Great thought experiment!

Those are very interesting thoughts. Thanks for the detailed comment!

That's pretty much what I assume too

Interesting thought indeed. How would this play out with mutation? If a mutation occurs in the early stages of growth, will it be able to derail the correct formation of the organism? Or is mutation only restricted to later stages and specific areas of the organism.

@@osaimola I know from my friends who took puberty blockers that “delaying” puberty turned out to be permanent. So after they quit the blockers, they were compelled to move on to HRT, otherwise they were stuck in teenage bodies with the bone and hormone problems of the elderly. And we can also see that a pituitary gland mutation tends to cause stunted growth or exaggerated growth, though it can be hard in those cases to be certain if the pituitary was the first and only cause.

Yes, perhaps, but what makes the process stop at the right moment?

Very likely the case!

Levin Lab's work really is amazing!

for sure

Very likely indeed!

110%

That's a beautiful elaboration!

It really did!

Look up, Rupert Sheldrake - Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields

@@SEMF "inclusion and diversity " wtf man

@@xiaonanw6374 huh?

@@generichuman_ their description in about the channel..

Indeed that was the case! This may give a different status to the font from now on...

Most likely so!

ML and similar researchers are, of course, building upon previous work, with immense collaboration and sharing occurring on a global basis, leading to the exponential increases in knowledge and astonishing technological development that we’re seeing. Meanwhile, during the quest to eradicate many diseases of humans, improve human lives, nonhuman life is being destroyed, the biosphere is being degraded, fished-out oceans polluted w/ plastic, resources depleted, and 1,000,000 new humans added q 4-5 days. So the exhaustion of the Earth’s resources by too many human parasites, the scary but inevitable military applications of AI, necessitated by an escalation in war and conflict over dwindling resources, and the unintended consequences of bio technological/genetic engineering will make Dr. Levin’s fine work superfluous, as catastrophes loom on the horizon.

@@commanderthorkilj.amundsen3426 This is an important notice!

@@commanderthorkilj.amundsen3426 Blimey! Doomer, much?

That was a really incredible example!

It was a pleasure to host him at SEMF!

If you want to hear more from him, he had a great interview on Lex Fridman's podcast

this is an extract from the longer kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oLKZe69117W4h2w.html

He is representative of the work at his lab and by his collaborators, perhaps he is the most visible but not the only one?

@@SEMF Yeah I'm sure that in the community there are more people, but in mainstream I think this is getting nearly zero attention.

This is a very interesting observation and one that will be addressed in future SEMF events and discussions.

they lose growth regulating genes due to dna damage. by 'default' singular cells emerged to just multiply successfully as soon as possible. then regulation of this process evolves to be more adaptive and survive as a colony [see volvex]. these growth-suppression genes get slammed out of the chain and we get faster multiplication. hope your T-killers detect this asap.

The book Life Becoming (I think it's called) lays out a bunch of mechanisms. Stuff like: when the density of certain signalling cells get too low, or weird algorithms where the rate by which the cell creates or destroys certain rigid structures equalizes. It's analogous to how hair reaches an equilibrium point based on how quickly it falls out and how quickly it grows. I only vaguely remember, but it's cool.

Michael's research is indeed a great advance in this direction!

I would suspect that cells constantly monitor their environment. So cells that are on the edge of an embryo, the surface cells, are constantly broadcasting surface signalers. Cells that are next to them broadcast a unique signaler and so on and so forth. By monitoring the average gradient of signaling proteins a cell can get a rough idea of where it is in the embryo as it develops. Then based on their locations cells then attempt to begin to differentiate. My guess is that they start putting out signalers that recruit neighboring cells that recruit neighboring cells until the signal strength reaches a critical threshold at which point an election process begins amongst them to further differentiate, activating some parts of the genome and shutting down others. So say you have an embryonic liver. One cell decides its going to be a liver cell and it tells the surrounding cells to also become liver cells. If those cells are undifferentiated they recruit and turn off their ability to be anything and instead become liver cells, signaling what they are doing all the while. When the signal reaches a strength threshold the cells stop recruiting and start dividing. Cells that are on the boundary layer know this because they dont have liver cells on all sides, only on one side, so signaling proteins would be roughly half of what a cell inside the group might experience. This allows the liver cells to output signaling proteins "Hey I am on the boundary layer!" to other cells. Then once the boundary is established you can link all the boundary cells together with mechanical linkages and monitor those linkages for damage. A loss of a connection could change how the tensile strength of the boundary cells gets interpreted. So if you have mechanical changes, plus damage signals in the water, the cells know to interpret it as damage and so begin the healing process. Whereas if you just have flexing alone, then that triggers nothing. Basically an AND gate if I were to convert it into my field (I work in IT. So feel free to call my meanderings a load of baloney!) I think how the system works is that each cell, having the same genome as every other cell, uses hormones and signals to know which bits to turn on and which bits to turn off. This defines which proteins and signals and chemicals a cell produces vs which ones it doesnt produce, and the presence of these proteins are what chemically and mechanically define how the cells interact with each other. With billions of chemical pathways inside a cell acting almost like very very very tiny logic gates, the cell is able to make decisions based off of its immediate surroundings. Taken in aggregate all these chemical logic circuits combine to produce emergent behavior. The reason that say, Picasso always produces a frog... You have cells that elect to be the front of the organism and cells that elect to be the middle and cells that elect to be the back end. Then you have cells that are eyes and they are basically telling all their neighbors they are eye cells. Except those cells chemically do not respond to eye cell signals. So instead the eye cells look for the signals that indicate front vs back, and begin to migrate to the front. There is probably a mechanism to allow them to migrate around. As the cells migrate they detect 'Face' signals which tells them its going in the right direction. Eventually they find the cells they are supposed to be next to and stop there. They overcorrect because as this is a chemical biological process, they can get too strong a signal and move too enthusiastically, whereupon they encounter boundary cells where they arent supposed to and move away from that boundary layer signal. Because there are TRILLIONS of possible protein combinations, you can theoretically have as many signals as you need to set off as many chemical pathways as you need for these logic circuits that then chemically set off yet more pathways that allow the cell to move around mechanically. Its why you first have a mass of undifferentiated cells in a ball because thats the easiest shape that has a defined inside and outside. At least that is my layperson thinking. No idea how close to the truth I actually got.

@@thomashenry4798 Thank you so much for the very detailed comment! I suggest you join our online community to further share your thoughts with SEMF members: semf.org.es/participate/join.html

Thank you very much for the comment! We are also hoping shorter videos will be useful!

Glad to see you enjoyed our content!

@@SEMF how can one claim science but actually be a proponent of the opposite of science ??? Please tell us

@@xiaonanw6374 What do you mean?

@@SEMF I appreciate your reply and your content to be clear continue the content... Your content is a meeting place of different ideas , all with the focus of cross pollination ... allowing the absorbing of and discussion of and thus development of deeper understanding for everyone involved ... truly EPIC and heart warming In your about section you boil that down to the "inclusion of diverse viewpoints" which has come to represent of those groups and people who use such language as actually meaning we value all viewpoints but only the "valid ones" and that validity is not created by nor supported by the diverse discussion but rather limits it. As I feel your truly about multi angled and multi disciplinary discussion then I feel you need to be more clear about that in your language... unless you are trying to capitulate to that "jargon" which unfortunately signals fundamental corruption of your stated goals (ideals) In any case. Take it as you will

@@xiaonanw6374 Thanks for the kind words!

Thank you very much for your kind comment. We feel privileged to be able to bring this cutting-edge research to a large audience.

Thank you so much for your interest! We are glad you are enjoying our content. Please visit our website for more information on the society behind this channel: semf.org.es/

Thank you, it is our pleasure!

We thought so too! Thanks for your comment!

It truly is fascinating!

Look forward to future SEMF events, we will be having many opportunities to learn from the basics. semf.org.es/participate/join.html

This is the beginning of a scientific research field, it is natural to still be humble and stay sceptical.

That's a pretty accurate short account of it!

We are glad you enjoy our content!

We thought so too. Michael is a very clear speaker!

We are very happy the algorithm is bringing this to the fore!

Thanks for the feedback! If we may ask, what about the logo made you think that the content wouldn't be a "proper science lecture".

@@SEMF looks like a spiritual tree of life logo of some cult to me.

@@realGBx64 Interesting! Well thanks for the feedback, it is always useful to gather impressions. The tree-like shape is a remnant of our former logo that had the "Tree of Knowledge/Science" as a centrepiece. The current design is intended to evoke dendrites/neurons, particle traces, etc. If you want to learn more about the society behind this channel you can visit our website: semf.org.es/mission/

It really is!

There is a real possibility that quantum entanglement is involved in the process. Great comment!

Indeed it was! It was a privilege to host Michael at our conference.

That sounds fascinating! We invite you to share such projects with our community: semf.org.es/participate/join.html

It really is!

Thanks for your comment!

Thanks for your interest! You can participate in the SEMF community by joining our network (free) following this link: semf.org.es/participate/join.html You will get access to our community forums, mailing lists and early announcements about future events for registration.

That's a very relevant observation!

Thanks!

This is super exciting indeed!

I recall watching a channel abiut single cell organisms and sometimes, and not nearly rarely, you see something that makes you think these things are intelligent & perfectly capable of some sort of reasoning (at least on some level)

@@osaimola Interesting!

They don't know, there is no global/top down organization. Local rules evolve into equilibrium

@@johnk6757 Local rules evolving into equilibrium is indeed a very important abstraction to model the kind of phenomena Michael Levin studies.

Indeed it is!

i think we must ask the question WHAT is encoded before "how" a blueprint encodes a shape and produces identical bolts and nuts. whereas frogs are all different, different IN SHAPE, yet they are all "similar" what IS this "similarity"? let alone Trees -- unique as effing fingerprints! the idea with geometrical space distortion is very misleading, i'd start from the CONNECTIVITY, certanly a connectivity "scheme" of a body must be much more invariant than the shape.

This video is just a small extract from the full talk, see video description

That's a fair description. Michaels work is amazing and very promising but still early stages. We look forward to inviting him and his collaborators again!

That's the idea!

That's a very interesting suggestion!

That's right!

That's a great sign!

Great question!

Great summary!

We are glad our highlight video got you thinking.

We will invite Michael to future SEMF events! For now, you can watch the full talk here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oLKZe69117W4h2w.html

Some causally justified teleology is probably the way to go!

@@SEMF :) hehe - I wrote an essay, googleable, "Biological Teleology" as to my guess how cells can "choose what *will* be good for them."

@@anthonyrepetto3474 Interesting!

Michael outlines a very enticing answer!

How are goals defined in nature?

We are glad to provide the content to support such thoughts!

Or some kind of recursive tensor with tightly distributed means.

@@kokopelli314 Could you expand what you mean by this? Sounds intriguing!

@@SEMF so fractals exist in state space where consecutive points have indeterminate or chaotic vectors. That is the N+1 point is indeterminate given variation of initial conditions, but the attractor, or pattern remains fairly consistent within a set of mean values. These values could be represented by tensor, or sets of n vectors with probabilistic values affected by a recursive function. Like you indicated in the video. It might look like magic, but a recursive function, acting through state space would be like the complex plane.

@@kokopelli314 Thanks very much for the clarification!

Many interesting ideas in this comment! Perhaps you would like to bring them to the SEMF internal community: semf.org.es/participate/join.html

It really is!

This really was an amazing contribution. We are having a Levin-focused event in our community. You can join the live discussions on our community here: semf.org.es/participate/join.html

indeed!

That's a very real possibility, thanks for the insightful comment!

That sounds super interesting! Why don't you share some links or info about that game with our community? You can join at no cost other than filling a quick form here: semf.org.es/participate/join.html

This was an update in the general context of the concept of Spatiality in our conference. Arguably a summary of previous, previously known work, but very relevant to this concept of space and shape.

That's essentially what Michael's research seems to point towards.

Thanks for the insightful comment!

The most likely mechanism, as Michael pointed out, is DNA and well-known genetic inheritance. But any other mechanisms, such as the ones you point out, are reasonable possibilities.

Precisely!

This is explained at 12:30 in the following kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iZlpaNSJm62aeIE.html

@@aj-uo3uh Thanks for the link!

It definitely looks like so!

how many dimesnions can morphospace have as well?

Very interesting thoughts! You may want to share them with our internal SEMF community: semf.org.es/participate/join.html

@@SEMF Thanks for the invitation, I feel honored and will grasp the opportunity.

@@SEMF Thanks, I feel honored by your invitation.

Thank you for such a well-written and informative comment!

@@SEMF You are welcome. I am trying to schedule binge-watching some of your content, hopefully I will have something more to say in the near future. Cheers!

@@fbkintanar That's great to hear! If you want to contribute to the community, you are very welcome to join our mailing list and Discord server: semf.org.es/participate/join.html

Levin's work shows some direct experimental evidence. You can check other videos in our channel for it!

A very real possibility!

That seems to be one of the most characteristic functions of cells indeed.

Our thoughts exactly!

@@SEMF is it assumed that the undiscovered genetic data for morphology works in amphibian maturation just like it does for regular growth in other creatures?

@@drphosferrous It seems to be the case, yes.

Low IQ.same genome different anatomy he explains how.

We hope to be there to attest future results!

History reveals the weaponisation and marketisation of science by invested insiders seek prior advantage of insider knowledge, kept secret or surrounded by obfuscations. The Field approach is NOT a control model but a mindset of control seeks according to its own conditioned thinking, under the mask of serving humanity, for possession and control. Hence The Biotech revolution of augmented or captive human to such systems is close at hand. Living waters are structured by nanoscale quantum charge domains as a medium of translation of information unfolding from a whole. The pathological model rises from a sense of lack, exclusion, conflict, denial, set to defences that boost and reinforce the model as the basis for interpretation. Wholeness is a balancing alignment of a life as contextual expression. But All the king’s horses and all the king’s men cant see it as that predicates on a broken life that must be fixed.

@@binra3788 Interesting considerations!

It is an amazing example indeed! Michael did say it was his favourite example to date.

The return of the Platonist when? ;)

Simpler problems like these are probably important to investigate. Perhaps you would like to share your thoughts within our community: semf.org.es/participate/join.html

I mean "impossible" obviously...

We are glad you enjoyed this video! Michael's summary was certainly well made.

Interesting observation!

From what we learnt from Michael, it would depend on what caused the leg to be "deformed" in the first place.

Thanks very much for the suggestion!

Intelligence in the sense described here, absolutely! That's a very real possibility.

Interesting thoughts!

That idea about modes is certainly plausible. Makes sense with the observed evidence.

@@SEMF Thank you for your videos, Micheal is one of the most brilliant people I’ve heard speak. Since the mode-like cell behavior is not crazy, here is my guess for where the forms are stored. Assuming evolution is lazy/cheap, the easiest/cheapest way to encode physical functions (including “target form seekers”) would be to use the structure or “shape” of the control surfaces (the structures in cells that behave differently based on inputs; I don’t know the proper terms). This is explained at the end. Reading DNA is probably expensive, so you must store the real-time access information somewhere else. Putting all this together means you would expect DNA to encode instructions for an ultra general purpose biological machine that can copy itself, stay connected with, authenticate, and communicate with the copies, and change between a vast landscape machine types (resulting in a vaster landscape of possible behavior spaces), depending on its own state, signals from copies, and perhaps signals from non-copy “friendly” cells. You don’t design a body, you fine-tune a single super-cell that can copy itself and take on an infinite number of different roles/modes to fill its space in the environment. The cheapest way to store real-time morphology information (returning to the explanation) would be in the shape of the control surface, because its physical structure can be such that it reaches a natural balance for free. The analog thermostat example is appropriate. If the mercury has risen to the midpoint due to the temperature, you may ask “where is the form of 1/2 stored in the thermostat?” But of course it’s not, it’s encoded in the design of the control surface of the thermostat, which functions based on the environment it exists in. DNA would encode instructions for building a cell-building framework (some kind of super-proto-cell), that would encode or re-encode a specific morphology in its control surfaces based on what type of cell it is, based on signals from other cells and it’s own state. Since the real-time form/morphology information is encoded in the physical structure, it would not appear like data, even though its structure is data driven. At no point would you find anything that represents a body part shape because it would actually be represented by the control surface shape that seeks the proper steady state, for its purpose, at its location, for the purpose of resulting in the desired overall morphological shape (even though it has no knowledge of this grand purpose). The actual forms we see when looking at bodies would be meaningless side effects from the cells perspective. So, a person who is taller will have “taller” control surfaces. Not literally taller, but they will be constructed differently in a way that results in a steady state that results in a taller person. The control surface differences that encode real-time form information just by existing, could be revealed with machine learning by comparing them in detail (if detailed active-cell snapshots are possible) to the large scale morphologies, with enough properly tagged sample sets from one species. Cells would have to somehow periodically do an expensive “check” of the DNA to make sure the control surfaces are still shaped correctly, otherwise bodies would drift off into strange shapes as they take on damage, and quickly stop working (because of the hierarchical/recursive nature of the signal-response chains). You should also expect some kind of checksum or redundancy somewhere in this process. If true, altering DNA would be the most difficult way to manipulate forms, because you’re programming under several layers of abstraction. But it would be the most permanent. If you tried to manipulate the control surfaces, the form would revert after DNA checks. However, I suspect the surfaces are far more complex than this simplistic picture, and that there are infinite ways of manipulating the cell systems to capture new forms permanently by hacking the existing systems (coaxing the system into new steady states by pushing specific signals past expected boundaries; essentially causing overflow errors). Again, if true, every cell should know how to do *everything* that any other cell of the same species can do, if properly coaxed through the mode hierarchy.

@@909sickle Thanks for the very detailed and interesting comment!