Experimenting with fundamental questions
To understand life, consciousness, to know if Gaia is a living organism, all these difficult questions require first to know what complexity is.
Complexity is the entanglement of simple behaviors that can take on a complicated appearance if you don’t know how to spot them. Complex entanglement is not just any entanglement. Micromechanisms run together, forming stable elements that in turn interact. Different interactive levels, with their specific rules. No level exists without the precedent. As ‘entanglement’ poorly reflects this relative independence, I created the term ‘surimposition‘. It is the surimposition of systems operating at different levels of reality that forms the complex dimension.
Part 1: The complex dimension
Context, too general a term
A complex level has no physical definition, no law allows it to be found. It appears to an observer, but reflects a characteristic of the organization of matter. For the double look that you know well now, each complex entity has 1) a teleological appearance for the downward look of the mind that perceives things, and 2) an ontological origin for the upward look of our concepts on the origin of things. The substance of the entity is at the confluence of these looks.
Ontological origin is a self-organization of the elements. They form a system, entirely defined by the elements and their relationships. “Context” is too general a term, which needs to be clarified. It has a “framework”, which brings to the elements certain characteristics (spatio-temporal location, local effects of physical forces). The elements are given their identity in this framework. Each element divides the framework into “identity space” (sometimes only a mathematical point) and an “environment”. Let us leave the property of their identity to the elements. It is the starting point of their relationships, of a system.
The system is self-delimited by the relationships of its elements. It occupies a larger portion of the frame. Intrinsic space that forms a new type of identity. This is how we move from one complex level to another. The system itself becomes an element in an environment resized by its presence.
Is the context always of the same nature?
That is to say, its 3 components, framework, identity space and environment, are they unchanged in their essence, whether substantial or mathematical?
The framework is thought of as universal. It is actually because a complex level cannot be thought of without the framework of the previous one. The new elements create their own rules, which were not in the previous framework, but do not exist without it. They are an addition. The framework therefore changes in nature but indissolubly from the previous one. Space changes scale: elements are no longer mathematical points, they have a size. Time changes scale: the duration of an elementary interaction is often much longer than the previous one.
Complex modulation
In other words, the complex dimension modulates the spatial and temporal dimensions, creating frames surimposed on each other. Each framework creates its own rules in relative independence. Quantification in levels of complexity is justified. This is an additional complexity and not a move in a sequence. The complex dimension is not of the same nature as spatial and is probably the source of subjective time, but that is another story.
Identity space and environment, as portions of the framework, subtly change in nature at each level of complexity. This is how our perceptions are not illusory. They are adapted to the framework in which they interact.
Can the universe self-explain?
The complex dimension is essential to take into account. You could indeed challenge the cutting of the ‘context’ into slices of ‘frame’. It is legitimate to see the universe as a single system of related particles, and all the others as subsystems responding not to proprietary rules but to the local application of laws composed by the entire universe. It is a reversal of causality. Particles no longer decide what they do with each other, do not own their subset. They are content to apply locally the principles of a god-universe.
It is a simple paradigm: instead of fundamental forces pre-existing to the universe, they are said to be created by it, as with any system. But three pitfalls destroy this position:
1) It must be assumed that the universe exists in ‘nothing’, otherwise it is itself a subsystem and its laws lose their universality. There is no prohibition for independent subsystems.
2) Universal forces do not explain complex levels. The size of the universe does nothing about it. It is not the number of particles that makes their laws more exhaustive. A complex organism is no better explained in a large universe than a tiny one.
3) The existence of compositional forces (created by a group of elements) is proven with quantum entanglement.
We are therefore forced to leave the universal spatio-temporal framework to account for complexity. Each level creates its own framework, indissolubly linked to the previous one, but specific to its elements. It is the proprietary part of the context, intrinsic to the system, placed in the extrinsic part or ‘environment’.
Part 2: Life
Sand and amphiphiles
Let’s take two collections of microscopic elements: grains of sand and amphiphilic molecules (hydrophobic end on one side, hydrophilic on the other). The grains of sand are assembled into a dune by the wind. The molecules immersed in the water spontaneously gather in a micelle, a sphere where the hydrophobic ends gather in the center, fleeing the water. The sand is organized by the effect of extrinsic forces, the winds. While the molecules self-organize in micelle, owners of the whole formed. Stabilized by its intrinsic laws, the micelle corresponds to the definition of organism. It disintegrates during aggressions but tends to reform, enlarge or multiply with other amphiphilic molecules.
The micelle is not autopoietic; it does not replicate itself, which classically places it in the non-living. But it is precisely the link between the physical elements that assemble under the effect of universal forces (atoms) and those that interpret these forces locally. Intrinsic cause within the extrinsic. Beginning of the self-determination of an entity. Creation of a specific internal environment.
Complex continuity
If, in this internal environment, components come to walk around to maintain the stability of the micelle, they will naturally integrate it permanently. Enlargement, division, fusion of specialized and synergistic micelles, we are on the path of the cell, then the inscription of the roots of its longevity in a genetic code.
At no time has the non-living clearly passed to the living. The process is an surimposition of complex levels, each bringing new properties and functions. Electing one as the ‘beginning of life’ is arbitrary. Life is not a particular property; it is enriched by the surimposition of functions of increasing sophistication. Life is unique only in a sacred tabernacle; in reality it is a progression of entities towards complexity, first biological and then mental.
If life is a force, can it be measured?
Animals are not “alive”; they are more and more alive, as they climb the so-called evolutionary ladder. Equipping yourself with a brain gives a huge boost. Neural analysis layers elevate representations of the environment to the height of a skyscraper. These layers start from a frustrated genetic background in nascent individuals. Since the efficiency of neural processing is not standardized, the complex intelligence provided by a brain is uneven. Sociability, mimicry and learning elevate the mind and tend to equalize it with others.
There is an instinctive impulse to this progression, and then the individual self-determines his destiny as his mind becomes more complex. He becomes responsible for his life, for his qualitative aspect of course, but also for his quantitative aspect if you accept this new concept of life force based on its complexity. Curiously the concept welcomes the subjective and popular idea of beings “more alive” than others. Life is not monolithic, it is cultivated, it is nourished.
From hardware to virtual
Did I go from material to mental complexity a little quickly? Not if we reason in information plans. Let’s take a closer look: A level of complexity is made up of information associated with elements with precise qualities. Pure information can be similar at any level. It is the principle of multirealizability, which makes the universality of mathematics.
But a complex level isn’t just math; it is also the substance of the elements that compose it, their specific properties. A substance defined as the surimposition of all underlying complex levels. The temperature of a gas and the anger of a protester can follow the same exponential curve. Same information. Example of multi-realizability but not entity merge 🙂
The consequence is that an additional complex level can completely change the substance of the resulting entity. Especially when the jump in complexity is physical: appearance of a cell making bone spans, association of cells into organs, etc. Other leaps in complexity are less substantial, for example in metabolism: chemical messages connect cycles of increasing complexity. Hormonal control is added. All this seems like a single ballet of molecules, but the whole thing is incomprehensible without the complex levels.
The neuron, an exceptional cell
The neuron is already a complex cell from this point of view. It is endowed with a large number of metabolic levels, and closely associated with astrocytes. It also has two exceptional abilities: transmitting quantified information in the form of membrane excitation trains, and growing dendrites to connect any neighbor, near or far.
Neurons thus form dynamic networks, capable of codifying a wide variety of information by identifying different regularities of the sensory stimuli they receive. “Words” are generated, symbolized by the synchronous activation of groups of neurons. More synthetic words are formed from the association of primary symbols. Additional complex levels appear.
The same neural substance hides jumps in complexity
The elevation of complexity is no longer accompanied by a change in substance as obvious as in the rest of the body. The neurons of conscious networks are not very different from those that process sensory afferents (there are still, in detail, more than 200 types of neurons). However, the low visibility of the transition in the substance does not change its fundamental character in the information: the qualitative aspect of the information is specific to each neural stage.
Nowhere does a “concept” exist other than in the relationships of a group of neurons. They self-determine it together. It arises neither from nothingness nor from simple electrochemical signals, which remain standard between all neurons. The specific quality of a ‘concept’ is based on the surimposition of the levels created by the underlying neurons. Surimposition forms the ‘substance’ of the concept, its concretization in the mental universe.
Nested neural schemes
A mathematical explanation is given by graph theory. However, each stage of neural complexity makes its own framework. Graph theory is a general language for describing a multitude of local processes entangled by relative dependence. Rather, they are ‘graphs in graphs’, the interlocking of Russian dolls that better reflects the elevation of complexity by protecting its heart.
The most important thing is there: the complex dimension extends into the mind, even explodes there, without upheaval of the material support. In terms of information levels, there is perfect continuity between physical and mental, between material and virtual. There is no longer any need for a “world of ideals”, a dualistic ghost where pure ideas gravitate. Ideas have their dedicated, concrete space: the complex levels created specifically for them by neurons.
Part 3: Integrated Information
Why is some information integrated and not others?
The ‘concept’ is the typical example of integrated information. It exists only by the presence of all participating neurons. Let one be destroyed and the neural group no longer symbolizes quite the same concept. Is the new one close, or radically different from the previous one, or fainted? It depends on the ‘weight’ of the destroyed neuron and the place of the concept in the mental tree. A high-pitched concept is lost. But its trace remains. Its underlying levels tend to reform it if it is be called. Word “on the tip of the tongue”.
Let us return to this notion of integrated information. A group of neurons form a concept by collectively taking into account the states of each of them. The concept exists only as a whole, not in the parts, or any other subset of the parts. The qualitative of the concept is the integration of all the constituent information. Any modification changes this qualitative. This is the major characteristic of integrated compared to non-integrated information.
Concepts, microorganisms?
Let’s remove half of the grains of sand from our dune. It remains a dune. Non-integrated information. Let’s remove half of the neurons from a concept. It is destroyed, or becomes a different or even opposite concept. Integrated information.
Thanks to this distinction, we can visualize concepts as mental microorganisms, capable of reconstituting, multiplying, giving birth to new concepts. Analogy used in the notion of memes, in Minsky’s psychic microrobots, and my own persona, actors of the mental scene who take turns taking control of our behavior, while leaving us the impression of being a unique personality.
Non-integrated associations
Organisms in the non-living (micelles), the living, the mind: continuity is complete. This does not imply a contrario that any association, in the living or the mind, constitutes an organism. Some associations are counter-organizations. Some species destroy others. Contradictory concepts alienate the mind. Loss of complexity, stultification. Other associations are neutral; they are juxtaposed but do not create a joint organization. No integration.
A single flapping of a butterfly’s wings can cause a hurricane in Texas, but it’s only of interest to local meteorologists, in a very theoretical way. Other Texans don’t change their behavior because a butterfly has flapped its wings. The two pieces of information are not integrated.
Radar spirit
We walk through the complexity of the world simulating it in our minds. The mind is a complex pile that tries to coordinate with the other. Natural connecting points are complex entities, whose appearance is stable. Stability provided by the integration of their information. Our mind is an automatic radar that looks for integrated information in the environment. It is the easiest to symbolize and predict.
*