speaking of evolution and self-organization
Locked
speaking of evolution and self-organization
 
|
I'm nearing the end of my (first?) scan of "Evolution without Selection" by Antonio Lima-de-Faria. I really enjoy alternatives to the dominant theories. They help me understand more about the claims of the dominant theory, as well as ways in which it might be false. For example, I learned quite a bit about fossil fuels reading Gold's "Deep Hot Biosphere". LdF's concept of autoevolution is very cool and I'm wondering why/whether more people don't/do talk about it. Is it because in the years since he wrote the book, neo-Darwinism has refined selection and encompassed autoevolution? (This is what I suspect.) Or is it that some of his rhetoric (which seems to consist mostly of ad hoc morphological analogies) is too weak to be useful? Does anyone have any thoughts on this? -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: speaking of evolution and self-organization
|
|
Perhaps you should lead a course in it for CUSF next fall. Please send me
stuff to feel guilty about no reading. (Actually, I am serious. I am falling way behind in this area). To have the teacher in one place and the students in another might actually work on SKYPE. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([hidden email]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe] > [Original Message] > From: glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> > Date: 2/10/2010 1:35:28 PM > Subject: [FRIAM] speaking of evolution and self-organization > > > I'm nearing the end of my (first?) scan of "Evolution without Selection" > by Antonio Lima-de-Faria. I really enjoy alternatives to the dominant > theories. They help me understand more about the claims of the dominant > theory, as well as ways in which it might be false. For example, I > learned quite a bit about fossil fuels reading Gold's "Deep Hot > > LdF's concept of autoevolution is very cool and I'm wondering > why/whether more people don't/do talk about it. Is it because in the > years since he wrote the book, neo-Darwinism has refined selection and > encompassed autoevolution? (This is what I suspect.) Or is it that > some of his rhetoric (which seems to consist mostly of ad hoc > morphological analogies) is too weak to be useful? > > Does anyone have any thoughts on this? > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: speaking of evolution and self-organization
|
|
Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 10-02-10 01:08 PM:
> Perhaps you should lead a course in it for CUSF next fall. Please send me > stuff to feel guilty about no reading. (Actually, I am serious. I am > falling way behind in this area). Heh, no way. I'm way too ignorant of biology to lead such a course. My guess is that everyone on this list knows more about evolution than I do. It's possible that I could facilitate one, but not lead one. And I think facilitation requires spatio-temporal proximity. [grin] -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen e. p. ropella-2
More amateur considerations of Lima-de-Faria's "Evolution without Selection". I'd appreciate any clarifying comments. http://ropella.net/~gepr/archives/2010/02/22/autoevolutionism/index.html -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Glenn, We're all muddling through, that seems to be the point. The question of course is, who is willing to admit it. :) I'm extremely skeptical of characters like this Loeb dude who pretend not to be. Isn't his statement simply yet another attempt of many to resurrect Positivism? Given that science as practiced today is pretty much a poorly disguised shrine to Positivism, that leaves me wondering, like you I think, what Lima-de-Faria is now offering besides a more bedazzling / befuddling version of mechanics über alles. "Scientifically, what we really need is a particular concrete multi-scale situation that's determined at the lower scale and indeterminate at the higher scale. The trouble is that our best and smallest scale theory (quantum mechanics) also alows the dual. In some ways, it's deterministic and in other ways it simply circumscribes the wiggle room for the mysterious mechanisms underneath. " I'm going to argue very strongly that it is undetermined at *all* scales. The more one studies complex systems the more one sees that what we thought were clear theories established on the basis of next scale down knowledge are in fact approximations that inevitably miss some of the richness that only reveals its depth at the scale we're currently studying. What a relief when contrasted to the dark vision of LaPlace et.al.! I've written a bit more (too much really) on this general theme here: http://milesparker.blogspot.com/2009/10/tale-of-two-conferences.html keep on muddling! Miles On Feb 22, 2010, at 8:31 AM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Thus spake Miles Parker circa 10-02-22 04:15 PM:
> We're all muddling through, that seems to be the point. The question > of course is, who is willing to admit it. :) I'm extremely skeptical > of characters like this Loeb dude who pretend not to be. Isn't his > statement simply yet another attempt of many to resurrect Positivism? > Given that science as practiced today is pretty much a poorly > disguised shrine to Positivism, that leaves me wondering, like you I > think, what Lima-de-Faria is now offering besides a more bedazzling / > befuddling version of mechanics über alles. Well, I don't think LdF is making a justificationist (positivist) point, so much. I think he would be fine with a falsificationist rhetorical method, as long as the hypotheses in play can fail tests (i.e. they are specified concretely enough to be tested). He does explicitly claim that neo-Darwinist selection is not falsifiable and, hence, not scientific. So, I don't think he's making a case for positivism. But he definitely _seems_ to be making the case for mechanics over all. In this initial skimming of the book, I haven't _found_ any places where he talks explicitly about unpredictability, symmetry breaking, forcing structures, or anything like that. But just because I haven't found it doesn't mean it's not there. Or, perhaps his theory would allow for some of what passes for selection nowadays, since the book is pretty old by now. I notice in internet and journal searches that he's mostly chattering about the (hypothetical) biological periodic table, now, rather than autoselection. That makes me think that, perhaps, he's started to see enough concreteness in selection mechanisms to soften his stance. > "Scientifically, what we really need is a particular concrete > multi-scale situation that's determined at the lower scale and > indeterminate at the higher scale. The trouble is that our best and > smallest scale theory (quantum mechanics) also alows the dual. In > some ways, it's deterministic and in other ways it simply > circumscribes the wiggle room for the mysterious mechanisms > underneath. " > > I'm going to argue very strongly that it is undetermined at *all* > scales. The more one studies complex systems the more one sees that > what we thought were clear theories established on the basis of next > scale down knowledge are in fact approximations that inevitably miss > some of the richness that only reveals its depth at the scale we're > currently studying. What a relief when contrasted to the dark vision > of LaPlace et.al.! I've written a bit more (too much really) on this > general theme here: OK. Implicitly, I agree. But explicitly, I have to argue because the discussion hinges on how we ground "determine". I really like the word "canalize" as a replacement, because it seems to separate ontology from epistemology. It's like "determined, ceteris paribus". [grin] Likewise, it would help to replace "scale" with "resolution", because "scale" implies a precise and attainable truth. Now putting those words in your mouth, I would disagree with the new you I've constructed and posit that behavior is canalized at some resolutions and free at others. (I know I've twisted the words all around... but that's the point of dialogue, right? Perhaps the real you actually agrees with me.) So, back to autoevolution. LdF is careful to beat around the bush when providing evidence (he shows lots of pictures of animal parts side-by-side with pictures of minerals and crystals) and then he goes on to say that this evidence _might_ be used to falsify selectionism IF a testable mechanism for selection were identified. In his commentary, he can be pretty grandiose; but in the specifics, he reigns in his rhetoric nicely and speaks mainly about canalization and similarity rather than determination and equality. Thanks for the chance to mince the words and think more deeply about it. > http://milesparker.blogspot.com/2009/10/tale-of-two-conferences.html Awesome! I'll take a look and post comments there, if I have any. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
On Feb 22, 2010, at 5:30 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote: > Thus spake Miles Parker circa 10-02-22 04:15 PM: >> We're all muddling through, that seems to be the point. The question >> of course is, who is willing to admit it. :) I'm extremely skeptical >> of characters like this Loeb dude who pretend not to be. Isn't his >> statement simply yet another attempt of many to resurrect Positivism? >> Given that science as practiced today is pretty much a poorly >> disguised shrine to Positivism, that leaves me wondering, like you I >> think, what Lima-de-Faria is now offering besides a more bedazzling / >> befuddling version of mechanics über alles. > > Well, I don't think LdF is making a justificationist (positivist) point, > so much. I think he would be fine with a falsificationist rhetorical > method, as long as the hypotheses in play can fail tests (i.e. they are > specified concretely enough to be tested). He does explicitly claim > that neo-Darwinist selection is not falsifiable and, hence, not > scientific. So, I don't think he's making a case for positivism. > > But he definitely _seems_ to be making the case for mechanics over all. Yes, speaking of confusion about words, I was using Positivism not in the epistemological sense, but in the sense of an over-arching approach to reality. So to be more clear I'm thinking of Comte, LaPlace, etc... and the whole idea of social physics..and the extreme consequences of that POV. And with that I can't help but mention that it struck me recently that this is precisely why the ascendancy of physics at SFI in the last how many years has been so off-putting. There is some kind of inherent hubris at work in that kind of approach. > now, rather than autoselection. That makes me think that, perhaps, he's > started to see enough concreteness in selection mechanisms to soften his > stance. It sounds like a really interesting point if I understood it, but can you say a bit more about how selection vs. auto-evolution are bound to different views WRT to determinism? Sorry if I'm being obtuse. > > OK. Implicitly, I agree. But explicitly, I have to argue because the > discussion hinges on how we ground "determine". I really like the word > "canalize" as a replacement, because it seems to separate ontology from > epistemology. It's like "determined, ceteris paribus". [grin] Likewise, Right, which to my view is like saying "determined, ad absurdium" :D. So, as I probably have made boorishly clear, I actually think that we cannot determine in principal, or in practice, or indeed in any lasting useful way. > it would help to replace "scale" with "resolution", because "scale" > implies a precise and attainable truth. A very thought provoking point! It is true that my particular tool / methodology bias causes me to reify scale, to the extent I think of scales as discrete, identifiable slices of nature, even though I don't see any such crispness within scale. I think I'll be contemplating that quite a bit now.. > > Now putting those words in your mouth, I would disagree with the new you > I've constructed and posit that behavior is canalized at some > resolutions and free at others. (I know I've twisted the words all > around... but that's the point of dialogue, right? Perhaps the real you > actually agrees with me.) I don't think the real me would agree, but as I spend a lot of time working on the realization that such a thing doesn't exist there may be some fraction of what I perceive to be me that does. OK, I promise I'll stop now.. > > So, back to autoevolution. LdF is careful to beat around the bush when > providing evidence (he shows lots of pictures of animal parts > side-by-side with pictures of minerals and crystals) and then he goes on Yuck! That's so unfair to the crystals. -Miles ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Positivism in the epistemological sense ?? WTF does that mean ?
-J. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Miles Parker" <[hidden email]> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 11:10 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] autoevolutionism On Feb 22, 2010, at 5:30 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote: Yes, speaking of confusion about words, I was using Positivism not in the epistemological sense [...] ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Thus spake Jochen Fromm circa 10-02-25 02:36 PM:
> Positivism in the epistemological sense ?? WTF does that mean ? I believe Miles was objecting to my interpreting "positivism" to mean justificationism. So, "positivism in the epistemological sense" would mean the positivist rhetorical stance, where the only good argument is an argument grounded directly on observation (preferably good science but gracefully falling back to sensory experience) and then built up logically from there. So, positivism is a form of justificationism and is epistemological. It is in direct conflict with falsificationism, which holds that we can't call any statement true, we can only say that some particular statements are definitely false. But he did NOT use the word in that epistemological sense. At least that's what I think Miles meant. He can correct me if I'm wrong. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Miles Parker
Thus spake Miles Parker circa 10-02-25 02:10 PM:
> So to be more clear I'm thinking of Comte, LaPlace, etc... and the > whole idea of social physics..and the extreme consequences of that > POV. And with that I can't help but mention that it struck me > recently that this is precisely why the ascendancy of physics at SFI > in the last how many years has been so off-putting. There is some > kind of inherent hubris at work in that kind of approach. Thanks for the clarification, although for me epistemology dominates ontology. It seems useless to talk about what _is_ unless we are excruciatingly clear about how we know what we think we know. As for the dominance of physics, LdF actually carries your point all the way to a conclusion in his book. I don't have it with me now; but he explicitly states that we do not have to reform biology to adhere to physical methods, rather the way we do physics must change in order to elucidate biology. So, I suspect he would have a similar reaction despite his ontologically positivist approach. I can try to ferret out precisely what he means if anyone cares. > It sounds like a really interesting point if I understood it, but can > you say a bit more about how selection vs. auto-evolution are bound > to different views WRT to determinism? Sorry if I'm being obtuse. OK. Let's consider something simple like bit strings where * means "don't care". A selection perspective starts with something like: 10*1* And then, regardless of where the individual bit strings come from, their history, ontogenesis, etc., they'll either fit that scheme or they won't. Any given individual that pops out of thin air can be selected for or against by applying the above pattern. There's no requirement for randomness in this perspective. But there is a requirement for "don't care". It's determined, but ambiguous. Then let's take an autoevolutionary perspective. We have to start from a kernel bit string, say 10011, and we have to have rules for the transformation of that bit string. They don't have to be random rules like mutation. They can be determined. Let's say our only applicable rule is "flip the 3rd bit". We apply the rule and get 10111. Now we have 2 bit strings. >From the autoevolution perspective the only individuals that _can_ exist are those produced by the only rules that apply. From the selectionist perspective, the only individuals that _can_ exist are the one's that fit through the filter. They're duals of each other. Neither are stochastic, both produce the same result. > Right, which to my view is like saying "determined, ad absurdium" :D. > So, as I probably have made boorishly clear, I actually think that > we cannot determine in principal, or in practice, or indeed in any > lasting useful way. That's a great skeptical approach. And I agree to a large extent. But we have to be careful that our skepticism about the positive claim does NOT become an absolute claim of the negative. [grin] I.e. It's fine for you to _believe_ that determination is impossible, in principle and in practice. But it is not fine to be convinced that determination is impossible (and that you know that for a fact). I think it's cool when someone like LdF claims that we will one day be able to predict the products of evolution based on the theory of autoevolution. If autoevolution ever matures to the point that it can make a concrete prediction, then we may be able to falsify at least that part of the theory! But we can't jump in before autoevolution is mature and immediately say that it's a fool's errand because we know determination in advance is impossible. To be clear, though, LdF is careful to avoid asserting that there is NO randomness in nature. I did find at least one spot where he mentions chaos (not by name) and several spots where he talks about asymmetry. So, it's reasonable that he would admit stochasticity to some degree.... just not to the degree that neo-Darwinism relies upon it as a central tenet. That, together with his use of "canalization" over "determination", lead me to believe that his fundamental gist is that autoevolution will facilitate prediction BETTER than neo-Darwinism (which is softer than his rhetorical foil that neo-Darwinism isn't scientific at all). > I don't think the real me would agree, but as I spend a lot of time > working on the realization that such a thing doesn't exist there may > be some fraction of what I perceive to be me that does. OK, I promise > I'll stop now... Ouch. I've never practiced yoga. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |