RE: Friam Digest, Vol 22, Issue 32

[Nick Thompson]

Martin,

I will pick it up at borders this afternoon.

One thing I should make clear, first thing, is that it is biological
development that I am thinking of... the trek from traits of parents to
traits of offspring.  I guess, putting it that way, I committ myself to the
view that the gene one of many waystations along that path, rather than the
beginning of it.

The correspondence is already making me realize that which model one
applies most readily to development is likely to depend on whether one
thinks of it as a process that produces variety or a process that produces
similarity. Of course it produces both, but bear with me, all the same.  

 So lets imagine that Paul and Paula get married and have 4 children, fred,
fran, fredda and frodo.  Now if we are amazed by how different the 4
members of the F1 generation are, how spirited is freda, how steady is
frodo, how altheletic is fran, how studieous frodo.  Such an outcome might
lead us consider branching metaphors, or artistic,metaphors, chess, even,
etc.  But if were amazed by how the four children all manage to grow up as
people -- at least after they bypass adolescence -- , how each has two
eyes, a nose, mouth and behaves in ways that are broadly similar to other
people, and different in many respects to chimpanzees -- then one one might
be likely to choose more telic metaphors, metaphors with feedforward
mechanisms built in.  

This latter class of metaphors is the kind I am having trouble generating.  

thanks for helping me out here.

Nick



One thing that is becoming clear to

Nicholas S. Thompson
Professor of Psychology and Ethology
Clark University
[hidden email]
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/
 [hidden email]

> [Original Message]
> From: <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Date: 4/30/2005 10:00:26 AM
> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 22, Issue 32
>
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> [hidden email]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> [hidden email]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> [hidden email]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Models of Development (Martin C. Martin)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:39:07 -0400
> From: "Martin C. Martin" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Models of Development
> To: [hidden email], The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > J-
> >
> > These are great and I will chase them down;  but I was asking a more
> > PERSONAL question.  What models do you employ when you think about
> > development.  What other concrete processes is it LIKE.
>
> This book, which describes the recent advances in evolutionary
> development for the lay reader:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192862081
>
> argues that the best metaphor is creating a work of art.  Just given the
> starting state, it's unclear where things will go, and in fact, as
> things start to take shape, they are some times revised, like painting
> over a part of a scene that you didn't like.
>
> Don't be confused by the fact that development is deterministic (at the
> highest level anyway); it can still resemble a creative process.
>
> If you're looking for the right model or metaphor, it's definitely worth
> a read.
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> End of Friam Digest, Vol 22, Issue 32
> *************************************

[Martin C. Martin]

Nicholas Thompson wrote:

>  Now if we are amazed by how different the 4
> members of the F1 generation are, how spirited is freda, how steady is
> frodo, how altheletic is fran, how studieous frodo.  Such an outcome might
> lead us consider branching metaphors, or artistic,metaphors, chess, even,
> etc.  

The motivation for the artistic metaphor isn't similarity or differences
of different offspring.  It's that the end result (the adult) is
hard/impossible to predict from the genes, or even from the early
stages.  Genes aren't like a blueprint, where parts of the adult map to
genes (except in a few cases).  They're not like an algorithm or
assembly instructions, saying what to do next.  Those are the two
biggest metaphors for genes, but they're poor metaphors for the behavior
of genes, development, and all that.  The book argues that a better
metaphor would incorporate the fact that it's a complex system, with
constant interaction between the environment, the body, and the genes.
It explores the relationship between artist and canvas as an appropriate
model.

Best,
Martin