random v stochastic v indeterminate

[Steve Smith]

Nick -

Thanks for allowing me to sling irresponsible  insults at you with impunity.  It has been VERY helpful to my recovery.  You might consider opening a clinic. 

One of my favorite authors, Chuck Palahnuik, wrote a protaganist who visits his mother in a dementia/alzheimer's ward every day where the other women there constantly mistake him for some male in their life who wronged them early in their lives.  At first he argued with them and tried to convince them that he wasn't "THAT funny uncle", etc.   Eventually he discovered it was easier for him to just give over to them and accept whatever identity they "needed" him to have and then began to embrace the roles they caste him into, acknowledging whatever perceived harm his character had leveled on them and then apologizing for that action profusely.   It was cathartic for them and he realized he  was making their day.  Of course, he had to repeat it every visit "groundhog day" style.   Palahnuik (who wrote Fight Club also) writes fascinatingly obtuse characters.

I considered calling “quantum randomness” “notional”, but I wasn’t sure WTF I meant by that.  There’s a dimension here I am groping to express.  Quantum randomness and natural selection and gene are way out on that dimension as things we believe in the concreteness of, yet they are far from our concrete experience.  We experience them as foundations of our thought, yet we never see them.  I guess the best I can say at this point is that something about that makes me uneasy. 

I share your uneasiness, but mine may penetrate deeper (shallower?) into the less esoteric models.   I mentioned my own strong intuitive preference for a "flat earth" and "earth-centric" celestial system, even if my *intellect* believes it could recognize the anomalies those models exhibit and resolve "the facts" more better with the "new and improved" models.

I want to push back on “evolution just is”.  Evolution is a way, and not other ways.  Evolution is more directly presented to experience than is natural selection.  Natural selection is the very abstract idea that resolves problems and paradoxes raised in Darwin’s imagination by his “experience” of evolution.   Just as “gene” is a “pseudo-concrete” idea  that resolves paradoxes and problems raised in Mendel’s pea-patch.

I have to agree with this.   I don't mean to say "I know without any doubt that evolution just is" but rather, "if evolution IS, then it JUST is", rather perhaps than "it's nature needs/affords to be belabored".   Maybe a more fundamental article of faith than "natural selection" or "gene" or "metabolic pathway" are.   I'm not sure evolution is directly observable, but the artifacts we find CAN perceive directly seem more directly mapped to it as a model than for example, "natural selection"?   I suspect for another group of "true believers", THEIR fundamental models (e.g. omnipotent patriarchal creator/punisher/forgiver/mystery-maker) are just as fundamental?  "God/Goddess just is"?

 

I too am awaiting Dave’s summary.  I have ordered the book from the library.  I wish I were there to take Dave’s course.

I imagine you to return to SFe in September each year, do I have my calendar wrong?

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

This paragraph (for whatever reason) makes progress toward my counter-argument AGAINST both Monod-via-Grant and Wagner-via-Jenny.  While it may be true that mutation is necessary for innovation, it's insufficient to claim that innovation comes only through mutation.  Imagine two point mutations on different genes, in different individuals, neither of which (for now) produce a phenotype change (ala "neutral networks").  Then those individuals go on to reproduce for a few generations, passing along their respective mutations, never seeing a phenotypic change in their lineages.  But them the two lineages mingle to produce an offspring with both mutations, where the 2 mutations together produce a phenotypic change.

Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?


On 08/11/2017 09:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of the code.   A "mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said genetic sequence (a changed protein, a modified level of production of an unmodified protein or set of same, etc.) and ultimately in the mature phenotype (if the precursors to this are viable enough for a mature specimen to arrive?) and beyond that the larger social unit (herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or suffer from the behaviour of the individual experiencing the mutation. Add individuals with a mutation in their bone-production that causes extremely large cross-section bones and thick crania into the Vikings and you get (what has been hypothesized to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a blind rage when their blood pressure rises in response to threat.  As long as they are pointing *toward* the enemy when that happens, it is (maybe) highly functional for the group to have you around?


--
␦glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Glen writes:

"Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?"

A function related by rotation might be a candidate for crossover.

f(x,y,z,...) -> good

f(y,z,x,...) -> good

f(z,x,y,...) -> good

f(x,z,y,...) -> bad

Going through the combinations just by using mutation takes forever.  But splicing at different points would help.   One could imagine for motor functions these symmetry or shift detectors could be important.   (Here it is just 1 dimensional.)

Marcus

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of ┣glen┫ <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 9:49:41 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

This paragraph (for whatever reason) makes progress toward my counter-argument AGAINST both Monod-via-Grant and Wagner-via-Jenny.  While it may be true that mutation is necessary for innovation, it's insufficient to claim that innovation comes only through mutation.  Imagine two point mutations on different genes, in different individuals, neither of which (for now) produce a phenotype change (ala "neutral networks").  Then those individuals go on to reproduce for a few generations, passing along their respective mutations, never seeing a phenotypic change in their lineages.  But them the two lineages mingle to produce an offspring with both mutations, where the 2 mutations together produce a phenotypic change.

Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?


On 08/11/2017 09:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of the code.   A "mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said genetic sequence (a changed protein, a modified level of production of an unmodified protein or set of same, etc.) and ultimately in the mature phenotype (if the precursors to this are viable enough for a mature specimen to arrive?) and beyond that the larger social unit (herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or suffer from the behaviour of the individual experiencing the mutation. Add individuals with a mutation in their bone-production that causes extremely large cross-section bones and thick crania into the Vikings and you get (what has been hypothesized to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a blind rage when their blood pressure rises in response to threat.  As long as they are pointing *toward* the enemy when that happens, it is (maybe) highly functional for the group to have you around?


