Was human nature, now EvoDevo

[Nick Thompson]

Sorry.  Misspoke.  Don't really make a distinction between human nature and the human condition.  Each is a creation of the other.  they are dialectically intertwined.... or whatever.  So, you cant disagree with me on that point any more.  

 

So, let's take this occasion to transition to a different topic ... development.  I have been Sean Carroll's Endless Forms most Beautiful.  It is the forth book I have read written by a brilliant author designed to explain modern "EvoDevo" to the great unwashed.  And I have to say, I still don't quite "get it"  But I think I am beginning to understand why ... the metaphors they use are bad.  Nobody has come up with a good metaphor to come up with how we now know development to work.  How do we get pluris e uno?

 

The stunning discovery of the last 25 years is how widely and in what detail sequences of genes are similar among animals of widely different form.  The metaphor they use is of a genetic tool kit.  Even tho organisms have many different genes, they all share an essential toolkit.  Carroll actually depicts a little toolbox with cubbies  in for the "tools".  The DNA sequences in this basic, shared tool kit are often similar down to the last base.  So even though planaria, bees, octopi, and humans have wildly different eyes, the making of eyes in all of these species is dependent upon a shared sequence of genes that generate a shared bunch of proteins. 

 

But the tool kit metaphor leads Carroll into a ghastly anthropomorphic trap.  Once we have tools, we need a craftsman, right?  Well, in Carroll's hand, the tools themselves become the craftsmen.   So, in caption of a photography showing the embryonic development of a frog's "hand" we get the following:   "The BMP4 tool kit a gene marks the tissue between the digits that will die."  In general, reading the text, one is seduced into a vision of the genes or the proteins crawling over the embryo, measuring it out for this and that, and leaving stakes in the ground so that the different contractors that are coming along will know what to put where. 

 

Now, don't get me wrong.  I think Carroll's book is stupendous, and I would urge you all to drop what you are doing and order it on Amazon today.  Buy this "toolkit" thing  has to be wrong.  What is really going on is that fundamental physical asymmetries in the ovum are serving as cues that excite portions of embryo  to produce one or more of these "tookkit" proteins, which then defuse ac cross the embryo.   Then the concentration gradients of these proteins, in turn, serve as the cues for the production of proteins that further organize the portions of the embryo for further functions. 

 

So, assuming that I have this correctly, what would be  GOOD metaphor to encapsulate this process?  Remember, we have stipulated here repeatedly that all metaphors are faulted and that a GOOD metaphor is one whose faults do not encourage defunct notions of what is going on.  So, for instance, in matters of development, a GOOD metaphor should scrupulously avoid any implication of intelligence in its description of what these "organizing" proteins are doing. 

 

Does any one have a better metaphor?

 

If any of you are wondering why I am so verbose and wondering, further, when it will stop, try sending some decent weather to Massachusetts. 

Eleventh straight day of rain. 

 

N

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University ([hidden email])

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: 6/21/2009 11:42:22 AM

Subject: [FRIAM] vol 72, issue 25 response

I only wish to say that I disagree with the statement that "ethical behavior is built on human nature". It is the "human nature" part that I take issue with. I believe each person's sense of ethics comes from a combination of education/experiences, social network, physiological chemistry of that person, IQ, and genetic makeup. That combination causes a person to form a construct of ethics they rely on to defend their behavior. The only other part that throws a crux into their formula is the level of spiritual connection they have to the greater universe, and I am not yet unconvinced that that particular level of connection may also be a genetic thing.

 

thanks for listening.

Have a good day!

 

Peggy Miller

============================================================
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

[Russ Abbott]

It's beautiful here back in LA. So this will be short.

I read and enjoyed the book too. But I didn't find the metaphor misleading. (Perhaps I didn't take the metaphor seriously.) 

As a programmer, I'm used to having a program whose operational consequences depend on things in its environment. As a simple example, consider a loop that executes a certain number of times depending on a control parameter. If the loop is one of the tools in the toolkit and the parameter is one of the controls, the loop--which may generate one vertebra per loop, for example--will generate different numbers of vertebrae depending on the control parameter.

There's no intelligence or designer. It's a simple two-level construct (the mechanism and its control) that are both created by evolutionary processes. The vertebra-generating loop is one of the "tools" which appear on multiple organisms. The control parameter differs from one organism to another.

