Profile

Cover photo
Randall Lee Reetz
Works at Self-Evolving Systems Theory
Lived in Santa Cruz, CA
1,247 followers|934,991 views
AboutPostsPhotos+1's

Stream

Randall Lee Reetz

Shared publicly  - 
 
FLETCH...
1
Add a comment...

Randall Lee Reetz

Shared publicly  - 
 
Is Fletch the best movie ever filmed?
1
Add a comment...

Randall Lee Reetz

Shared publicly  - 
 
How much does habitual pot smoking predict a person's choice to support Bernie Sanders as US President hopeful?

I don't have an answer, that's why I am asking.
1
Jeremy Helm's profile photoRandall Lee Reetz's profile photo
2 comments
 
4:25
Add a comment...

Randall Lee Reetz

Shared publicly  - 
 
The GMO debate: a systems dynamics reframing
So you've never heard of cancer? Poison? Bacteria? Prions? Venom? Hormones? Infections? Pheromones? All of it the result of biochemistry produced by protein factories inside of cells, and all of it directed by instructions encoded in DNA or RNA. Almost everything that anyone or anything died of ever in the history of life has died of (excepting teeth) is a result of the DNA/RNA/Protean factory that is biology.

When people make the claim that GMO's are safe, they are trying to appeal to a romantic version of the word and concept "natural" that is just plain false, and, that ironically, is the product of the equally false notion of "nature" promoted by the very group, hippies, that the pro GMO contention is so frustrated with. This brand of shared similarities among foes happens often where two groups of equivalently obsessive people do battle for trumped up philosophical reasons that hide otherwise embarrassing emotional pain. Both sides of the GMO debate are guilty of the same hubris and this hubris in both cases is derived from the self same emotional insecurity.

Obscured by the resulting noise storm, is anything that might have resembled an honest objective skeptical inquiry into the real and potential problems and benefits that genetically modified organisms might introduce.

To wit:

1. To what extent has biology explored the total theoretical genetic landscape? Which factors are responsible for the
historical boundaries that define biology's limited range of exploration?

2. To what extent are the as yet unexplored swaths of genetic space explorable by current and future artificial means?

3. Is the biosphere more vulnerable to artificially introduced changes in genetics and the resulting virginal territory for which biology has no deeply evolved responses and response gestalt?

4. Are modified genes more likely to mutate or be evolutionarily active?

I will leave you with a hypothetical example as thought experiment. Fat stores in biological entities are not often attacked by bacteria or virus. What would happen if a pathogen was introduced artificially that specifically attacked and ate fat cells and their content. Vasculature is minimal in fatty regions. It would be difficult as a result for biology to mount a typical immune response. In the early 1980's, the oil industry made a big deal of engineering or breeding bacteria that could metabolize ocean spilled crude oil. Crude oil is not dissimilar to biological lipids. One might there for assume that bacteria engineered to eat crude would only be a few mutational or reproductive or epigenetic steps away from bacteria that could eat biological fat. Add to this potential hypothetical nightmare the fact that bacteria and most GMO vehicles, have short life spans, are introduced in unfathomable numbers, and can thus adjust evolutionarily to change far easier than can entities such as ourselves. Do such sceneries introduce qualitatively novel reaction spaces that biology is by definition ill-prepared to respond to? Keep in mind that much of biological dynamics and almost all of its metabolic energy use is dependent upon lipid chain reactions, or lipid chain signalled reactions.

Remember that genetics and evolution are not randomly determined. Not strictly at any rate. If for instance one had a handed say a bible or origin of the species to one person with a scissors and a Sears catalog to another person with a scissors, the strings of text that would result from pasting into sentences the cut up text collected would not be equivalent. Random refers to how chunks are sequenced, and not to what the chunks themselves are. A mutation in a bird's DNA will by definition result in a different probability space than a mutation in a pine tree's DNA. Yes, partially because the original set is different, but also, to a lesser degree, because the factors causing and limiting mutation are different in birds than they are in pine trees. Now extend that notion to the difference between the explorable mutational space defined by biology vs that which might be defined by laboratory sequencing equipment and the motives and predictions produced by lab personnel. A well designed DNA sequencing synthesizing machine would not for instance be dealing only from the stack of genetic cards evolution had handed it, it should be able to synthesize any possible sequence independent of historical contingency. That's a new ball game all together. A ball game the naturally evolved world will not have evolved any tools, responses, or defences.

