My disagreement with Deutsch's constructor theory

[Hrvoje1]

I am questioning the position that information and life are more fundamental natural notions than intelligence. One naturalistic view is that intelligence is an emergent quality that arises in living entities, which arose from inanimate matter during abiogenesis, and information is a physical notion that exists in a non living world, and can be instantiated in it without any intelligent agent causing its instantiation. The proof for this is his mathematical/physical theory which doesn't refer to intelligent agents in any way, nor does it deal in any way with them. Although, it implicitly posits the fact that intelligence emerges from information instantiated in living organisms, and not the other way around, which then seems as pseudoscientific jumping to conclusion, made by proponents of ID (Intelligent Design) movement, to which I don't belong.

Still, that theory has some moot points, at least to me, probably because I didn't study it properly (but I don't know anyone who did, as it still is not a mainstream physics, it's still kind of new). One of them being usage of the term "natural" extensively, which is kind of odd in physical papers, considering the fact that physics is not supposed to deal with anything beyond nature. Or, if it has to deal with something that is, for example, "artificial", as a contrast to "natural", then it has to be defined what does that word actually mean in context of that theory. When I used that term in my essay "The origin of Information", to characterize the "artificial life", I had very precise and specific, anthropocentric meaning of that word in mind, which makes the distinction between "natural life", and "artificial life" that human kind has an ambition to produce in its laboratory (ie, not that what we do when we reproduce, as any other species do). I wonder how his great physical theory can explain the fact that homo sapiens is the only biologial specie that has remote chances of doing that, without taking intelligence into account. And he cannot have the same meaning in mind, because he doesn't deal with intelligence, that's why he doesn't deal with artificiality too, he just uses the word natural too much without any reason, need, and counterpart. The same thing is with the term "spontaneity" in his theory, he mathematically defined just about everything, except for this term. So I must ask him publicly, mr Deutsch, how do you respond to these questions?

[dimreepr]

S

25 minutes ago, Hrvoje1 said:

without any intelligent agent causing its instantiation.

data without any intelligence has nothing to shout about...

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Hrvoje1 said:

So I must ask him publicly, mr Deutsch, how do you respond to these questions?

!

Moderator Note

Not a member. Perhaps you should link to the position you're questioning, to give the membership a chance to see what prompted your concerns. I, for one, have no idea who you're talking about.

 

[Hrvoje1]

Here you are:

http://constructortheory.org/portfolio/the-philosophy-of-constructor-theory/

http://constructortheory.org/portfolio/the-constructor-theory-of-information/

http://constructortheory.org/portfolio/the-constructor-theory-of-life/

... and other constructor theory research papers, that can easily be found on the constructortheory.org website, as well as their contacts. In fact, I plan to contact mr Deutsch, via email, and ask him to comment it, if and when he finds time.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Hrvoje1
shortening the list of papers

[Hrvoje1]

Besides those things that I mentioned in the original post, I may add a few more. For example, constructor theory of life doesn't mention the role of intelligence in evolution, probably because the authors think it plays no role. Another omitted thing that can be fundamental characteristic of life, besides intelligence, is conciousness. That theory is focused solely on accurate self-reproduction with possible adaptations, which is just one characteristic of life. The problem is how to describe all characteristics of life in general and abstract way, with mathematical precision and exactness. I don't think that theory does that.

Edited December 16, 2018 by Hrvoje1

[swansont]

20 hours ago, Hrvoje1 said:

Here you are:

http://constructortheory.org/portfolio/the-philosophy-of-constructor-theory/

http://constructortheory.org/portfolio/the-constructor-theory-of-information/

http://constructortheory.org/portfolio/the-constructor-theory-of-life/

... and other constructor theory research papers, that can easily be found on the constructortheory.org website, as well as their contacts. In fact, I plan to contact mr Deutsch, via email, and ask him to comment it, if and when he finds time.

!

Moderator Note

Then your disagreement is with constructor theory, and that is the topic of discussion. The title has been edited to reflect that.

Any personal beef you have with someone, or a private conversation, is not appropriate content.

 

4 hours ago, Hrvoje1 said:

For example, constructor theory of life doesn't mention the role of intelligence in evolution, probably because the authors think it plays no role. 

!

Moderator Note

Please not that we will not be debating the validity of any theory here. Mainstream science is given provisional acceptance in these discussions