--
␦glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

Exactly.  And even though we're conflating the model of evolution with the real thing, I find it difficult to believe the "space" operated on by evolution is entirely convex or even connected.  So, (point) mutation alone may *never* reach some regions, regardless of infinite individuals, infinite generations, or infinite space and time.

On 08/12/2017 09:07 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

> "Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?"
>
> A function related by rotation might be a candidate for crossover.
>
> f(x,y,z,...) -> good
> f(y,z,x,...) -> good
> f(z,x,y,...) -> good
> f(x,z,y,...) -> bad
>
> Going through the combinations just by using mutation takes forever.  But splicing at different points would help.   One could imagine for motor functions these symmetry or shift detectors could be important.   (Here it is just 1 dimensional.)

--
␦glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Glen writes:

"I find it difficult to believe the "space" operated on by evolution is entirely convex or even connected."

I've never tried this approach, but it seems plausible.  The link may be pay-walled, but the gist is to evolve fancier operators using masking of the genome.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13369-015-1869-5

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of ┣glen┫ <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 10:14:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

Exactly.  And even though we're conflating the model of evolution with the real thing, I find it difficult to believe the "space" operated on by evolution is entirely convex or even connected.  So, (point) mutation alone may *never* reach some regions, regardless of infinite individuals, infinite generations, or infinite space and time.

On 08/12/2017 09:07 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> "Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?"
>
> A function related by rotation might be a candidate for crossover.
>
> f(x,y,z,...) -> good
> f(y,z,x,...) -> good
> f(z,x,y,...) -> good
> f(x,z,y,...) -> bad
>
> Going through the combinations just by using mutation takes forever.  But splicing at different points would help.   One could imagine for motor functions these symmetry or shift detectors could be important.   (Here it is just 1 dimensional.)

--
␦glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Grant Holland]

Glen,

Actually, I think you are probably right about crossovers! I can see how innovation can be attributed to them too. Thanks for pointing that out, Glen. (Had crossovers been discovered in '72 when Monod wrote his book?)

But that is because crossovers, too, like mutations, are stochastic. Chance strikes again! That really is my larger point.

Moreover, crossover and mutation events do not seem to be causally related. I suspect that one is not caused by the other. Their relationship is also non-deterministic. In fact, one could probably use the functional named conditional entropy (from information theory) to calculate the degree of uncertainty around their chance relationship. (Or the functional mutual information to measure their degree of determinism.) YES, chance and determinism come in degrees. That's what stochastic entropy is all about. It measures that degree. It measures where on a scale of chance-vs-determinism a particular situation (probability space) resides.

Cheers, and thx for the insight.

G.

On 8/12/17 9:49 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:

This paragraph (for whatever reason) makes progress toward my counter-argument AGAINST both Monod-via-Grant and Wagner-via-Jenny.  While it may be true that mutation is necessary for innovation, it's insufficient to claim that innovation comes only through mutation.  Imagine two point mutations on different genes, in different individuals, neither of which (for now) produce a phenotype change (ala "neutral networks").  Then those individuals go on to reproduce for a few generations, passing along their respective mutations, never seeing a phenotypic change in their lineages.  But them the two lineages mingle to produce an offspring with both mutations, where the 2 mutations together produce a phenotypic change.

Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?


On 08/11/2017 09:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of the code.   A "mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said genetic sequence (a changed protein, a modified level of production of an unmodified protein or set of same, etc.) and ultimately in the mature phenotype (if the precursors to this are viable enough for a mature specimen to arrive?) and beyond that the larger social unit (herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or suffer from the behaviour of the individual experiencing the mutation. Add individuals with a mutation in their bone-production that causes extremely large cross-section bones and thick crania into the Vikings and you get (what has been hypothesized to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a blind rage when their blood pressure rises in response to threat.  As long as they are pointing *toward* the enemy when that happens, it is (maybe) highly functional for the group to have you around?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Steve Smith]

On 8/12/17 9:49 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:
> This paragraph (for whatever reason) makes progress toward my counter-argument AGAINST both Monod-via-Grant and Wagner-via-Jenny.  While it may be true that mutation is necessary for innovation, it's insufficient to claim that innovation comes only through mutation.  Imagine two point mutations on different genes, in different individuals, neither of which (for now) produce a phenotype change (ala "neutral networks").  Then those individuals go on to reproduce for a few generations, passing along their respective mutations, never seeing a phenotypic change in their lineages.  But them the two lineages mingle to produce an offspring with both mutations, where the 2 mutations together produce a phenotypic change.
>
> Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?
Hmmm... I THINK what you are describing is a LATENT expression of a
mutation?  The fact that the mutation in each genome was "neutral" until
it mixed or encountered the other, doesn't deny the mutation(s) nor does
it negate the idea that it's expression and (recursive propogation
through natural selection) preserved the innovation implied by the
convolved pair of mutations?

I think a similar, higher frequency example might include a single
mutation which when mixed with some genomes is "neutral" or benign but
when mixed with a particularly different one has selective (positive or
negative) value?   There may be something in there in the whole
Malaria/SickleCell duality for example?   Or maybe I'm mixing apples and
pears.

- Steve
>
>
> On 08/11/2017 09:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>> Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of the code.   A "mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said genetic sequence (a changed protein, a modified level of production of an unmodified protein or set of same, etc.) and ultimately in the mature phenotype (if the precursors to this are viable enough for a mature specimen to arrive?) and beyond that the larger social unit (herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or suffer from the behaviour of the individual experiencing the mutation. Add individuals with a mutation in their bone-production that causes extremely large cross-section bones and thick crania into the Vikings and you get (what has been hypothesized to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a blind rage when their blood pressure rises in response to threat.  As long as they are pointing *toward* the enemy when that happens, it is (maybe) highly functional for the group to have you around?
>


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Steve Smith]

your point about "point mutations" and non-connected spaces (not
connected by point mutations anyway) is well taken and is what I think
your last message that I was calling "latent" (expression) is about.

 From my daughter's sage anecdotal claims about Cancer,  it seems that
something like 7 independent cellular reproduction mechanisms have to
fail or be jiggered for cancer to emerge in healthy cells.   I don't
know if that literally means 7 independent mutations must occur
simultaneously or if more likely 7 have to "accumulate", which seems
more likely, and follows (I think) your example.   In the light of this
discussion, I should probably ask her for a more thorough description of
what she meant by all of that.

In the socio/political/religious/economic realm it seems that multiple
simultaneous mutations are more obvious to observe.   I think we see
humans mis-copy their memetic code (misinterpret their holy scriptures,
or their parents or masters teachings, etc.) very often and sometimes in
several dimensions at once. Perhaps the "robustness" of the underlying
unit (a human being) allows for such wild mutations (highly antisocial
behaviour by most measures) in a single copy, is what allows for what
seems like some fairly fast memetic evolution at the social level?

i'm probably reaching here, but in this petri dish that is the USA with
Trump or the first world with Trump, et al, or even the globally
connected (bits, atoms, virus particles, memes, oh my!) first, second
and third world there is likely to be some relatively unprecedented
mutations recognized and even selected for.  Some could say that Donald
Trump represents a half-dozen (or more) mutations in the
socio/economic/political code and yet HE WAS SELECTED FOR and is almost
surely malignant and seems to be metastasizing (other populist whitelash
fascist movements around the first world).  The question in this
metaphor might be whether the body (humankind) has the ability to fight
back against this? It fits my Candide/Pollyanna idea that times such as
these are good times to focus significant resources on simply "tending
your own garden".    The world will have a better chance of fighting off
this malignancy if it maintains it's overall health (social, economic,
spiritual) otherwise.   We can't let this malignancy weaken our immune
system any more than it already has.

buh,

  - Steve


On 8/12/17 10:14 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:

> Exactly.  And even though we're conflating the model of evolution with the real thing, I find it difficult to believe the "space" operated on by evolution is entirely convex or even connected.  So, (point) mutation alone may *never* reach some regions, regardless of infinite individuals, infinite generations, or infinite space and time.
>
> On 08/12/2017 09:07 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> "Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?"
>>
>> A function related by rotation might be a candidate for crossover.
>>
>> f(x,y,z,...) -> good
>> f(y,z,x,...) -> good
>> f(z,x,y,...) -> good
>> f(x,z,y,...) -> bad
>>
>> Going through the combinations just by using mutation takes forever.  But splicing at different points would help.   One could imagine for motor functions these symmetry or shift detectors could be important.   (Here it is just 1 dimensional.)

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Steve writes:

"The question in this
metaphor might be whether the body (humankind) has the ability to fight
back against this? It fits my Candide/Pollyanna idea that times such as
these are good times to focus significant resources on simply "tending
your own garden".    The world will have a better chance of fighting off
this malignancy if it maintains it's overall health (social, economic,
spiritual) otherwise.   We can't let this malignancy weaken our immune
system any more than it already has."

I noticed a liberal neighbor of mine that used to drive an inconspicuous car now has a new Range Rover.   I wonder if it was retail therapy, or maybe I was just projecting?  Does that count as "tending your own garden"?   While the storm passes she'll have a nice ride.  Or maybe it won't pass and she just wants to be sure she can get around after public services collapse?

Marcus

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Steven A Smith <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 1:10:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

your point about "point mutations" and non-connected spaces (not
connected by point mutations anyway) is well taken and is what I think
your last message that I was calling "latent" (expression) is about.

 From my daughter's sage anecdotal claims about Cancer,  it seems that
something like 7 independent cellular reproduction mechanisms have to
fail or be jiggered for cancer to emerge in healthy cells.   I don't
know if that literally means 7 independent mutations must occur
simultaneously or if more likely 7 have to "accumulate", which seems
more likely, and follows (I think) your example.   In the light of this
discussion, I should probably ask her for a more thorough description of
what she meant by all of that.

In the socio/political/religious/economic realm it seems that multiple
simultaneous mutations are more obvious to observe.   I think we see
humans mis-copy their memetic code (misinterpret their holy scriptures,
or their parents or masters teachings, etc.) very often and sometimes in
several dimensions at once. Perhaps the "robustness" of the underlying
unit (a human being) allows for such wild mutations (highly antisocial
behaviour by most measures) in a single copy, is what allows for what
seems like some fairly fast memetic evolution at the social level?

i'm probably reaching here, but in this petri dish that is the USA with
Trump or the first world with Trump, et al, or even the globally
connected (bits, atoms, virus particles, memes, oh my!) first, second
and third world there is likely to be some relatively unprecedented
mutations recognized and even selected for.  Some could say that Donald
Trump represents a half-dozen (or more) mutations in the
socio/economic/political code and yet HE WAS SELECTED FOR and is almost
surely malignant and seems to be metastasizing (other populist whitelash
fascist movements around the first world).  The question in this
metaphor might be whether the body (humankind) has the ability to fight
back against this? It fits my Candide/Pollyanna idea that times such as
these are good times to focus significant resources on simply "tending
your own garden".    The world will have a better chance of fighting off
this malignancy if it maintains it's overall health (social, economic,
spiritual) otherwise.   We can't let this malignancy weaken our immune
system any more than it already has.

buh,

  - Steve


On 8/12/17 10:14 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:
> Exactly.  And even though we're conflating the model of evolution with the real thing, I find it difficult to believe the "space" operated on by evolution is entirely convex or even connected.  So, (point) mutation alone may *never* reach some regions, regardless of infinite individuals, infinite generations, or infinite space and time.
>
> On 08/12/2017 09:07 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> "Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?"
>>
>> A function related by rotation might be a candidate for crossover.
>>
>> f(x,y,z,...) -> good
>> f(y,z,x,...) -> good
>> f(z,x,y,...) -> good
>> f(x,z,y,...) -> bad
>>
>> Going through the combinations just by using mutation takes forever.  But splicing at different points would help.   One could imagine for motor functions these symmetry or shift detectors could be important.   (Here it is just 1 dimensional.)


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Nick Thompson]

Mendel discovered  cross-overs.

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

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

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Grant Holland
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 1:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>; ┣glen┫ <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

Glen,

Actually, I think you are probably right about crossovers! I can see how innovation can be attributed to them too. Thanks for pointing that out, Glen. (Had crossovers been discovered in '72 when Monod wrote his book?)

But that is because crossovers, too, like mutations, are stochastic. Chance strikes again! That really is my larger point.

Moreover, crossover and mutation events do not seem to be causally related. I suspect that one is not caused by the other. Their relationship is also non-deterministic. In fact, one could probably use the functional named conditional entropy (from information theory) to calculate the degree of uncertainty around their chance relationship. (Or the functional mutual information to measure their degree of determinism.) YES, chance and determinism come in degrees. That's what stochastic entropy is all about. It measures that degree. It measures where on a scale of chance-vs-determinism a particular situation (probability space) resides.

Cheers, and thx for the insight.

G.

 

On 8/12/17 9:49 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:

This paragraph (for whatever reason) makes progress toward my counter-argument AGAINST both Monod-via-Grant and Wagner-via-Jenny.  While it may be true that mutation is necessary for innovation, it's insufficient to claim that innovation comes only through mutation.  Imagine two point mutations on different genes, in different individuals, neither of which (for now) produce a phenotype change (ala "neutral networks").  Then those individuals go on to reproduce for a few generations, passing along their respective mutations, never seeing a phenotypic change in their lineages.  But them the two lineages mingle to produce an offspring with both mutations, where the 2 mutations together produce a phenotypic change.

Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation" ... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it?  A neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?

On 08/11/2017 09:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of the code.   A "mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said genetic sequence (a changed protein, a modified level of production of an unmodified protein or set of same, etc.) and ultimately in the mature phenotype (if the precursors to this are viable enough for a mature specimen to arrive?) and beyond that the larger social unit (herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or suffer from the behaviour of the individual experiencing the mutation. Add individuals with a mutation in their bone-production that causes extremely large cross-section bones and thick crania into the Vikings and you get (what has been hypothesized to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a blind rage when their blood pressure rises in response to threat.  As long as they are pointing *toward* the enemy when that happens, it is (maybe) highly functional for the group to have you around?

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

I absolutely loathe the meme metaphor.  I don't usually agree with Nick's distinction between metaphor and analogy.  8^)  But here, I claim the meme isn't *anything* like a gene... or more clearly, there is no idea/thought construct that is anything like a gene.

To explain why I hate it so much, we can try to think deeply about the nazi that killed the antifa yesterday in Charlottesville and Trump's response to it (blaming all sides).  To be clear, anyone who continues defending their vote for Trump at this point should be held accountable for their idiotic choice.  But the Trump defender will say something like "Trump's not a racist or a nazi, even if some of his followers are."  And, "yes I support Trump.  But I'm not a nazi."  Pffft.  It flat out does not matter.  There is no analog for mutation or crossover that we can use to map Trump to his nazis.  The gooey milieu that flows from someone like Trump, whose life of privilege has severely decoupled him from reality, to the nazis, whose fear and hatred has severely decoupled them from reality, ... that gooey ball of ill-formed ideology can't be coupled to reality.  That's the problem with metaphor, ideology, and fantasy.  To make reductive attempts to model such fantasy with analogies to real things (like genes) is to conflate fantasy with reality.

To be as clear as I can, ideas can only track back to mechanisms when they sync up with reality.  That's why (observational) science is so successful.  There are (basically) 2 ways ideas can interact with reality: 1) methodologically and 2) neural correlates.  If a ball of ideas includes (in its not biological evolution) a method for regularly testing itself against reality, then it's possible to analogize between that ball of ideas and reality.  Neither Trump, nor his nazis include that.  So, the only remaining map we can draw from the ideas to reality is any neural correlates we can find.  And until we have those, mapping the ideas to genes dooms us to faulty (at best) or delusional (at worst) inferences.

Now, everyone I know who uses the words "meme" and "memetics" is relatively scientifically literate.  So, memetics *seems* plausible because it's only used by relatively clear thinkers about relatively reality-touching balls of ideas.  But I would bet money that memetics will fail miserably if we try to use it to explain or model fantasy-dominated people like Trump and his supporters.



On 08/12/2017 12:10 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> In the socio/political/religious/economic realm it seems that multiple simultaneous mutations are more obvious to observe.   I think we see humans mis-copy their memetic code (misinterpret their holy scriptures, or their parents or masters teachings, etc.) very often and sometimes in several dimensions at once. Perhaps the "robustness" of the underlying unit (a human being) allows for such wild mutations (highly antisocial behaviour by most measures) in a single copy, is what allows for what seems like some fairly fast memetic evolution at the social level?
>
> i'm probably reaching here, but in this petri dish that is the USA with Trump or the first world with Trump, et al, or even the globally connected (bits, atoms, virus particles, memes, oh my!) first, second and third world there is likely to be some relatively unprecedented mutations recognized and even selected for.  Some could say that Donald Trump represents a half-dozen (or more) mutations in the socio/economic/political code and yet HE WAS SELECTED FOR and is almost surely malignant and seems to be metastasizing (other populist whitelash fascist movements around the first world).  The question in this metaphor might be whether the body (humankind) has the ability to fight back against this? It fits my Candide/Pollyanna idea that times such as these are good times to focus significant resources on simply "tending your own garden".    The world will have a better chance of fighting off this malignancy if it maintains it's overall health (social, economic, spiritual)
> otherwise.   We can't let this malignancy weaken our immune system any more than it already has.

--
␦glen?
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Steve Smith]

Glen -

> I absolutely loathe the meme metaphor.
I do agree that it has been overused and overpopularized.
>    I don't usually agree with Nick's distinction between metaphor and analogy.  8^)  But here, I claim the meme isn't *anything* like a gene... or more clearly, there is no idea/thought construct that is anything like a gene.
Is there an alternate way of thinking/talking about the *apparent*
encoding of human/social/cultural artifacts in language units, including
what appears to be something a lot like "mutation and drift" across this
space?

Or have I already (re)transgressed?

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

Well like I said in response to Frank's suggestion about self psychology, I tend towards a Szaszian perspective on talk therapy and psychology. But even that constellation of ideas, I think, has more structural truth to it than memetics.

Of course my ignorance may be getting in my way here. So I'm relatively open to being educated on any of these subjects. But there is a pretty high skeptical hurdle that I have to leap over in order for any such education to take root.


On August 13, 2017 9:56:16 AM PDT, Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>Is there an alternate way of thinking/talking about the *apparent*
>encoding of human/social/cultural artifacts in language units,
>including
>what appears to be something a lot like "mutation and drift" across
>this
>space?
>
>Or have I already (re)transgressed?

--
⛧glen⛧

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Frank Wimberly-2]

You are a typical intellectualizing scientist, which isn't a bad thing to be.

Frank

p.s.  Intellectualization is a defense which is not as debilitating as some others.

On Aug 13, 2017 12:18 PM, "gepr ⛧" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well like I said in response to Frank's suggestion about self psychology, I tend towards a Szaszian perspective on talk therapy and psychology. But even that constellation of ideas, I think, has more structural truth to it than memetics.

Of course my ignorance may be getting in my way here. So I'm relatively open to being educated on any of these subjects. But there is a pretty high skeptical hurdle that I have to leap over in order for any such education to take root.

On August 13, 2017 9:56:16 AM PDT, Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>Is there an alternate way of thinking/talking about the *apparent*
>encoding of human/social/cultural artifacts in language units,
>including
>what appears to be something a lot like "mutation and drift" across
>this
>space?
>
>Or have I already (re)transgressed?

--
⛧glen⛧

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

Ha! You see? That's not even wrong. 8^) But it's more plausible than asserting that my ideas are mutated and crossed over from ... yours ... or Szasz' ... or my mom's, for example.

On August 13, 2017 11:22:21 AM PDT, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
>You are a typical intellectualizing scientist, which isn't a bad thing
>to
>be.
>
>Frank
>
>p.s.  Intellectualization is a defense which is not as debilitating as
>some
>others.
--
⛧glen⛧

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Steve Smith]

Glen -

I'm definitely not the one to educate you (or anyone) on this. Following
your allusion to Szaszian anti-psychology, what I'm seeking is common
ground on whether there is even a valid question which the ideas of
cultural evolution and more pointedly, memetics purports to answer (or
"structure usefully" perhaps in your terms?).

I'm intuitive at my root, so if a set of heuristics, metaphors,
rules-of-thumb, semi-formal analogies, notional models, seem to be
failing in some significant way, I am happy to back off to a more
fundamental level and seek fresh experiential bedrock to rebuild my
house of cards upon.

May I ask how you DO structure your thinking around the *apparent* (or
is this an illusion) structured "progress" of human
knowledge/behaviour/culture/society/civilization???     Naturally many
see our current state on the brink of (apparently) climate disaster,
collapse of capitalism, fizzling out of representative democracy,
possibility of a (regional?) nuclear exchange, etc.  as evidence that
"we have not evolved!", but I would claim that is a gross
misapprehension of the term "evolved".   I'd say we HAVE evolved to the
state we are in (collectively).