Imagine instead the tiny fraction of a geography that rivers have explored. Water finding its way down an elevation always and exclusively finds only the deepest local valleys and ruts. That's variously described by the least action principle or thermodynamically, as the path of maximum dissipation. An evolved system is one in which very little of the full probability landscape has been explored. As a result, river systems know all kinds of things about the bottoms of valleys, ravines, canyons, and ruts, and almost nothing about plateaus, peaks, ridges, and highlands. To get rivers up and onto any of those high spots, to the other 99 percent of the topological probability space, you'd have to import energy and apply it tangential to the gravitation that would otherwise determine least action. That's exactly what the various apparatus applied to the synthetic modification of genetic topologies does, applying forces and energies to the genetic space that do not or do not often otherwise happen en vitro. When external energies are brought to bare, none of the previously established evolutionary adaptations are of much meaning. It's a new ball game with new and unknown rules. Adaptation starts anew. Only this time, that adaptation starts anew with pre existing complexity as now awkward and vulnerable and ill-prepared building blocks. Expecting, in such a situation, anything but chaos would not be advised.

The beauty of evolved systems is that they are stacked affairs, with the earliest adaptations providing the foundation that is most universally shared. That's the essence of inheritance and why a biom rarely surprises itself. But all of that inherent stability goes out the window if top down edits are made to the bottom up foundation.

OK, you say, yes I have experienced this, water does seem to find the steepest fastest path down a mountain, through a valley. But why? Well thats the interesting part, and it most importantly, it is true of and applies equally to ALL SYSTEMS in ALL DOMAINS under ALL CONDITIONS, no matter what. The reason water finds the "fall line", the steepest path is because it requires less energy to do so. Or said differently, you'd have to pump energy into the system from outside the system in order to get water to find another path. The only way to get the water to do something else is to change the landscape. You can for instance build a dam or dig a ditch, or blow a hole in a ridge separating two valleys. You can build a pump and import energy to that pump such that you can take that water and force it through pipes to another even another higher spot in the landscape.You could even force the water down the hill faster by running it through a pump and into a tube at higher pressures than its own weight would normally cause. Interestingly, in the language and thinking of the scientists who study these things, who study systems dynamics, thermodynamics, information theory, graph and network theory, and energy topologies, doing any of these "artificial" things to the landscape or to the water, would just be changing the energy topologies involved, and would not change any of the laws by which energy (or information) flows through systems. It is for this reason that the laws that describe and limit systems dynamics do not care what the system is made of or which species of energy animates the dynamics in that system.

So, if you understand systems dynamics that describes water on a hillside, you can just as easily understand the system dynamics that describes genes in a population. Once this is understood, and we've really only possessed this understanding of systems for about 150 years, a scientist can directly compare water on a hillside and genes drift and natural selection in a biome. Such comparisons are no longer just poetic metaphors. They are accurate and even directly compatible using math and logic tools. It is now as reasonable to compare gene expression with river paths as it is to compare the paths of two rivers.

It should be obvious then when I claim that the actual evolutionary exploration on the earth over the last 4 billion years is just as tiny a fraction of the total posible gene expression space as would be the percentage of a mountain range that has ever seen a river pass directly over it.

When scientists construct lab machinery to synthetically assemble gene sequences, they are artificially adding energy to the biotic system that has never been there before, pushing the river of gene expression onto landscapes and regions that it has never experienced before. No self respecting bio-engineer would ever go through the trouble of building a gene synthesizer that only allowed the exploration of the low energy space genes have already explored in the naturally evolved biome. The whole point of such machinery is that one could synthesize genetic sequences that nature might not naturally sequence. The vast new and unexplored gene space then made available through the use of such machines and lab procedures will by necessity result in genetic constructs that "nature" has not ever had to respond to and is therefore ill-equipped to do so.

This is the potential danger of genetic modification. Talk of the digestive safety of one or two of genetically modified organisms, or of the products of genetically modified organisms is not at all the meaningful issue here. The meaningful issue is the assured chaotic outfall when an evolved bottom-up system is disrupted by top-down edits that introduce classes of novelty the evolved system has no way of predicting and has no evolved responses to.

Neither side of the GMO debate seems prepared to address the real difference between bottom-up evolution, and top-down genetic manipulation.



1
David Westebbe's profile photoRandall Lee Reetz's profile photo
4 comments
 
I have simply said that which we know about evolution and biology and genetics and thermodynamics and graph theory. I'm not introducing anything new. Same old well established science. I'm simply reminding those intrenched in the GMO debate of the larger picture. This is a larger problem than the one charactorized by the "Are GMO's safe to eat?" question.
Add a comment...

Randall Lee Reetz

Shared publicly  - 
 
What accounts for the unraveling? Systemic? An "the end justifies any means" arrogance?
1
James Mason's profile photoRandall Lee Reetz's profile photo
5 comments
 
I see she is representing black power and duck dynasty.
Add a comment...

Randall Lee Reetz

Shared publicly  - 
 
Until Google's business model shifts from predicting human love for pizza and porn (something a five neuron network can distinguish), there is zero incentive to predict anything that requires any actual real time computation. The "genius" of Google's original solution was that some fairly complex looking language and behavior parsing could be reduced to an index without a whole lot of computation, and requiring almost no computing with each subsequent search request. All this deep learning hype requires some serious computation and is therefore not in anyway applicable within a model that skims nano fractions of pennies off each consumer transaction (google's revenue model). Google is in the "survey says" business. It's public relations challenge is to make a bottom feeder business seem complex and inspired. All this talk of AI and deep learning and quantum computing and singularity tech rapture is exactly like a garbage pickup empire talking about building trash powered galactic space ships (oops, my facetious example is exactly what Google disciples actually believe).
1
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
1,247 people
Tom Olijhoek's profile photo
indira wedage's profile photo
Mark Lewis's profile photo
Dustin Choate's profile photo
Jamie Hann's profile photo
My Abdellah Ben Hammou's profile photo
Sai Pavan Velidandla's profile photo
hawre kaml's profile photo
Sandra Figure's profile photo

Randall Lee Reetz

Shared publicly  - 
 
There is an increasingly obvious, new, and growing desperation-fueled scramble for some sort of technological cargo cult (usually "quantum"y) understanding that will lead to godlike powers over causality and the limits that causality imposes. The impetuous fueling this desperate search is the same immortality and omnipotence motive that has in times past had us seeking for the holly graile, the fountain of youth, the elixer of life, paradise, heaven, nirvana, transcendence, oneness, BFF status with a sky god, the occult, magic, incantations, mantras, premonitions, the sight, visions, convergance, channelling, super powers, etc. ad nauseam. New to this incarnation of self centered delusional insanity is its false but compelling association with science, with the one and only practice of filtering exactly this kind of self noise. Sad. Incredibly dangerous.

Interestingly, this new religion analog overlay onto technology and science-y, an analog most often under the umbrella of singularity, transhumanism, and space cultism, is aggressive in its vocal anti-religious stance, all the while being motivated by the self same existential fear and want that motivates religious thought of every ilk. This internal attack on science is far more dangerous and damaging to science than any religion ever was or ever could be for the simple reason that it is more easily confused with science. Nobody ever confused Zeus's lightning bolts with science, ever confused Jesus's resurrection with science, Moses's magic sea-parting staff with science. But it is the central rhetorical method of the new tech religions to borrow from the authority science has acquired through the careful filtering of personal existential noise in order to apply that authority to practices and agendas that are the very existential noise actual science filters. The general public doesn't know enough about the critical difference between science and ever other human pursuit and practice to expose this newest of the emperor's new clothes.

For 60 years now, the academic social science's entire program has been based on a criticism of just this sort of non-science programs successfully posed as science. Given the modern history of noise-motivated ventures sold as science, programs like racial superiority, like eugenics, like military mind control, like mass information gathering, like secret medical experiments performed on captive populations, it has been easy hunting to find reasons to distrust science.

Here we go again?
1
Add a comment...

Randall Lee Reetz

Shared publicly  - 
 
Incredulously, Google Now doesn't present the current date and time!
1
Jeremy Helm's profile photoRandall Lee Reetz's profile photo
3 comments
 
I don't need a 500 device packed with supercomputer power to act like a yoga coach, I need it to act like a computer.
Add a comment...

Randall Lee Reetz

Shared publicly  - 
 
Why free will is only a seductive illusion…
Let me once again try to explain how reality works: Everything is a structure. Structures are graphs, they are a collection of things that are related to each other by various shared attributes like geography, history, inheritance, mechanical linkages, communication channels, etc. Graphs all operate within the same logical and energetic constraints. No exceptions. So, what we can say of the limits pertaining a mountain is no different from what we can say of the limits pertaining a human brain. If mountains can be shown not to have "free will", same must be said of human brains. No exceptions. To say otherwise, one would have to show that there is some configuration one could organized the parts of a graph into that makes false the rules governing the physical limits of graphs. That would be the logical inconsistency to end all logical inconsistencies.

One attribute of graphs is that the next action that takes place within a graph is always that action that caused the greatest reduction in thermodynamic and structural clines... which is another way of saying that the next action within a system is that action that causes that system to fall down the furthest. Water falls down the surface of a hillside and finds the steepest path to do so. Likewise, a brain is a physical system showing geographical difference. The electrical chemical cascades that fall down a brain's graph behave in the exact same way that water behaves on a hillside... it finds the shortest path to the lowest point. ALWAYS. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Water has no choice because it is the topology of the hillside that determines its path. Dendritic signaling has no choice because it is the topology of the current neuronal configuration graph that determines what thoughts and actions occurs next.

So, to make the claim that a brain has free will, one would also have to show that rocks and photons and carrot greens also have free will. If you did so, you'd be removing the very privilege you so want to exclusively ascribe to humans and human thinking.

To make the claim that anything had free will would require the person making that claim to show that there are ways to build things of causal physical objects that thereafter are not restricted by the causality of which they were built.

One would think that this understanding of reality would be devastating to self help types, including the up-sophistication self help categories like psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy. You'd be correct in that thought. But there are other self-deluders out there that seem willfully deluded by the same self-as-special lies. There seem to be an endless stream of ways to convince oneself that there is a way of escaping causal reality, or acting outside the constraints and limits of causal reality. Religious thought is prime example. But as of late, there are many competitors to religion, many methods of projecting super-physical escape. More and more people seem seduced by a dream of technological escape from causal reality. The singularity tech rapture projected by Ray Kurzweil accomplishes this for some. Others are drawn to the immortality self-frankenstiening transhumanism advocates. Still more seek omnipotence in the form of Kap'n Kirk-esque sci-fi escape "to infinity and beyond".

Is your need to escape reality great enough to cause you to lie to yourself about escaping reality? Are you a wizard of your own oz?
1
Add a comment...

Randall Lee Reetz

Shared publicly  - 
 
How deep is this behavior rooted in the post modernist revisionist administrative and academic culture at UC Davis?
After campus police pepper-sprayed student protesters, Davis paid some $175,000 to consultants to clean up the university's online reputation.
3
1
Add a comment...

