Memory, Memory

Excuse me for starting a new post rather than appending to Howard's previous post. After thirteen comments it seems more convenient and better focused.

Howard's post calls dna a kind of memory. I agree that dna could be thought of as a sort of "species memory" for certain purposes, but I don't like this in a more general sense when one looks at the time factor. A current strand of dna is the result of multiple copying errors and mutations that have occurred in the past. Just because something is a RESULT of occurrences in the past doesn't mean that it is a RECORD of that past. I would prefer another approach based upon speculation about evolution.

The closest thing that I can think of to memory at a cellular level is "tropism," which may be the ancestor of true memory. For example single cells may be attracted to sunlight and away from shadow. They are wired to do this based upon natural selection and the nature of their food source. This sort of "pre-memory" or "proto-memory" records the fact that the more food is and has been associated with the light. It isn't true memory, because although it has both permanence and changeability, it isn't addressable. It's more like the set point on a thermostat. Although circumstances can cause a change in the setpoint, the current setting tells us nothing about the history of thermostat's settings.

To better understand the evolution of memory we need to ask why memory might be of value. In the case of photo tropism I'll create an imaginary situation. Suppose that the food versus light intensity relation was also a function of light frequency. A cell might evolve which had different receptors for different frequencies. Each of these receptors would have a different intensity setpoint. Hence, we have stored the information of the best intensity for the cell to propel itself toward, depending on the frequency of the light. The optimal intensity is therefore "addressable" in the sense that only that sensor is activated which corresponds to the particular frequency in the environment. A mechanical analog would be a combination thermostat and humidistat. Suppose we prefer various temperatures in a room depending on the humidity. Imagine that the humidistat selects a different thermostat with a different temperature setpoint depending upon the value of the humidity. We now have true memory. The array of thermostats contains all the temperatures existant and the humidistat makes them addressable according to the humidity. In effect saying, "I remember that when the humidity is x% you like the temperature to be y degrees." If there is any analog to this at the dna level, I believe it would be at the level of expression. A change in environmental conditions in the womb may cause the expression of certain genes to be encouraged or discouraged. Hence, the very same set of genes may produce different results, because of the inhibitors or promoters attached to the dna strand. Those inhibitor and promoter particles (I've forgotten their names) might be thought of as memory.

To summarize might we say that the existence of memory requires that an action shall be taken or not taken, depending upon a stored variable which is addressed by an environmental variable. At a macro human level this would be that a piece of information comes to consciousness from among many possibilities depending upon whether or not one finds the right access path or phrases the right question.

With respect -Joel

Has Language Become Parasitic?

I have been reading about recent studies on the origins of language, The First Word by Christine Kenneally. She tells about many empirically undecidable narratives, but there is clearly no consensus. There is not even evidence that the current technically enhanced use of human language has any evolutionary survival value. We use language for fun and profit, but those concepts do not correlate with biological fitness.

From an evolutionary perspective the survival value of even culturally selected human information is not obvious. Our symbol-based technological culture has given humans power over natural forces that can cure disease, increase lifespan, counter the effects of genetic deficiencies, and unleash weapons of mass destruction. None of these achievements look good from an evolutionary perspective. Even most literature appears to be popular more for its entertainment value than for survival value. Language and its technologies allow local human values to replace natural selection.

5000 years has seen enormous cultural changes largely the result of language, but this is only a moment in evolutionary time, and natural selection operates over indefinitely longer time scales, and it will ultimately decide survival or extinction. We are still entirely dependent on the genetic language to construct the neural architecture that allows natural and artificial languages.

E. O. Wilson claims that for this reason the genes hold culture on a leash. He says the leash is very long, but inevitably values will be constrained in accordance with their effects on the human gene pool. But Dennett argues to the contrary that by allowing language, “genes provide not a leash but a launching pad, from which you can get almost anywhere, by one devious route or another.” I recommend reading Dennett’s paper at Edge.com, http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett/dennett_p1.html;

also, Lanier’s response to Dennett: http://www.edge.org/discourse/evolutionofculture.html, which in my opinion is more of an amendment that does not alter Dennett’s basic argument.

The media, the Internet and cell phones have certainly altered our culture, especially among the young, but I find it hard to find any evidence that survival of the species has been enhanced. Many teachers are convinced that their students’ learning is being subverted by communication overload. Clearly, the most primitive uses of communication for hunting and fighting has survival value, but Ira has not convinced me that religion is more than wishful thinking.

Obviously, there is much more to say on the subject. For discussion, I would suggest there is an optimum level of language usage. Speech should not be entirely free. There should be a cost. What are your views?

Howard

Biosemiotics

Ira suggested that I try to summarize the field of BIOSEMIOTICS ― the study of how symbol systems control living organisms and societies. I’ll try to do this in a series of short posts of less than 750 words. Then you can ask questions if I am unclear, make comments or disagree with what I have said. Hopefully, we can clear up the problems, and go on to the next post.

1^ST TOPIC: WHAT IS MEMORY

A symbol system, like the genetic code, a natural language, mathematics, or an artificial computer language, requires a set of symbols and rules that reside in a memory. Memory-stored symbols are the fundamental and essential requirement for life. It is required for self-replication and all open-ended evolution. Memory is also necessary for any learning and thinking process in nervous systems. Memory is also a requirement for universal computation.

Memory and symbols can be physically implemented in endless ways, in molecules like DNA, in texts like this page, in photographs, in digital magnetic, electric and optical patterns in computers, and in neural patterns in the brain. But these particular types of memory are not what make memory of fundamental importance. So, what are the properties of memory that are essential in evolution, learning, and computation?

Two essential properties of memory are PERMANENCE and CHANGEABILITY. These properties sound incompatible, but they are complementary. In a previous post on the C- and L-minds, I compared permanence to the CONSERVATIVE aspect of memory, and I compared changeability to the LIBERAL aspect of memory. Clearly, success in adaptive evolution, learning, and social systems requires the proper balance of conservative permanence and liberal change. That is why I disagree with any liberal or conservative who claims an ideological superiority.

A good memory must also be quickly accessible, and its symbols must have the ability to effect or control a specific change. A gene must be capable of controlling protein synthesis. A brain must be capable of controlling muscles. A computer memory must be capable of changing the state of the hardware. In all of these symbol systems, genes, brains and computers, the memories have also evolved the property of self-reference. That is, genes can control their own expression, brains can think about their own thoughts (e.g., consciousness), and computer programs can address themselves. This turns out to be a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it allows organisms, brains and computers to inspect internal predictive models of the world. On the other hand, self-reference can lead to contradiction, infinite regress, and undecidable questions like whether we have free will.

While it is clear that evolution, learning, and computation could not occur unless memory has some degree of permanence and some degree of change, the nature and results of the changes are different in all three cases. In evolution, memory change is called mutation or variation, and changes are largely random. Natural selection determines the ultimate results. In nervous systems memory change is called learning. Learning is more complex and includes instruction, experience, reorganizing existing memory (thought or reasoning) and random or directed search, and often cultural selection. In computation, memory change is often called recursion or rewriting. A memory-stored program usually determines change, but programs can simulate random change and, model evolution, learning, and thinking.

Here is the classical problem of symbolic memory. The peculiar fact is that the physics of memory ― that is, the laws governing the material structures of memory symbols ― has no necessary relation to the function or meaning of the symbols. Symbol vehicles obey physical laws, but analysis of these diverse physical structures does not tell us what is important, namely the function or meaning of the symbols. Neither does analysis of these physical embodiments of memory tell us how the behaviors of memories differ in evolving organisms, brains and computers. Physical laws alone cannot predict or usefully describe the course of evolution, learning, thinking, or computation. Briefly, the problem is that symbols are arbitrarily related to their meaning or referent. The meaning or function of symbols is determined by a code or an interpreter. Symbols do not exist alone, but are a part of a language.

This fact has been a problem since the beginning of philosophy. It is
the root of the classical body-mind problem. Today in physics it is the basis of the measurement problem ― how the irreversible process interpreted as a measurement can arise from state-determined reversible laws. Some physicists also see this as an energy-information dichotomy. In biology this is the crux of the origin of life problem, how did this symbolic control of matter begin? How did molecules become messages? I call this the symbol-matter problem.

NEXT TOPIC: WHAT IS A LANGUAGE?

Howard

Happy Birthday TVPClub Blog!

Well, its been a year since the Welcome posting and the first Topic were posted on this Blog on June 16th, 2007!

Since that time, we've had some 80 new Topics and 535 Comments posted. We have a dozen authorized Authors who have either initiated new Topics or posted Comments, or both. They represent a diversity of philosophical, religious, and political viewpoints.

Most important, EVERYONE, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, HAS BEEN COURTEOUS! Differences have been expressed in clear and strong terms, but always with a sence of professional dignity and mutual respect.

Special thanks to the following Authors of new Topics: Joel Fox, Stu Dennenberg, JohnS, and Howard Pattee.

Anyone who has not Authored a new Topic is welcome to join this august group.

THANKS TO YOU ALL. PLEASE KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK!

Ira Glickstein

The TED Talks: "Memes" and "Temes"

[From Howard Pattee] Why is natural selection inevitable, in spite of brains, language, and technology? Before discussing this topic, listen to Susan Blackmore’s TED talk:

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/269

She believes human language and technology is a Pandora’s box.

I have called them a Promethean trade-off.

She points out that we should not look at memes from our human cultural perspective, but from evolution’s perspective. From our human perspective, human language looks like the greatest evolutionary discovery since the origin of life itself.

On the other hand, from an evolutionary perspective, genes that allow human language are only a very late evolutionary discovery with an untested survival value. Some language memes are adaptive; others are not. Language allows groups to communicate crucial survival information as well as telling lies. Persuasive memes can intensify competitive genetic traits beyond their natural adaptive value. Patriotic and religious memes are a prime example.

Natural language memes have been largely responsible for our cultures for well over 5000 years. However, artificial languages like mathematics and computer languages required for science and technology have given humans Promethean power over natural forces that can unselectively increase lifespan, counter local effects of genetic deficiencies, and unleash weapons of mass destruction. Biotechnology will eventually give us power to edit genetic instructions that have been tested by billions of years of natural selection and replace them with artificial instructions based on current human desires. None of these powers has any clear advantage from an evolutionary perspective.

Blackmore calls this new artificial level “temes” (technological memes). Imagine what greater powers another 5000 years of technology will give human culture (if it lasts that long). We should not forget that 5000 years is only a moment in evolutionary time, and that natural selection operates over indefinitely longer time scales. Natural selection will ultimately decide survival or extinction. We are still entirely dependent on the “selfish genes” to construct the neural architecture that allows natural and artificial memes and temes.

Howard Pattee

Definitive Guide to Global Warming Issues

Global Warming is (Partially) Due to Human Activity

Despite last month being a degree cooler than average for the entire 20th century (according to the official NOAA website) I still believe we ARE in a definite global warming period. One snowflake doesn’t make a winter and one cool April doesn’t make for a cooling trend.

Yes, I do accept the scientific consensus that average global temperatures have risen and the trend will continue for some decades into the future. I also believe that human burning of fossil fuels is partly responsible for this trend.

OK, I’ve said it, I BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING.


Carbon Footprints Should be Reduced

We should each do what we can to reduce our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. My wife and I use an electric golf cart and bicycle for most local travel. For three years our only car has been a hybrid Prius (around 45-50 MPG). Our home thermostat is set to allow inside temperatures to rise to 78 degrees and fall to 64 degrees and our home is well insulated and so on and on.

I favor goverment policies that lead to a larger proportion of carbon-free power. This includes nuclear as well as wind, water, and solar energy.

Despite Joel’s “Corny Schemes” Topic, I believe biofuels are a partial solution to reducing CO2 levels. We need to recognize that corn-ethanol is our first serious foray into biofuels. Brazil has made much progress with sugar cane-based biofuel. Once the technology and US infrastructure are developed, we will transition from corn to switchgrass and agricultural, industrial, household, and sanitary wastes as the raw materials for biofuels.

I have long been in favor of a punitive “carbon tax” on all fossil fuels as a way to finance renewable power technology while encouraging more economical use of oil and coal. Senators McCain and Clinton are pandering to the public with their proposal to reduce federal gasoline taxes this summer. Senator Obama has it right (on this one issue :^) and Senator Kerry had it right many years before he ran for president when he suggested a 50-cent a gallon carbon tax.

This past month, as gasoline approached $4 a gallon, usage dropped a bit for the first time in a decade or more. The numbers of commuters car-pooling and using public transportation is increasing rapidly. Had we taken Senator Kerry’s (and my) advice ten years ago, and imposed a punitive carbon tax, we would now have much better public transportation and more energy-efficient and economical cars and houses and factories, and a much lower carbon footprint.

I wish there was public support for a carbon tax. Sadly, there is not. It is political suicide. However, since I am not running for office, I can give my opinion. I would start the tax immediately at a dollar per gallon and increase it a dollar each year until usage dropped by 25%. I would impose a carbon tax on all other carbon-based energy, including coal-fired electric power, in proportion to the carbon emissions levels. The best way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel and increase carbon-free energy usage is via the pocketbook, not by government mandate and a “shell game” of trading of carbon credits.


Why We Should Limit Carbon-Based Fuels

There are three principal ways carbon exists on Earth (see figure at the head of this Topic):

a) AIR – As CO2 (carbon dioxide) and other atmospheric gasses including CH4 (methane).
b) SURFACE – In the carbohydrates and other molecules that make up living plants and animals.
c) UNDERGROUND – Sequestered as carbon and hydrocarbons in the form of coal and oil.

For millions of years, the UNDERGROUND carbon has remained pretty much undisturbed. It is a sequestered storehouse of energy absorbed by the Earth from the Sun over eons.

The AIR and SURFACE carbon is regularly exchanged between plants and animals. Plants absorb carbon-based gasses from the air and produce airborne oxygen for animals to breathe and food for animals to eat. The animals, in turn, return carbon-based gasses into the air and, when they defecate or die and decompose, return nutrients to the ground as fertilizer for plants.

The whole process is powered by energy from the Sun. Evaporation of surface water heated by sunlight lifts water vapor into the air and it later falls as rain and makes our rivers flow. Sunlight is also required for plant photosynthesis.


In recent times, particularly the past couple hundred years and especially in our lifetimes, this nice balance of Nature has been disturbed by the large-scale burning of UNDERGROUND carbon. The scale of this de-sequestration of carbon is without precedent.

The advantage of biofuels is that, while the sugar cane or corn or switchgrass is growing, those plants draw carbon out of the atmosphere, absorbing the present energy of the Sun to create fuel. While it is true that biofuels return the carbon they have absorbed back to the atmosphere when they are burned, they do not increase the total amount of free carbon. Burning of coal and oil, in contrast, adds old, formerly sequestered carbon to the atmosphere.


Do Al Gore’s Claims Have Scientific Merit?

One of the most dramatic moments in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth movie is when he mounts a motorized platform and is lifted high on the stage to demonstrate how much he expects CO2 to increase in coming years. The sharp rise in CO2 (the upper red curve on his graph) resembles a “hockey stick” in shape. The implication he leaves in the minds of the audience is that the temperature (the lower blue curve on his graph) will experience a similar “hockey stick” increase in coming decades.

What is the scientific reasoning behind this implication? Well, according to the ice core data that provides a measure of the CO2 and temperature levels over the past 600,000 years or so, temperature and CO2 are related. When one goes up, the other tends to do the same. When one goes down, the other goes down as well. You can see the relationship in the portion shown in the above photo, going from 150,000 years ago to the present.

Gore’s argument is that increasing CO2 is associated with increasing surface temperatures. It is true that, as temperatures increase, the CO2 dissolved in the oceans tends to outgas (like warm soda that loses its fizz) and the additional CO2 in the atmosphere acts as a “greenhouse gas.” More CO2 in the atmosphere traps more of the infrared radiation from the Earth and that leads to further heating of the surface which leads to more CO2 coming out of the oceans, and so on and on. Surface heating melts the ice cap and causes the oceans to rise, flooding large areas on Earth now used for agriculture and human habitation.

Any additional CO2 due to human burning of fossil fuels will add to the process, and, Gore concludes, lead to a “tipping point” within the coming decades. Once we go over that tipping point, large portions of the Earth will become uninhabitable and that will be a disaster for all mankind.

I agree with much of the above argument, but I do NOT believe there is any scientific evidence – certainly NOT from the ice core record – that human activity is the principal cause of the global warming observed so far, nor that we are headed for any tipping point.


What Humans are Responsible for and What We Can Do

Even if humans were the principal cause of global warming, no matter what we do (short of killing half the world population in a nuclear war or genetic engineering disaster) there is no way we will reduce CO2 worldwide in the coming decades. With China, India, Russia, and other countries rapidly increasing their standards of living as they adopt something like capitalism, they will inevitably burn more fossil fuels and emit more CO2. All we can do is slow the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2.

Despite Al Gore’s movie, there is no scientific evidence that we are approaching anything like a “tipping point” anytime soon. Despite his emotional claims that rising CO2 levels will cause global temperatures to shoot up at what he calls a “hockey stick” curve, the very ice core data he used to make his point demonstrates the very opposite.

I’ve taken the same ice core data Gore used and expanded the portion from about 150,000 years to the present.

Look at the last strong warming period that hit its peak about 130,000 years ago. Notice that it was the temperature (orange curve) that started to rise and the CO2 (blue curve) followed about 600 to 1000 years later. If you look at the other periods of rising temperature, you will also see that the temperature rises before the CO2 in every case. Thus, the ice core data provides absolutely no evidence that rising CO2 causes temperatures to rise. It is clear the causality is in the exact opposite direction. Rising temperatures, due to some other cause, namely the distribution of Solar energy on the Earth, is what causes CO2 to rise.

In fact, look at the period after the peak warming at about 130,000 years ago and you will see a rapid drop in temperature over a 10,000 year period while the CO2 remains high! If high levels of CO2 are the primary cause of global warming, how on Earth could the temperatures drop consistently for 10,000 years while CO2 remained high?

The most recent warming period started about 25,000 years ago and, for about 15,000 years continued to climb. CO2, as expected, followed suit. However, about 10,000 years ago, temperatures stabilized, while CO2 continued to rise rapidly!

Humans did not burn a significant amount of fossil fuel until the industrial revolution, a few hundred years ago. Therefore the CO2 rise must have been due to some other factors.

Thus, the ice core data displayed by Gore and other global warming alarmists gives no scientific support to the idea that human activities are a principal cause of the current warming trend. All the historic ice core data shows the opposite, namely:

1) Temperature rises BEFORE CO2 rises. Therefore the causality is in the opposite direction (temperature change causes CO2 change), or both are caused by something else.

2) Temperature fell rapidly while CO2 remained high for 10,000 years, so high CO2 does not cause temperature to rise. You could make the opposite claim that high CO2 caused the temperature to fall!

3) Fast rising CO2 does not cause temperature to rise in proportion, if at all. In fact, all the periods of rapid temperature drop on the above graph are during times of steady or increasing CO2 levels!

It’s the SUN, Stupid!

Energy radiation from the Sun varies on several cycles, the best known of which is called the "Sun spot cycle" and happens every eleven years. There are longer cycles of variability that extend to centuries and millennia.

According to U Montana there are three major cyclic components that affect the Earth's orbit around the Sun: (1) Eccentricity of ~100,000 years, (2) Axial Tilt of ~41,000 years, and (3) Precession (or "wobble") of ~23,000 years.

These components do not affect the total amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth, but rather energy distribution between the polar and equatorial areas and seasonality. That, in turn, affects the build up and melting of polar ice. Based on the ice core data, the combination of these cycles triggers cooling and warming periods.

Therefore, when the orbital and solar radiation cycles happen to coincide, which may occur around every 100,000 years, a global warming cycle is initiated. The warming causes more CO2 to be driven out of the oceans and, over an 800 year period, CO2 levels rise and stay high until the solar radiation high point passes. At that point, cooling begins and, a thousand years or more later, CO2 levels decrease as more of the CO2 gas is again absorbed into the cooler oceans.

Summary

We are definitely in a global warming period.

Human activity, namely burning coal and oil that have been sequestered underground for eons is definitely responsible for a portion of this global warming.

Therefore, to the extent practical, we humans should reduce our dependence on carbon-based fuels. However, no matter what we do, human-caused CO2 emissions will continue to rise in the coming decades. We may be able to slow the rise, but there is no practical way to stop it that will be acceptable to the forces at work in human civilization.

The global warming period we are in is mainly due to natural, uncontrollable variation in our Earth’s orbit around the Sun: orbital eccentricity, axial tilt, and wobble.

BOTTOM LINE: Get used to it! We are going to have to use technology to cope with steadily rising temperatures and sea levels for the coming decades. It will be bad, but nothing near what the alarmists are predicting. There may be an average increase of a degree and a foot or so over the coming fifty years. Many low-lying agricultural lands and cities will be flooded. Some sea walls and levees will prove to be inadequate and will be washed away or have to be torn down. Human habitation and permanent buildings will be banned on most land below high water level. Building codes will restrict new construction in low-lying areas to protect life and property. Life will go on!

Ira Glickstein

Click HERE for my novel predictions about life on Earth fifty years from now.

Lessons L- and C-minds Draw from the Tuskegee Experiment

Without getting into partisan politics it is instructive to consider the "lessons learned" by L- and C-minds from the horrid 1932-1972 Tuskegee experiment where hundreds of black men were told they were being treated for their syphilis when, in actuality, they were simply being observed as the disease progressed without any attempt at treatment.

The issue has surfaced because Rev. Jeremiah Wright recently claimed “the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.” He backed up his claim by saying the U.S. government “purposely infected African-American men with syphilis.” He also said: “Based on this Tuskegee experiment ... I believe our government is capable of doing anything.”

According to Jonah Goldberg, many present-day Americans, including some prominent conservative commentators, believe the Tuskegee experiment involved purposely infecting the experimental subjects with syphilis. Until I read the linked story, I also believed that.

As awful as the experiment was, it absolutely did not involve purposely infecting the men - they were recruited because they already had syphilis. As for the lack of treatment, at the initiation of the study, in 1932, penicillin was not available. Into the 1940's and '50's, it was not medically established that penicillin was a safe treatment for men in the latter stages of the disease. Thus, the un-ethical aspect of the Tuskegee experiment consisted of: 1) Lying to the subjects when telling them they were being treated for syphilis and 2) Not providing penicillin to those still alive when it was known to be an effective and safe treatment.

Lesson of Tuskegee for L-Minds:

According to Goldberg, "I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard guilt-ridden white liberals say ... 'Considering what we did at Tuskegee, who can blame them [black people] for being distrustful of government?' ...”

"Liberals like to invoke Tuskegee as if it’s solely an indictment of what other people did, proof that we need more progressive government."

Lesson of Tuskegee for C-Minds:

Goldberg adds: "as a conservative, I have no problem with distrusting government, nor can I fault the descendants of slaves or the victims of Jim Crow for distrusting government more than most. But why blacks remain the most reliable voters for the party of ever-expanding government power is something of a mystery. Indeed, it’s worth noting that the Tuskegee study, launched under the New Deal, was symptomatic of arrogant liberal government. The study ... emerged out of a liberal progressive public health movement concerned about the health and well-being of the African-American population.”

"... Tuskegee was in fact the poisoned fruit of progressive government."

OK, L- and C-minds on this Blog - what do YOU think?

Ira Glickstein