For the sake of discussion, I'm happy to drop the attempt of the term
"meme" to be a strong analogy to a "gene", but I'm guessing that is not
enough to help you with the specifics of your skepticism?   I'm poking
AT the perimeters of your skepticism NOT to pry it off of you, but
rather to understand if there is something specifically useful (to me)
in that crust for my own skepticism (or even my pollyanna).

- Sieve


On 8/13/17 12:17 PM, gepr ⛧ wrote:

> Well like I said in response to Frank's suggestion about self psychology, I tend towards a Szaszian perspective on talk therapy and psychology. But even that constellation of ideas, I think, has more structural truth to it than memetics.
>
> Of course my ignorance may be getting in my way here. So I'm relatively open to being educated on any of these subjects. But there is a pretty high skeptical hurdle that I have to leap over in order for any such education to take root.
>
>
> On August 13, 2017 9:56:16 AM PDT, Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Is there an alternate way of thinking/talking about the *apparent*
>> encoding of human/social/cultural artifacts in language units,
>> including
>> what appears to be something a lot like "mutation and drift" across
>> this
>> space?
>>
>> Or have I already (re)transgressed?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Steve Smith]

Glen -
> Ha! You see? That's not even wrong. 8^) But it's more plausible than asserting that my ideas are mutated and crossed over from ... yours ... or Szasz' ... or my mom's, for example.
What I'm trying to tickle apart here is what we do with the very idea
that you might have a psuedo-Szaszian perspective on psychology or that
you "are a Skeptic".

forget "meme", let's try "pattern" on in *at least* a semi-formal sense
like the Alexandrian idea of Pattern Languages?  And what of
"Alexandrian Patterns" ?    Whether that is a "meme" or a "pattern" or
just a "rose by any other name" is what I'm looking to get an
alternative grasp of...

If we admit patterns that can be copied, modified by intention or by
ignorance or by chance, and can even be mixed with other patterns, then
we have at least a partial registration in the target domain of
biological evolution/genetics.

I'm trying not to argue this from a perspective of persuading you, but
rather on "helping" you deconstruct the general idea that biological
evolution (based in Genetics) is in any way a model for social/cultural
evolution.  Or to deconstruct the more specifics of "memetics" and
replace it with something more prosaic but useful perhaps?

Or maybe I'm barking up the wrong three, maybe you are trying to tell me
(as I think Szasz tries to tell us about mental illness) that there is
no there there?

neither here, nor there,
  - Steve

>
> On August 13, 2017 11:22:21 AM PDT, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> You are a typical intellectualizing scientist, which isn't a bad thing
>> to
>> be.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> p.s.  Intellectualization is a defense which is not as debilitating as
>> some
>> others.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

"To explain why I hate it so much, we can try to think deeply about the nazi that killed the antifa yesterday in Charlottesville and Trump's response to it (blaming all sides)."

This side must have been terribly menacing to a man in a > 300 HP car.  Not only do words have meaning, but even perceptions.  The memes are unbound or at least differently bound.

So any fitness function that involves them cannot be compared.

Marcus

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of ┣glen┫ <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 10:28 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

I absolutely loathe the meme metaphor.  I don't usually agree with Nick's distinction between metaphor and analogy.  8^)  But here, I claim the meme isn't *anything* like a gene... or more clearly, there is no idea/thought construct that is anything like a gene.

To explain why I hate it so much, we can try to think deeply about the nazi that killed the antifa yesterday in Charlottesville and Trump's response to it (blaming all sides).  To be clear, anyone who continues defending their vote for Trump at this point should be held accountable for their idiotic choice.  But the Trump defender will say something like "Trump's not a racist or a nazi, even if some of his followers are."  And, "yes I support Trump.  But I'm not a nazi."  Pffft.  It flat out does not matter.  There is no analog for mutation or crossover that we can use to map Trump to his nazis.  The gooey milieu that flows from someone like Trump, whose life of privilege has severely decoupled him from reality, to the nazis, whose fear and hatred has severely decoupled them from reality, ... that gooey ball of ill-formed ideology can't be coupled to reality.  That's the problem with metaphor, ideology, and fantasy.  To make reductive attempts to model such fantasy with analogies to real things (like genes) is to conflate fantasy with reality.

To be as clear as I can, ideas can only track back to mechanisms when they sync up with reality.  That's why (observational) science is so successful.  There are (basically) 2 ways ideas can interact with reality: 1) methodologically and 2) neural correlates.  If a ball of ideas includes (in its not biological evolution) a method for regularly testing itself against reality, then it's possible to analogize between that ball of ideas and reality.  Neither Trump, nor his nazis include that.  So, the only remaining map we can draw from the ideas to reality is any neural correlates we can find.  And until we have those, mapping the ideas to genes dooms us to faulty (at best) or delusional (at worst) inferences.

Now, everyone I know who uses the words "meme" and "memetics" is relatively scientifically literate.  So, memetics *seems* plausible because it's only used by relatively clear thinkers about relatively reality-touching balls of ideas.  But I would bet money that memetics will fail miserably if we try to use it to explain or model fantasy-dominated people like Trump and his supporters.



On 08/12/2017 12:10 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> In the socio/political/religious/economic realm it seems that multiple simultaneous mutations are more obvious to observe.   I think we see humans mis-copy their memetic code (misinterpret their holy scriptures, or their parents or masters teachings, etc.) very often and sometimes in several dimensions at once. Perhaps the "robustness" of the underlying unit (a human being) allows for such wild mutations (highly antisocial behaviour by most measures) in a single copy, is what allows for what seems like some fairly fast memetic evolution at the social level?
>
> i'm probably reaching here, but in this petri dish that is the USA with Trump or the first world with Trump, et al, or even the globally connected (bits, atoms, virus particles, memes, oh my!) first, second and third world there is likely to be some relatively unprecedented mutations recognized and even selected for.  Some could say that Donald Trump represents a half-dozen (or more) mutations in the socio/economic/political code and yet HE WAS SELECTED FOR and is almost surely malignant and seems to be metastasizing (other populist whitelash fascist movements around the first world).  The question in this metaphor might be whether the body (humankind) has the ability to fight back against this? It fits my Candide/Pollyanna idea that times such as these are good times to focus significant resources on simply "tending your own garden".    The world will have a better chance of fighting off this malignancy if it maintains it's overall health (social, economic, spiritual)
> otherwise.   We can't let this malignancy weaken our immune system any more than it already has.

--
␦glen?
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[gepr]

I'm not a scholar, but I don't really think Szasz was anti-psychology, per se.  He was a long-time member of the psychicatric association and all that jazz.  But he pulled no punches when policing his community ... something we all should do more of ... moderate muslims bear the responsibility for allowing radicals to steal their religion just as much as intelligent Trump voters bear responsibility for the MAGA-morons ... just as I bear responsibility for what the Clinton team did to Sanders.  So, when I say Szaszian, this is what I mean.  I could tell more stories about my brushes with talk therapy.  But I'd rather try to stay on topic: the structure and mechanisms by which ideas evolve (evolve as in "change over time", not genes and selection).

I've said before on this list that I think the only reason we can communicate is because we share a common body structure (eyes, fingers, pancreas, etc.).  The only reason I can communicate with my cat is because they also have hunger hormones and pain-mediating nerves.  Etc.  This implies (and I can directly assert) that ideas only evolve if/when bodies evolve.  E.g. I think one of the reasons Hawking comes up with such fantastic alternative hypotheses for physical phenomena is *because* he once had a well functioning body and has seen those functions evolve and disappear.  Another e.g. is that I can empathize with the scaredy-cat nazis because I, too, have a functioning fight or flight response.  I was severely homophobic as a kid and up into college.  And I've been conscious of how that irrational emotion has subsided over time.  But I'd always had and tried to respect my gay friends throughout.  I admitted that, and they treated me appropriately because, I was the one with the "illness", not them.

So, if thoughts supervene on the body, then what changed in my body so that my homophobia subsided?  Well, my hypothesis is mostly reinforcement and signals like oxytocin.  The less I had bad feelings associated with the other homophobes in Texas (including my dad) and the more I studied, competed against, and partied with my gay friends, the more good feelings I began to associate with homosexuals.  It took a really long time, which is one of my reasons for rejecting memetics.  If ideas were real, then they could change instantaneously.  But they're not.  What's real are hormones and neurons.

Does that help?


On 08/13/2017 11:59 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> I'm definitely not the one to educate you (or anyone) on this. Following your allusion to Szaszian anti-psychology, what I'm seeking is common ground on whether there is even a valid question which the ideas of cultural evolution and more pointedly, memetics purports to answer (or "structure usefully" perhaps in your terms?).
>
> I'm intuitive at my root, so if a set of heuristics, metaphors, rules-of-thumb, semi-formal analogies, notional models, seem to be failing in some significant way, I am happy to back off to a more fundamental level and seek fresh experiential bedrock to rebuild my house of cards upon.
>
> May I ask how you DO structure your thinking around the *apparent* (or is this an illusion) structured "progress" of human knowledge/behaviour/culture/society/civilization???     Naturally many see our current state on the brink of (apparently) climate disaster, collapse of capitalism, fizzling out of representative democracy, possibility of a (regional?) nuclear exchange, etc.  as evidence that "we have not evolved!", but I would claim that is a gross misapprehension of the term "evolved".   I'd say we HAVE evolved to the state we are in (collectively).
>
> For the sake of discussion, I'm happy to drop the attempt of the term "meme" to be a strong analogy to a "gene", but I'm guessing that is not enough to help you with the specifics of your skepticism?   I'm poking AT the perimeters of your skepticism NOT to pry it off of you, but rather to understand if there is something specifically useful (to me) in that crust for my own skepticism (or even my pollyanna).


On 08/13/2017 12:12 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:>

>
> Glen -
>> Ha! You see? That's not even wrong. 8^) But it's more plausible than asserting that my ideas are mutated and crossed over from ... yours ... or Szasz' ... or my mom's, for example.
> What I'm trying to tickle apart here is what we do with the very idea that you might have a psuedo-Szaszian perspective on psychology or that you "are a Skeptic".
>
> forget "meme", let's try "pattern" on in *at least* a semi-formal sense like the Alexandrian idea of Pattern Languages?  And what of "Alexandrian Patterns" ?    Whether that is a "meme" or a "pattern" or just a "rose by any other name" is what I'm looking to get an alternative grasp of...
>
> If we admit patterns that can be copied, modified by intention or by ignorance or by chance, and can even be mixed with other patterns, then we have at least a partial registration in the target domain of biological evolution/genetics.
>
> I'm trying not to argue this from a perspective of persuading you, but rather on "helping" you deconstruct the general idea that biological evolution (based in Genetics) is in any way a model for social/cultural evolution.  Or to deconstruct the more specifics of "memetics" and replace it with something more prosaic but useful perhaps?
>
> Or maybe I'm barking up the wrong three, maybe you are trying to tell me (as I think Szasz tries to tell us about mental illness) that there is no there there?

--
␦glen?
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Glen writes:

"It took a really long time, which is one of my reasons for rejecting memetics.  If ideas were real, then they could change instantaneously."

Every day I form hypotheses about how I think this or that experiment or code modification will go, and often I have to confront contrary evidence.   I would say I have a pretty fast turnover of ideas.

If I work with other people on these things, they will agree that some issues are settled, and other issues remain ambiguous.  The language evolves with shared experience, and in such a way that feelings become less and less part of it.  I don't think it has anything to do with when lunchtime is.   Other people it is all about lunchtime, oxytocin and stuff like that.

How are social issues any different?

Marcus

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of ┣glen┫ <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 4:34:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] the Skeptical Meme

 

I'm not a scholar, but I don't really think Szasz was anti-psychology, per se.  He was a long-time member of the psychicatric association and all that jazz.  But he pulled no punches when policing his community ... something we all should do more of ... moderate muslims bear the responsibility for allowing radicals to steal their religion just as much as intelligent Trump voters bear responsibility for the MAGA-morons ... just as I bear responsibility for what the Clinton team did to Sanders.  So, when I say Szaszian, this is what I mean.  I could tell more stories about my brushes with talk therapy.  But I'd rather try to stay on topic: the structure and mechanisms by which ideas evolve (evolve as in "change over time", not genes and selection).

I've said before on this list that I think the only reason we can communicate is because we share a common body structure (eyes, fingers, pancreas, etc.).  The only reason I can communicate with my cat is because they also have hunger hormones and pain-mediating nerves.  Etc.  This implies (and I can directly assert) that ideas only evolve if/when bodies evolve.  E.g. I think one of the reasons Hawking comes up with such fantastic alternative hypotheses for physical phenomena is *because* he once had a well functioning body and has seen those functions evolve and disappear.  Another e.g. is that I can empathize with the scaredy-cat nazis because I, too, have a functioning fight or flight response.  I was severely homophobic as a kid and up into college.  And I've been conscious of how that irrational emotion has subsided over time.  But I'd always had and tried to respect my gay friends throughout.  I admitted that, and they treated me appropriately because, I was the one with the "illness", not them.

So, if thoughts supervene on the body, then what changed in my body so that my homophobia subsided?  Well, my hypothesis is mostly reinforcement and signals like oxytocin.  The less I had bad feelings associated with the other homophobes in Texas (including my dad) and the more I studied, competed against, and partied with my gay friends, the more good feelings I began to associate with homosexuals.  It took a really long time, which is one of my reasons for rejecting memetics.  If ideas were real, then they could change instantaneously.  But they're not.  What's real are hormones and neurons.

Does that help?


On 08/13/2017 11:59 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> I'm definitely not the one to educate you (or anyone) on this. Following your allusion to Szaszian anti-psychology, what I'm seeking is common ground on whether there is even a valid question which the ideas of cultural evolution and more pointedly, memetics purports to answer (or "structure usefully" perhaps in your terms?).
>
> I'm intuitive at my root, so if a set of heuristics, metaphors, rules-of-thumb, semi-formal analogies, notional models, seem to be failing in some significant way, I am happy to back off to a more fundamental level and seek fresh experiential bedrock to rebuild my house of cards upon.
>
> May I ask how you DO structure your thinking around the *apparent* (or is this an illusion) structured "progress" of human knowledge/behaviour/culture/society/civilization???     Naturally many see our current state on the brink of (apparently) climate disaster, collapse of capitalism, fizzling out of representative democracy, possibility of a (regional?) nuclear exchange, etc.  as evidence that "we have not evolved!", but I would claim that is a gross misapprehension of the term "evolved".   I'd say we HAVE evolved to the state we are in (collectively).
>
> For the sake of discussion, I'm happy to drop the attempt of the term "meme" to be a strong analogy to a "gene", but I'm guessing that is not enough to help you with the specifics of your skepticism?   I'm poking AT the perimeters of your skepticism NOT to pry it off of you, but rather to understand if there is something specifically useful (to me) in that crust for my own skepticism (or even my pollyanna).


On 08/13/2017 12:12 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:>
>
> Glen -
>> Ha! You see? That's not even wrong. 8^) But it's more plausible than asserting that my ideas are mutated and crossed over from ... yours ... or Szasz' ... or my mom's, for example.
> What I'm trying to tickle apart here is what we do with the very idea that you might have a psuedo-Szaszian perspective on psychology or that you "are a Skeptic".
>
> forget "meme", let's try "pattern" on in *at least* a semi-formal sense like the Alexandrian idea of Pattern Languages?  And what of "Alexandrian Patterns" ?    Whether that is a "meme" or a "pattern" or just a "rose by any other name" is what I'm looking to get an alternative grasp of...
>
> If we admit patterns that can be copied, modified by intention or by ignorance or by chance, and can even be mixed with other patterns, then we have at least a partial registration in the target domain of biological evolution/genetics.
>
> I'm trying not to argue this from a perspective of persuading you, but rather on "helping" you deconstruct the general idea that biological evolution (based in Genetics) is in any way a model for social/cultural evolution.  Or to deconstruct the more specifics of "memetics" and replace it with something more prosaic but useful perhaps?
>
> Or maybe I'm barking up the wrong three, maybe you are trying to tell me (as I think Szasz tries to tell us about mental illness) that there is no there there?

--
␦glen?
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove