Dr. Levin is blowing up the foundations of the conventional wisdom starting from Neo-Darwinism to what it means to be "intelligent" by taking it all to the next level. Hopefully, other scientists will follow him there. This was very enlightening. Thanks Sean!
I'm a biologist. I went in thinking I had a rough but sort of well-defined notion of the concepts featured in the title. Now I have whatever the intellectual equivalent of PTSD is. Great episode 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻.
Terrance Deacon had been excellent in this imo. He's been pushing towards this sort of paradigm shift for years. I think his Incomplete Nature is brilliant.
For everyone who did not yet listen to this episode, just so you get a basic idea of what to expect: they quickly gloss over the fact that Michael Levin works with 500 million year old immortal worms that you can chop up into 200 pieces and each of the pieces then regrows an entire worm which proves that complex organisms dont have to die, because they had more important things to discuss. Wow. This is one of the best episodes of any science podcast I´ve listened to. Simply amazing.
Oh WOW! This was EXACTLY what I needed to learn about the organ level collaboration and emergence for my own work on systems development! THANK YOU! Also, my video called "Consciousness is Metamorphic Matter (measured with entropy)" discusses the same basic information sharing system he talks about between cells, but on the atomic level. And I'm so happy that someone else has pointed out the reality of game theory being a bit wonky as compared to real life, since collaboration (what he calls "merging") almost always has a higher reward, given the laws of entropy/evolution, where specialization of parts allow a more efficient larger whole to decrease energy use.
I find bioelectricity a hard idea to understand. At about 26:35 into ruclips.net/video/HKWyB9qLP_s/видео.html he talks in more detail about what it is.
Great interview! If anyone's interested -- I also interviewed Michael Levin on my channel -- The Jax Pax Channel -- in April 2022. Find out his favourite books and where he sees the future heading!!
Thank you Sir over the last year ,listening to your podcasts, have been a great source of knowledge and comfort , I got covid and was very unwell but I kept my spirits upbeat ,I've made a full recovery thankfully.
Thank you both for this fascinating discussion. Michael introduced many new and profound observations. And he framed them so intelligently and efficiently. Wow.
The Michael Levin rabbit hole is no joke, just when I think I really get it he says something else that makes me realize that there’s another level to what he’s studying or another implication I missed. I wish the man would write a book
Another absolutely amazing interview. Thank you very much. Truly making the world a better place to share knowledge like that. I like the parallels to IT-solutions. Definitely both biology and IT works in the same domain solving problems from the real practical world. Biology still totally owns our IT-solutions. Will be interesting to see what happens as more biology-tricks carry over to IT.
Didn't expect this, but this interview is so many new and interesting informations. Each time I think that those topics were already covered in previous Mindscape episodes, I'm constantly amazed by people with new sets of ideas and research activities.
I am curious if these bioelectrical set points are akin to attractors in a chaotic morphological space or if they are more or less arbitrarily manipulable.
my god this guy seems so high level. id love to see you drag him back and talk about how such advances in tech will impact the near-future... and how do you make a judgement on whether such things are a good or bad thing.
Near the end when Michael Levin talks about how categories that we use like machine and robot are no longer good categories. I would include "consciousness" as one of those, maybe "mind" and "self".
Yeah I think at the end of the day, all categories are simplifications. And I think certainly some are more useful than others I agree about Consciousness and mind. Mind is certainly outdated, with the idea of a distinction between mind and body or mental and physical... Consciousness is more vague and used in many different ways. A lot of people use Consciousness is the idea of our ability to communicate in complex language and to use abstract Notions. And others use it for the Mystery of Life and what makes biological systems different than non biological systems And also there seems to be a lot of magical thinking in Consciousness studies and discussions As for the idea of self I think that is much more fundamental. Basically the categories of organism and environment are pretty foundational If by self, you mean the more pop psyche idea of someone's personality and some uniqueness beyond their genetics and circumstances, then I agree than that's again getting into magical thinking But I think the idea of an organism with a unique genetic code and the environment that the organisms exists in, is pretty useful... I get that the guests on this podcast is saying that it's more complex than how we often simplify it. But there are genetic diseases and we have identified and cured many of them. So certainly understanding genetics, is incredibly useful and accurate to a certain degree. Anyway I do agree though that many of our categories are based on historical inaccuracies and cognitive fallacies
Standing on the shoulders of giants by the way of D'arcy Wentorth Thompson and his calls book "On Growth and Form" which surely has to have been on Michael Levin's list of foundational texts.
Sean, you mentioned the Star Trek Borg which is a Frankenstein type story about biology. Science is careful like Mr. Spock, yet boldly goes where honest takes it. Thank you Michael for your contributions to science.
Around 46:30: "The genetics can be very messy, but the anatomy is rock solid". I'm puzzled. Isn't that evidence for Lamarck's inheritance of acquired characteristics? If so, isn't that theory considered incompatible with Darwin's evolution any more? What's the current scientific consensus on the subject?
Suddenly, jumps in evolution seems no longer impossible, The "miracles" Jesus did, have come closer to an explanation. "every miracle has its method". Sri Aurobindo.
Indeed. His research and results are so revolutionary. Don't know why thisn't front page news, like it was when the first picture of a black hole was taken a few years ago.
The higher level behavior at organ level is not invented every time by each organ even though the organs seem to have higher level goal oriented behavior in real time. That behavior was selected for and got encoded through the genetic molecules by the long process of evolution. I think use of active voice when talking about evolutionary process is a mistake. We need to talk about evolution as a process in passive voice. It is the post facto statistical effect that we give the name of evolution.
IMO using words like "goal oriented" for evolution is mistaken. The population that ends up being left over is simply the statistical result of the fitness of the organism in the environment. If the environment changes then what was fit in previous environment may appear to be counter goal oriented for some time due to inertia of the biological evolution through generational reproductive process. For example if the global warming really happens then the evolutionary success of polar bears to grow a lot of fur will look like counter goal oriented in short run. But then appear goal oriented again once the more and more baby polar bears are seen with less fur surviving to be adult bears of reproductive age. I think evolution cannot be though in terms of real time but makes sense only over long, very long time scales.
It is true that in real time the ability of higher levels to guide lower levels in biological systems is correct observation,. But the higher levels have those abilities because they grew from simpler, lower level systems over long evolutionary time scales. All life came from initial simpler life.
Biologists climbing a mountain arrive at a plateau. They discover a camp of theologians that have been waiting there for hundreds of years with a book of teleology. Lol
Sure, evolutionary algorithms, which try random stuff and keep exploring a bit randomly from the best solutions, are used in machine learning. Intelligent results come from that, surprisingly enough without any design needed.
@@alvarorodriguez1592 What do you mean no design? The machine learning algorithm was designed and importantly the metric to evaluate the best solution was designed. There is a lot of human intelligence in A.I.
So is epigenetics different than what's described here? Bruce Lipton / Nessa Carey talk about how the mind / environment , orchestrates gene expression.. like the sex of an alligator is determined by the temperature surrounding the egg. And what role does (gut) bacteria play in orchestrating and manipulating one's gene expression? Would have also liked to have heard what Michael speculates his research implies about consciousness, especially in light our divided , asymmetric brain. Since most of what the brain processes is outside of your immediate focus, until the products of that processing get promoted to your consciousness, is it possible that a process not currently illuminated by your attention spotlight, is having it's own experience? Sam Harris suggests all the unconscious processes may be flowing in and out of your consciousness awareness, HOWEVER, maybe like a 2 headed worm deciding which direction to go, maybe there exists light(s) in the mansion of your mind , that are just as conscious as you are now, but your first-person experiencing self doesn't have access to those rooms? Many spooky experiments by VS Ramachandran and Gazzaniga show that the less connections there are between the left and right hemispheres, the more you can demonstrate two distinct points-of-view emerging. And at best, the normal brain has only 2% of the neurons connecting the left and right halves.. which Ian McGilchrist suggests these connections serve to *INHIBIT* 2 personalities. He mentions there are real consequences due to the unusual brain structure: left (posterior) hemisphere bigger than the right, yet right frontal cortex much bigger than the left. Often these differences are cited as necessary for language, yet the great apes have the same structure. Finally, Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff are currently using anesthesia to test the Orchestrated objective reduction Theory of Consciousness which suggests that Quantum mechanics needs to be modified (perhaps by gravity) should the Microtubules Quantum Theory be correct! Anil Seth has also done some very interesting work on anesthesia.
He touches on some of that in other interviews, but generally avoids the consciousness conversations. It's not the direction he's going in, unless you want to develop AI.
lol Michael says (paraphrasing) 'sure theres no evidence of a designer if you want to look at it in a basic way... but at the larger level of organization they all work together to accomplish a higher goal.' Sean Carroll: 👁👃🏼👁 .... 🤯
The molecule needs atoms. The cells need molecules. The organs need cells. The body needs organs. If the organs defect (mine are. It's called Cancer.), the body will eventually die. You can substitute a handful of words for the words "needs" and "defect" there but the effect is the same.
Interesting how both of you just shrugged off the metaphysical claim that these systems are clearly not designed. I would like to see some arguments to back it up. Assuming that even badly designed things are designed, how can one claim that it is not designed. Were you a The Sims character, scientist, would it be clear that the system was not designed?
Our entire view of intelligence seems to be wrong. There's this guy's work with frog skin cells, which self organize to form a new body, capable of moving and making decisions. Then there's the new work on slime mold, which can solve complex problems. Japanese researchers put food in a pattern that was congruent with population centers in Tokyo, the slime mold grew towards the food and ended up making pathways to it that follow almost the exact same paths as the Tokyo subway system. Somehow someone got slime mold to control a robot, and it moved the robot to a place with conditions it prefers. It solves mazes that only mice were previously able to solve. Truly fascinating stuff. The fact that matter self organizes into self replicating systems known as life is mind blowing. Then to say that the entire process is completely random, despite not having a full understanding of it, is just whacky and close-minded. I'll agree with them that whatever is animating reality is not a dude in the sky with a throne of crystal, that just reeks of human thought, but at the same time I don't think it's all just random happenstance.
@@spracketskooch good post. Plant intelligence is another overlooked area. Similar to the slime mold experiment, Monica Gagliano performed experiments with pea plants that suggest a deeper intellligence than we can simply observe with the eyes. Sean Carroll does close-minded trickery in his books, especially in The Big Picture, when he labels anything speculative as "spoon bending" . . . of course certain lines of pseudo-science need to be called out, but all science was a speculation at one point in time. Carroll calls his perspective poetic naturalism (somethign like a rational open-mindedness) but frequently leaves out the poetic part. Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance is essentially the hidden influencial force that Levin describes here. The only difference is that Sheldrake is willing to do a little speculation on the side of intelligent design.
If you want to get funding by the Big Boys, you have to deny all that stuff outright. Fact of life in academia. But there's no law against doing science properly and letting the results suggest something other than materialist reductionism. Let the frog skin speak for itself. But he's not gonna say it. And he doesn't have to and I don't want him to. Because I want him to be taken seriously by the Money. This work absolutely must continue.
(1) This sounds like some of the most interesting stuff if true. It feels like finding a hidden layer of science between cellular biology, neuroscience, and computer science. However (2) he does a bunch of things that rub me the wrong way. He talks super fast and isn't really letting Sean step in and ask questions. He also doesn't emphasize a few important things but instead mentions dozens of things. This makes me wonder about how solid his evidence actually is. He also mentions finding freedom and goals in QM and action minimization which makes me think he doesn't know how to do reductionism, essentially making the same mistake panpsychists make. Basically, my skepticism alarms are high but if he passes them I'm going to need to spend hundreds of hours understanding all of his mind-blowing work.
I wrote this before he mentioned that he's writing a paper with Bach so I'm glad I recognized the vibe and see that they've probably influenced each other.
Listen to some of his other lectures and interviews so you can get more details. In some, he shows video and pictures, so that can be helpful for some.
There is no better advise than looking him up and his work. I've spent tens of hours of listening to him the past 3/4 years, ever since his first appearance publicly to talk about this science. You won't regret digging deep into presentations that include Q&A with the professionals in who participate. It's extremely hard to define his field of work, and many may be alienated by this diversity, and that is part of the problem. This guy is probably as important as the person who discovered DNA. Genomics is irreplaceable in medicine nowadays, and Levin's work has the potential to actually challenge that claim. It is the epigenome, his research indirectly redefines the epigenome into a superior biologic system above genetics.
Once again, materialist/physicalist scientists are smuggling in teleological explanations and letting teleology do all the heavy lifting in their physicalist paradigm.
Thank you very much! This podcast was M A G I C A L ! 👉 T H E B E S T E P I S O D E B Y F A R !!!! 👈 Please invite Michael back for more on this topic.
Dr. Levin is blowing up the foundations of the conventional wisdom starting from Neo-Darwinism to what it means to be "intelligent" by taking it all to the next level. Hopefully, other scientists will follow him there. This was very enlightening. Thanks Sean!
💣
✌
I'm a biologist. I went in thinking I had a rough but sort of well-defined notion of the concepts featured in the title.
Now I have whatever the intellectual equivalent of PTSD is.
Great episode 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻.
😂😍😚
Paradigm shifts can be a disorienting smack on the cabeza! 😄
Terrance Deacon had been excellent in this imo. He's been pushing towards this sort of paradigm shift for years. I think his Incomplete Nature is brilliant.
For everyone who did not yet listen to this episode, just so you get a basic idea of what to expect: they quickly gloss over the fact that Michael Levin works with 500 million year old immortal worms that you can chop up into 200 pieces and each of the pieces then regrows an entire worm which proves that complex organisms dont have to die, because they had more important things to discuss. Wow. This is one of the best episodes of any science podcast I´ve listened to. Simply amazing.
Michael always shows up on my Twitter feed with the best book recommendations! Great guest!
Like what?
Oh WOW! This was EXACTLY what I needed to learn about the organ level collaboration and emergence for my own work on systems development! THANK YOU! Also, my video called "Consciousness is Metamorphic Matter (measured with entropy)" discusses the same basic information sharing system he talks about between cells, but on the atomic level. And I'm so happy that someone else has pointed out the reality of game theory being a bit wonky as compared to real life, since collaboration (what he calls "merging") almost always has a higher reward, given the laws of entropy/evolution, where specialization of parts allow a more efficient larger whole to decrease energy use.
I have a feeling that game theory could be updated to include non-zero-sum (or Carse's "Infinite") games
Top 3 episodes of the Mindscape Podcast ever. We need a redo.
One of the most informative and thought-provoking episodes you have done. He needs to be a regular on your podcast.
One of my favorite episodes so far
I find bioelectricity a hard idea to understand. At about 26:35 into ruclips.net/video/HKWyB9qLP_s/видео.html he talks in more detail about what it is.
Great reference, thank you!
Great interview! If anyone's interested -- I also interviewed Michael Levin on my channel -- The Jax Pax Channel -- in April 2022. Find out his favourite books and where he sees the future heading!!
Outstanding talk. We need another hour of this, Sean!
Thank you Sir over the last year ,listening to your podcasts, have been a great source of knowledge and comfort , I got covid and was very unwell but I kept my spirits upbeat ,I've made a full recovery thankfully.
🙏💚
Thank you both for this fascinating discussion. Michael introduced many new and profound observations. And he framed them so intelligently and efficiently. Wow.
How refreshing to be able to listen to the best thinkers, and THEIR ability to let us listen to them think
Sean Carroll thinks an ikea bookshelf is complicated!!! 🤣🤣🤣
Totally awesome interview! Always love Sean’s intelligent questions.
The Michael Levin rabbit hole is no joke, just when I think I really get it he says something else that makes me realize that there’s another level to what he’s studying or another implication I missed. I wish the man would write a book
Another absolutely amazing interview. Thank you very much. Truly making the world a better place to share knowledge like that. I like the parallels to IT-solutions. Definitely both biology and IT works in the same domain solving problems from the real practical world. Biology still totally owns our IT-solutions. Will be interesting to see what happens as more biology-tricks carry over to IT.
Didn't expect this, but this interview is so many new and interesting informations. Each time I think that those topics were already covered in previous Mindscape episodes, I'm constantly amazed by people with new sets of ideas and research activities.
I am curious if these bioelectrical set points are akin to attractors in a chaotic morphological space or if they are more or less arbitrarily manipulable.
You got me wondering too. I'm wondering what manipulable means. Does it mean pulable more than once, or pulable from several directions?
Thank you!
HE HAS FIGURED OUT CANCER
When the legends meet. Sean carol and Michael Levin🔓 🌍
my god this guy seems so high level. id love to see you drag him back and talk about how such advances in tech will impact the near-future... and how do you make a judgement on whether such things are a good or bad thing.
Cellular Automata’ Changing of the Guard
Brave new world indeed! Immensely interesting. Scary as hell.
KB : you will be assimilated.... resistance is futile
Near the end when Michael Levin talks about how categories that we use like machine and robot are no longer good categories. I would include "consciousness" as one of those, maybe "mind" and "self".
Yeah I think at the end of the day, all categories are simplifications. And I think certainly some are more useful than others
I agree about Consciousness and mind. Mind is certainly outdated, with the idea of a distinction between mind and body or mental and physical...
Consciousness is more vague and used in many different ways. A lot of people use Consciousness is the idea of our ability to communicate in complex language and to use abstract Notions. And others use it for the Mystery of Life and what makes biological systems different than non biological systems
And also there seems to be a lot of magical thinking in Consciousness studies and discussions
As for the idea of self I think that is much more fundamental. Basically the categories of organism and environment are pretty foundational
If by self, you mean the more pop psyche idea of someone's personality and some uniqueness beyond their genetics and circumstances, then I agree than that's again getting into magical thinking
But I think the idea of an organism with a unique genetic code and the environment that the organisms exists in, is pretty useful...
I get that the guests on this podcast is saying that it's more complex than how we often simplify it.
But there are genetic diseases and we have identified and cured many of them. So certainly understanding genetics, is incredibly useful and accurate to a certain degree. Anyway I do agree though that many of our categories are based on historical inaccuracies and cognitive fallacies
Man, this is fascinating!
I'm not sure anyone will get my joke but in that pic Michael looks like Sargon of Akkad's much nicer and more successful brother :D
And more Russian brother
Standing on the shoulders of giants by the way of D'arcy Wentorth Thompson and his calls book "On Growth and Form" which surely has to have been on Michael Levin's list of foundational texts.
Ever do these splitting experiments on plants with radial symmetry?
I think he did. Check out other interviews/lectures.
Go Michael go!!!
dam these people make me think, cheers
Talking about levels and meta levels, top-down, bottom -up, emergence...
When is Douglas Hofstadter Day coming?
Sean, you mentioned the Star Trek Borg which is a Frankenstein type story about biology. Science is careful like Mr. Spock, yet boldly goes where honest takes it. Thank you Michael for your contributions to science.
bow down to the worms
How do zebrafish know when to stop regenerating their retinas? How big a favor is GABA?
43:30
Around 46:30: "The genetics can be very messy, but the anatomy is rock solid". I'm puzzled. Isn't that evidence for Lamarck's inheritance of acquired characteristics? If so, isn't that theory considered incompatible with Darwin's evolution any more? What's the current scientific consensus on the subject?
epigenetics says they're both compatible.
mindblowing! worth your attention, if you are interested in the unknown depths of nature.. start maybe at . 36:10 and 50:17
What is the principle of the subjectivity of chemical systems?
Just curious if they're are two brains in the two flatworm heads
PETER GARAYIEV 2.0
Mind blowing advancements for a civilization's technology
A bio-electromagnetic field -> Life is bioelectric.
As far as evolution is concerned, we're not "mistakes" the universe WANTS to know itself!
That is one interesting way of looking at it.
Beauty beyond belief!!!
MultiScale Agency...
Amazing research. This will change everything
Suddenly, jumps in evolution seems no longer impossible, The "miracles" Jesus did, have come closer to an explanation. "every miracle has its method". Sri Aurobindo.
Indeed. His research and results are so revolutionary. Don't know why thisn't front page news, like it was when the first picture of a black hole was taken a few years ago.
Great guest interesting conversation =wonderful podcast
ARIEL IS AWESOME
The higher level behavior at organ level is not invented every time by each organ even though the organs seem to have higher level goal oriented behavior in real time. That behavior was selected for and got encoded through the genetic molecules by the long process of evolution. I think use of active voice when talking about evolutionary process is a mistake. We need to talk about evolution as a process in passive voice. It is the post facto statistical effect that we give the name of evolution.
IMO using words like "goal oriented" for evolution is mistaken. The population that ends up being left over is simply the statistical result of the fitness of the organism in the environment. If the environment changes then what was fit in previous environment may appear to be counter goal oriented for some time due to inertia of the biological evolution through generational reproductive process. For example if the global warming really happens then the evolutionary success of polar bears to grow a lot of fur will look like counter goal oriented in short run. But then appear goal oriented again once the more and more baby polar bears are seen with less fur surviving to be adult bears of reproductive age.
I think evolution cannot be though in terms of real time but makes sense only over long, very long time scales.
It is true that in real time the ability of higher levels to guide lower levels in biological systems is correct observation,. But the higher levels have those abilities because they grew from simpler, lower level systems over long evolutionary time scales. All life came from initial simpler life.
much better at 0.75 speed
Now add quantum biology!
So where can I find out more about these worms and these worms in relation to the topic of the podcast?
Several other lectures and interviews with him.
@@DarkMoonDroid If you don’t have anything constructive to say you can keep your snark and insecure childishness to yourself.
Mind = blown, again and again
its cute to thing that code is all well commented
Ha! That's what I was thinking too.
Brilliant
Wow
Very interesting session.Definitely get Michael back again in the future
Biologists climbing a mountain arrive at a plateau. They discover a camp of theologians that have been waiting there for hundreds of years with a book of teleology.
Lol
He is more than Elon Musk of biology!
Hopefully not; Musk is an idiot
There is intelligence in evolutionary design. A sign of intelligence is to keep what works...
@@Badcrow7713 That's what scientist do.
Sure, evolutionary algorithms, which try random stuff and keep exploring a bit randomly from the best solutions, are used in machine learning.
Intelligent results come from that, surprisingly enough without any design needed.
@@alvarorodriguez1592 If design implies intent. Then evolution's "Intention" is to experiment with "designs", randomly.
@@alvarorodriguez1592 What do you mean no design? The machine learning algorithm was designed and importantly the metric to evaluate the best solution was designed. There is a lot of human intelligence in A.I.
So is epigenetics different than what's described here? Bruce Lipton / Nessa Carey talk about how the mind / environment , orchestrates gene expression.. like the sex of an alligator is determined by the temperature surrounding the egg. And what role does (gut) bacteria play in orchestrating and manipulating one's gene expression?
Would have also liked to have heard what Michael speculates his research implies about consciousness, especially in light our divided , asymmetric brain. Since most of what the brain processes is outside of your immediate focus, until the products of that processing get promoted to your consciousness, is it possible that a process not currently illuminated by your attention spotlight, is having it's own experience? Sam Harris suggests all the unconscious processes may be flowing in and out of your consciousness awareness, HOWEVER, maybe like a 2 headed worm deciding which direction to go, maybe there exists light(s) in the mansion of your mind , that are just as conscious as you are now, but your first-person experiencing self doesn't have access to those rooms?
Many spooky experiments by VS Ramachandran and Gazzaniga show that the less connections there are between the left and right hemispheres, the more you can demonstrate two distinct points-of-view emerging. And at best, the normal brain has only 2% of the neurons connecting the left and right halves.. which Ian McGilchrist suggests these connections serve to *INHIBIT* 2 personalities. He mentions there are real consequences due to the unusual brain structure: left (posterior) hemisphere bigger than the right, yet right frontal cortex much bigger than the left. Often these differences are cited as necessary for language, yet the great apes have the same structure.
Finally, Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff are currently using anesthesia to test the Orchestrated objective reduction Theory of Consciousness which suggests that Quantum mechanics needs to be modified (perhaps by gravity) should the Microtubules Quantum Theory be correct! Anil Seth has also done some very interesting work on anesthesia.
He touches on some of that in other interviews, but generally avoids the consciousness conversations. It's not the direction he's going in, unless you want to develop AI.
lol Michael says (paraphrasing)
'sure theres no evidence of a designer if you want to look at it in a basic way... but at the larger level of organization they all work together to accomplish a higher goal.'
Sean Carroll: 👁👃🏼👁
.... 🤯
The molecule needs atoms.
The cells need molecules.
The organs need cells.
The body needs organs.
If the organs defect (mine are. It's called Cancer.), the body will eventually die.
You can substitute a handful of words for the words "needs" and "defect" there but the effect is the same.
First you have a world view, then you collect certain data to support it.
Can we ever do otherwise?
Hi
Interesting how both of you just shrugged off the metaphysical claim that these systems are clearly not designed. I would like to see some arguments to back it up. Assuming that even badly designed things are designed, how can one claim that it is not designed. Were you a The Sims character, scientist, would it be clear that the system was not designed?
Our entire view of intelligence seems to be wrong. There's this guy's work with frog skin cells, which self organize to form a new body, capable of moving and making decisions. Then there's the new work on slime mold, which can solve complex problems. Japanese researchers put food in a pattern that was congruent with population centers in Tokyo, the slime mold grew towards the food and ended up making pathways to it that follow almost the exact same paths as the Tokyo subway system. Somehow someone got slime mold to control a robot, and it moved the robot to a place with conditions it prefers. It solves mazes that only mice were previously able to solve. Truly fascinating stuff.
The fact that matter self organizes into self replicating systems known as life is mind blowing. Then to say that the entire process is completely random, despite not having a full understanding of it, is just whacky and close-minded. I'll agree with them that whatever is animating reality is not a dude in the sky with a throne of crystal, that just reeks of human thought, but at the same time I don't think it's all just random happenstance.
@@spracketskooch good post. Plant intelligence is another overlooked area. Similar to the slime mold experiment, Monica Gagliano performed experiments with pea plants that suggest a deeper intellligence than we can simply observe with the eyes.
Sean Carroll does close-minded trickery in his books, especially in The Big Picture, when he labels anything speculative as "spoon bending" . . . of course certain lines of pseudo-science need to be called out, but all science was a speculation at one point in time. Carroll calls his perspective poetic naturalism (somethign like a rational open-mindedness) but frequently leaves out the poetic part. Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance is essentially the hidden influencial force that Levin describes here. The only difference is that Sheldrake is willing to do a little speculation on the side of intelligent design.
If you want to get funding by the Big Boys, you have to deny all that stuff outright.
Fact of life in academia.
But there's no law against doing science properly and letting the results suggest something other than materialist reductionism. Let the frog skin speak for itself.
But he's not gonna say it.
And he doesn't have to and I don't want him to.
Because I want him to be taken seriously by the Money.
This work absolutely must continue.
God made us and you will find out after death.
(1) This sounds like some of the most interesting stuff if true. It feels like finding a hidden layer of science between cellular biology, neuroscience, and computer science. However (2) he does a bunch of things that rub me the wrong way. He talks super fast and isn't really letting Sean step in and ask questions. He also doesn't emphasize a few important things but instead mentions dozens of things. This makes me wonder about how solid his evidence actually is. He also mentions finding freedom and goals in QM and action minimization which makes me think he doesn't know how to do reductionism, essentially making the same mistake panpsychists make.
Basically, my skepticism alarms are high but if he passes them I'm going to need to spend hundreds of hours understanding all of his mind-blowing work.
Style-wise he's a lot like Joscha Bach. Seemly genius but hard to pin down. I'm not sure what to think!
I wrote this before he mentioned that he's writing a paper with Bach so I'm glad I recognized the vibe and see that they've probably influenced each other.
Listen to some of his other lectures and interviews so you can get more details. In some, he shows video and pictures, so that can be helpful for some.
There is no better advise than looking him up and his work. I've spent tens of hours of listening to him the past 3/4 years, ever since his first appearance publicly to talk about this science. You won't regret digging deep into presentations that include Q&A with the professionals in who participate. It's extremely hard to define his field of work, and many may be alienated by this diversity, and that is part of the problem. This guy is probably as important as the person who discovered DNA. Genomics is irreplaceable in medicine nowadays, and Levin's work has the potential to actually challenge that claim. It is the epigenome, his research indirectly redefines the epigenome into a superior biologic system above genetics.
Once again, materialist/physicalist scientists are smuggling in teleological explanations and letting teleology do all the heavy lifting in their physicalist paradigm.
Thank you very much! This podcast was M A G I C A L !
👉 T H E B E S T E P I S O D E B Y F A R !!!! 👈
Please invite Michael back for more on this topic.