1. fun and sandpiles
Locked
 
|
Nick,
Hi. Yea, thinking about the difference between instrumental (physical) and abstract (theoretical) causes of even perfectly well behaved things is a tough climb. I'm glad if anyone is willing to put the two on the table at the same time at all. No I haven't read those, but I'm always interested in the new angles people try. The usual place I find the Darwinian models to break down is in assuming the environment somehow has the future shapes of things built in and a mold pressing process of random variation and atrition is how those shapes are transfered to organisms. To me that leaves the question as to where the shapes come from unanswered. I also haven't found anyone who has connected the fact that evolution is a sequential extension of a growth process, with any particular mechanism of growth. Can you give me a snapshot of what you found satisfying in either one of them? What's different with my approach is that the main players in the game are the evolving internal loops of the growth systems, the organisms themselves, animated by the feedbacks they 'discover'. Using the interface between a loop network's 'inside and outside' as a boundary between internal and external forces opens a whole lot of interesting new questions. The rudimentary question is, since loop systems exist, what do they add? They do appear to adapt and invent, by many mechanisms, and I think the key to exploring how is thinking about how the 'fringe' of their structures could vary independent of their 'core', so as to set up a kind of phase space exploring machine that is animated by feedbacks it finds. Phil > Phil, > > I have kept out of the most recent War of the PolyMaths because i just > don't have the firepower these days to keep up. > > But your last communication poked my fire a bit. > > Have you seen either THE PLAUSIBILITY OF LIFE or CATCHING OURSELVES IN THE > ACT. > > The f irst is a must read, because the gain/pain ratio is so high. As for > the second, the pain is pretty high, so I have been unable as yet whether > the gain is worth it, but I am pretty sure. > > Nick > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <friam-request at redfish.com> > > To: <friam at redfish.com> > > Date: 1/13/2007 12:00:41 PM > > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 43, Issue 24 > > > > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > > friam at redfish.com > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > friam-request at redfish.com > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > friam-owner at redfish.com > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: fun and sandpiles (Phil Henshaw) > > |
|
|
On 1/14/07, Phil Henshaw <sy at synapse9.com> wrote:
> > Nick, > Hi. Yea, thinking about the difference between instrumental > (physical) and abstract (theoretical) causes of even perfectly well > behaved things is a tough climb. I'm glad if anyone is willing to > put the two on the table at the same time at all. > > No I haven't read those, but I'm always interested in the new angles > people try. The usual place I find the Darwinian models to break > down is in assuming the environment somehow has the future shapes of > things built in and a mold pressing process of random variation and > atrition is how those shapes are transfered to organisms. To me that > leaves the question as to where the shapes come from unanswered. I > also haven't found anyone who has connected the fact that evolution is > a sequential extension of a growth process, with any particular > mechanism of growth. > > Can you give me a snapshot of what you found satisfying in either one > of them? Hah. The Plausibility of Life was on my Christmas wish list. From the back cover: "Complex living systems are plausible only if evolution can plausibly generate them. The authors show how this has been achieved by providing many detailed examples to illustrate their theory of facilitated variation. The reveal what might be called the grammar of evolved systems, the flexible organization of processes which allows change by accretion and rearrangement. What emerges is the interesting consequence that it is life by [intelligent] design that is implausible." Sydney Brenner, Salk Institute "Change by accretion and rearrangement" sounds like it might make discontinuities in growth curves. -- rec -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070114/c5cfd0bc/attachment-0001.html |
|
|
Roger,
So, here's what I think of as a good example of a stupid question. Why does someone introduce the theme of a book with the question of whether complex living systems are plausible??? Is that really our problem, or theirs? Do the things we observe really need us to have satisfactory explanations for them? Sometimes I wonder what possesses us to think that way! I don't quite get your observation about discontinuity though. For me what makes discontinuities in growth curves would need to include that strict continuity in physical processes is always just a useful idealization anyway. I'm probably just thinking of it from another point of view, but I don't quite see your suggestion. How do you see accretion and rearrangement (terms which seem to accurately describe most kinds of growth processes) contributing to interruptions of the usual flowing shapes in their measures? On 1/14/07, Phil Henshaw <sy at synapse9.com> wrote: Nick, Hi. Yea, thinking about the difference between instrumental (physical) and abstract (theoretical) causes of even perfectly well behaved things is a tough climb. I'm glad if anyone is willing to put the two on the table at the same time at all. No I haven't read those, but I'm always interested in the new angles people try. The usual place I find the Darwinian models to break down is in assuming the environment somehow has the future shapes of things built in and a mold pressing process of random variation and atrition is how those shapes are transfered to organisms. To me that leaves the question as to where the shapes come from unanswered. I also haven't found anyone who has connected the fact that evolution is a sequential extension of a growth process, with any particular mechanism of growth. Can you give me a snapshot of what you found satisfying in either one of them? Hah. The Plausibility of Life was on my Christmas wish list. From the back cover: "Complex living systems are plausible only if evolution can plausibly generate them. The authors show how this has been achieved by providing many detailed examples to illustrate their theory of facilitated variation. The reveal what might be called the grammar of evolved systems, the flexible organization of processes which allows change by accretion and rearrangement. What emerges is the interesting consequence that it is life by [intelligent] design that is implausible." Sydney Brenner, Salk Institute "Change by accretion and rearrangement" sounds like it might make discontinuities in growth curves. -- rec -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070115/43e5845d/attachment.html |
|
|
On 1/15/07, Phil Henshaw <sy at synapse9.com> wrote:
> > Roger, > > So, here's what I think of as a good example of a stupid question. Why > does someone introduce the theme of a book with the question of whether > complex living systems are plausible??? Is that really our problem, or > theirs? Do the things we observe really need us to have satisfactory > explanations for them? Sometimes I wonder what possesses us to think that > way! > The title of the book is: The Plausibility of Life. Are you asking why would anyone write such a book? Or why would anyone restate the title in describing the book? Or why anyone would want to read a book with such a title? Or are you wondering why evangelical christians attack the teaching of evolution in public schools? Or are you wondering why scientists attempt to defend the teaching of evolution in public schools? I don't quite get your observation about discontinuity though. For me what > makes discontinuities in growth curves would need to include that strict > continuity in physical processes is always just a useful idealization > anyway. I'm probably just thinking of it from another point of view, but > I don't quite see your suggestion. How do you see accretion and > rearrangement (terms which seem to accurately describe most kinds of growth > processes) contributing to interruptions of the usual flowing shapes in > their measures? > When I say "discontinuity" I am simply attempting to refer to the changes in slopes of growth curves which you've been talking about, not in the ultimate reality of the continuum. A bad choice of paraphrase. When accretion and rearrangement leads to the differentiation of tissues in the development of an organism, or to the evolution of novel tissue types as organisms diversify into new species, one gets growth processes which require changes in the measures that describe them. Instead of simply counting the cells in the organism, one needs to count cells of different types, which types have different life histories and characteristics. Simply counting numbers of cells over time, without attention to the different kinds of cells, would lead to growth curves with mysterious inflections. The patterns of inflections would differ for organisms with different developmental schemes. -- rec -- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070116/18594a43/attachment.html |
|
|
Roger, good questions,
On 1/15/07, Phil Henshaw <sy at synapse9.com> wrote: Roger, So, here's what I think of as a good example of a stupid question. Why does someone introduce the theme of a book with the question of whether complex living systems are plausible??? Is that really our problem, or theirs? Do the things we observe really need us to have satisfactory explanations for them? Sometimes I wonder what possesses us to think that way! The title of the book is: The Plausibility of Life. Are you asking why would anyone write such a book? Or why would anyone restate the title in describing the book? Or why anyone would want to read a book with such a title? Or are you wondering why evangelical christians attack the teaching of evolution in public schools? Or are you wondering why scientists attempt to defend the teaching of evolution in public schools? [PH] I'm wondering why one would pose that the answer to these questions is whether our own direct observations are plausible, i.e. whether life is plausible, when the actual contest is between the believability of the magical and abstract theories of how the things we all clearly see are to be explained. I think it shows confusion about what the issues are, and probably,... trying to project the unquestionable believability of life onto his statistical model. I don't quite get your observation about discontinuity though. For me what makes discontinuities in growth curves would need to include that strict continuity in physical processes is always just a useful idealization anyway. I'm probably just thinking of it from another point of view, but I don't quite see your suggestion. How do you see accretion and rearrangement (terms which seem to accurately describe most kinds of growth processes) contributing to interruptions of the usual flowing shapes in their measures? When I say "discontinuity" I am simply attempting to refer to the changes in slopes of growth curves which you've been talking about, not in the ultimate reality of the continuum. A bad choice of paraphrase. When accretion and rearrangement leads to the differentiation of tissues in the development of an organism, or to the evolution of novel tissue types as organisms diversify into new species, one gets growth processes which require changes in the measures that describe them. Instead of simply counting the cells in the organism, one needs to count cells of different types, which types have different life histories and characteristics. Simply counting numbers of cells over time, without attention to the different kinds of cells, would lead to growth curves with mysterious inflections. The patterns of inflections would differ for organisms with different developmental schemes. [PH] Ah yes!, and because we can read the inflection points in the curve of any one measure we can often see when and where it is appropriate to also look at other measures as well, as new features develop. But I think you'll see that the actual discontinuities you mention occur at the particular times when the investigator arbitrarily switches measures, not in the record of any one measure, since the intrusions of new form generally display growth curves that begin imperceptibly. I don't mind changing subjects, as the stories of growth are of gradual changes that become changes of kind, so long as you consider the whole past and future of each new measurable character as a whole event. The hazard to avoid, for me, is just playing hop scotch with trying to connect isolated bits of information as separate causes when distributed processes are what is demonstrably happening. phil -- rec -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070116/04419363/attachment.html |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |