handed molecules and life. As of now, it's just a coincidence, no more significant than the fact that most life as we know it is based on carbon and has DNA. These are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for life in general.

I would hope to eventually, now is not the right moment, I am like you and everyone else, do not have all the facts just links to some good places to investigate. Notwithstanding I do not think that all the facts entail only physical facts as I have suggested, its just part of the whole picture. Up until now nothing that ever has been investigated and understood, has been contradictory to known laws and classified as chance or coincidence, that said, I am sure there could be laws not yet known that could entail facts about things we still do not understand.

 

[loseyourname]

You are adding fuel to my fire, the very fact that right-handed enantiomers, can not interact with left-handed enantiomers, says something about duplicating human intelligence. Non integration of your right-handed enantiomers into biological systems only shows that you can not duplicate human intelligence that way. Why are we sidetracking the issue?

Don't you get the point here, Rader? If organic enantiomers were all right-handed (some are, by the way - it's amino acids that never are), no functionality would be lost. The system would operate in exactly the same manner. There is nothing special about the handedness of organic molecules. They just happen to be one way. We could build a brain that performed exactly the same as the human brain with right-handed molecules, in principle anyway. Obviously, we don't currently have the means to build a human brain using anything.

 

[Rader]

Don't you get the point here, Rader? If organic enantiomers were all right-handed (some are, by the way - it's amino acids that never are), no functionality would be lost. The system would operate in exactly the same manner. There is nothing special about the handedness of organic molecules. They just happen to be one way.

Your correct left-handed or right-handed are exactly the same from the point of view chemically but optical activity and biological properties are not. All proteins that form living things are practically left-handed, there are exceptions. I do not have the specific information maybe someone else knows this and can confirm that it is correct. I realize it is no easy task to classify when something is living, so for the sake of discussion we will say that proteins and cells co-exist in a life process we observe and left-handed molecules are part of the task.

If what you think I do not get is that this can not be carried out by the opposite glove, you are wrong, it could. Nowhere is nature is it observed this way and for that reason, I think that there may be a set of laws that govern why it is this way and not that way.

Two lines of thought have made me think about why things are one way and not the other way or for that matter any which way.

The human eye can distinguish one single photon and convert it into information exchange in the brain, which results in a physical process through experience. Experimental results are not always the same. Also receptor sites for sense of smell can distinguish between enantiomers. Why would nature evolve links between experience and physical properties if both were not of some use to each other?

I really have more questions than answers at this point what do you think, happenstance?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Your correct left-handed or right-handed are exactly the same from the point of view chemically but optical activity and biological properties are not. All proteins that form living things are practically left-handed, there are exceptions. I do not have the specific information maybe someone else knows this and can confirm that it is correct. I realize it is no easy task to classify when something is living, so for the sake of discussion we will say that proteins and cells co-exist in a life process we observe and left-handed molecules are part of the task.

You're still not getting the point. First of all the optical properties are irrelevant, just an early way to test the shape of the molecule. And as for the biological properties, the point is that they would be just a consequence of life starting out "on the left foot" instead of the right. Everything else follows.

Consider a planet just like Earth where life started with the opposite handedness, then everything, biology,optics and all would be reversed.