FW: See this?
Locked
 
|
Robert, ‘n all, Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked me, courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer Nick ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
Administrator
|
This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient?
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. Frank Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: Robert, ‘n all, Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked me, courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer Nick
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Owen, etc., Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning how to access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can do is send you a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it now, I am in danger of experiencing “irk-guilt”, but here it is, anyway. I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the individual thing that goes on in interviews. “picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist …” Nick
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. Frank Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: Robert, ‘n all, Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked me, courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer Nick
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Here's the download link to a PDF of the New Yorker 05.March.2012
http://uploaded.to/file/1y22zlm1/The_New_Yorker_March_05_2012.pdf Have downloaded it (122 MB) , but can't seem to find the article. Sarbajit On 3/11/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: > Owen, etc., > > > > Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning how to > access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can do is send you > a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it now, > I am in danger of experiencing "irk-guilt", but here it is, anyway. > > > > I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the individual > thing that goes on in interviews. > > > > "picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist ." > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf > Of Frank Wimberly > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:57 AM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > > > Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. > > > > Frank > > > > > > Frank C. Wimberly > > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz > > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] > > Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 > > > > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf > Of Owen Densmore > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:10 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > > > This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Robert, 'n all, > > > > Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked me, > courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. > > > > > > http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer > > > > Nick > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
But, Nick, later in the article it says, “…even as Wilson campaigned for sociobiology, he began to grow dismayed with the scientific framework that made it possible. ‘I noticed that the foundations of inclusive fitness were crumbling,’ Wilson says. ‘The reasoning that had convinced me it was correct no longer held.’ For instance, after pursuing Hamilton’s haplodipoidy hypothesis, scientists discovered that many of the most cooperative insect species, such as termites and ambrosia beetles, weren’t actually haplodiploid. Furthermore, tens of thousands of species that did manifest haplodiploidy never evolved eusociality—although these insects were closely related, they didn’t share food or serve the queen…[Wilson] concluded that inclusive fitness was no longer a tenable concept.” Didn’t he redeem himself by your lights? Frank Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson Owen, etc., Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning how to access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can do is send you a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it now, I am in danger of experiencing “irk-guilt”, but here it is, anyway. I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the individual thing that goes on in interviews. “picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist …” Nick
From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. Frank Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: Robert, ‘n all, Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked me, courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer Nick
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
As Frank said, the rest of the article discusses Wilson's rejection of Hamilton and (at the end) his position in favor of group selection. So I'm also confused about what is irking you.
-- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles Google voice: 747-999-5105 On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly
Dear Frank I am in a rain engulfed open plan, bay-side, house with 5 other adults and two kids, and many competitors for the one copy of the new Yorker, and for the space to rethink what I wrote. So it may be some time before I can get you a proper response. In the meantime, here is an improper one. My explicit beef was with the interviewer, not with Wilson. It is certainly news to Wilson that, having believed something dumb for decades, he now comes, in old age, to the obvious truth. But why is it news to us?! The news, it seems to me, that there were a few people who stood up to the deluge of Reagen-biology that saturated the field, and it is to THOSE people, not Wilson, that we should look for insight. I am not sure there IS redemption for an academic who has killed off many good ideas (and presumably graduate students) to make a towering academic career, and then sees the truth in his dotage. At least, he has to do more than just change he mind. He has to make restitution: hasto pay back his royalties and recompense damages to those whom he has injured. And probably all the other items in the 12 step list, as well. Worse than the belated discovery of the truth, is the belated discovery of foolishness. Perhaps the most dramatic instance of this was Donald Griffin, who after a career of tough minded neurophys, woke one day as a mentalist. Oh was that ugly. Nick From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly But, Nick, later in the article it says, “…even as Wilson campaigned for sociobiology, he began to grow dismayed with the scientific framework that made it possible. ‘I noticed that the foundations of inclusive fitness were crumbling,’ Wilson says. ‘The reasoning that had convinced me it was correct no longer held.’ For instance, after pursuing Hamilton’s haplodipoidy hypothesis, scientists discovered that many of the most cooperative insect species, such as termites and ambrosia beetles, weren’t actually haplodiploid. Furthermore, tens of thousands of species that did manifest haplodiploidy never evolved eusociality—although these insects were closely related, they didn’t share food or serve the queen…[Wilson] concluded that inclusive fitness was no longer a tenable concept.” Didn’t he redeem himself by your lights? Frank Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson Owen, etc., Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning how to access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can do is send you a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it now, I am in danger of experiencing “irk-guilt”, but here it is, anyway. I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the individual thing that goes on in interviews. “picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist …” Nick
From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. Frank Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: Robert, ‘n all, Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked me, courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer Nick
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly
I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Perhaps the problem is that Wilson
is renouncing the one big thing that made his career. Without sociobiology,
Wilson would have been remembered within the field as a competent ant
biologist, and would not be known outside the field at all. But with
sociobiology, he sits within the pantheon of Heroes of Science and garners New
Yorker interviews in retirement.... but wait... didn't he just say he was wrong
about the whole sociobiology thing?
The situation would be very different if Wilson had made several key insights and was now lamenting a single mistake. For example, it would be different if it was the New Yorker was interviewing James Dyson, and he lamented being wrong about the best way to dry hands. In that case, who cares, look at all the other cool stuff he's done. Keep the interview going. The situations also might seem different if you had pointing out that sociobiology was flawed for 40 years. But I think there's more to it than 'just' that. Eric On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 06:08 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote: Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Hi Nick, I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I am not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible reasons: (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. (2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a competition between genes thus overlooking the competition between groups. (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not operate to benefit the group". (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. Am I on the right track with any of these reasons? --John ________________________________________ From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson [[hidden email]] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:08 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? Dear Frank I am in a rain engulfed open plan, bay-side, house with 5 other adults and two kids, and many competitors for the one copy of the new Yorker, and for the space to rethink what I wrote. So it may be some time before I can get you a proper response. In the meantime, here is an improper one. My explicit beef was with the interviewer, not with Wilson. It is certainly news to Wilson that, having believed something dumb for decades, he now comes, in old age, to the obvious truth. But why is it news to us?! The news, it seems to me, that there were a few people who stood up to the deluge of Reagen-biology that saturated the field, and it is to THOSE people, not Wilson, that we should look for insight. I am not sure there IS redemption for an academic who has killed off many good ideas (and presumably graduate students) to make a towering academic career, and then sees the truth in his dotage. At least, he has to do more than just change he mind. He has to make restitution: hasto pay back his royalties and recompense damages to those whom he has injured. And probably all the other items in the 12 step list, as well. Worse than the belated discovery of the truth, is the belated discovery of foolishness. Perhaps the most dramatic instance of this was Donald Griffin, who after a career of tough minded neurophys, woke one day as a mentalist. Oh was that ugly. Nick From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:58 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? But, Nick, later in the article it says, “…even as Wilson campaigned for sociobiology, he began to grow dismayed with the scientific framework that made it possible. ‘I noticed that the foundations of inclusive fitness were crumbling,’ Wilson says. ‘The reasoning that had convinced me it was correct no longer held.’ For instance, after pursuing Hamilton’s haplodipoidy hypothesis, scientists discovered that many of the most cooperative insect species, such as termites and ambrosia beetles, weren’t actually haplodiploid. Furthermore, tens of thousands of species that did manifest haplodiploidy never evolved eusociality—although these insects were closely related, they didn’t share food or serve the queen…[Wilson] concluded that inclusive fitness was no longer a tenable concept.” Didn’t he redeem himself by your lights? Frank Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 From: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> [mailto:[hidden email]]<mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:10 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? Owen, etc., Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning how to access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can do is send you a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it now, I am in danger of experiencing “irk-guilt”, but here it is, anyway. I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the individual thing that goes on in interviews. “picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist …” Nick [cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0] From: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> [mailto:[hidden email]]<mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:57 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. Frank Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 From: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> [mailto:[hidden email]]<mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Owen Densmore Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:10 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: Robert, ‘n all, Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked me, courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer Nick ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Hi, everybody, Am I the only person that the FRIAM server mucks with the head of? Anyway, the following was sent in response to John Kennison's interesting set of questions concerning my gripes about the E. O. Wilson interview. Yet, John never got it and it does not, so far as I can see, appear in the FRIAM archive. So, here it is again, in case anyone else missed it. From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:23 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: RE: [FRIAM] FW: See this? Thanks for writing, John. You missed the most important objection. Genes are not the object of greed. They are not analogous to coins, in reverse. With a nickel, it makes a difference whether it came from your pocket or mine. With genes, it only makes a difference which coin is in the pocket, not who put it there. Genes are all about type, not token. Comments on your specific points below: JK: I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I am not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible reasons: (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. [NST ==>] Greed is a behavior pattern. An individual genes just makes a protein or tells another gene when to make a protein. Gene's can't vary their behavior in telic ways. JK:(2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a competition between genes thus overlooking the competition between groups. [NST ==>] Well, as I suggested above, you are missing Wilson and Trivers focus on the INDIVIDUAL. To take the greed metaphor seriously, remember that gold is not greedy; it's people who are greedy for gold. Genetic greed (I think) is the idea that people are eager to give away "their" genes. (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. [NST ==>] I will agree with that position so long as you record my skepticism about how resemblance between parents and offspring comes about. Given the webby nature of genetic transmission, it's hard for me to see how it happens. I am inclined to think of the gene as a construction of evolution, as much as the basis for it. (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not operate to benefit the group". [NST ==>] Well, that statement is patently false. Groups have evolved. The author confuses natural selection with evolution. And I do agree that natural selection does operate to benefit the group." [corrected in the current version – sorry.] (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. [NST ==>] Hard to disagree with an equation. Full stop. (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. [NST ==>] Well, I prefer Evolutionary Psychology, which is more inclined to take history and development into account. But I am on board with using evolutionary history as a way to understand human behavior. -----Original Message----- Hi Nick, I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I am not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible reasons: (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. (2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a competition between genes thus overlooking the competition between groups. (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not operate to benefit the group". (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. Am I on the right track with any of these reasons? --John ________________________________________ From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson [[hidden email]] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:08 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? Dear Frank I am in a rain engulfed open plan, bay-side, house with 5 other adults and two kids, and many competitors for the one copy of the new Yorker, and for the space to rethink what I wrote. So it may be some time before I can get you a proper response. In the meantime, here is an improper one. My explicit beef was with the interviewer, not with Wilson. It is certainly news to Wilson that, having believed something dumb for decades, he now comes, in old age, to the obvious truth. But why is it news to us?! The news, it seems to me, that there were a few people who stood up to the deluge of Reagen-biology that saturated the field, and it is to THOSE people, not Wilson, that we should look for insight. I am not sure there IS redemption for an academic who has killed off many good ideas (and presumably graduate students) to make a towering academic career, and then sees the truth in his dotage. At least, he has to do more than just change he mind. He has to make restitution: hasto pay back his royalties and recompense damages to those whom he has injured. And probably all the other items in the 12 step list, as well. Worse than the belated discovery of the truth, is the belated discovery of foolishness. Perhaps the most dramatic instance of this was Donald Griffin, who after a career of tough minded neurophys, woke one day as a mentalist. Oh was that ugly. Nick From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:58 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? But, Nick, later in the article it says, “…even as Wilson campaigned for sociobiology, he began to grow dismayed with the scientific framework that made it possible. ‘I noticed that the foundations of inclusive fitness were crumbling,’ Wilson says. ‘The reasoning that had convinced me it was correct no longer held.’ For instance, after pursuing Hamilton’s haplodipoidy hypothesis, scientists discovered that many of the most cooperative insect species, such as termites and ambrosia beetles, weren’t actually haplodiploid. Furthermore, tens of thousands of species that did manifest haplodiploidy never evolved eusociality—although these insects were closely related, they didn’t share food or serve the queen…[Wilson] concluded that inclusive fitness was no longer a tenable concept.” Didn’t he redeem himself by your lights? Frank Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 [hidden email]> [hidden email]> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 From: [hidden email]> [hidden email]<[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:10 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? Owen, etc., Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning how to access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can do is send you a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it now, I am in danger of experiencing “irk-guilt”, but here it is, anyway. I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the individual thing that goes on in interviews. “picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist …” Nick From: [hidden email]> [hidden email]<[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:57 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. Frank Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 [hidden email]> [hidden email]> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 From: [hidden email]> [hidden email]<[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Owen Densmore Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:10 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]>> wrote: Robert, ‘n all, Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked me, courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer Nick ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
W.r.t to your pointwise comments to John's points.
This to me seems a clear case of reinventing the wheel. It also seems that the inventors do not know that the wheel has been invented. Referring to at least 5,000 years of evolved human history http://brahmo.org/brahmoism-genetics-memetics.html There is at least 1 religion (yes "religion" and not "science") which holds as follows: "# 1) Information / knowledge is transmitted genetically (this was experimentaly proveable in 19th century and is trivial to prove today) # 2) That we are the sum of our ancestors # 3) That we contain all our ancestors in our genes and our bodies and within us # 4) Godhood of father." What is curious is that this "belief" (or variations) seems to span many leading cultures separated by time and distance, and is used as a device to propagate an "idea" or "belief" . I apologise for not being able to state the proposition in the formal manner/practice of Judeo-Christian Western "civilisation" Sarbajit On 3/16/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi, everybody, > > Am I the only person that the FRIAM server mucks with the head of? > > > > Anyway, the following was sent in response to John Kennison's interesting > set of questions concerning my gripes about the E. O. Wilson interview. > Yet, John never got it and it does not, so far as I can see, appear in the > FRIAM archive. > > > > So, here it is again, in case anyone else missed it. > > > > From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:23 AM > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > Subject: RE: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > > > Thanks for writing, John. > > > > You missed the most important objection. Genes are not the object of greed. > They are not analogous to coins, in reverse. With a nickel, it makes a > difference whether it came from your pocket or mine. With genes, it only > makes a difference which coin is in the pocket, not who put it there. Genes > are all about type, not token. > > > > Comments on your specific points below: > > > > JK: I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I am > not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible reasons: > > > > (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. > > > > [NST ==>] Greed is a behavior pattern. An individual genes just makes a > protein or tells another gene when to make a protein. Gene's can't vary > their behavior in telic ways. > > > > JK:(2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a > competition between genes thus overlooking the competition between groups. > > > > [NST ==>] Well, as I suggested above, you are missing Wilson and Trivers > focus on the INDIVIDUAL. To take the greed metaphor seriously, remember > that gold is not greedy; it's people who are greedy for gold. Genetic > greed (I think) is the idea that people are eager to give away "their" > genes. > > > > (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing > cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. > > > > [NST ==>] I will agree with that position so long as you record my > skepticism about how resemblance between parents and offspring comes about. > Given the webby nature of genetic transmission, it's hard for me to see how > it happens. I am inclined to think of the gene as a construction of > evolution, as much as the basis for it. > > > > (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not > operate to benefit the group". > > > > [NST ==>] Well, that statement is patently false. Groups have evolved. The > author confuses natural selection with evolution. And I do agree that > natural selection does operate to benefit the group." [corrected in the > current version - sorry.] > > > > (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. > > > > [NST ==>] > > > > Hard to disagree with an equation. Full stop. > > > > (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. > > > > [NST ==>] Well, I prefer Evolutionary Psychology, which is more inclined to > take history and development into account. But I am on board with using > evolutionary history as a way to understand human behavior. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf > Of John Kennison > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:51 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > > > > > Hi Nick, > > > > I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I am not > clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible reasons: > > (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. > > (2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a competition > between genes thus overlooking the competition between groups. > > (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing > cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. > > (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not > operate to benefit the group". > > (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. > > (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. > > Am I on the right track with any of these reasons? > > --John > > ________________________________________ > > From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] > [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson > [[hidden email]] > > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:08 PM > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > > > Dear Frank > > > > I am in a rain engulfed open plan, bay-side, house with 5 other adults and > two kids, and many competitors for the one copy of the new Yorker, and for > the space to rethink what I wrote. So it may be some time before I can get > you a proper response. In the meantime, here is an improper one. > > > > My explicit beef was with the interviewer, not with Wilson. It is certainly > news to Wilson that, having believed something dumb for decades, he now > comes, in old age, to the obvious truth. But why is it news to us?! The > news, it seems to me, that there were a few people who stood up to the > deluge of Reagen-biology that saturated the field, and it is to THOSE > people, not Wilson, that we should look for insight. > > > > I am not sure there IS redemption for an academic who has killed off many > good ideas (and presumably graduate students) to make a towering academic > career, and then sees the truth in his dotage. At least, he has to do more > than just change he mind. He has to make restitution: hasto pay back his > royalties and recompense damages to those whom he has injured. And > probably all the other items in the 12 step list, as well. > > > > Worse than the belated discovery of the truth, is the belated discovery of > foolishness. Perhaps the most dramatic instance of this was Donald > Griffin, who after a career of tough minded neurophys, woke one day as a > mentalist. > > > > Oh was that ugly. > > > > Nick > > > > From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] > <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly > > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:58 PM > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > > > But, Nick, later in the article it says, ".even as Wilson campaigned for > sociobiology, he began to grow dismayed with the scientific framework that > made it possible. 'I noticed that the foundations of inclusive fitness were > crumbling,' Wilson says. 'The reasoning that had convinced me it was > correct no longer held.' For instance, after pursuing Hamilton's > haplodipoidy hypothesis, scientists discovered that many of the most > cooperative insect species, such as termites and ambrosia beetles, weren't > actually haplodiploid. Furthermore, tens of thousands of species that did > manifest haplodiploidy never evolved eusociality-although these insects were > closely related, they didn't share food or serve the queen.[Wilson] > concluded that inclusive fitness was no longer a tenable concept." > > > > Didn't he redeem himself by your lights? > > > > Frank > > > > Frank C. Wimberly > > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz > > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> > [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> > [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> > > Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 > > > > From: <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> > [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> > [mailto:[hidden email]]< > <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> > mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson > > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:10 AM > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > > > Owen, etc., > > > > Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning how to > access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can do is send you > a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it now, > I am in danger of experiencing "irk-guilt", but here it is, anyway. > > > > I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the individual > thing that goes on in interviews. > > > > "picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist ." > > > > Nick > > > > <mailto:[cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0]> > [cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0] > > > > From: <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> > [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> > [mailto:[hidden email]]< > <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> > mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly > > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:57 AM > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > > > Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. > > > > Frank > > > > > > Frank C. Wimberly > > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz > > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> > [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> > [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> > > Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 > > > > From: <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> > [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> > [mailto:[hidden email]]< > <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> > mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Owen Densmore > > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:10 AM > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > > > This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? > > On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson < > <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> > [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > Robert, 'n all, > > > > Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked me, > courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. > > > > > > <http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer> > http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer > > > > Nick > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Lets take those points 1 by 1
1) "Information is transmitted genetically". a) Instead of information being transmitted as am electronic series (string) of "0"s and "1"s" (ie. base 2 encoding), its transmitted as a chemical series (string) of base 4 proteins, both series being "readable". b) The statement does not imply that information cannot be transmitted by books or converstaions or culture or upbringing etc. c) The 19th century reference is probaby with reference to experiments by Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose, who did some work on what would be termed nowadays as "memory RNA" (involving plants and not planaria soup). d) Data such as "blue eyes" are transmitted (imperfectly) genetically onto copies using GCTA, just as I suppose a colour photocopier does using CMYK. Sarbajit On 3/16/12, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Yes, sometimes scientific theories resemble religions and vice-versa and > sometimes the debate on how genes evolve looks a bit like a battle between > competing religions. > > I would disagree with principles (1) and (2): As for (1) I sometimes find > that knowledge is transmitted via books or conversations or even lectures > but none of these transmissions seem to be genetic. As for (2) we are not > the sum of our ancestors because we are affected by our upbringing, our > culture, our education etc. (I don't see how statement (2) could have been > "proven" in the nineteenth century.) > > As for (3) and (4), I'm not certain what they mean. Can someone explain them > to me? > > --John > ________________________________________ > From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of > Sarbajit Roy [[hidden email]] > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:09 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > W.r.t to your pointwise comments to John's points. > This to me seems a clear case of reinventing the wheel. > It also seems that the inventors do not know that the wheel has been > invented. > > Referring to at least 5,000 years of evolved human history > http://brahmo.org/brahmoism-genetics-memetics.html > There is at least 1 religion (yes "religion" and not "science") which > holds as follows: > > "# 1) Information / knowledge is transmitted genetically (this was > experimentaly proveable in 19th century and is trivial to prove today) > # 2) That we are the sum of our ancestors > # 3) That we contain all our ancestors in our genes and our bodies and > within us > # 4) Godhood of father." > > What is curious is that this "belief" (or variations) seems to span > many leading cultures separated by time and distance, and is used as a > device to propagate an "idea" or "belief" . > > I apologise for not being able to state the proposition in the formal > manner/practice of Judeo-Christian Western "civilisation" > > Sarbajit > > On 3/16/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi, everybody, >> >> Am I the only person that the FRIAM server mucks with the head of? >> >> >> >> Anyway, the following was sent in response to John Kennison's interesting >> set of questions concerning my gripes about the E. O. Wilson interview. >> Yet, John never got it and it does not, so far as I can see, appear in the >> FRIAM archive. >> >> >> >> So, here it is again, in case anyone else missed it. >> >> >> >> From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]] >> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:23 AM >> >> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> >> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> Thanks for writing, John. >> >> >> >> You missed the most important objection. Genes are not the object of >> greed. >> They are not analogous to coins, in reverse. With a nickel, it makes a >> difference whether it came from your pocket or mine. With genes, it only >> makes a difference which coin is in the pocket, not who put it there. >> Genes >> are all about type, not token. >> >> >> >> Comments on your specific points below: >> >> >> >> JK: I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I am >> not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible >> reasons: >> >> >> >> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >> >> >> >> [NST ==>] Greed is a behavior pattern. An individual genes just makes a >> protein or tells another gene when to make a protein. Gene's can't vary >> their behavior in telic ways. >> >> >> >> JK:(2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >> competition between genes thus overlooking the competition between >> groups. >> >> >> >> [NST ==>] Well, as I suggested above, you are missing Wilson and Trivers >> focus on the INDIVIDUAL. To take the greed metaphor seriously, remember >> that gold is not greedy; it's people who are greedy for gold. Genetic >> greed (I think) is the idea that people are eager to give away "their" >> genes. >> >> >> >> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing >> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >> >> >> >> [NST ==>] I will agree with that position so long as you record my >> skepticism about how resemblance between parents and offspring comes >> about. >> Given the webby nature of genetic transmission, it's hard for me to see >> how >> it happens. I am inclined to think of the gene as a construction of >> evolution, as much as the basis for it. >> >> >> >> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >> operate to benefit the group". >> >> >> >> [NST ==>] Well, that statement is patently false. Groups have evolved. >> The >> author confuses natural selection with evolution. And I do agree that >> natural selection does operate to benefit the group." [corrected in the >> current version - sorry.] >> >> >> >> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >> >> >> >> [NST ==>] >> >> >> >> Hard to disagree with an equation. Full stop. >> >> >> >> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >> >> >> >> [NST ==>] Well, I prefer Evolutionary Psychology, which is more inclined >> to >> take history and development into account. But I am on board with using >> evolutionary history as a way to understand human behavior. >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On >> Behalf >> Of John Kennison >> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:51 AM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Nick, >> >> >> >> I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I am not >> clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible reasons: >> >> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >> >> (2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >> competition >> between genes thus overlooking the competition between groups. >> >> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing >> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >> >> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >> operate to benefit the group". >> >> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >> >> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >> >> Am I on the right track with any of these reasons? >> >> --John >> >> ________________________________________ >> >> From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] >> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson >> [[hidden email]] >> >> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:08 PM >> >> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> Dear Frank >> >> >> >> I am in a rain engulfed open plan, bay-side, house with 5 other adults >> and >> two kids, and many competitors for the one copy of the new Yorker, and for >> the space to rethink what I wrote. So it may be some time before I can >> get >> you a proper response. In the meantime, here is an improper one. >> >> >> >> My explicit beef was with the interviewer, not with Wilson. It is >> certainly >> news to Wilson that, having believed something dumb for decades, he now >> comes, in old age, to the obvious truth. But why is it news to us?! The >> news, it seems to me, that there were a few people who stood up to the >> deluge of Reagen-biology that saturated the field, and it is to THOSE >> people, not Wilson, that we should look for insight. >> >> >> >> I am not sure there IS redemption for an academic who has killed off many >> good ideas (and presumably graduate students) to make a towering academic >> career, and then sees the truth in his dotage. At least, he has to do >> more >> than just change he mind. He has to make restitution: hasto pay back his >> royalties and recompense damages to those whom he has injured. And >> probably all the other items in the 12 step list, as well. >> >> >> >> Worse than the belated discovery of the truth, is the belated discovery of >> foolishness. Perhaps the most dramatic instance of this was Donald >> Griffin, who after a career of tough minded neurophys, woke one day as a >> mentalist. >> >> >> >> Oh was that ugly. >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] >> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >> >> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:58 PM >> >> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> But, Nick, later in the article it says, ".even as Wilson campaigned for >> sociobiology, he began to grow dismayed with the scientific framework that >> made it possible. 'I noticed that the foundations of inclusive fitness >> were >> crumbling,' Wilson says. 'The reasoning that had convinced me it was >> correct no longer held.' For instance, after pursuing Hamilton's >> haplodipoidy hypothesis, scientists discovered that many of the most >> cooperative insect species, such as termites and ambrosia beetles, >> weren't >> actually haplodiploid. Furthermore, tens of thousands of species that >> did >> manifest haplodiploidy never evolved eusociality-although these insects >> were >> closely related, they didn't share food or serve the queen.[Wilson] >> concluded that inclusive fitness was no longer a tenable concept." >> >> >> >> Didn't he redeem himself by your lights? >> >> >> >> Frank >> >> >> >> Frank C. Wimberly >> >> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >> >> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >> >> >> >> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >> >> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >> >> >> >> From: >> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson >> >> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:10 AM >> >> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> Owen, etc., >> >> >> >> Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning how to >> access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can do is send >> you >> a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it >> now, >> I am in danger of experiencing "irk-guilt", but here it is, anyway. >> >> >> >> I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the individual >> thing that goes on in interviews. >> >> >> >> "picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist ." >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> <mailto:[cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0]> >> [cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0] >> >> >> >> From: >> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >> >> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:57 AM >> >> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. >> >> >> >> Frank >> >> >> >> >> >> Frank C. Wimberly >> >> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >> >> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >> >> >> >> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >> >> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >> >> >> >> From: >> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Owen Densmore >> >> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:10 AM >> >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? >> >> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >> >> Robert, 'n all, >> >> >> >> Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked me, >> courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. >> >> >> >> >> >> <http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer> >> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, >> unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org >> >> >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, >> unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org >> >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Sarbajit, Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking of genes as hereditary units but I guess they can also refer to any chemical strings of a certain type. How about statement (2)? Can't we be more than the sum of our ancestors? --John ________________________________________ From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy [[hidden email]] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:22 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? Lets take those points 1 by 1 1) "Information is transmitted genetically". a) Instead of information being transmitted as am electronic series (string) of "0"s and "1"s" (ie. base 2 encoding), its transmitted as a chemical series (string) of base 4 proteins, both series being "readable". b) The statement does not imply that information cannot be transmitted by books or converstaions or culture or upbringing etc. c) The 19th century reference is probaby with reference to experiments by Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose, who did some work on what would be termed nowadays as "memory RNA" (involving plants and not planaria soup). d) Data such as "blue eyes" are transmitted (imperfectly) genetically onto copies using GCTA, just as I suppose a colour photocopier does using CMYK. Sarbajit On 3/16/12, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Yes, sometimes scientific theories resemble religions and vice-versa and > sometimes the debate on how genes evolve looks a bit like a battle between > competing religions. > > I would disagree with principles (1) and (2): As for (1) I sometimes find > that knowledge is transmitted via books or conversations or even lectures > but none of these transmissions seem to be genetic. As for (2) we are not > the sum of our ancestors because we are affected by our upbringing, our > culture, our education etc. (I don't see how statement (2) could have been > "proven" in the nineteenth century.) > > As for (3) and (4), I'm not certain what they mean. Can someone explain them > to me? > > --John > ________________________________________ > From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of > Sarbajit Roy [[hidden email]] > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:09 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > W.r.t to your pointwise comments to John's points. > This to me seems a clear case of reinventing the wheel. > It also seems that the inventors do not know that the wheel has been > invented. > > Referring to at least 5,000 years of evolved human history > http://brahmo.org/brahmoism-genetics-memetics.html > There is at least 1 religion (yes "religion" and not "science") which > holds as follows: > > "# 1) Information / knowledge is transmitted genetically (this was > experimentaly proveable in 19th century and is trivial to prove today) > # 2) That we are the sum of our ancestors > # 3) That we contain all our ancestors in our genes and our bodies and > within us > # 4) Godhood of father." > > What is curious is that this "belief" (or variations) seems to span > many leading cultures separated by time and distance, and is used as a > device to propagate an "idea" or "belief" . > > I apologise for not being able to state the proposition in the formal > manner/practice of Judeo-Christian Western "civilisation" > > Sarbajit > > On 3/16/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi, everybody, >> >> Am I the only person that the FRIAM server mucks with the head of? >> >> >> >> Anyway, the following was sent in response to John Kennison's interesting >> set of questions concerning my gripes about the E. O. Wilson interview. >> Yet, John never got it and it does not, so far as I can see, appear in the >> FRIAM archive. >> >> >> >> So, here it is again, in case anyone else missed it. >> >> >> >> From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]] >> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:23 AM >> >> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> >> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> Thanks for writing, John. >> >> >> >> You missed the most important objection. Genes are not the object of >> greed. >> They are not analogous to coins, in reverse. With a nickel, it makes a >> difference whether it came from your pocket or mine. With genes, it only >> makes a difference which coin is in the pocket, not who put it there. >> Genes >> are all about type, not token. >> >> >> >> Comments on your specific points below: >> >> >> >> JK: I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I am >> not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible >> reasons: >> >> >> >> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >> >> >> >> [NST ==>] Greed is a behavior pattern. An individual genes just makes a >> protein or tells another gene when to make a protein. Gene's can't vary >> their behavior in telic ways. >> >> >> >> JK:(2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >> competition between genes thus overlooking the competition between >> groups. >> >> >> >> [NST ==>] Well, as I suggested above, you are missing Wilson and Trivers >> focus on the INDIVIDUAL. To take the greed metaphor seriously, remember >> that gold is not greedy; it's people who are greedy for gold. Genetic >> greed (I think) is the idea that people are eager to give away "their" >> genes. >> >> >> >> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing >> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >> >> >> >> [NST ==>] I will agree with that position so long as you record my >> skepticism about how resemblance between parents and offspring comes >> about. >> Given the webby nature of genetic transmission, it's hard for me to see >> how >> it happens. I am inclined to think of the gene as a construction of >> evolution, as much as the basis for it. >> >> >> >> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >> operate to benefit the group". >> >> >> >> [NST ==>] Well, that statement is patently false. Groups have evolved. >> The >> author confuses natural selection with evolution. And I do agree that >> natural selection does operate to benefit the group." [corrected in the >> current version - sorry.] >> >> >> >> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >> >> >> >> [NST ==>] >> >> >> >> Hard to disagree with an equation. Full stop. >> >> >> >> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >> >> >> >> [NST ==>] Well, I prefer Evolutionary Psychology, which is more inclined >> to >> take history and development into account. But I am on board with using >> evolutionary history as a way to understand human behavior. >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On >> Behalf >> Of John Kennison >> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:51 AM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Nick, >> >> >> >> I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I am not >> clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible reasons: >> >> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >> >> (2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >> competition >> between genes thus overlooking the competition between groups. >> >> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing >> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >> >> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >> operate to benefit the group". >> >> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >> >> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >> >> Am I on the right track with any of these reasons? >> >> --John >> >> ________________________________________ >> >> From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] >> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson >> [[hidden email]] >> >> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:08 PM >> >> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> Dear Frank >> >> >> >> I am in a rain engulfed open plan, bay-side, house with 5 other adults >> and >> two kids, and many competitors for the one copy of the new Yorker, and for >> the space to rethink what I wrote. So it may be some time before I can >> get >> you a proper response. In the meantime, here is an improper one. >> >> >> >> My explicit beef was with the interviewer, not with Wilson. It is >> certainly >> news to Wilson that, having believed something dumb for decades, he now >> comes, in old age, to the obvious truth. But why is it news to us?! The >> news, it seems to me, that there were a few people who stood up to the >> deluge of Reagen-biology that saturated the field, and it is to THOSE >> people, not Wilson, that we should look for insight. >> >> >> >> I am not sure there IS redemption for an academic who has killed off many >> good ideas (and presumably graduate students) to make a towering academic >> career, and then sees the truth in his dotage. At least, he has to do >> more >> than just change he mind. He has to make restitution: hasto pay back his >> royalties and recompense damages to those whom he has injured. And >> probably all the other items in the 12 step list, as well. >> >> >> >> Worse than the belated discovery of the truth, is the belated discovery of >> foolishness. Perhaps the most dramatic instance of this was Donald >> Griffin, who after a career of tough minded neurophys, woke one day as a >> mentalist. >> >> >> >> Oh was that ugly. >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] >> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >> >> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:58 PM >> >> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> But, Nick, later in the article it says, ".even as Wilson campaigned for >> sociobiology, he began to grow dismayed with the scientific framework that >> made it possible. 'I noticed that the foundations of inclusive fitness >> were >> crumbling,' Wilson says. 'The reasoning that had convinced me it was >> correct no longer held.' For instance, after pursuing Hamilton's >> haplodipoidy hypothesis, scientists discovered that many of the most >> cooperative insect species, such as termites and ambrosia beetles, >> weren't >> actually haplodiploid. Furthermore, tens of thousands of species that >> did >> manifest haplodiploidy never evolved eusociality-although these insects >> were >> closely related, they didn't share food or serve the queen.[Wilson] >> concluded that inclusive fitness was no longer a tenable concept." >> >> >> >> Didn't he redeem himself by your lights? >> >> >> >> Frank >> >> >> >> Frank C. Wimberly >> >> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >> >> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >> >> >> >> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >> >> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >> >> >> >> From: >> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson >> >> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:10 AM >> >> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> Owen, etc., >> >> >> >> Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning how to >> access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can do is send >> you >> a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it >> now, >> I am in danger of experiencing "irk-guilt", but here it is, anyway. >> >> >> >> I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the individual >> thing that goes on in interviews. >> >> >> >> "picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist ." >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> <mailto:[cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0]> >> [cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0] >> >> >> >> From: >> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >> >> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:57 AM >> >> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. >> >> >> >> Frank >> >> >> >> >> >> Frank C. Wimberly >> >> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >> >> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >> >> >> >> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >> >> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >> >> >> >> From: >> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Owen Densmore >> >> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:10 AM >> >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? >> >> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >> >> Robert, 'n all, >> >> >> >> Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked me, >> courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. >> >> >> >> >> >> <http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer> >> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, >> unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org >> >> >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, >> unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org >> >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
John,
wrt statement #2 IF our ancestors are contained within "us" AND "live" (on) in us, THEN all the information "we" have is in our ancestors too. {Life as an information / communication problem} Of course "we" can be more than the sum of our parents. The information is already out there in the wild/cloud, "we" are just downloading it onto our genetic hard drives at an increasingly faster biological rate. To clarify with an example. In the early 1980's I coded boot sector computer virii. These code strings would "infect" by attaching themselves to the"end" of a "copy" of another executable program (which may have already been infected by code strings by some other hacker - and not only at the "end" but perhaps also inserted in the "middle"). The actual application software (say "pacman.exe") would continue to run until the competing information strings being "injected / infected" clashed and caused it to "die". Similarly, a child is the genetic sum of its parents (and through them the ancestors) and information strings (via culture / television / parent et.al ) which attach itself to the child's "memory" ("memes"). Sorry, if I'm somewhat vague/unclear - buts its not easy reconciling "religion" and "science". Sarbajit On 3/17/12, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Sarbajit, > Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking of genes as hereditary units but > I guess they can also refer to any chemical strings of a certain type. How > about statement (2)? Can't we be more than the sum of our ancestors? > --John > ________________________________________ > From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of > Sarbajit Roy [[hidden email]] > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:22 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > Lets take those points 1 by 1 > > 1) "Information is transmitted genetically". > > a) Instead of information being transmitted as am electronic series > (string) of "0"s and "1"s" (ie. base 2 encoding), its transmitted as a > chemical series (string) of base 4 proteins, both series being > "readable". > > b) The statement does not imply that information cannot be transmitted > by books or converstaions or culture or upbringing etc. > > c) The 19th century reference is probaby with reference to experiments > by Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose, who did some work on what would be termed > nowadays as "memory RNA" (involving plants and not planaria soup). > > d) Data such as "blue eyes" are transmitted (imperfectly) genetically > onto copies using GCTA, just as I suppose a colour photocopier does > using CMYK. > > Sarbajit > > On 3/16/12, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> Yes, sometimes scientific theories resemble religions and vice-versa and >> sometimes the debate on how genes evolve looks a bit like a battle between >> competing religions. >> >> I would disagree with principles (1) and (2): As for (1) I sometimes find >> that knowledge is transmitted via books or conversations or even lectures >> but none of these transmissions seem to be genetic. As for (2) we are not >> the sum of our ancestors because we are affected by our upbringing, our >> culture, our education etc. (I don't see how statement (2) could have >> been >> "proven" in the nineteenth century.) >> >> As for (3) and (4), I'm not certain what they mean. Can someone explain >> them >> to me? >> >> --John >> ________________________________________ >> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of >> Sarbajit Roy [[hidden email]] >> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:09 AM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> W.r.t to your pointwise comments to John's points. >> This to me seems a clear case of reinventing the wheel. >> It also seems that the inventors do not know that the wheel has been >> invented. >> >> Referring to at least 5,000 years of evolved human history >> http://brahmo.org/brahmoism-genetics-memetics.html >> There is at least 1 religion (yes "religion" and not "science") which >> holds as follows: >> >> "# 1) Information / knowledge is transmitted genetically (this was >> experimentaly proveable in 19th century and is trivial to prove today) >> # 2) That we are the sum of our ancestors >> # 3) That we contain all our ancestors in our genes and our bodies and >> within us >> # 4) Godhood of father." >> >> What is curious is that this "belief" (or variations) seems to span >> many leading cultures separated by time and distance, and is used as a >> device to propagate an "idea" or "belief" . >> >> I apologise for not being able to state the proposition in the formal >> manner/practice of Judeo-Christian Western "civilisation" >> >> Sarbajit >> >> On 3/16/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> Hi, everybody, >>> >>> Am I the only person that the FRIAM server mucks with the head of? >>> >>> >>> >>> Anyway, the following was sent in response to John Kennison's interesting >>> set of questions concerning my gripes about the E. O. Wilson interview. >>> Yet, John never got it and it does not, so far as I can see, appear in >>> the >>> FRIAM archive. >>> >>> >>> >>> So, here it is again, in case anyone else missed it. >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]] >>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:23 AM >>> >>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>> >>> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for writing, John. >>> >>> >>> >>> You missed the most important objection. Genes are not the object of >>> greed. >>> They are not analogous to coins, in reverse. With a nickel, it makes a >>> difference whether it came from your pocket or mine. With genes, it only >>> makes a difference which coin is in the pocket, not who put it there. >>> Genes >>> are all about type, not token. >>> >>> >>> >>> Comments on your specific points below: >>> >>> >>> >>> JK: I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I >>> am >>> not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible >>> reasons: >>> >>> >>> >>> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >>> >>> >>> >>> [NST ==>] Greed is a behavior pattern. An individual genes just makes a >>> protein or tells another gene when to make a protein. Gene's can't vary >>> their behavior in telic ways. >>> >>> >>> >>> JK:(2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >>> competition between genes thus overlooking the competition between >>> groups. >>> >>> >>> >>> [NST ==>] Well, as I suggested above, you are missing Wilson and Trivers >>> focus on the INDIVIDUAL. To take the greed metaphor seriously, remember >>> that gold is not greedy; it's people who are greedy for gold. Genetic >>> greed (I think) is the idea that people are eager to give away "their" >>> genes. >>> >>> >>> >>> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing >>> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >>> >>> >>> >>> [NST ==>] I will agree with that position so long as you record my >>> skepticism about how resemblance between parents and offspring comes >>> about. >>> Given the webby nature of genetic transmission, it's hard for me to see >>> how >>> it happens. I am inclined to think of the gene as a construction of >>> evolution, as much as the basis for it. >>> >>> >>> >>> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >>> operate to benefit the group". >>> >>> >>> >>> [NST ==>] Well, that statement is patently false. Groups have evolved. >>> The >>> author confuses natural selection with evolution. And I do agree that >>> natural selection does operate to benefit the group." [corrected in the >>> current version - sorry.] >>> >>> >>> >>> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >>> >>> >>> >>> [NST ==>] >>> >>> >>> >>> Hard to disagree with an equation. Full stop. >>> >>> >>> >>> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >>> >>> >>> >>> [NST ==>] Well, I prefer Evolutionary Psychology, which is more inclined >>> to >>> take history and development into account. But I am on board with using >>> evolutionary history as a way to understand human behavior. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On >>> Behalf >>> Of John Kennison >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:51 AM >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Nick, >>> >>> >>> >>> I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I am >>> not >>> clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible reasons: >>> >>> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >>> >>> (2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >>> competition >>> between genes thus overlooking the competition between groups. >>> >>> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing >>> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >>> >>> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >>> operate to benefit the group". >>> >>> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >>> >>> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >>> >>> Am I on the right track with any of these reasons? >>> >>> --John >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> >>> From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] >>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson >>> [[hidden email]] >>> >>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:08 PM >>> >>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Frank >>> >>> >>> >>> I am in a rain engulfed open plan, bay-side, house with 5 other adults >>> and >>> two kids, and many competitors for the one copy of the new Yorker, and >>> for >>> the space to rethink what I wrote. So it may be some time before I can >>> get >>> you a proper response. In the meantime, here is an improper one. >>> >>> >>> >>> My explicit beef was with the interviewer, not with Wilson. It is >>> certainly >>> news to Wilson that, having believed something dumb for decades, he now >>> comes, in old age, to the obvious truth. But why is it news to us?! >>> The >>> news, it seems to me, that there were a few people who stood up to the >>> deluge of Reagen-biology that saturated the field, and it is to THOSE >>> people, not Wilson, that we should look for insight. >>> >>> >>> >>> I am not sure there IS redemption for an academic who has killed off many >>> good ideas (and presumably graduate students) to make a towering academic >>> career, and then sees the truth in his dotage. At least, he has to do >>> more >>> than just change he mind. He has to make restitution: hasto pay back >>> his >>> royalties and recompense damages to those whom he has injured. And >>> probably all the other items in the 12 step list, as well. >>> >>> >>> >>> Worse than the belated discovery of the truth, is the belated discovery >>> of >>> foolishness. Perhaps the most dramatic instance of this was Donald >>> Griffin, who after a career of tough minded neurophys, woke one day as a >>> mentalist. >>> >>> >>> >>> Oh was that ugly. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> >>> From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] >>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >>> >>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:58 PM >>> >>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> >>> >>> But, Nick, later in the article it says, ".even as Wilson campaigned for >>> sociobiology, he began to grow dismayed with the scientific framework >>> that >>> made it possible. 'I noticed that the foundations of inclusive fitness >>> were >>> crumbling,' Wilson says. 'The reasoning that had convinced me it was >>> correct no longer held.' For instance, after pursuing Hamilton's >>> haplodipoidy hypothesis, scientists discovered that many of the most >>> cooperative insect species, such as termites and ambrosia beetles, >>> weren't >>> actually haplodiploid. Furthermore, tens of thousands of species that >>> did >>> manifest haplodiploidy never evolved eusociality-although these insects >>> were >>> closely related, they didn't share food or serve the queen.[Wilson] >>> concluded that inclusive fitness was no longer a tenable concept." >>> >>> >>> >>> Didn't he redeem himself by your lights? >>> >>> >>> >>> Frank >>> >>> >>> >>> Frank C. Wimberly >>> >>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >>> >>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>> >>> >>> >>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>> >>> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: >>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson >>> >>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:10 AM >>> >>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> >>> >>> Owen, etc., >>> >>> >>> >>> Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning how >>> to >>> access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can do is send >>> you >>> a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it >>> now, >>> I am in danger of experiencing "irk-guilt", but here it is, anyway. >>> >>> >>> >>> I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the individual >>> thing that goes on in interviews. >>> >>> >>> >>> "picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist ." >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> >>> <mailto:[cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0]> >>> [cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0] >>> >>> >>> >>> From: >>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >>> >>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:57 AM >>> >>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> >>> >>> Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. >>> >>> >>> >>> Frank >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Frank C. Wimberly >>> >>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >>> >>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>> >>> >>> >>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>> >>> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: >>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Owen Densmore >>> >>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:10 AM >>> >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> >>> >>> This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>> >>> Robert, 'n all, >>> >>> >>> >>> Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked me, >>> courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer> >>> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, >>> unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, >>> unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org >>> >>> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Thanks, Sarbajit,
One quibble: "a child is the genetic sum of its parents" If we are talking genetic tokens (as opposed to types), a child has half the genes of each of its parents. N -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:33 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? John, wrt statement #2 IF our ancestors are contained within "us" AND "live" (on) in us, THEN all the information "we" have is in our ancestors too. {Life as an information / communication problem} Of course "we" can be more than the sum of our parents. The information is already out there in the wild/cloud, "we" are just downloading it onto our genetic hard drives at an increasingly faster biological rate. To clarify with an example. In the early 1980's I coded boot sector computer virii. These code strings would "infect" by attaching themselves to the"end" of a "copy" of another executable program (which may have already been infected by code strings by some other hacker - and not only at the "end" but perhaps also inserted in the "middle"). The actual application software (say "pacman.exe") would continue to run until the competing information strings being "injected / infected" clashed and caused it to "die". Similarly, a child is the genetic sum of its parents (and through them the ancestors) and information strings (via culture / television / parent et.al ) which attach itself to the child's "memory" ("memes"). Sorry, if I'm somewhat vague/unclear - buts its not easy reconciling "religion" and "science". Sarbajit On 3/17/12, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Sarbajit, > Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking of genes as hereditary units but > I guess they can also refer to any chemical strings of a certain type. How > about statement (2)? Can't we be more than the sum of our ancestors? > --John > ________________________________________ > From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf > Of Sarbajit Roy [[hidden email]] > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:22 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > Lets take those points 1 by 1 > > 1) "Information is transmitted genetically". > > a) Instead of information being transmitted as am electronic series > (string) of "0"s and "1"s" (ie. base 2 encoding), its transmitted as a > chemical series (string) of base 4 proteins, both series being > "readable". > > b) The statement does not imply that information cannot be transmitted > by books or converstaions or culture or upbringing etc. > > c) The 19th century reference is probaby with reference to experiments > by Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose, who did some work on what would be termed > nowadays as "memory RNA" (involving plants and not planaria soup). > > d) Data such as "blue eyes" are transmitted (imperfectly) genetically > onto copies using GCTA, just as I suppose a colour photocopier does > using CMYK. > > Sarbajit > > On 3/16/12, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> Yes, sometimes scientific theories resemble religions and vice-versa >> and sometimes the debate on how genes evolve looks a bit like a >> battle between competing religions. >> >> I would disagree with principles (1) and (2): As for (1) I sometimes >> find that knowledge is transmitted via books or conversations or even >> lectures but none of these transmissions seem to be genetic. As for >> (2) we are not the sum of our ancestors because we are affected by >> our upbringing, our culture, our education etc. (I don't see how >> statement (2) could have been "proven" in the nineteenth century.) >> >> As for (3) and (4), I'm not certain what they mean. Can someone >> explain them to me? >> >> --John >> ________________________________________ >> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf >> Of Sarbajit Roy [[hidden email]] >> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:09 AM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> W.r.t to your pointwise comments to John's points. >> This to me seems a clear case of reinventing the wheel. >> It also seems that the inventors do not know that the wheel has been >> invented. >> >> Referring to at least 5,000 years of evolved human history >> http://brahmo.org/brahmoism-genetics-memetics.html >> There is at least 1 religion (yes "religion" and not "science") which >> holds as follows: >> >> "# 1) Information / knowledge is transmitted genetically (this was >> experimentaly proveable in 19th century and is trivial to prove >> today) # 2) That we are the sum of our ancestors # 3) That we contain >> all our ancestors in our genes and our bodies and within us # 4) >> Godhood of father." >> >> What is curious is that this "belief" (or variations) seems to span >> many leading cultures separated by time and distance, and is used as >> a device to propagate an "idea" or "belief" . >> >> I apologise for not being able to state the proposition in the formal >> manner/practice of Judeo-Christian Western "civilisation" >> >> Sarbajit >> >> On 3/16/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> Hi, everybody, >>> >>> Am I the only person that the FRIAM server mucks with the head of? >>> >>> >>> >>> Anyway, the following was sent in response to John Kennison's >>> interesting set of questions concerning my gripes about the E. O. Wilson >>> Yet, John never got it and it does not, so far as I can see, appear >>> in the FRIAM archive. >>> >>> >>> >>> So, here it is again, in case anyone else missed it. >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]] >>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:23 AM >>> >>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>> >>> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for writing, John. >>> >>> >>> >>> You missed the most important objection. Genes are not the object >>> of greed. >>> They are not analogous to coins, in reverse. With a nickel, it makes a >>> difference whether it came from your pocket or mine. With genes, it >>> only makes a difference which coin is in the pocket, not who put it >>> Genes >>> are all about type, not token. >>> >>> >>> >>> Comments on your specific points below: >>> >>> >>> >>> JK: I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" >>> but I am not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several >>> possible >>> reasons: >>> >>> >>> >>> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >>> >>> >>> >>> [NST ==>] Greed is a behavior pattern. An individual genes just >>> makes a protein or tells another gene when to make a protein. >>> Gene's can't vary their behavior in telic ways. >>> >>> >>> >>> JK:(2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >>> competition between genes thus overlooking the competition between >>> groups. >>> >>> >>> >>> [NST ==>] Well, as I suggested above, you are missing Wilson and >>> Trivers focus on the INDIVIDUAL. To take the greed metaphor >>> seriously, remember that gold is not greedy; it's people who are >>> greedy for gold. Genetic greed (I think) is the idea that people are >>> genes. >>> >>> >>> >>> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing >>> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >>> >>> >>> >>> [NST ==>] I will agree with that position so long as you record my >>> skepticism about how resemblance between parents and offspring comes >>> about. >>> Given the webby nature of genetic transmission, it's hard for me to >>> see how it happens. I am inclined to think of the gene as a >>> construction of evolution, as much as the basis for it. >>> >>> >>> >>> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >>> operate to benefit the group". >>> >>> >>> >>> [NST ==>] Well, that statement is patently false. Groups have evolved. >>> The >>> author confuses natural selection with evolution. And I do agree >>> that natural selection does operate to benefit the group." >>> [corrected in the current version - sorry.] >>> >>> >>> >>> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >>> >>> >>> >>> [NST ==>] >>> >>> >>> >>> Hard to disagree with an equation. Full stop. >>> >>> >>> >>> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >>> >>> >>> >>> [NST ==>] Well, I prefer Evolutionary Psychology, which is more >>> inclined to >>> take history and development into account. But I am on board with >>> evolutionary history as a way to understand human behavior. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] >>> On Behalf Of John Kennison >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:51 AM >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Nick, >>> >>> >>> >>> I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I >>> am not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several >>> possible reasons: >>> >>> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >>> >>> (2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >>> competition >>> between genes thus overlooking the competition between groups. >>> >>> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by >>> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >>> >>> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >>> operate to benefit the group". >>> >>> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >>> >>> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >>> >>> Am I on the right track with any of these reasons? >>> >>> --John >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> >>> From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] >>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson >>> [[hidden email]] >>> >>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:08 PM >>> >>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Frank >>> >>> >>> >>> I am in a rain engulfed open plan, bay-side, house with 5 other >>> adults and two kids, and many competitors for the one copy of the >>> new Yorker, and for the space to rethink what I wrote. So it may be >>> some time before I can get you a proper response. In the meantime, >>> here is an improper one. >>> >>> >>> >>> My explicit beef was with the interviewer, not with Wilson. It is >>> certainly >>> news to Wilson that, having believed something dumb for decades, he now >>> comes, in old age, to the obvious truth. But why is it news to us?! >>> The >>> news, it seems to me, that there were a few people who stood up to the >>> deluge of Reagen-biology that saturated the field, and it is to THOSE >>> people, not Wilson, that we should look for insight. >>> >>> >>> >>> I am not sure there IS redemption for an academic who has killed off >>> good ideas (and presumably graduate students) to make a towering academic >>> career, and then sees the truth in his dotage. At least, he has to do >>> more >>> than just change he mind. He has to make restitution: hasto pay back >>> his >>> royalties and recompense damages to those whom he has injured. And >>> probably all the other items in the 12 step list, as well. >>> >>> >>> >>> Worse than the belated discovery of the truth, is the belated discovery >>> of >>> foolishness. Perhaps the most dramatic instance of this was Donald >>> Griffin, who after a career of tough minded neurophys, woke one day as a >>> mentalist. >>> >>> >>> >>> Oh was that ugly. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> >>> From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] >>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >>> >>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:58 PM >>> >>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> >>> >>> But, Nick, later in the article it says, ".even as Wilson campaigned for >>> sociobiology, he began to grow dismayed with the scientific framework >>> that >>> made it possible. 'I noticed that the foundations of inclusive fitness >>> were >>> crumbling,' Wilson says. 'The reasoning that had convinced me it was >>> correct no longer held.' For instance, after pursuing Hamilton's >>> haplodipoidy hypothesis, scientists discovered that many of the most >>> cooperative insect species, such as termites and ambrosia beetles, >>> weren't >>> actually haplodiploid. Furthermore, tens of thousands of species that >>> did >>> manifest haplodiploidy never evolved eusociality-although these insects >>> were >>> closely related, they didn't share food or serve the queen.[Wilson] >>> concluded that inclusive fitness was no longer a tenable concept." >>> >>> >>> >>> Didn't he redeem himself by your lights? >>> >>> >>> >>> Frank >>> >>> >>> >>> Frank C. Wimberly >>> >>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >>> >>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>> >>> >>> >>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>> >>> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: >>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Nicholas >>> >>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:10 AM >>> >>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> >>> >>> Owen, etc., >>> >>> >>> >>> Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning how >>> to >>> access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can do is send >>> you >>> a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it >>> now, >>> I am in danger of experiencing "irk-guilt", but here it is, anyway. >>> >>> >>> >>> I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the >>> thing that goes on in interviews. >>> >>> >>> >>> "picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist ." >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> >>> <mailto:[cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0]> >>> [cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0] >>> >>> >>> >>> From: >>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >>> >>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:57 AM >>> >>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> >>> >>> Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. >>> >>> >>> >>> Frank >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Frank C. Wimberly >>> >>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >>> >>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>> >>> >>> >>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>> >>> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >>> >>> >>> >>> From: >>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Owen Densmore >>> >>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:10 AM >>> >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> >>> >>> This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>> >>> Robert, 'n all, >>> >>> >>> >>> Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked >>> courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer> >>> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, >>> unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, >>> unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org >>> >>> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Of course you are correct.
If the Mother is X1+X2, and the Father is X3+Y, I seem to recall vaguely that the Mother's X contribution is essentially a string of snippets from X1 and X2, whereas the Father contributes either a pure X3 or a pure Y to the Child. If my recollection is correct, then this leads us to the 4th point "Godhood of Father" Sarbajit On 3/17/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: > Thanks, Sarbajit, > > One quibble: > > "a child is the genetic sum of its parents" > > If we are talking genetic tokens (as opposed to types), a child has half the > genes of each of its parents. > > N > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf > Of Sarbajit Roy > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:33 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > John, > > wrt statement #2 > > IF our ancestors are contained within "us" AND "live" (on) in us, THEN all > the information "we" have is in our ancestors too. {Life as an information / > communication problem} > > Of course "we" can be more than the sum of our parents. The information is > already out there in the wild/cloud, "we" are just downloading it onto our > genetic hard drives at an increasingly faster biological rate. > > To clarify with an example. > > In the early 1980's I coded boot sector computer virii. These code strings > would "infect" by attaching themselves to the"end" of a "copy" > of another executable program (which may have already been infected by code > strings by some other hacker - and not only at the "end" but perhaps also > inserted in the "middle"). The actual application software (say > "pacman.exe") would continue to run until the competing information strings > being "injected / infected" clashed and caused it to "die". > > Similarly, a child is the genetic sum of its parents (and through them the > ancestors) and information strings (via culture / television / parent et.al > ) which attach itself to the child's "memory" ("memes"). > > Sorry, if I'm somewhat vague/unclear - buts its not easy reconciling > "religion" and "science". > > Sarbajit > > On 3/17/12, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Sarbajit, >> Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking of genes as hereditary units > but >> I guess they can also refer to any chemical strings of a certain type. > How >> about statement (2)? Can't we be more than the sum of our ancestors? >> --John >> ________________________________________ >> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf >> Of Sarbajit Roy [[hidden email]] >> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:22 PM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> Lets take those points 1 by 1 >> >> 1) "Information is transmitted genetically". >> >> a) Instead of information being transmitted as am electronic series >> (string) of "0"s and "1"s" (ie. base 2 encoding), its transmitted as a >> chemical series (string) of base 4 proteins, both series being >> "readable". >> >> b) The statement does not imply that information cannot be transmitted >> by books or converstaions or culture or upbringing etc. >> >> c) The 19th century reference is probaby with reference to experiments >> by Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose, who did some work on what would be termed >> nowadays as "memory RNA" (involving plants and not planaria soup). >> >> d) Data such as "blue eyes" are transmitted (imperfectly) genetically >> onto copies using GCTA, just as I suppose a colour photocopier does >> using CMYK. >> >> Sarbajit >> >> On 3/16/12, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yes, sometimes scientific theories resemble religions and vice-versa >>> and sometimes the debate on how genes evolve looks a bit like a >>> battle between competing religions. >>> >>> I would disagree with principles (1) and (2): As for (1) I sometimes >>> find that knowledge is transmitted via books or conversations or even >>> lectures but none of these transmissions seem to be genetic. As for >>> (2) we are not the sum of our ancestors because we are affected by >>> our upbringing, our culture, our education etc. (I don't see how >>> statement (2) could have been "proven" in the nineteenth century.) >>> >>> As for (3) and (4), I'm not certain what they mean. Can someone >>> explain them to me? >>> >>> --John >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf >>> Of Sarbajit Roy [[hidden email]] >>> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:09 AM >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> W.r.t to your pointwise comments to John's points. >>> This to me seems a clear case of reinventing the wheel. >>> It also seems that the inventors do not know that the wheel has been >>> invented. >>> >>> Referring to at least 5,000 years of evolved human history >>> http://brahmo.org/brahmoism-genetics-memetics.html >>> There is at least 1 religion (yes "religion" and not "science") which >>> holds as follows: >>> >>> "# 1) Information / knowledge is transmitted genetically (this was >>> experimentaly proveable in 19th century and is trivial to prove >>> today) # 2) That we are the sum of our ancestors # 3) That we contain >>> all our ancestors in our genes and our bodies and within us # 4) >>> Godhood of father." >>> >>> What is curious is that this "belief" (or variations) seems to span >>> many leading cultures separated by time and distance, and is used as >>> a device to propagate an "idea" or "belief" . >>> >>> I apologise for not being able to state the proposition in the formal >>> manner/practice of Judeo-Christian Western "civilisation" >>> >>> Sarbajit >>> >>> On 3/16/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> Hi, everybody, >>>> >>>> Am I the only person that the FRIAM server mucks with the head of? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Anyway, the following was sent in response to John Kennison's >>>> interesting set of questions concerning my gripes about the E. O. Wilson > interview. >>>> Yet, John never got it and it does not, so far as I can see, appear >>>> in the FRIAM archive. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So, here it is again, in case anyone else missed it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]] >>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:23 AM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for writing, John. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You missed the most important objection. Genes are not the object >>>> of greed. >>>> They are not analogous to coins, in reverse. With a nickel, it makes a >>>> difference whether it came from your pocket or mine. With genes, it >>>> only makes a difference which coin is in the pocket, not who put it > there. >>>> Genes >>>> are all about type, not token. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Comments on your specific points below: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> JK: I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" >>>> but I am not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several >>>> possible >>>> reasons: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Greed is a behavior pattern. An individual genes just >>>> makes a protein or tells another gene when to make a protein. >>>> Gene's can't vary their behavior in telic ways. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> JK:(2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >>>> competition between genes thus overlooking the competition between >>>> groups. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Well, as I suggested above, you are missing Wilson and >>>> Trivers focus on the INDIVIDUAL. To take the greed metaphor >>>> seriously, remember that gold is not greedy; it's people who are >>>> greedy for gold. Genetic greed (I think) is the idea that people are > eager to give away "their" >>>> genes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by > inducing >>>> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] I will agree with that position so long as you record my >>>> skepticism about how resemblance between parents and offspring comes >>>> about. >>>> Given the webby nature of genetic transmission, it's hard for me to >>>> see how it happens. I am inclined to think of the gene as a >>>> construction of evolution, as much as the basis for it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >>>> operate to benefit the group". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Well, that statement is patently false. Groups have evolved. >>>> The >>>> author confuses natural selection with evolution. And I do agree >>>> that natural selection does operate to benefit the group." >>>> [corrected in the current version - sorry.] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hard to disagree with an equation. Full stop. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Well, I prefer Evolutionary Psychology, which is more >>>> inclined to >>>> take history and development into account. But I am on board with > using >>>> evolutionary history as a way to understand human behavior. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] >>>> On Behalf Of John Kennison >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:51 AM >>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Nick, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I >>>> am not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several >>>> possible reasons: >>>> >>>> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >>>> >>>> (2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >>>> competition >>>> between genes thus overlooking the competition between groups. >>>> >>>> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by > inducing >>>> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >>>> >>>> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >>>> operate to benefit the group". >>>> >>>> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >>>> >>>> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >>>> >>>> Am I on the right track with any of these reasons? >>>> >>>> --John >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] >>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson >>>> [[hidden email]] >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:08 PM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am in a rain engulfed open plan, bay-side, house with 5 other >>>> adults and two kids, and many competitors for the one copy of the >>>> new Yorker, and for the space to rethink what I wrote. So it may be >>>> some time before I can get you a proper response. In the meantime, >>>> here is an improper one. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My explicit beef was with the interviewer, not with Wilson. It is >>>> certainly >>>> news to Wilson that, having believed something dumb for decades, he now >>>> comes, in old age, to the obvious truth. But why is it news to us?! >>>> The >>>> news, it seems to me, that there were a few people who stood up to the >>>> deluge of Reagen-biology that saturated the field, and it is to THOSE >>>> people, not Wilson, that we should look for insight. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am not sure there IS redemption for an academic who has killed off > many >>>> good ideas (and presumably graduate students) to make a towering > academic >>>> career, and then sees the truth in his dotage. At least, he has to do >>>> more >>>> than just change he mind. He has to make restitution: hasto pay back >>>> his >>>> royalties and recompense damages to those whom he has injured. And >>>> probably all the other items in the 12 step list, as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Worse than the belated discovery of the truth, is the belated discovery >>>> of >>>> foolishness. Perhaps the most dramatic instance of this was Donald >>>> Griffin, who after a career of tough minded neurophys, woke one day as a >>>> mentalist. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Oh was that ugly. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:58 PM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But, Nick, later in the article it says, ".even as Wilson campaigned for >>>> sociobiology, he began to grow dismayed with the scientific framework >>>> that >>>> made it possible. 'I noticed that the foundations of inclusive fitness >>>> were >>>> crumbling,' Wilson says. 'The reasoning that had convinced me it was >>>> correct no longer held.' For instance, after pursuing Hamilton's >>>> haplodipoidy hypothesis, scientists discovered that many of the most >>>> cooperative insect species, such as termites and ambrosia beetles, >>>> weren't >>>> actually haplodiploid. Furthermore, tens of thousands of species that >>>> did >>>> manifest haplodiploidy never evolved eusociality-although these insects >>>> were >>>> closely related, they didn't share food or serve the queen.[Wilson] >>>> concluded that inclusive fitness was no longer a tenable concept." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Didn't he redeem himself by your lights? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank C. Wimberly >>>> >>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >>>> >>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Nicholas > Thompson >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:10 AM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Owen, etc., >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning how >>>> to >>>> access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can do is send >>>> you >>>> a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it >>>> now, >>>> I am in danger of experiencing "irk-guilt", but here it is, anyway. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the > individual >>>> thing that goes on in interviews. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist ." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0]> >>>> [cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:57 AM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank C. Wimberly >>>> >>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >>>> >>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Owen Densmore >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:10 AM >>>> >>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Robert, 'n all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked > me, >>>> courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer> >>>> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, >>>> unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, >>>> unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Sarbajit,
You're talking about the sex, chromosome only, right? You're implying that crossing over does not occur between the homologous portions of the X and Y chromosomes in the male? What I guess we do know is that the Y chromosome is shorter and that any X trait that is lodged in the "unopposed" portion of the X chromosome is expressed even if recessive. Do we still know that? Nick -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 12:07 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? Of course you are correct. If the Mother is X1+X2, and the Father is X3+Y, I seem to recall vaguely that the Mother's X contribution is essentially a string of snippets from X1 and X2, whereas the Father contributes either a pure X3 or a pure Y to the Child. If my recollection is correct, then this leads us to the 4th point "Godhood of Father" Sarbajit On 3/17/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: > Thanks, Sarbajit, > > One quibble: > > "a child is the genetic sum of its parents" > > If we are talking genetic tokens (as opposed to types), a child has > half the genes of each of its parents. > > N > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:33 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > John, > > wrt statement #2 > > IF our ancestors are contained within "us" AND "live" (on) in us, THEN > all the information "we" have is in our ancestors too. {Life as an > information / communication problem} > > Of course "we" can be more than the sum of our parents. The > information is already out there in the wild/cloud, "we" are just > downloading it onto our genetic hard drives at an increasingly faster > > To clarify with an example. > > In the early 1980's I coded boot sector computer virii. These code > strings would "infect" by attaching themselves to the"end" of a "copy" > of another executable program (which may have already been infected by > code strings by some other hacker - and not only at the "end" but > perhaps also inserted in the "middle"). The actual application > software (say > "pacman.exe") would continue to run until the competing information > strings being "injected / infected" clashed and caused it to "die". > > Similarly, a child is the genetic sum of its parents (and through them > the > ancestors) and information strings (via culture / television / parent > et.al > ) which attach itself to the child's "memory" ("memes"). > > Sorry, if I'm somewhat vague/unclear - buts its not easy reconciling > "religion" and "science". > > Sarbajit > > On 3/17/12, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Sarbajit, >> Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking of genes as hereditary >> units > but >> I guess they can also refer to any chemical strings of a certain type. > How >> about statement (2)? Can't we be more than the sum of our ancestors? >> --John >> ________________________________________ >> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf >> Of Sarbajit Roy [[hidden email]] >> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:22 PM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> Lets take those points 1 by 1 >> >> 1) "Information is transmitted genetically". >> >> a) Instead of information being transmitted as am electronic series >> (string) of "0"s and "1"s" (ie. base 2 encoding), its transmitted as >> a chemical series (string) of base 4 proteins, both series being >> "readable". >> >> b) The statement does not imply that information cannot be >> transmitted by books or converstaions or culture or upbringing etc. >> >> c) The 19th century reference is probaby with reference to >> experiments by Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose, who did some work on what >> would be termed nowadays as "memory RNA" (involving plants and not >> >> d) Data such as "blue eyes" are transmitted (imperfectly) genetically >> onto copies using GCTA, just as I suppose a colour photocopier does >> using CMYK. >> >> Sarbajit >> >> On 3/16/12, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yes, sometimes scientific theories resemble religions and vice-versa >>> and sometimes the debate on how genes evolve looks a bit like a >>> battle between competing religions. >>> >>> I would disagree with principles (1) and (2): As for (1) I sometimes >>> find that knowledge is transmitted via books or conversations or >>> even lectures but none of these transmissions seem to be genetic. As >>> for >>> (2) we are not the sum of our ancestors because we are affected by >>> our upbringing, our culture, our education etc. (I don't see how >>> statement (2) could have been "proven" in the nineteenth century.) >>> >>> As for (3) and (4), I'm not certain what they mean. Can someone >>> explain them to me? >>> >>> --John >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On >>> Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy [[hidden email]] >>> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:09 AM >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> W.r.t to your pointwise comments to John's points. >>> This to me seems a clear case of reinventing the wheel. >>> It also seems that the inventors do not know that the wheel has been >>> invented. >>> >>> Referring to at least 5,000 years of evolved human history >>> http://brahmo.org/brahmoism-genetics-memetics.html >>> There is at least 1 religion (yes "religion" and not "science") >>> which holds as follows: >>> >>> "# 1) Information / knowledge is transmitted genetically (this was >>> experimentaly proveable in 19th century and is trivial to prove >>> today) # 2) That we are the sum of our ancestors # 3) That we >>> contain all our ancestors in our genes and our bodies and within us >>> # 4) Godhood of father." >>> >>> What is curious is that this "belief" (or variations) seems to span >>> many leading cultures separated by time and distance, and is used as >>> a device to propagate an "idea" or "belief" . >>> >>> I apologise for not being able to state the proposition in the >>> formal manner/practice of Judeo-Christian Western "civilisation" >>> >>> Sarbajit >>> >>> On 3/16/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> Hi, everybody, >>>> >>>> Am I the only person that the FRIAM server mucks with the head of? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Anyway, the following was sent in response to John Kennison's >>>> interesting set of questions concerning my gripes about the E. O. >>>> Wilson > interview. >>>> Yet, John never got it and it does not, so far as I can see, appear >>>> in the FRIAM archive. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So, here it is again, in case anyone else missed it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]] >>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:23 AM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for writing, John. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You missed the most important objection. Genes are not the object >>>> of greed. >>>> They are not analogous to coins, in reverse. With a nickel, it makes >>>> difference whether it came from your pocket or mine. With genes, >>>> it only makes a difference which coin is in the pocket, not who put >>>> it > there. >>>> Genes >>>> are all about type, not token. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Comments on your specific points below: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> JK: I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" >>>> but I am not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several >>>> possible >>>> reasons: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Greed is a behavior pattern. An individual genes just >>>> makes a protein or tells another gene when to make a protein. >>>> Gene's can't vary their behavior in telic ways. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> JK:(2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >>>> competition between genes thus overlooking the competition between >>>> groups. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Well, as I suggested above, you are missing Wilson and >>>> Trivers focus on the INDIVIDUAL. To take the greed metaphor >>>> seriously, remember that gold is not greedy; it's people who are >>>> greedy for gold. Genetic greed (I think) is the idea that people >>>> are > eager to give away "their" >>>> genes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by > inducing >>>> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] I will agree with that position so long as you record my >>>> skepticism about how resemblance between parents and offspring >>>> comes about. >>>> Given the webby nature of genetic transmission, it's hard for me to >>>> see how it happens. I am inclined to think of the gene as a >>>> construction of evolution, as much as the basis for it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >>>> operate to benefit the group". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Well, that statement is patently false. Groups have evolved. >>>> The >>>> author confuses natural selection with evolution. And I do agree >>>> that natural selection does operate to benefit the group." >>>> [corrected in the current version - sorry.] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hard to disagree with an equation. Full stop. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Well, I prefer Evolutionary Psychology, which is more >>>> inclined to >>>> take history and development into account. But I am on board with > using >>>> evolutionary history as a way to understand human behavior. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] >>>> On Behalf Of John Kennison >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:51 AM >>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Nick, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I >>>> am not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several >>>> possible reasons: >>>> >>>> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >>>> >>>> (2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >>>> competition >>>> between genes thus overlooking the competition between groups. >>>> >>>> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by > inducing >>>> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >>>> >>>> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >>>> operate to benefit the group". >>>> >>>> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >>>> >>>> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >>>> >>>> Am I on the right track with any of these reasons? >>>> >>>> --John >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] >>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson >>>> [[hidden email]] >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:08 PM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am in a rain engulfed open plan, bay-side, house with 5 other >>>> adults and two kids, and many competitors for the one copy of the >>>> new Yorker, and for the space to rethink what I wrote. So it may >>>> be some time before I can get you a proper response. In the >>>> meantime, here is an improper one. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My explicit beef was with the interviewer, not with Wilson. It is >>>> certainly news to Wilson that, having believed something dumb for >>>> decades, he now comes, in old age, to the obvious truth. But why >>>> is it news to us?! >>>> The >>>> news, it seems to me, that there were a few people who stood up to >>>> the deluge of Reagen-biology that saturated the field, and it is to >>>> THOSE people, not Wilson, that we should look for insight. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am not sure there IS redemption for an academic who has killed >>>> off > many >>>> good ideas (and presumably graduate students) to make a towering > academic >>>> career, and then sees the truth in his dotage. At least, he has to >>>> do more than just change he mind. He has to make restitution: >>>> hasto pay back his royalties and recompense damages to those whom >>>> he has injured. And probably all the other items in the 12 step >>>> list, as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Worse than the belated discovery of the truth, is the belated >>>> discovery of >>>> foolishness. Perhaps the most dramatic instance of this was Donald >>>> Griffin, who after a career of tough minded neurophys, woke one day >>>> as a mentalist. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Oh was that ugly. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:58 PM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But, Nick, later in the article it says, ".even as Wilson >>>> campaigned for sociobiology, he began to grow dismayed with the >>>> scientific framework that made it possible. 'I noticed that the >>>> foundations of inclusive fitness were crumbling,' Wilson says. >>>> 'The reasoning that had convinced me it was correct no longer >>>> held.' For instance, after pursuing Hamilton's haplodipoidy >>>> hypothesis, scientists discovered that many of the most cooperative >>>> insect species, such as termites and ambrosia beetles, weren't >>>> actually haplodiploid. Furthermore, tens of thousands of species >>>> that did manifest haplodiploidy never evolved eusociality-although >>>> these insects were closely related, they didn't share food or serve >>>> the queen.[Wilson] concluded that inclusive fitness was no longer a >>>> tenable concept." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Didn't he redeem himself by your lights? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank C. Wimberly >>>> >>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >>>> >>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email] >>>> u> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email] >>>> m> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Nicholas > Thompson >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:10 AM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Owen, etc., >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning >>>> how to access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can >>>> do is send you >>>> a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it >>>> now, >>>> I am in danger of experiencing "irk-guilt", but here it is, anyway. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the > individual >>>> thing that goes on in interviews. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist ." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0]> >>>> [cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email] >>>> m> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Frank >>>> Wimberly >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:57 AM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank C. Wimberly >>>> >>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >>>> >>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email] >>>> u> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email] >>>> m> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Owen >>>> Densmore >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:10 AM >>>> >>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:nickthompson@earthlink. >>>> net> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Robert, 'n all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that >>>> irked > me, >>>> courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer >>>> > >>>> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, >>>> archives, unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> >>>> http://www.friam.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, >>>> archives, unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> >>>> http://www.friam.org >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at >>> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at >>> http://www.friam.org >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at >>> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at >>> http://www.friam.org >>> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at >> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at >> http://www.friam.org >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at >> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at >> http://www.friam.org >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Gentlemen,
the DNA is not the only constituent of the functional fertilized egg. The Cell Membrane and it's enormous complexity is derived from maternal components. The mitochondrial DNA is entirely maternal. So it appears all the basic cellular machinery is maternal since the donor Male component is basically a simple delivery package it's contents are DNA and not much else as far as I know. One can assume the entire cytoplasm is also maternal until the New DNA/RNA begins to operate. Additionally each time the cell divides a certain fraction of the cytoplasm is expelled in order to preserve the valuable cell membrane from being ruptured. How much extracellular goop is later absorbed is unknown. Nor whether or not it was identical with the original expulsion. Most of these issues seem under investigation by biochemists under the heading of epigenetics. The differentiation of cells during embryogenesis is probably governed by cell membrane stresses and chemical signals leaking from neighbouring cells. The DNA is sometimes considered as a basic backup pattern used infrequently or to repair serious damage. Cell membranes are capable of keeping the basic cytoplasm operating in the total absence of DNA, for quite some time. DNA by itself as the ruling authority may be a mistake. So reducing information transmission to amino acids exclusively may be convenient but overly simplistic. Oddly the possibility of removing DNA from its pre-eminence in the inheritance hierarchy seems extremely upsetting to certain dogmatic positions. If you use Biology as a metaphor for Computer code you should be careful not to fixate on that aspect exclusively. Computer code may not be a suitable metaphor for describing Biology. Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky PhD [hidden email] Sky Drive Site https://skydrive.live.com/?sc=photos&wa=wsignin1.0&sa=590620289#cid=14A5CDB0 9AEE4237&id=14A5CDB09AEE4237%21727&sc=photos 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg,Manitoba, R2J3R2 Canada (204) 2548321 Land -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson Sent: March-17-12 1:24 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? Sarbajit, You're talking about the sex, chromosome only, right? You're implying that crossing over does not occur between the homologous portions of the X and Y chromosomes in the male? What I guess we do know is that the Y chromosome is shorter and that any X trait that is lodged in the "unopposed" portion of the X chromosome is expressed even if recessive. Do we still know that? Nick -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 12:07 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? Of course you are correct. If the Mother is X1+X2, and the Father is X3+Y, I seem to recall vaguely that the Mother's X contribution is essentially a string of snippets from X1 and X2, whereas the Father contributes either a pure X3 or a pure Y to the Child. If my recollection is correct, then this leads us to the 4th point "Godhood of Father" Sarbajit On 3/17/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: > Thanks, Sarbajit, > > One quibble: > > "a child is the genetic sum of its parents" > > If we are talking genetic tokens (as opposed to types), a child has > half the genes of each of its parents. > > N > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:33 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > John, > > wrt statement #2 > > IF our ancestors are contained within "us" AND "live" (on) in us, THEN > all the information "we" have is in our ancestors too. {Life as an > information / communication problem} > > Of course "we" can be more than the sum of our parents. The > information is already out there in the wild/cloud, "we" are just > downloading it onto our genetic hard drives at an increasingly faster > > To clarify with an example. > > In the early 1980's I coded boot sector computer virii. These code > strings would "infect" by attaching themselves to the"end" of a "copy" > of another executable program (which may have already been infected by > code strings by some other hacker - and not only at the "end" but > perhaps also inserted in the "middle"). The actual application > software (say > "pacman.exe") would continue to run until the competing information > strings being "injected / infected" clashed and caused it to "die". > > Similarly, a child is the genetic sum of its parents (and through them > the > ancestors) and information strings (via culture / television / parent > et.al > ) which attach itself to the child's "memory" ("memes"). > > Sorry, if I'm somewhat vague/unclear - buts its not easy reconciling > "religion" and "science". > > Sarbajit > > On 3/17/12, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Sarbajit, >> Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking of genes as hereditary >> units > but >> I guess they can also refer to any chemical strings of a certain type. > How >> about statement (2)? Can't we be more than the sum of our ancestors? >> --John >> ________________________________________ >> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf >> Of Sarbajit Roy [[hidden email]] >> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:22 PM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> Lets take those points 1 by 1 >> >> 1) "Information is transmitted genetically". >> >> a) Instead of information being transmitted as am electronic series >> (string) of "0"s and "1"s" (ie. base 2 encoding), its transmitted as >> a chemical series (string) of base 4 proteins, both series being >> "readable". >> >> b) The statement does not imply that information cannot be >> transmitted by books or converstaions or culture or upbringing etc. >> >> c) The 19th century reference is probaby with reference to >> experiments by Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose, who did some work on what >> would be termed nowadays as "memory RNA" (involving plants and not >> >> d) Data such as "blue eyes" are transmitted (imperfectly) genetically >> onto copies using GCTA, just as I suppose a colour photocopier does >> using CMYK. >> >> Sarbajit >> >> On 3/16/12, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yes, sometimes scientific theories resemble religions and vice-versa >>> and sometimes the debate on how genes evolve looks a bit like a >>> battle between competing religions. >>> >>> I would disagree with principles (1) and (2): As for (1) I sometimes >>> find that knowledge is transmitted via books or conversations or >>> even lectures but none of these transmissions seem to be genetic. As >>> for >>> (2) we are not the sum of our ancestors because we are affected by >>> our upbringing, our culture, our education etc. (I don't see how >>> statement (2) could have been "proven" in the nineteenth century.) >>> >>> As for (3) and (4), I'm not certain what they mean. Can someone >>> explain them to me? >>> >>> --John >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On >>> Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy [[hidden email]] >>> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:09 AM >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> W.r.t to your pointwise comments to John's points. >>> This to me seems a clear case of reinventing the wheel. >>> It also seems that the inventors do not know that the wheel has been >>> invented. >>> >>> Referring to at least 5,000 years of evolved human history >>> http://brahmo.org/brahmoism-genetics-memetics.html >>> There is at least 1 religion (yes "religion" and not "science") >>> which holds as follows: >>> >>> "# 1) Information / knowledge is transmitted genetically (this was >>> experimentaly proveable in 19th century and is trivial to prove >>> today) # 2) That we are the sum of our ancestors # 3) That we >>> contain all our ancestors in our genes and our bodies and within us >>> # 4) Godhood of father." >>> >>> What is curious is that this "belief" (or variations) seems to span >>> many leading cultures separated by time and distance, and is used as >>> a device to propagate an "idea" or "belief" . >>> >>> I apologise for not being able to state the proposition in the >>> formal manner/practice of Judeo-Christian Western "civilisation" >>> >>> Sarbajit >>> >>> On 3/16/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> Hi, everybody, >>>> >>>> Am I the only person that the FRIAM server mucks with the head of? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Anyway, the following was sent in response to John Kennison's >>>> interesting set of questions concerning my gripes about the E. O. >>>> Wilson > interview. >>>> Yet, John never got it and it does not, so far as I can see, appear >>>> in the FRIAM archive. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So, here it is again, in case anyone else missed it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]] >>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:23 AM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for writing, John. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You missed the most important objection. Genes are not the object >>>> of greed. >>>> They are not analogous to coins, in reverse. With a nickel, it makes >>>> difference whether it came from your pocket or mine. With genes, >>>> it only makes a difference which coin is in the pocket, not who put >>>> it > there. >>>> Genes >>>> are all about type, not token. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Comments on your specific points below: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> JK: I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" >>>> but I am not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several >>>> possible >>>> reasons: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Greed is a behavior pattern. An individual genes just >>>> makes a protein or tells another gene when to make a protein. >>>> Gene's can't vary their behavior in telic ways. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> JK:(2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >>>> competition between genes thus overlooking the competition between >>>> groups. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Well, as I suggested above, you are missing Wilson and >>>> Trivers focus on the INDIVIDUAL. To take the greed metaphor >>>> seriously, remember that gold is not greedy; it's people who are >>>> greedy for gold. Genetic greed (I think) is the idea that people >>>> are > eager to give away "their" >>>> genes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by > inducing >>>> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] I will agree with that position so long as you record my >>>> skepticism about how resemblance between parents and offspring >>>> comes about. >>>> Given the webby nature of genetic transmission, it's hard for me to >>>> see how it happens. I am inclined to think of the gene as a >>>> construction of evolution, as much as the basis for it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >>>> operate to benefit the group". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Well, that statement is patently false. Groups have evolved. >>>> The >>>> author confuses natural selection with evolution. And I do agree >>>> that natural selection does operate to benefit the group." >>>> [corrected in the current version - sorry.] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hard to disagree with an equation. Full stop. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Well, I prefer Evolutionary Psychology, which is more >>>> inclined to >>>> take history and development into account. But I am on board with > using >>>> evolutionary history as a way to understand human behavior. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] >>>> On Behalf Of John Kennison >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:51 AM >>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Nick, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I >>>> am not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several >>>> possible reasons: >>>> >>>> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >>>> >>>> (2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >>>> competition >>>> between genes thus overlooking the competition between groups. >>>> >>>> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by > inducing >>>> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >>>> >>>> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >>>> operate to benefit the group". >>>> >>>> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >>>> >>>> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >>>> >>>> Am I on the right track with any of these reasons? >>>> >>>> --John >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] >>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson >>>> [[hidden email]] >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:08 PM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am in a rain engulfed open plan, bay-side, house with 5 other >>>> adults and two kids, and many competitors for the one copy of the >>>> new Yorker, and for the space to rethink what I wrote. So it may >>>> be some time before I can get you a proper response. In the >>>> meantime, here is an improper one. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My explicit beef was with the interviewer, not with Wilson. It is >>>> certainly news to Wilson that, having believed something dumb for >>>> decades, he now comes, in old age, to the obvious truth. But why >>>> is it news to us?! >>>> The >>>> news, it seems to me, that there were a few people who stood up to >>>> the deluge of Reagen-biology that saturated the field, and it is to >>>> THOSE people, not Wilson, that we should look for insight. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am not sure there IS redemption for an academic who has killed >>>> off > many >>>> good ideas (and presumably graduate students) to make a towering > academic >>>> career, and then sees the truth in his dotage. At least, he has to >>>> do more than just change he mind. He has to make restitution: >>>> hasto pay back his royalties and recompense damages to those whom >>>> he has injured. And probably all the other items in the 12 step >>>> list, as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Worse than the belated discovery of the truth, is the belated >>>> discovery of >>>> foolishness. Perhaps the most dramatic instance of this was Donald >>>> Griffin, who after a career of tough minded neurophys, woke one day >>>> as a mentalist. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Oh was that ugly. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:58 PM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But, Nick, later in the article it says, ".even as Wilson >>>> campaigned for sociobiology, he began to grow dismayed with the >>>> scientific framework that made it possible. 'I noticed that the >>>> foundations of inclusive fitness were crumbling,' Wilson says. >>>> 'The reasoning that had convinced me it was correct no longer >>>> held.' For instance, after pursuing Hamilton's haplodipoidy >>>> hypothesis, scientists discovered that many of the most cooperative >>>> insect species, such as termites and ambrosia beetles, weren't >>>> actually haplodiploid. Furthermore, tens of thousands of species >>>> that did manifest haplodiploidy never evolved eusociality-although >>>> these insects were closely related, they didn't share food or serve >>>> the queen.[Wilson] concluded that inclusive fitness was no longer a >>>> tenable concept." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Didn't he redeem himself by your lights? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank C. Wimberly >>>> >>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >>>> >>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email] >>>> u> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email] >>>> m> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Nicholas > Thompson >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:10 AM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Owen, etc., >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning >>>> how to access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can >>>> do is send you >>>> a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it >>>> now, >>>> I am in danger of experiencing "irk-guilt", but here it is, anyway. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the > individual >>>> thing that goes on in interviews. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist ." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0]> >>>> [cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email] >>>> m> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Frank >>>> Wimberly >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:57 AM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank C. Wimberly >>>> >>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >>>> >>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email] >>>> u> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email] >>>> m> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Owen >>>> Densmore >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:10 AM >>>> >>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:nickthompson@earthlink. >>>> net> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Robert, 'n all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that >>>> irked > me, >>>> courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer >>>> > >>>> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, >>>> archives, unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> >>>> http://www.friam.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, >>>> archives, unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> >>>> http://www.friam.org >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at >>> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at >>> http://www.friam.org >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at >>> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at >>> http://www.friam.org >>> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at >> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at >> http://www.friam.org >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at >> cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at >> http://www.friam.org >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Sarbajit Roy (testing)
Sarbajit, Thanks for explaining the four points. Combining religion and science is tricky --both are searches for truth but religion has the additional burden, I think, of being a search for meaning too. My father was a math professor and in an act of rebellion, I thought I might major in physics instead of math. But I gravitated back to math and became a math professor like my dad. I was more successful in rebelling against my Baptist upbringing and am now a Unitarian-Universalist. John ________________________________________ From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy [[hidden email]] Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 2:06 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? Of course you are correct. If the Mother is X1+X2, and the Father is X3+Y, I seem to recall vaguely that the Mother's X contribution is essentially a string of snippets from X1 and X2, whereas the Father contributes either a pure X3 or a pure Y to the Child. If my recollection is correct, then this leads us to the 4th point "Godhood of Father" Sarbajit On 3/17/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: > Thanks, Sarbajit, > > One quibble: > > "a child is the genetic sum of its parents" > > If we are talking genetic tokens (as opposed to types), a child has half the > genes of each of its parents. > > N > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf > Of Sarbajit Roy > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:33 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > John, > > wrt statement #2 > > IF our ancestors are contained within "us" AND "live" (on) in us, THEN all > the information "we" have is in our ancestors too. {Life as an information / > communication problem} > > Of course "we" can be more than the sum of our parents. The information is > already out there in the wild/cloud, "we" are just downloading it onto our > genetic hard drives at an increasingly faster biological rate. > > To clarify with an example. > > In the early 1980's I coded boot sector computer virii. These code strings > would "infect" by attaching themselves to the"end" of a "copy" > of another executable program (which may have already been infected by code > strings by some other hacker - and not only at the "end" but perhaps also > inserted in the "middle"). The actual application software (say > "pacman.exe") would continue to run until the competing information strings > being "injected / infected" clashed and caused it to "die". > > Similarly, a child is the genetic sum of its parents (and through them the > ancestors) and information strings (via culture / television / parent et.al > ) which attach itself to the child's "memory" ("memes"). > > Sorry, if I'm somewhat vague/unclear - buts its not easy reconciling > "religion" and "science". > > Sarbajit > > On 3/17/12, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Sarbajit, >> Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking of genes as hereditary units > but >> I guess they can also refer to any chemical strings of a certain type. > How >> about statement (2)? Can't we be more than the sum of our ancestors? >> --John >> ________________________________________ >> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf >> Of Sarbajit Roy [[hidden email]] >> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:22 PM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> Lets take those points 1 by 1 >> >> 1) "Information is transmitted genetically". >> >> a) Instead of information being transmitted as am electronic series >> (string) of "0"s and "1"s" (ie. base 2 encoding), its transmitted as a >> chemical series (string) of base 4 proteins, both series being >> "readable". >> >> b) The statement does not imply that information cannot be transmitted >> by books or converstaions or culture or upbringing etc. >> >> c) The 19th century reference is probaby with reference to experiments >> by Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose, who did some work on what would be termed >> nowadays as "memory RNA" (involving plants and not planaria soup). >> >> d) Data such as "blue eyes" are transmitted (imperfectly) genetically >> onto copies using GCTA, just as I suppose a colour photocopier does >> using CMYK. >> >> Sarbajit >> >> On 3/16/12, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yes, sometimes scientific theories resemble religions and vice-versa >>> and sometimes the debate on how genes evolve looks a bit like a >>> battle between competing religions. >>> >>> I would disagree with principles (1) and (2): As for (1) I sometimes >>> find that knowledge is transmitted via books or conversations or even >>> lectures but none of these transmissions seem to be genetic. As for >>> (2) we are not the sum of our ancestors because we are affected by >>> our upbringing, our culture, our education etc. (I don't see how >>> statement (2) could have been "proven" in the nineteenth century.) >>> >>> As for (3) and (4), I'm not certain what they mean. Can someone >>> explain them to me? >>> >>> --John >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf >>> Of Sarbajit Roy [[hidden email]] >>> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:09 AM >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> W.r.t to your pointwise comments to John's points. >>> This to me seems a clear case of reinventing the wheel. >>> It also seems that the inventors do not know that the wheel has been >>> invented. >>> >>> Referring to at least 5,000 years of evolved human history >>> http://brahmo.org/brahmoism-genetics-memetics.html >>> There is at least 1 religion (yes "religion" and not "science") which >>> holds as follows: >>> >>> "# 1) Information / knowledge is transmitted genetically (this was >>> experimentaly proveable in 19th century and is trivial to prove >>> today) # 2) That we are the sum of our ancestors # 3) That we contain >>> all our ancestors in our genes and our bodies and within us # 4) >>> Godhood of father." >>> >>> What is curious is that this "belief" (or variations) seems to span >>> many leading cultures separated by time and distance, and is used as >>> a device to propagate an "idea" or "belief" . >>> >>> I apologise for not being able to state the proposition in the formal >>> manner/practice of Judeo-Christian Western "civilisation" >>> >>> Sarbajit >>> >>> On 3/16/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> Hi, everybody, >>>> >>>> Am I the only person that the FRIAM server mucks with the head of? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Anyway, the following was sent in response to John Kennison's >>>> interesting set of questions concerning my gripes about the E. O. Wilson > interview. >>>> Yet, John never got it and it does not, so far as I can see, appear >>>> in the FRIAM archive. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So, here it is again, in case anyone else missed it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:[hidden email]] >>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:23 AM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for writing, John. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You missed the most important objection. Genes are not the object >>>> of greed. >>>> They are not analogous to coins, in reverse. With a nickel, it makes a >>>> difference whether it came from your pocket or mine. With genes, it >>>> only makes a difference which coin is in the pocket, not who put it > there. >>>> Genes >>>> are all about type, not token. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Comments on your specific points below: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> JK: I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" >>>> but I am not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several >>>> possible >>>> reasons: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Greed is a behavior pattern. An individual genes just >>>> makes a protein or tells another gene when to make a protein. >>>> Gene's can't vary their behavior in telic ways. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> JK:(2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >>>> competition between genes thus overlooking the competition between >>>> groups. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Well, as I suggested above, you are missing Wilson and >>>> Trivers focus on the INDIVIDUAL. To take the greed metaphor >>>> seriously, remember that gold is not greedy; it's people who are >>>> greedy for gold. Genetic greed (I think) is the idea that people are > eager to give away "their" >>>> genes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by > inducing >>>> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] I will agree with that position so long as you record my >>>> skepticism about how resemblance between parents and offspring comes >>>> about. >>>> Given the webby nature of genetic transmission, it's hard for me to >>>> see how it happens. I am inclined to think of the gene as a >>>> construction of evolution, as much as the basis for it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >>>> operate to benefit the group". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Well, that statement is patently false. Groups have evolved. >>>> The >>>> author confuses natural selection with evolution. And I do agree >>>> that natural selection does operate to benefit the group." >>>> [corrected in the current version - sorry.] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hard to disagree with an equation. Full stop. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Well, I prefer Evolutionary Psychology, which is more >>>> inclined to >>>> take history and development into account. But I am on board with > using >>>> evolutionary history as a way to understand human behavior. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] >>>> On Behalf Of John Kennison >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:51 AM >>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Nick, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I >>>> am not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several >>>> possible reasons: >>>> >>>> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >>>> >>>> (2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >>>> competition >>>> between genes thus overlooking the competition between groups. >>>> >>>> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by > inducing >>>> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >>>> >>>> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >>>> operate to benefit the group". >>>> >>>> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >>>> >>>> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >>>> >>>> Am I on the right track with any of these reasons? >>>> >>>> --John >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] >>>> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson >>>> [[hidden email]] >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:08 PM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am in a rain engulfed open plan, bay-side, house with 5 other >>>> adults and two kids, and many competitors for the one copy of the >>>> new Yorker, and for the space to rethink what I wrote. So it may be >>>> some time before I can get you a proper response. In the meantime, >>>> here is an improper one. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My explicit beef was with the interviewer, not with Wilson. It is >>>> certainly >>>> news to Wilson that, having believed something dumb for decades, he now >>>> comes, in old age, to the obvious truth. But why is it news to us?! >>>> The >>>> news, it seems to me, that there were a few people who stood up to the >>>> deluge of Reagen-biology that saturated the field, and it is to THOSE >>>> people, not Wilson, that we should look for insight. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am not sure there IS redemption for an academic who has killed off > many >>>> good ideas (and presumably graduate students) to make a towering > academic >>>> career, and then sees the truth in his dotage. At least, he has to do >>>> more >>>> than just change he mind. He has to make restitution: hasto pay back >>>> his >>>> royalties and recompense damages to those whom he has injured. And >>>> probably all the other items in the 12 step list, as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Worse than the belated discovery of the truth, is the belated discovery >>>> of >>>> foolishness. Perhaps the most dramatic instance of this was Donald >>>> Griffin, who after a career of tough minded neurophys, woke one day as a >>>> mentalist. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Oh was that ugly. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: <mailto:[hidden email]> [hidden email] >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:58 PM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But, Nick, later in the article it says, ".even as Wilson campaigned for >>>> sociobiology, he began to grow dismayed with the scientific framework >>>> that >>>> made it possible. 'I noticed that the foundations of inclusive fitness >>>> were >>>> crumbling,' Wilson says. 'The reasoning that had convinced me it was >>>> correct no longer held.' For instance, after pursuing Hamilton's >>>> haplodipoidy hypothesis, scientists discovered that many of the most >>>> cooperative insect species, such as termites and ambrosia beetles, >>>> weren't >>>> actually haplodiploid. Furthermore, tens of thousands of species that >>>> did >>>> manifest haplodiploidy never evolved eusociality-although these insects >>>> were >>>> closely related, they didn't share food or serve the queen.[Wilson] >>>> concluded that inclusive fitness was no longer a tenable concept." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Didn't he redeem himself by your lights? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank C. Wimberly >>>> >>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >>>> >>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Nicholas > Thompson >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:10 AM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Owen, etc., >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning how >>>> to >>>> access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can do is send >>>> you >>>> a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it >>>> now, >>>> I am in danger of experiencing "irk-guilt", but here it is, anyway. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the > individual >>>> thing that goes on in interviews. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist ." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0]> >>>> [cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:57 AM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank C. Wimberly >>>> >>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >>>> >>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> >>>> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]> >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> [mailto:[hidden email]]< >>>> <mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> >>>> mailto:[mailto:[hidden email]]> On Behalf Of Owen Densmore >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:10 AM >>>> >>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >>>> <mailto:[hidden email]%3cmailto:[hidden email]> >>>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Robert, 'n all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked > me, >>>> courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer> >>>> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, >>>> unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, >>>> unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |