Russ,
Your question, I now see, is the same one that has motivated much of my career. See natural designs website below. It would be nice to come up with a definition of natural design that was more apriori (!?) than “whatever nature selects”.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 11:09 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves?
The answer to my question of the scientific explanation for how voids are filled is presumably the usual story of reproductive advantage as, in effect, the definition for how well a void's template is matched -- to use Dave's terminology. That's not quite circular in that it defines how well a void is filled as the extent to which whatever is filling the void succeeds in reproducing. The more successful, the better we say the void's "outline" is matched.
The problem (or rather inadequacy) I see with that definition is that it leaves open the question of whether one can find a more insightful definition for how well a void is filled. Reproductive success is fairly far removed from the notion of void filling. If one wants to use the terminology (or even analogy) of void filling, it would be nice to have a more direct way of saying what it means to fill a void successfully -- i.e., something more than just increased reproductive success.
One might argue that there is no better description. But it that's one's position, let's be clear about it. My position is that we shouldn't give up so soon. That's the motivation for my question.
-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
Google voice: 747-999-5105
blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/
vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
_____________________________________________
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
Lots to respond to. First of all, Nick, why do you say I am discarding the distinction between living and non-living. I don't recall saying that.
To Dave's point:
By "fitness" I mean nothing more than 'void filling' ... There is no "process" anymore than there is a "process" when water in a flooding river 'fills voids' on the other side of the levee.
That still leaves open the question of the scientific explanation for how voids are filled. Is there a physical force that produces that result? In the case of water going downhill, the force is gravity. What's the analogous force (or other explanation) for void filling in evolution? What's the scientific explanation for how it happens?
-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
Google voice: 747-999-5105
blog: http://russabbott.blogspot.com/
vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
_____________________________________________
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |