Simulated annealing

[Nick Thompson]

All,

I am so confused here I have to ask, are we shifting from the question of
whether INHERITANCE  is possible in a world of complexity to the question
of whether ADAPTATION is possible in a world of complexity?

Are these the same questions?  I think they are over lapping questions, BUT
at the moment I am MOST interested in the first.  In fact, what is unique
about Schank and Wimsatt is their focus on the first, when the literature
has become focussed exclusively on the latter.  

Does this make ANY sense?

I am still mindful that I am filling up a LOT of inboxes with this and will
"cut off" anybody who hasnt responded in a little bit.

Thanks for your patience.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
nickthompson at earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson


> [Original Message]
> From: David Sloan Wilson <dwilson at binghamton.edu>
> To: <lrudolph at black.clarku.edu>
> Cc: <ppgb at cam.ac.uk>; <rsokol at clarku.edu>; echarles
<echarles at clarku.edu>; Jaan Valsiner <jvalsiner at clarku.edu>; jogreen
<jogreen at clarku.edu>; <friam at redfish.com>; elescak <elescak at clarku.edu>;
<nickthompson at earthlink.net>; <jcschank at ucdavis.edu>; Carl Tollander
<carl at plektyx.com>; sbarr <sbarr at clarku.edu>; Gbarker
<Gbarker at bucknell.edu>; <w-wimsatt at uchicago.edu>

> Date: 5/21/2006 1:55:40 PM
> Subject: Simulated annealing
>
> A quick comment about "simulated annealing." If I understand it
> correctly, it can move a system from smaller to larger basins of
> attraction, but stability does not equal adaptation. There are some
> very dysfunctional systems that are also very stable, as we know too
> well for human social systems. Insofar as the adaptedness of a system
> and the size its basin of attraction are uncorrelated, simulated
> annealing will not lead to the evolution of adaptive systems, in
> contrast to selection among alternative local equilibria.
>
> By the way, there is a small literature on this concept in the economic
> and evolutionary literature under the term   "equilibrium selection."
>
> d.
>
> On May 21, 2006, at 12:09 PM, lrudolph at meganet.net wrote:
>
> > To paraphrase the friend of the Dustin Hoffman character's
> > parents at the graduation party, "Just two words: simulated
> > annealing."  Accepting arguendo that "a parameter space with
> > many local stable equilibria" is the appropriate model, I still don't
> > see why it can't happen that--even "When a biological system is
> > in the basin of attraction for a particular local equilibrium" and is
> > thus "generatively entrenched"--the (metaphorical) heat might
> > not get turned up and down irregularly, allowing some systems
> > to jump out of one basin of attraction (when they've been heated
> > up) and then settle into another more or less nearby basin (when
> > they cool down).
> >
> > I don't know your literature, so for all I know this kind of thing
> > has been considered and debunked long ago, but my new friends
> > in the protein-conformation-modelling community seem to be willing
> > to do S.A. all the time. (I don't know if they claim it's happening *in
> > the biological system* where the protein is being assembled; they
> > may *only* be using it artefactually inside the black-box part of
> > their model, to get the model out of locally energy-minimizing
> > conformations that aren't physically realistic so that it can have
> > a better chance of falling into a more realistic local stable
> > equilibrium.  But I do know they use it.)
> >
> >
> >> Hi everybody,
> >>
> >> Forgive me for casting such a wide net, but we seem to be skating very
> >> close to what Carl Tollander calls "artificial epigenesis and I want
> >> to
> >> keep the conversation as open as possible until I see who is
> >> interested.
> >>
> >> David Wilson (attached and below) has taken the discussion in the
> >> direction
> >> I hoped it might turn .... that selection might consist of unstable
> >> relations amongst stable arrays. Everybody is talking as if the
> >> elements in
> >> the arrays are genes, but there is no particular reason not to include
> >> epigenetic nodes as well.   The implication for my question on
> >> inheritance
> >> is that all the chaos in the genetic-epigenitic system is going on a
> >> level
> >> BELOW where selection is going on.  This might seem to beg the
> >> question
> >> concerning inheritance ... what "force" holds together the stable
> >> arrays?
> >> However, at this early stage of my reading, Wimsatt and Schank seem
> >> to be
> >> saying that the stable arrays are high  entropy .. i.e., they hang
> >> together
> >> because that's where randomization takes them.
> >>
> >> I am very excited about all of this, as you can see, but as you can
> >> also
> >> see, I should shut up and go back to reading before I say more.  
> >> Thanks for
> >> your patience.  Be sure to read the message below and the attachment
> >> if you
> >> are interested.
> >>
> >> thanks, all,
> >>
> >> Nick
> >>
> >> Nicholas Thompson
> >> nickthompson at earthlink.net
> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson
> >>
> >>
> >>> [Original Message]
> >>> From: David Sloan Wilson <dwilson at binghamton.edu>
> >>> To: <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
> >>> Date: 5/21/2006 8:35:45 AM
> >>> Subject: Heritability and generative entrenchment
> >>>
> >>> Dear Nick,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your interesting message. I'm sending this reply to you
> >>> only
> >>> rather than the whole group--I'll let you be the judge of what the
> >>> whole group sees and in what manner.
> >>>
> >>> Consider a parameter space with many local stable equilibria.  When a
> >>> biological system is in the basin of attraction for a particular
> >>> local
> >>> equilibrium, it is generatively entrenched and here is a problem for
> >>> heritability. However, there can still be selection among multiple
> >>> basins of attraction, providing a concept of heritability. I discuss
> >>> this in the following paper titled "Natural Selection and Complex
> >>> Systems: a complex interaction."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> David Sloan Wilson
> Professor, Departments of Biology and Anthropology
> Binghamton University
> Binghamton, New York 13902-6000
> tel: [phone] fax: [phone]
> dwilson at binghamton.edu
> http://biology.binghamton.edu/dwilson/
>
> Are YOU the kind of person who supports worthy causes? Then consider
> supporting EvoS, arguably the boldest experiment in evolution education
> anywhere. Your contribution is tax-deductable and 90% goes directly to
> EvoS-related activities. See the EvoS website for details:
> http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~evos/