semi-idle question
Locked
12
12
 
|
It seems to me the social and legislative reactions to COVID-19, such as they are, are not so different from the choice to use CRISPR to engineer around a disease at the population level. They are both high-order behaviors that come from evolution, they aren't separate from it. There are unforeseen consequences to action and inaction. There's not a conservative stay-on-course-for-sure option. The sands shift out from under us.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 12:12 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question I pressed a similar argument for CRISPR on vFriam this week. If the socially responsible thing to do is to vaccinate for COVID-19, then perhaps it is even more socially responsible to CRISPR away all potential to contract the virus for future generations. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
I accept (embrace) that the larger human enterprise that includes our
myriad social/political/economic/technological systems is the element that is "evolving" and that practices such as Engineering "evolve" in that context. I believe that the rate of evolution in the social/political and NOW technological aspects of 'being human' outstrips the phenotype/genotype evolution by orders of magnitude... many of the things that select humans for "reproduction success" have been inverted (e.g. "Development is the most effective contraceptive") from our pre-industrial selves. Trans/Post humanism is already in it's nascent phase if I understand your binding of the term. We may look back at our archives in 2030 and laugh at how naive/arrogant we were here. - Steve On 4/26/21 1:59 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > Both of these (using CRISPR to edit away the problem or where to draw the line between selected and selector) seem to miss the larger point, which is that "natural" selection is a kind of metaphysical "top turtle". No matter how grandiose our engineering scheme, no matter how high and total-universe-incorporating it might be, there's always a super-context outside it ... and *that's* where natural selection operates ... similar, again, to Tarski's argument that you can't define truth from within the language (or von Neumann's no finite description, or Gödel's incompleteness, or Rosen's no largest model, ad nauseum). > > We prolly should lay out the "language" a little more concretely before claiming that some operation is not inside that language. E.g. before declaring an end to human evolution, perhaps be more hard-nosed about what "human evolution" means. > > For example, in a recent genetic algorithms talk, the presenter studied (and argued) that mutation didn't play a significant role, at all, in finding the (locally) optimal individuals. But that wouldn't rule out, with different evolutionary algorithms -- and their contexts/runtimes -- mutation might take on a more significant role. As we cross the transhuman inflection point, perhaps some operators fade, others gain prominence, and still others emerge? > > On 4/26/21 12:39 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: >> And I wondered why the impulse to develop contraception and vaccines, for example, and social welfare programs aren't elements of the environment. >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 1:13 PM jon zingale <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: >> >> I pressed a similar argument for CRISPR on vFriam this week. If the socially >> responsible thing to do is to vaccinate for COVID-19, then perhaps it is >> even more socially responsible to CRISPR away all potential to contract the >> virus for future generations. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Why is it arrogant to notice the apparent existence of "rapid-tempo-evolution" and "glacial-tempo-evolution"; label those observed things "natural" and "cultural" merely, and only, for sake of convention; and then surmise some substantial difference in the enabling mechanisms and processes?
"glacial-tempo-evolution" is truly glacial only to those species with long lifespans. Fruit flies could evolve almost annually. long-lived species will not adapt quickly enough to climate change and will likely perish. Probably, most all short lived species will evolve and adapt. Man, being a long-lived species should — and would, if left to glacial-tempo-evolution — perish but may not because rapid-tempo-evolution alters the time-frame for response. davew On Mon, Apr 26, 2021, at 12:33 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > IDK. This thread seems polluted with some sort of arrogant premise that > "natural selection" doesn't include cultural selection *or* > engineering. The "natural" in natural selection doesn't mean the same > thing it means when you see it on a green-washed plastic package in the > grocery store or at your favorite pseudoscience driven website. It > means something larger, more diffuse. > > If we can say that beavers *engineer* their dams, and yet that > engineering (and the "culture" in which it sits) falls under "natural > selection", then any engineering projects we humans engage in will also > fall under "natural selection", including CRISPR and the terraforming > of Mars. This assumption of a crisp distinction between culture and > genetics seems false to my ignorant eye, especially given layers like > epigenetics and anthropogenic unintended, but global, feedback. > > Darwinism, without the "neo" genetic mechanism, may allow for us to > broaden the *generator* beyond DNA. But that doesn't imply that the > evolution isn't "natural". The focus on how many children one sires > seems quaint, provincial. > > On 4/25/21 9:51 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > > > > On 4/25/21 10:47 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > >> > >> Pieter said: > >> > >>> /"Humans will no longer evolve."/ > >>> > >>> I agree humans will no longer evolve by natural selection. Not that I'm predicting anything, but how can anybody say with any kind of confidence that humans will not evolve by gene editing in the future? > > > > And to try to be fair to your point, I think if we replace "evolve" with "adapt" the quibbles diminish to nil. > > > -- > ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
I want to accede to something here, but I can't quite find what the "it"
is here to accede to. In the spirit of Cordwainer-Smith's "objects", there is something *like* humanity which is adapting (ok, call it evolving) rapidly, especially if you extend "phenotype" to include our co-evolved relations (microbiome, cohort of domesticated animals, our persistent social, cultural, political, economic and technological artifacts, etc.) which I do not intend to quibble with. I don't think our eyesight is getting measureably worse because we started wearing glasses a few hundred years ago. I do think that higher and lower production of melanin is an evolved trait in isolated populations of humans who lived closer/further from the equator, and similarly for the genes for proteins that are implicated in insulin production/sensitivity. And I think that happened over hundreds of generations. Is this something you are disagreeing with? It seems more likely that you are disagreeing with the *import* or relevance of these things? Are you "just" criticizing the conventional way of talking about genotype/phenotype evolution or are you coining/invoking something useful to replace/supercede it? On 4/26/21 4:04 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > It's sentences like "outstrips the phenotype/genotype evolution" that confuse me. I can twist my mind into restricting *generators* to mean sub-strands of DNA and the machinery that manipulates it. And I can twist my mind into restricting "phenotype" to be those traits that *seem* to be more governed by DNA and development than not. But it's that twisting that, in my ignorance, seems flawed. > > If we can't even crisply identify the nongenetic contributors of something like type 1 diabetes, how are we supposed to believe that the *generators* are well- and/or completely- described by substrands of DNA? > > And if we can't estimate how *coherent* our generators are, then how can we assert that that stuff moves so much slower than the other stuff? We can't even clearly state what the other stuff is, much less that it moves faster or slower. E.g. if a "nongenetic" factor in diabetes 1 is exposure to viruses, then we have to figure in the (fast) evolution of viruses. Sure, they're "snapshotted" during gestation (even 9 months is a long time in viral evolution). And that human lives for half a century after that snapshot. But then their younger sibling may be exposed, during their gestation (say a year later) to a very different snapshot of evolved virii. > > And that's not even the most rate-confounding case given microbiomes and such. I'm just really really curious what gives y'all such confidence that DNA evolution is so separate from higher (or lower) forms and why you think you understand the rate differences. Maybe I'm simply too ignorant to get it? > > On 4/26/21 2:25 PM, Steve Smith wrote: >> I accept (embrace) that the larger human enterprise that includes our >> myriad social/political/economic/technological systems is the element >> that is "evolving" and that practices such as Engineering "evolve" in >> that context. >> >> I believe that the rate of evolution in the social/political and NOW >> technological aspects of 'being human' outstrips the phenotype/genotype >> evolution by orders of magnitude... many of the things that select >> humans for "reproduction success" have been inverted (e.g. "Development >> is the most effective contraceptive") from our pre-industrial selves. >> >> Trans/Post humanism is already in it's nascent phase if I understand >> your binding of the term. We may look back at our archives in 2030 and >> laugh at how naive/arrogant we were here. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
Ha! or cereal as a more explicity evolutionary operator as in the sense of Kellogg:
reference 1 reference 2
sorry to divert.
Sent from the Friam mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
If 99.9% of all humans die in the coming climate jamboree, that will represent an evolutionary event for our species. It may or may not be a successful adaptation, but it will definitely change the distributions of alleles in our populations, and it will likely lead to lots of isolated groups with limited access to mates from outside the group.
If language is among the technologies that the survivors salvage, I expect at least half of the survivors will attribute their survival to belief in Donald Trump, cause that's how we roll. -- rec -- - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen,
In my limited experience, people who invoke the beaver do so to limit the reach of natural selection, not to enhance it. n Nick Thompson [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 12:33 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question IDK. This thread seems polluted with some sort of arrogant premise that "natural selection" doesn't include cultural selection *or* engineering. The "natural" in natural selection doesn't mean the same thing it means when you see it on a green-washed plastic package in the grocery store or at your favorite pseudoscience driven website. It means something larger, more diffuse. If we can say that beavers *engineer* their dams, and yet that engineering (and the "culture" in which it sits) falls under "natural selection", then any engineering projects we humans engage in will also fall under "natural selection", including CRISPR and the terraforming of Mars. This assumption of a crisp distinction between culture and genetics seems false to my ignorant eye, especially given layers like epigenetics and anthropogenic unintended, but global, feedback. Darwinism, without the "neo" genetic mechanism, may allow for us to broaden the *generator* beyond DNA. But that doesn't imply that the evolution isn't "natural". The focus on how many children one sires seems quaint, provincial. On 4/25/21 9:51 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > > On 4/25/21 10:47 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> >> Pieter said: >> >>> /"Humans will no longer evolve."/ >>> >>> I agree humans will no longer evolve by natural selection. Not that I'm predicting anything, but how can anybody say with any kind of confidence that humans will not evolve by gene editing in the future? > > And to try to be fair to your point, I think if we replace "evolve" with "adapt" the quibbles diminish to nil. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Fwiw, your local lexicon at least has consistent bindings. :-)
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 8:59 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question Of course. ... I realize I'm making a nonstandard argument. Often I regret trying to push the envelope like this because then I have to spend time trying to explain what I think, to little avail, probably because my thinking is sloppy. I don't know why I keep doing it ... too few nights at the pub, I suspect. This entry in SEP confirms my argument is nonstandard, or not even wrong: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution-cultural/#NatSelCulInh There's this juxtaposition between biological evolution and cultural evolution that seems to work well for those of you who know what you're talking about. For me, though, the separation between cultural inheritance and natural selection seems incoherent. It's part of why the Kirkley paper's formulation of a neighborhood caught my eye. And why Frank's "inverted" correlation between collider inputs was interesting. Even if bioEvo were purely "vertical", it's difficult for me to think a function's arity (or ploidy) is crucial to the conception of the function, at least not extensionally. I can see, for example, how point mutation might [⛧] not allow monoploidic inheritance to simulate diploidic inheritance. But combine (perhaps a recursive sequence of) non-point mutations with monoploidal inheritance and it seems like you could effectively simulate *-ploidy, in the same vein as EricS brought up function currying awhile back. And if you allow for N-ary/N-ploidy inheritance in bioEvo, why isn't "oblique transmission" (e.g. retroviruses) part of natural selection? And if it is, even if only in some tiny/rare/persnickety biological relations, why not at least consider that natural selection operates over culture as well as bio? IDK. I feel like a crank, like those 't Hooft generously describes as "amateurs" here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.03179v1 "To many of my readers (the ones who may still be with me), what I just said sounds very much like letters we receive in our daily mail from amateur physicists. They are amateurs because they usually exhibit a dismal lack of knowledge and understanding of modern science. Like many of my colleagues, I quickly discard such letters, but some- times they are fun to read. More to the point, by not knowing how our world has been found to hang together, they could have bounced into some more independent ways of asking questions." You should definitely *discard* what this ... [ahem] amateur says. Luckily, I only pass rule #5: "5. He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined...." http://bactra.org/reviews/wolfram/ I'm admittedly not a genius. If there's an ignorant blockhead here, it's me. Nobody persecutes me ... in fact, I'm surprised how generous y'all are in listening to my nonsense. And I'll attack anyone, regardless of their status. 8^D [⛧] But, even then, the inheritance function would have 2 inputs, the genome and where/how to do the mutation. So, again extensionally, that function looks a lot like diploid inheritance. On 4/27/21 9:53 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > Glen, > > In my limited experience, people who invoke the beaver do so to limit the reach of natural selection, not to enhance it. > > n > > Nick Thompson > [hidden email] > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 12:33 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question > > IDK. This thread seems polluted with some sort of arrogant premise that "natural selection" doesn't include cultural selection *or* engineering. The "natural" in natural selection doesn't mean the same thing it means when you see it on a green-washed plastic package in the grocery store or at your favorite pseudoscience driven website. It means something larger, more diffuse. > > If we can say that beavers *engineer* their dams, and yet that engineering (and the "culture" in which it sits) falls under "natural selection", then any engineering projects we humans engage in will also fall under "natural selection", including CRISPR and the terraforming of Mars. This assumption of a crisp distinction between culture and genetics seems false to my ignorant eye, especially given layers like epigenetics and anthropogenic unintended, but global, feedback. > > Darwinism, without the "neo" genetic mechanism, may allow for us to broaden the *generator* beyond DNA. But that doesn't imply that the evolution isn't "natural". The focus on how many children one sires seems quaint, provincial. > > On 4/25/21 9:51 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> >> On 4/25/21 10:47 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >>> >>> Pieter said: >>> >>>> /"Humans will no longer evolve."/ >>>> >>>> I agree humans will no longer evolve by natural selection. Not that I'm predicting anything, but how can anybody say with any kind of confidence that humans will not evolve by gene editing in the future? >> >> And to try to be fair to your point, I think if we replace "evolve" with "adapt" the quibbles diminish to nil. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
In defense of Wolfram, it is possible he writes in the passive voice just to antagonize people like the author of that article. He's not a part of the academic world, and doesn't have to use their currency.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 8:59 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question Of course. ... I realize I'm making a nonstandard argument. Often I regret trying to push the envelope like this because then I have to spend time trying to explain what I think, to little avail, probably because my thinking is sloppy. I don't know why I keep doing it ... too few nights at the pub, I suspect. This entry in SEP confirms my argument is nonstandard, or not even wrong: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution-cultural/#NatSelCulInh There's this juxtaposition between biological evolution and cultural evolution that seems to work well for those of you who know what you're talking about. For me, though, the separation between cultural inheritance and natural selection seems incoherent. It's part of why the Kirkley paper's formulation of a neighborhood caught my eye. And why Frank's "inverted" correlation between collider inputs was interesting. Even if bioEvo were purely "vertical", it's difficult for me to think a function's arity (or ploidy) is crucial to the conception of the function, at least not extensionally. I can see, for example, how point mutation might [⛧] not allow monoploidic inheritance to simulate diploidic inheritance. But combine (perhaps a recursive sequence of) non-point mutations with monoploidal inheritance and it seems like you could effectively simulate *-ploidy, in the same vein as EricS brought up function currying awhile back. And if you allow for N-ary/N-ploidy inheritance in bioEvo, why isn't "oblique transmission" (e.g. retroviruses) part of natural selection? And if it is, even if only in some tiny/rare/persnickety biological relations, why not at least consider that natural selection operates over culture as well as bio? IDK. I feel like a crank, like those 't Hooft generously describes as "amateurs" here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.03179v1 "To many of my readers (the ones who may still be with me), what I just said sounds very much like letters we receive in our daily mail from amateur physicists. They are amateurs because they usually exhibit a dismal lack of knowledge and understanding of modern science. Like many of my colleagues, I quickly discard such letters, but some- times they are fun to read. More to the point, by not knowing how our world has been found to hang together, they could have bounced into some more independent ways of asking questions." You should definitely *discard* what this ... [ahem] amateur says. Luckily, I only pass rule #5: "5. He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined...." http://bactra.org/reviews/wolfram/ I'm admittedly not a genius. If there's an ignorant blockhead here, it's me. Nobody persecutes me ... in fact, I'm surprised how generous y'all are in listening to my nonsense. And I'll attack anyone, regardless of their status. 8^D [⛧] But, even then, the inheritance function would have 2 inputs, the genome and where/how to do the mutation. So, again extensionally, that function looks a lot like diploid inheritance. On 4/27/21 9:53 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > Glen, > > In my limited experience, people who invoke the beaver do so to limit the reach of natural selection, not to enhance it. > > n > > Nick Thompson > [hidden email] > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 12:33 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question > > IDK. This thread seems polluted with some sort of arrogant premise that "natural selection" doesn't include cultural selection *or* engineering. The "natural" in natural selection doesn't mean the same thing it means when you see it on a green-washed plastic package in the grocery store or at your favorite pseudoscience driven website. It means something larger, more diffuse. > > If we can say that beavers *engineer* their dams, and yet that engineering (and the "culture" in which it sits) falls under "natural selection", then any engineering projects we humans engage in will also fall under "natural selection", including CRISPR and the terraforming of Mars. This assumption of a crisp distinction between culture and genetics seems false to my ignorant eye, especially given layers like epigenetics and anthropogenic unintended, but global, feedback. > > Darwinism, without the "neo" genetic mechanism, may allow for us to broaden the *generator* beyond DNA. But that doesn't imply that the evolution isn't "natural". The focus on how many children one sires seems quaint, provincial. > > On 4/25/21 9:51 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> >> On 4/25/21 10:47 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >>> >>> Pieter said: >>> >>>> /"Humans will no longer evolve."/ >>>> >>>> I agree humans will no longer evolve by natural selection. Not that I'm predicting anything, but how can anybody say with any kind of confidence that humans will not evolve by gene editing in the future? >> >> And to try to be fair to your point, I think if we replace "evolve" with "adapt" the quibbles diminish to nil. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
I often ask something like, "How did a guy with a name like Roger Wilson get an Indian accent?" --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 11:20 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote: Well, I've always admired the Monty Python troupe's ability to *sustain* absurdity. It's relatively easy to be absurd for something as small as a minute long joke. But to do a 5 minute or more skit is impressive. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Ok, glen. First, stop with the cap-doffing! It invokes a standard of “qualification” that I’m pretty sure you don’t believe itn. Anyway, if you aren't qualified to have this conversation than nobody is, and I am not prepared to accept that obvious truth. The ONLY question here is whether we can all get somewhere new by sharing what we do know ... or think we know. Grrrr! tNatural selection is a metaphor from barnyard selection to "selection" in the wild. It requires individual inheritance. If you have a herd or a flock or some sort, and it if the members of that flock vary in that respect, and if the offspring of the parent generation are more likely to resemble their own parents than they are other individuals in the flock, then you have inheritance. The fact of inheritance is agnostic with respect it's mechanism. It can be by dna or it can be by stygmergy or it can be by learning. All are equally suitable for natural selection's purposes (joke!). Cultural inheritance is the transmission of one (emergent) property of a group of people to the next generation of that group of people. If you have a population of cultures, then a trait could be said to be inherited if successive generations of the same cultures were more similar in these emergent traits than successive generations of different cultures. The presence of cultural inheritance is agnostic with respect to mechanism. I suppose there must be cultural selection, but it is a dubious notion because it so often is exploited in the regulation of individual selection. To me, selection, of any kind is an achievement. Given all the legion of events that take place between one generation of individuals or of cultures, for selection to have a "clear shot" at any one trait seems profoundly mysterious to me. To put Steve Guerin's question in my own terms, what interest, if any, has guided us to the possibility of selection? Unlike SG, I am not tempted to attach that "interest" to any theological system. Back to packing. Nick Nick Thompson https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- Of course. ... I realize I'm making a nonstandard argument. Often I regret trying to push the envelope like this because then I have to spend time trying to explain what I think, to little avail, probably because my thinking is sloppy. I don't know why I keep doing it ... too few nights at the pub, I suspect. This entry in SEP confirms my argument is nonstandard, or not even wrong: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution-cultural/#NatSelCulInh There's this juxtaposition between biological evolution and cultural evolution that seems to work well for those of you who know what you're talking about. For me, though, the separation between cultural inheritance and natural selection seems incoherent. It's part of why the Kirkley paper's formulation of a neighborhood caught my eye. And why Frank's "inverted" correlation between collider inputs was interesting. Even if bioEvo were purely "vertical", it's difficult for me to think a function's arity (or ploidy) is crucial to the conception of the function, at least not extensionally. I can see, for example, how point mutation might [⛧] not allow monoploidic inheritance to simulate diploidic inheritance. But combine (perhaps a recursive sequence of) non-point mutations with monoploidal inheritance and it seems like you could effectively simulate *-ploidy, in the same vein as EricS brought up function currying awhile back. And if you allow for N-ary/N-ploidy inheritance in bioEvo, why isn't "oblique transmission" (e.g. retroviruses) part of natural selection? And if it is, even if only in some tiny/rare/persnickety biological relations, why not at least consider that natural selection operates over culture as well as bio? IDK. I feel like a crank, like those 't Hooft generously describes as "amateurs" here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.03179v1 "To many of my readers (the ones who may still be with me), what I just said sounds very much like letters we receive in our daily mail from amateur physicists. They are amateurs because they usually exhibit a dismal lack of knowledge and understanding of modern science. Like many of my colleagues, I quickly discard such letters, but some- times they are fun to read. More to the point, by not knowing how our world has been found to hang together, they could have bounced into some more independent ways of asking questions." You should definitely *discard* what this ... [ahem] amateur says. Luckily, I only pass rule #5: "5. He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined...." http://bactra.org/reviews/wolfram/ I'm admittedly not a genius. If there's an ignorant blockhead here, it's me. Nobody persecutes me ... in fact, I'm surprised how generous y'all are in listening to my nonsense. And I'll attack anyone, regardless of their status. 8^D [⛧] But, even then, the inheritance function would have 2 inputs, the genome and where/how to do the mutation. So, again extensionally, that function looks a lot like diploid inheritance. On 4/27/21 9:53 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > Glen, > > In my limited experience, people who invoke the beaver do so to limit the reach of natural selection, not to enhance it. > > n > > Nick Thompson > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 12:33 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question > > IDK. This thread seems polluted with some sort of arrogant premise that "natural selection" doesn't include cultural selection *or* engineering. The "natural" in natural selection doesn't mean the same thing it means when you see it on a green-washed plastic package in the grocery store or at your favorite pseudoscience driven website. It means something larger, more diffuse. > > If we can say that beavers *engineer* their dams, and yet that engineering (and the "culture" in which it sits) falls under "natural selection", then any engineering projects we humans engage in will also fall under "natural selection", including CRISPR and the terraforming of Mars. This assumption of a crisp distinction between culture and genetics seems false to my ignorant eye, especially given layers like epigenetics and anthropogenic unintended, but global, feedback. > > Darwinism, without the "neo" genetic mechanism, may allow for us to broaden the *generator* beyond DNA. But that doesn't imply that the evolution isn't "natural". The focus on how many children one sires seems quaint, provincial. > > On 4/25/21 9:51 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> >> On 4/25/21 10:47 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >>> >>> Pieter said: >>> >>>> /"Humans will no longer evolve."/ >>>> >>>> I agree humans will no longer evolve by natural selection. Not that I'm predicting anything, but how can anybody say with any kind of confidence that humans will not evolve by gene editing in the future? >> >> And to try to be fair to your point, I think if we replace "evolve" with "adapt" the quibbles diminish to nil. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Well, like all rhetoric, I guess even cap-doffing has its place. But I don't think FRIAM is it.
And, like any quick-and-dirty heuristic, I guess expertise has its place. But I don't think FRIAM is it. Nick Nick Thompson [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 1:14 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question Oh, I definitely believe in qualifications and accreditation. My entire professional career depends fundamentally on meeting standards and putting some degree of faith in "validated" things. So when I tell you I'm a moron, you'd best believe it ... even if it hasn't yet "played out" for you, yet. Tomorrow, when I call you a moron, you might, then, understand what I mean. A good example came last night when the bartender at the pub reacted emphatically to Renee's [⛧] attempt to persuade him to get vaccinated. I'm no biologist. But I (think I) managed to find a joint in his rhetorical armor *by* demonstrating that I'm no biologist. His reticence was appropriately *stanced* as a typical liberal anti-vax, anti-GMO, blahblah. I walked through many of my skeptical questions about the long-term impact (and our ignorance) of the mRNA vaccines, compared to the more traditional J&J vaccine. I used, characteristically, my lymphoma and the (thick wad of paper for) the class action lawsuit that was mailed to me, unsolicited, regarding RoundUp. But rather than do a typical tu quoque twist at the end, I simply said "We all take a position. Then we stick to that position stubbornly." He went quiet after that and you could "smell the wood burning". By preemptively doffing the biologist/medical-research hat he *might* have placed on my head because I was using that jargon that he couldn't effectively navigate, I *joined* his in-group and wiggled my way back out of it right there in the span of the conversation. He doesn't know whether I'm for or against the mRNA vaccines or whether I've been vaccinated or any of that. I didn't have to take a stance at all, except on the issue of taking stances. So, no, I won't stop cap-doffing. And, yes, qualification is a thing. [⛧] Reneé spells her name like that, with the little diacritic. It's a pain to do, so I simply use the apostrophe ('). So, when I'm using the possessive, I'm torn between "Renee's" or "Renee''s" or taking the time to hit my meta key and do the proper "Reneé's". [sigh] Modern problems. On 4/28/21 11:41 AM, [hidden email] wrote: > Ok, glen. First, stop with the cap-doffing! It invokes a standard of “qualification” that I’m pretty sure you don’t believe itn. Anyway, if */you/* aren't qualified to have this conversation than nobody is, and I am not prepared to accept that obvious truth. The ONLY question here is whether we can all get somewhere new by sharing what we do know ... or think we know. Grrrr! -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
|
|
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Gawd! I don't have capacity or standing to command you.
That's just silly. n Nick Thompson [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 1:26 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] semi-idle question Now *that's* a reasonable criticism, much better than the simple *command* telling me to stop doing something. Had you lead with "I don't think your cap-doffing is useful here". I would have probably said "Oh well, maybe you're right." On 4/28/21 12:22 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > Well, like all rhetoric, I guess even cap-doffing has its place. But I don't think FRIAM is it. > > And, like any quick-and-dirty heuristic, I guess expertise has its place. But I don't think FRIAM is it. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |