COKA: The Conjecture of Kosmic Autopoiesis

I offer no apology for this edited repeat posting. Rightly or wrongly, these ideas continue to fascinate me, and I find the emerging understanding profoundly satisfying.

Given enough hydrogen, enough space, and enough time;
by natural, spontaneous mechanisms
the complexity of matter will increase,
and life will begin;
as living things evolve,
their information processing will grow in scope and power,
until eventually conscious, creative, communicating cognition is born.

That statement is my Conjecture of Kosmic Autopoiesis. Let it be written on my tombstone.

***


This is an attempt to write down ideas which interest and excite me. It is a brief, preliminary, incomplete and inadequate outline. Obviously any conjecture demands precise exposition, careful elaboration, critical evaluation, and discussion. A lengthy task, but a start must be made.
At present I can argue as follows in support of the conjecture.

1. It is evident that the complexity of our planet earth has increased since its origin, maybe 4.5 billion years ago. A biosphere has evolved from an initial assembly of elements and simple compounds.
At least one member of the biosphere is now conscious, with the facility of intelligent information processing.
It has taken more time than the human mind can easily imagine, but there is no doubt that it has happened.

2. There is no evidence that earth's evolution requires an external designer or controller: all processes on the earth are intrinsic and spontaneous. Therefore the potential of self-assembly - autopoiesis - must be included in our studies of the properties of matter.
The mechanisms of autopoiesis are poorly understood. Our knowledge is best for the biosphere, but insights into pre-biotic evolution are beginning.

Autopoiesis is the theory of natural self-assembly, a conjecture, inferred from probabilities. Our special human interest is Gaia Autopoietika, the autopoietic Earth.

3. Gravity is the great creative force, causing the aggregation of materials and energy release necessary for autopoiesis. It is gravity which drives the sun and the other stars; it is gravity which creates planets from stardust; it is gravity which sustains environments in which life can evolve.
But it is gravity which now restricts the advancement of Homo beyond its home planet.

4. Why stop with earth? There is no sign that physics and chemistry might vary across the kosmos. Our sun is one of many millions of similar stars in our galaxy alone, and there are more than 100 billion galaxies in the kosmos we observe. The probability that earth is the only planet suitable for life is vanishingly small. What we perceive here may be a very small sample, but there is no reason to believe it is atypical or unique.
There is a high probability that life is abundant in the kosmos: conscious, intelligent life must be out there, and may well be common. We can but hope that eventually a means of communication across vast distances will be found; perhaps then we shall find a kosmos full of voices.

5. The increase in complexity from kosmic primordia to stars and planets extends autopoiesis back almost to the singularity which we believe was in the beginning.

6. In broadest outline, autopoiesis proceeds:

- from hydrogen gas to generations of stars, and synthesis of all other elements;
- from simple stars to complex star-systems, with planets of elements and compounds;
- from simple to complex planetary chemistry;
- from complex molecules to simple life;
- from simple to complex life, increasingly homeostatic [independent of the environment];
- in homeostasis increasingly complex neural structures, permitting functions of increasing sophistication;
- finally consciousness and intelligence.

7. This conjecture - an Autopoietic Kosmos - Kosmos Autopoietikos - may be the grandest of unifying theories. Much detail may still be mysterious, but the theory offers understanding of the emergence from chaotic matter and energy of order, life and mind. The consequent vision is majestic, but without comfort. It is mechanical, wasteful, cruel and unjust in its working; frequently creating diversions leading to extinction; yet somehow, marvellously and unexpectedly, the long-term trend is always to increase complexity.
Darwinian evolution is the prime mechanism of complexity increase, at the biological level at least.
That which succeeds, succeeds; that which fails is eliminated without mercy.

8. All life is subject to a ruthless and unrelenting struggle for survival and reproductive success. With the exception of photosynthetic and chemosynthetic organisms, all life feeds on other life, with no respect for status in the tree of life. Syphilis destroyed Schubert; tuberculosis bacilli killed Darwin’s 10 years old daughter.
Life’s evolution on earth survived mass extinctions, usually inflicted by asteroid impact and volcanism; blind physics damaging biology. Remarkably such events may accelerate autopoiesis, perhaps by clearing space for the next advance.
After the Permian mass extinction came the radiation of the reptilia and dinosauria; in turn they gave way to birds and mammals after the late Cretaceous extinction event.

9. Autopoiesis - to what end? A question we cannot answer. That the kosmos has meaning and purpose must be assumed, for now. That is the only item of faith I can accept in my kataphusin philosophy. It is the first axiom for any evidence-based theology.
Some may argue that autopoiesis is evidence for the existence of a creating, controlling and sustaining entity, towards which all is evolving, and in which all eventually will reach fulfilment, be made plain, and justified. This conjecture has no demonstrable base in the knowledge of reality which now we possess, nor can it be proven by argument - or disproven.
But the denial of such arguments implies that material, mechanism and chance are the total and final causes of all the marvels we perceive, and that the kosmos we inhabit has no deep meaning or ultimate significance. The more I experience and understand, the more absurd those conclusions seem.
Could it be that all we are is just a tiny increment in the autopoiesis of a future kosmic organism, endowed with knowledge, understanding and capabilities beyond our comprehension?

We can but hope.

Dis-Ill-EU-sion

This morning I found a letter I wrote to my [New Labour] MP in 2008. It tells the evolution of my opinions on the Common Market / European union. Since writing my opinions have hardened further: disappointment and frustration led to anger, and now outrage.

So here it is repeated. I think the public demand for a referendum will be an important issue at the next election, and that a referendum must eventually be held. The "democratic deficit" in the EU erodes its authority and stability, as do its attempts to preserve the euro by illegal means.

>>

Thank you for your letter arguing New Labour's case against a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. It does not address the central issue.

You were elected on a manifesto which made a clear, simple, unqualified commitment to a referendum on this treaty. You would argue the benefits of increased British commitment to Europe. You appeared confident you could win the argument and the referendum.

In the event this commitment will not be honoured: a serious betrayal of trust. New Labour's contract with its electorate is broken.
So the further arguments you develop are worthless. Each point you make is open to challenge. In refusing a referendum you tacitly declare no confidence in your own case.

In practice we all know and accept that manifesto promises are mostly electoral propaganda, as reliable as Lenin's pie-crust. But this commitment is different: the issue affects the future of democracy in Britain.

In the beginning I strongly advocated Britain's membership of the Common Market, but experience has convinced me this was a serious mistake. On European questions our politicians have a record of evasion, economy with the truth, and, on occasion, dishonesty. I have been taught Euroscepticism, indeed Eurocynicism. I call it dis-Ill-EU-sion.

I am now convinced Heath lied about some of the terms agreed for Britain's entry. I remember pro-Europeans stressing that we were joining a Common Market, not a European Union. On this basis many of us voted “yes” in the referendum of 1975. We have had ample time to reflect how badly we were mistaken. I joined the derision of Mrs. Thatcher, when in 1990 she declared her doubts about a single currency, a European central bank, and admission of Eastern European countries. She foresaw wealth and jobs flooding east through Europe, and a tidal bore of migrants coming west.
I owe her an apology.

For the EU is indeed ill. It is corrupt; it has not returned audited accounts in a decade. It fails to create a fair environment for competition, even such basics as harmonized fuel taxation. It is authoritarian and hubristic. The Euro-bureaucracy will increase its power by right means if it can, if not, by any means. It is hugely expensive for Britain.
New Labour consents to this. Indeed it goes further than most, advocating EU membership for Turkey and the states of the North African littoral, seemingly oblivious to the political, cultural, economic and demographic consequences.

We should refuse the Lisbon treaty. We should seek to repatriate powers to our own democracy. Norway should be our model for engagement with Europe, not France or Germany. We can renegotiate our European commitment from a position of strength: Europe is the main beneficiary of British EU membership.

Reality can be denied, but will eventually break through. A thorough, critical review of our experience of EU membership is needed. A referendum would provide the opportunity for such a review and a debate on the best response to the facts revealed.

<<

Two Predator Poems

Leo

The lion's life is grim and hard,

With pride and cubs to keep;

Each day he paces round on guard,

All night he dare not sleep.

One day he'll face a fresh young male,

When he is spent and hurt,

He'll fight for cubs and pride, and fail,

Fall bloodied in the dirt.

[And all because the ladies love a winner]

Orca

The killer whale, with dorsal sword,

Is Orca gladiator;

Pied pack-wolf from the ocean broad,

The cruelest sea predator.

Young whales and seals they tear and bleed,

And feast, their bellies filling;

But then hunt on, in sport, to feed

Satanic lusts for killing.

[Did He, who made the lamb, make thee?]

Fashions in Naming.

A local newspaper records the recent death of a lady of 91. It lists the names of her family over four generations.

She was Maisie Ruth, her husband was Leslie; her brother is Ronald.

Her daughter Beryl married Barrie; her son Malcolm married Lilwen.

All good traditional British names, but then:

her grandchildren are Gary, Tracey and Jason;

and her great-grandchildren are Connor, Taylor, Blu, Tyler, Kaya and Zeph.

Maybe there is an Australian flavour about those bizarre fourth generation names?

Times change, and I must change with them, I suppose, but I can't understand why parents would so ignore their childrens' cultural legacy.

Like tattoos, such names are a passing fashion. They will disappear in the next generation.

A Document to Remember and Respect

I understand that tomorrow, January 16th., is to be Religious Freedom Day in the United States, by presidential decree.

It is to mark the anniversary of the Statute of Religious Freedom, passed by the government of the state of Virginia in 1786. Thomas Jefferson wrote the document, and was justifiably proud of his achievement.

It is a most important contribution to human civilisation, institutional religious authority proving so often the cause of social stagnation, legalised barbarism, and conflict.

It is a document I would commend to all young people, for study and reflection. Here is the text: I have marked in bold the passage I consider fundamental.

>> Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free;

that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do;

that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;

that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;

that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry;

that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right;

that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it;

that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to Herself, that She is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of Her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.

<<

Unexpectedly, a similar doctrine appears in the Qur'an, 2:256 -

>> Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from error.

Unfortunately this is contradicted, both in the Qur'an and in the Hadith, by commands to fight and kill unbelievers and jews, and to punish apostasy by death.