Randall Lee Reetz

Shared publicly  - 
 
Too bad he didn't directly call out the three (cargo cult) horseman of the death of science: transhumanism, singularity obsession, and space cultism.
1
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
1,247 people
Tom Olijhoek's profile photo
indira wedage's profile photo
Mark Lewis's profile photo
Dustin Choate's profile photo
Jamie Hann's profile photo
My Abdellah Ben Hammou's profile photo
Sai Pavan Velidandla's profile photo
hawre kaml's profile photo
Sandra Figure's profile photo
Work
Occupation
Consulting at the intersection of computation, self evolving systems, decentralized node based computing, artificial intelligence,
Skills
Rapid Software Prototyping, Interface and Interaction Design, Information Access and Navigation Environments, Universal Simulation Environments,Thermodynamics-based Evolution Theory, Self-Evolving Intelligence
Employment
  • Self-Evolving Systems Theory
    Artificial Intelligence, present
  • Consultant
    Rapid Software Prototyping, present
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Story
Tagline
What matters is what matters, knowing what matters matters the most.
Introduction
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
I block all Google+'ers who don't share a full profile (including a comprehensive "Introduction" section), a full legal name, a recent and accurate photo, a means of direct communication, or who use this forum for purposes other than honest and serious discussions of real issues. I also block people who rarely or never post their own original thoughts in their own words.

PASSIONS AND MOTIVATIONS
Darwin did a fair job defining the HOW of evolution – within the domain of biology. But the scope of evolution is far larger than the bounds of biology.

I seek a domain independent understanding of evolution. I seek the WHY of evolution. Why does complexity increase in pockets? Complexity is energy and configuration expensive. In a universe that can only get more and more simple, maximal complexity is the fastest path towards the deepest eventuality. Evolution is the process by which the universe iteratively computes the shortest path from all here and now's to the asymptote that is heat death.

The ultimate fate of the universe is set and unavoidable. The only variable is the rate at which it gets there. Configurations that maximize this rate dominate the energy flow within their environment and thus have the greatest influence over the shape of change. You can only maximize energy flow to the extent with which you understand it.  Knowledge and the processing of knowledge is what evolution in any universe will produce.

You can get better and better at knowing how the universe works and why – or you can become food for systems that do. There is no other option.

THE EMPIRICAL CREED
ALL of my theory work is Standard Model Compliant. If a measurement has been taken, I assume that the result MUST be considered valid. Furthermore, ALL theory must agree with ALL measurement and with ALL measurement confirmed theory – period. No exceptions. This is the solemn oath we take before we engage in the scientific process.
Bragging rights
Have worked for 11 companies that have burnt through all of their money within a year and a half.
Collections Randall Lee is following
View all
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Previously
Santa Cruz, CA - Portland, OR - San Francisco, CA - Chicago, IL - San Diego, CA - Los Angeles, CA - Santa Barbara, CA - Woodside, CA - Palo Alto, CA - Placerville, CA - Santa Maria, CA - Auburn, CA - Reno, NV
Links
Randall Lee Reetz's +1's are the things they like, agree with, or want to recommend.
Evolution as entropy
books.google.com

"By combining recent advances in the physical sciences with some of the novel ideas, techniques, and data of modern biology, this book attem

Funny Jokes and Quotes
plus.google.com

Funny Jokes and Inspiring Quotes :)

Computation Language Information Nature Evolution
plus.google.com

Promoting a scientific exploration of the causal emergence of complexity.

COMPLEXITY METRIC
www.complexitymetric.blogspot.com

COMPLEXITY METRIC. Change increases entropy. The only variable; how fast the Universe falls towards chaos. Determining this rate is the comp

The CLINE Challenge - Computation Language Intelligence Nature and Evol...
www.meetup.com

CLINE was established to encourage and facilitate the scientific exploration of the intersection of computation, language, information, comp

50'000€ Prize for Compressing Human Knowledge
prize.hutter1.net

50'000€ Prize for Compressing Human Knowledge by Marcus Hutter