The problem is that not enough people know how to think like programmers. By the way, I mean that seriously.  See Jeanette Wang on computational thinking.

-- Russ

On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Sorry.  Misspoke.  Don't really make a distinction between human nature and the human condition.  Each is a creation of the other.  they are dialectically intertwined.... or whatever.  So, you cant disagree with me on that point any more.  

 

So, let's take this occasion to transition to a different topic ... development.  I have been Sean Carroll's Endless Forms most Beautiful.  It is the forth book I have read written by a brilliant author designed to explain modern "EvoDevo" to the great unwashed.  And I have to say, I still don't quite "get it"  But I think I am beginning to understand why ... the metaphors they use are bad.  Nobody has come up with a good metaphor to come up with how we now know development to work.  How do we get pluris e uno?

 

The stunning discovery of the last 25 years is how widely and in what detail sequences of genes are similar among animals of widely different form.  The metaphor they use is of a genetic tool kit.  Even tho organisms have many different genes, they all share an essential toolkit.  Carroll actually depicts a little toolbox with cubbies  in for the "tools".  The DNA sequences in this basic, shared tool kit are often similar down to the last base.  So even though planaria, bees, octopi, and humans have wildly different eyes, the making of eyes in all of these species is dependent upon a shared sequence of genes that generate a shared bunch of proteins. 

 

But the tool kit metaphor leads Carroll into a ghastly anthropomorphic trap.  Once we have tools, we need a craftsman, right?  Well, in Carroll's hand, the tools themselves become the craftsmen.   So, in caption of a photography showing the embryonic development of a frog's "hand" we get the following:   "The BMP4 tool kit a gene marks the tissue between the digits that will die."  In general, reading the text, one is seduced into a vision of the genes or the proteins crawling over the embryo, measuring it out for this and that, and leaving stakes in the ground so that the different contractors that are coming along will know what to put where. 

 

Now, don't get me wrong.  I think Carroll's book is stupendous, and I would urge you all to drop what you are doing and order it on Amazon today.  Buy this "toolkit" thing  has to be wrong.  What is really going on is that fundamental physical asymmetries in the ovum are serving as cues that excite portions of embryo  to produce one or more of these "tookkit" proteins, which then defuse ac cross the embryo.   Then the concentration gradients of these proteins, in turn, serve as the cues for the production of proteins that further organize the portions of the embryo for further functions. 

 

So, assuming that I have this correctly, what would be  GOOD metaphor to encapsulate this process?  Remember, we have stipulated here repeatedly that all metaphors are faulted and that a GOOD metaphor is one whose faults do not encourage defunct notions of what is going on.  So, for instance, in matters of development, a GOOD metaphor should scrupulously avoid any implication of intelligence in its description of what these "organizing" proteins are doing. 

 

Does any one have a better metaphor?

 

If any of you are wondering why I am so verbose and wondering, further, when it will stop, try sending some decent weather to Massachusetts. 

Eleventh straight day of rain. 

 

N

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University ([hidden email])

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: 6/21/2009 11:42:22 AM

Subject: [FRIAM] vol 72, issue 25 response

I only wish to say that I disagree with the statement that "ethical behavior is built on human nature". It is the "human nature" part that I take issue with. I believe each person's sense of ethics comes from a combination of education/experiences, social network, physiological chemistry of that person, IQ, and genetic makeup. That combination causes a person to form a construct of ethics they rely on to defend their behavior. The only other part that throws a crux into their formula is the level of spiritual connection they have to the greater universe, and I am not yet unconvinced that that particular level of connection may also be a genetic thing.

 

thanks for listening.

Have a good day!

 

Peggy Miller

============================================================
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

[Steve Smith]

Nick

Sorry.  Misspoke.  Don't really make a distinction between human nature and the human condition.  Each is a creation of the other.  they are dialectically intertwined.... or whatever.  So, you cant disagree with me on that point any more.

Ah, but it is Human Nature *and* the Human Condition to disagree (for fun and profit).

 

So, let's take this occasion to transition to a different topic ... development.

Embryological models then...?

And I have to say, I still don't quite "get it"  But I think I am beginning to understand why ... the metaphors they use are bad.  Nobody has come up with a good metaphor to come up with how we now know development to work. 

Metaphors are like (to use a Simile) using piecewise linear (or more apt for several reasons, piecewise sigmoids) curves to fit an arbitrary 1-D Function.   Each piece can be pretty good "locally" but begin with, but to stretch the application to far leads to disaster... thus the "piecewise".  Depending on the specific parameters of your linear (or sigmoidal) fit, there are regions where more than one parametric model (or metaphorical target domain) fit equally well and it only matters which one you choose if you know which direction you are headed away from the region of interest.

How do we get pluris e uno?

Eh?   All are One?   One are One?  We are all one?  All one vs Alone?  

The stunning discovery of the last 25 years is how widely and in what detail sequences of genes are similar among animals of widely different form.  The metaphor they use is of a genetic tool kit.  Even tho organisms have many different genes, they all share an essential toolkit.  Carroll actually depicts a little toolbox with cubbies  in for the "tools".  The DNA sequences in this basic, shared tool kit are often similar down to the last base.  So even though planaria, bees, octopi, and humans have wildly different eyes, the making of eyes in all of these species is dependent upon a shared sequence of genes that generate a shared bunch of proteins.

Actually I believe that eyes are the favorite example of multiple, parallel (and sometimes convergent) evolution.   That is not to say that they don't share some of the same basic proteins, but that their higher level structure (and coding) was (apparently) arrived at independently.  I think this might be more like noticing that many "stone age" cultures use "stone", "plant materials", and "animal products" for the basis of their technology.   The fact that around the world that many different cultures *knapped* stone and then lashed it onto sticks to make spears and arrows and then made atlatls and bows to hurl these missiles, seems more like the situation of re-invention/discovery of eyeballness across many genera.

...

what would be  GOOD metaphor to encapsulate this process?  Remember, we have stipulated here repeatedly that all metaphors are faulted and that a GOOD metaphor is one whose faults do not encourage defunct notions of what is going on.  So, for instance, in matters of development, a GOOD metaphor should scrupulously avoid any implication of intelligence in its description of what these "organizing" proteins are doing.

So... I've already used my simile of "piecewise curve fitting" to describe how (inherently multidimensional) metaphors work to model the "real" world in our language.   I believe that a GOOD metaphor has more properties than just having a "good fit" in the dimensions and range of a system/phenomena/concept we are modeling.   A minimally sufficient metaphor would have that.   And if it *also* yielded a *bad fit* in one or more dimensions (especially those which we hold high weight on) such as you describe here with the "toolkit metaphor" immediately calling forth the need of a "toolwielder".   So GOOD metaphor "fits" the phenomena well (within a relevant and desired subset of it's dimensions and range) without yielding "false positive" matches in the source domain ( such as the "tool wielder" example).  A GREAT metaphor has some other properties, such as being inherently parameterizeable.... such as if the "toolkit" had tools which could be more or less self-motivated/articulated and in invoking the metaphor, one could appeal to the more rather than less motivated/articulated nature.  Another property is that the metaphor can be deliberately "twisted" or "broken" to yield interesting variations.   I suspect the "toolkit metaphor" *does* get broken/twisted to fit, but not very gracefully it would seem.  Some metaphors seem more amenable to (deliberate and thoughtful) distortion than others.  Similarly, *mixing* metaphors can be very useful... blending between two.

 

Does any one have a better metaphor?

My training (or lack of imagination) leaves me thinking of gene expression and regulation in cybernetic terms... feedback loops, etc.   This is not new, so probably not useful to you in this case.

 

If any of you are wondering why I am so verbose and wondering, further, when it will stop, try sending some decent weather to Massachusetts. 

Eleventh straight day of rain. 

FWIW, I am enjoying your verbosity... and we've been having our own spate of wet weather here in NM... very nice for this time of year...

- Steve

============================================================
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

[Nick Thompson]

Steve,

 

Some little comments in blue.

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,

Clark University ([hidden email])

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: 6/21/2009 5:37:03 PM

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Was human nature, now EvoDevo

Nick

Sorry.  Misspoke.  Don't really make a distinction between human nature and the human condition.  Each is a creation of the other.  they are dialectically intertwined.... or whatever.  So, you cant disagree with me on that point any more.

Ah, but it is Human Nature *and* the Human Condition to disagree (for fun and profit).

 

So, let's take this occasion to transition to a different topic ... development.

Embryological models then...?

And I have to say, I still don't quite "get it"  But I think I am beginning to understand why ... the metaphors they use are bad.  Nobody has come up with a good metaphor to come up with how we now know development to work. 

Metaphors are like (to use a Simile) using piecewise linear (or more apt for several reasons, piecewise sigmoids) curves to fit an arbitrary 1-D Function.   Each piece can be pretty good "locally" but begin with, but to stretch the application to far leads to disaster... thus the "piecewise".  Depending on the specific parameters of your linear (or sigmoidal) fit, there are regions where more than one parametric model (or metaphorical target domain) fit equally well and it only matters which one you choose if you know which direction you are headed away from the region of interest.

How do we get pluris e uno?

 

nst --> I think the "e" means "from" "many from one"

Eh?   All are One?   One are One?  We are all one?  All one vs Alone?  

The stunning discovery of the last 25 years is how widely and in what detail sequences of genes are similar among animals of widely different form.  The metaphor they use is of a genetic tool kit.  Even tho organisms have many different genes, they all share an essential toolkit.  Carroll actually depicts a little toolbox with cubbies  in for the "tools".  The DNA sequences in this basic, shared tool kit are often similar down to the last base.  So even though planaria, bees, octopi, and humans have wildly different eyes, the making of eyes in all of these species is dependent upon a shared sequence of genes that generate a shared bunch of proteins.

Actually I believe that eyes are the favorite example of multiple, parallel (and sometimes convergent) evolution.   That is not to say that they don't share some of the same basic proteins, but that their higher level structure (and coding) was (apparently) arrived at independently. 

 

nst -->  I think Carroll would disagree with you.  It's the highest level of coding that seemst to be widely shared.  The Hox proteins and their like.

 

 I think this might be more like noticing that many "stone age" cultures use "stone", "plant materials", and "animal products" for the basis of their technology.   The fact that around the world that many different cultures *knapped* stone and then lashed it onto sticks to make spears and arrows and then made atlatls and bows to hurl these missiles, seems more like the situation of re-invention/discovery of eyeballness across many genera.

...

what would be  GOOD metaphor to encapsulate this process?  Remember, we have stipulated here repeatedly that all metaphors are faulted and that a GOOD metaphor is one whose faults do not encourage defunct notions of what is going on.  So, for instance, in matters of development, a GOOD metaphor should scrupulously avoid any implication of intelligence in its description of what these "organizing" proteins are doing.

 

So... I've already used my simile of "piecewise curve fitting" to describe how (inherently multidimensional) metaphors work to model the "real" world in our language.   I believe that a GOOD metaphor has more properties than just having a "good fit" in the dimensions and range of a system/phenomena/concept we are modeling.   A minimally sufficient metaphor would have that.   And if it *also* yielded a *bad fit* in one or more dimensions (especially those which we hold high weight on) such as you describe here with the "toolkit metaphor" immediately calling forth the need of a "toolwielder".   So GOOD metaphor "fits" the phenomena well (within a relevant and desired subset of it's dimensions and range) without yielding "false positive" matches in the source domain ( such as the "tool wielder" example).  A GREAT metaphor has some other properties, such as being inherently parameterizeable.... such as if the "toolkit" had tools which could be more or less self-motivated/articulated and in invoking the metaphor, one could appeal to the more rather than less motivated/articulated nature.  Another property is that the metaphor can be deliberately "twisted" or "broken" to yield interesting variations.   I suspect the "toolkit metaphor" *does* get broken/twisted to fit, but not very gracefully it would seem.  Some metaphors seem more amenable to (deliberate and thoughtful) distortion than others.  Similarly, *mixing* metaphors can be very useful... blending between two.

 

nst -->  Steve, I would really like to sit down and study this text with you.  I have been reading on all day, and the metaphoric stew gets lumpier and lumpier with each passing paragraph.  I read one paragraph with 8 different metaphors in it, all more or less inconsistent. 

 

Does any one have a better metaphor?

My training (or lack of imagination) leaves me thinking of gene expression and regulation in cybernetic terms... feedback loops, etc.   This is not new, so probably not useful to you in this case.

 

nst --> Well, not so fast!  I think metaphors from control systems are natural here.  The more carrol writes, also, the more parallels I see between a gene and a motor neuron. 

 

If any of you are wondering why I am so verbose and wondering, further, when it will stop, try sending some decent weather to Massachusetts. 

Eleventh straight day of rain. 

FWIW, I am enjoying your verbosity... and we've been having our own spate of wet weather here in NM... very nice for this time of year...

- Steve

============================================================
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