Did you know 67% of Americans think ChatGPT might be conscious? University of Waterloo survey.
What IS intelligence, anyway?
In 2024 it’s THE front-burner question.
Dr. Michael Levin at Tufts university is demolishing conventional notions of intelligence.
Re-framing AI, genetics, robotics, cancer, longevity. Identity and memory. I’ve interviewed him several times. He’s 20 years ahead of everyone.
Now the Institute of Art and Ideas (iai.tv) has thrown the two of us into the intellectual thunderdome.
Dr. Levin says our notions of intelligence are waaaay too narrow:
https://iai.tv/articles/patterns-are-alive-and-we-are-living-patterns-auid-2919?_auid=2020
I argued…
Yes, our ideas ARE too narrow…. but before we start looking for E.T. & other exotic life forms… first let’s notice the intelligences literally right under our nose:
https://iai.tv/articles/patterns-cant-explain-lifes-complexity-auid-2922?_auid=2020
Hold onto your neurons!
Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here – https://evo2.org/evolution/Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
If Levin’s work is indeed correct, what are its implications to the current Modern Synthesis paradigm?
There are several parts of his work we can discuss.
The first part is his work in general ie https://evo2.org/picasso-tadpoles/ or http://www.evo2.org/anthrobots which demolishes the Modern Synthesis. Xenobots and anthrobots have the same DNA as the organisms they originate from but have totally different behaviors, and respond in brand new ways to situations that no ancestor could have likely encountered, or pre-programmed them to do.
As for the issues we debate in this IAI.tv series, his sorting algorithm experiments suggest that there are behaviors in “very simple” systems that we are largely clueless about and that our categories for “what X is” are just ways of describing them, but may be a long way from what X REALLY is.
It would at minimum suggest that many more mechanisms may be driving evolution than the Modern Synthesis ever imagined.
Part B of the answer:
Michael was a contributor for the book “Evolution on Purpose” by MIT press.
https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edited-volume/5634/Evolution-On-Purpose-Teleonomy-in-Living-Systems
And Michael Levin has an AI GPT bot on his website.
https://adorosario.github.io/LevinBot/index.html
I asked it: what is Michael’s opinion of the Neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis?
LevinBot answer:
and molecular biology (Sample-Cognition-Based Biology – Chapter 1 – Darwin Reappraised, Page 16).
Denis Noble’s Critique:
Denis Noble’s critique of the Modern Synthesis highlights four now-untenable illusions:
a) Natural selection is a metaphor, not an active evolutionary force.
b) The Weismann Barrier has been superseded by epigenetics.
c) Darwin’s debunked theory of gemmules is now confirmed by the discovery of ubiquitous extracellular vesicles.
d) Crick’s Central Dogma has been shown to be invalid (Sample-Cognition-Based Biology – Chapter 1 – Darwin Reappraised, Page 17).
Alternative Frameworks:
Michael Levin’s work suggests a need for alternative frameworks that generate novel discoveries and empirical progress. He extends mind to unconventional aspects of the biosphere and merges smoothly into “machines” on the left side of the spectrum, which some organicists and molecular biologists find contentious (Frequently Asked Questions – Latest Version).
Evolutionary Paradigms:
References to works like “Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An Introduction to the New Evolutionary Paradigm” by Ho and Saunders, and “Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: The Lamarckian Dimension” by Jablonka and Lamb, indicate a shift towards new evolutionary paradigms (23e359eec026498668ea9de28bd80f52-html.html).
In summary, Michael Levin’s opinion reflects a critical stance towards the Neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis, advocating for a more integrated and updated approach to understanding evolution that incorporates recent advances in various biological disciplines.
All the research I’ve read indicates that inheritance will always resolve at the unit of the genes.
Also, could you bring invite Alfonso Martinez Arias for an interview? He’s also a critic of the neo-Darwinian framework?
Josh,
We know for example that body plans are not encoded in the genes. Body plans are a pretty big part of development and are controlled by bioelectric fields. So genes are not the whole story.
If you can provide a good way to learn about Martinez’ work we can take a look.
You can read his book The Master Builder: How the New Science of the Cell Is Rewriting the Story of Life
You can also see his interview on the Theories of Everything youtube channel https://youtu.be/wyZeli50nXg?si=t3H8PW6bkaWWtPCT
Watched some of the interview. Two thoughts:
1) He gives Dawkins too much credit. “Selfish Gene” is only literally true for about 5% of the characteristics that we think of as genetic. For the vast majority of evolution and biology it’s harmfully oversimplified and pretends the last 50 years of molecular biology never happened.
2) He’s not giving Michael Levin nearly enough credit. Xenobots are capable of a form of biological reproduction never seen before. They exhibit behaviors such as self-motility, target finding, and information retention without any genomic alterations.
Part C:
ME: tell me more about Michael Levin’s views of neo-Darwinism.
LEVINBOT: Michael Levin’s views on Neo-Darwinism can be inferred from the following points in the knowledge base:
Dominant Paradigm:
The dominant paradigm in biology today is Neo-Darwinism (23e359eec026498668ea9de28bd80f52-html.html).
Evolutionary Theory and Intelligence:
Michael Levin has co-authored essays on how evolution ‘hacked’ its way to intelligence from the bottom up, indicating a nuanced view of evolutionary processes beyond traditional Neo-Darwinism (Michael’s essay with Rafael Yuste).
Integration of Developmental Biology and Evolution:
Levin emphasizes the importance of taking developmental biology and evolution seriously, suggesting a continuity of various beings over time scales and the ability to replace biologically evolved components with engineered materials (title: “Diverse Intelligence” – a talk by Michael Levin – YouTube).
Critique of Understanding:
Levin’s research suggests that our understanding of biology is closer to 1% understanding and 99% is “Dark Matter,” indicating that much of the biological processes and evolutionary mechanisms are still not fully understood (title: Picasso Tadpoles: Michael Levin on the ‘Dark Matter’ of Biology – Evolution 2.0 | Acast).
Cross-Disciplinary Approach:
Levin’s work spans multiple disciplines, including computer science, embryo development, cancer and tumor research, limb regeneration, evolutionary theory, and neural networks, which suggests a broader and more integrated approach to understanding evolution (metadata: Picasso Tadpoles: Michael Levin on the ‘Dark Matter’ of Biology – Evolution 2.0 | Acast).
In summary, Michael Levin’s views on Neo-Darwinism reflect a critical stance and an advocacy for a more integrated and updated approach to understanding evolution, incorporating recent advances in various biological disciplines and recognizing the complexity and continuity of life forms.