| Author |
Message |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
Iain wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Lyle wrote:
[...]
It's not a subject I understand with any clarity. But it seems to
me
that irreversibility, if that's what you mean, can't be
demonstrated.
There are organisms which have lost complex organs evolved in
their
ancestors.
Yes but that organ loss is not via backtracking but via change that
just happens to recreate an absence that existed initially.
Genetically speaking, the absence is an addition in itself, hence
human tailbones, etc.
|
In that case, I repeat and emphasise my claim not to understand the
subject!
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Martin Ambuhl
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:10 pm
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
I am combining responses to Harvey Van Sickle and Iain:
:
I have not snipped, so for convenience, on the left margin find
[1] Iain's original message
[2] My response
[3] Harvey's follow-up
<Xns96E99D8088F92whhvans@80.5.182.99>
[4a] Iain's follow-up
<1128813720.838220.144620@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
[4b] Iain's follow-up
<1128813872.871765.161710@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
[5] My new content
[1]
| Quote: | I am trying to summarise philosophically the means by which
complexity arises in nature. I am describing the idea that, given
that whatever hinders a population without ending it only makes
it apter, and that this process cannot restart in order to
achieve a simplified means of being functional, that complexity
arises from the inability of functional development to backtrack,
and so a machine-building mechanism is set in motion, always
finding a roundabout means of surviving.
I am trying to express that concept of having work that you
cannot rub out with an eraser, or start from scratch. Imagine a
designer who can only ever modify what he has, like an organised
mess, to deal with the latest circumstances, and simply has to
make the most of previous developments in conjunction with his
new ones.
Any ideas?
|
[2]
| Quote: | I think you have been caught in a trap. The creationists line of
"irreducible complexity" is used to demonstrate the necessity of a
designer. You have let your argument, which seems not to require
any such designer, to be unnecessarily tainted by introducing one
in your second paragraph.
It is easy to make the mistake of waxing poetic about "time's
arrow" are mystically pseudo-scientific by bringing in
entropy-laden language. I would suggest, rather, that you start by
looking at Ernst Mayr's "The Emergence of Evolutionary Novelties"
(1959), reprinted in E. Mayer, _Evolution and the Diversity of
Life_ (Harvard, 1976). Other work has been done since, but his
exploration of three ways of understanding 'the emergence of
evolutionary novelties' is really well done.
I would object to the way you have stated your thesis in several
ways. The language about "backtracking" presumes an evolutionary
memory ("I did this before, can I undo it?") and your language
about "achieving a means to become functional" presumes the kind of
goal-oriented behavior that cybernetics is infected with. There is
no problem that biological novelties are to solve; there is no goal
to be attained. Things change; some changes increases chances of
replication and survival; some do not. Some features that served
one purpose find new ones; others do not.
Natural complexity arises from changes being based on current
materials, not on any memory of what worked better before or what
goal is to be accomplished for the future.
|
[3]
| Quote: | I think you bristled too quickly at his second paragraph illustration
of a designer/draftsman; it struck me as an expansion, not the core.
The formulation in his first paragraph was, I though, precisely as
you've stated it in the first statement of your final paragraph: that
an inevitable outcome of development which starts from a developed
stage -- and not from some theoretical or known earlier stage -- is
complexity.
Other than in the further illustration of his "designer" analogy, I
don't see any presupposition of an evolutionary memory.
|
[4a]
| Quote: | Basically I am trying to describe the difference between a bacterium
of environment X and a fish of the same environment. The best
functional adaptation a fish can make is to become like the bacteria,
which is successful in its implicity, and is more likely to reproduce
than the fish, however, the fish species cannot do this because it is
too complex to turn back, so it has to improve on what it already
has.
How does one describe this disinclination to become like the bacteria?
[4b]
That is the point *I* was making. I did not imply genetic memory -- I
implied the opposite: The lack of genentic memory, and that that is
what leads life into susperfluous complexity.
|
[5]
I considered the possibility that the designer language of Iain's
paragraph 2 was only illustrative, but rejected that possibility. In
part, that was the result of the somewhat lame, but I think still valid,
idea that one chooses one's metaphors for a reason. One does not
choose a designer metaphor unless it is relevant. But more important is
the disturbing theme of Iain's first paragraph repeated in his follow-ups.
It is *not* true that Iain is making the same point. All of his writing
is teleological. His question supposes telos. There is, however, no
inclination *or* disinclination to become a simpler form. Changes occur
without respect to outcome; survival is a side-effect. Iain is repeating
a form of Aristotle's error in identifying telos, essence, and
potentiality. It is a severe error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:13 am
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
Iain <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I am trying to summarise philosophically the means by which complexity
arises in nature. I am describing the idea that, given that whatever
hinders a population without ending it only makes it apter, and that
this process cannot restart in order to achieve a simplified means of
being functional, that complexity arises from the inability of
functional development to backtrack, and so a machine-building
mechanism is set in motion, always finding a roundabout means of
surviving.
I am trying to express that concept of having work that you cannot rub
out with an eraser, or start from scratch. Imagine a designer who can
only ever modify what he has, like an organised mess, to deal with the
latest circumstances, and simply has to make the most of previous
developments in conjunction with his new ones.
Any ideas?
~Iain
|
Yes, haven't you heard of extinction? Tons of life forms have *not*
found a means of surviving hindrances. Human societies, too.
But a word for can't be erased or restarted would be "irrevocable."
--
Puzzled -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:51 am
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
Iain <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Basically I am trying to describe the difference between a bacterium of
environment X and a fish of the same environment. The best functional
adaptation a fish can make is to become like the bacteria, which is
successful in its implicity, and is more likely to reproduce than the
fish, however, the fish species cannot do this because it is too
complex to turn back, so it has to improve on what it already has.
How does one describe this disinclination to become like the bacteria?
|
An adaptation has to be adapting to *something*. What is the the change
the fish must adapt to? Warmer water? Toxic sludge? An invasion of a new
sort of competitive fish?
None of these things have anything to do with wanting to be like
bacteria in their implicity, whatever that means. Animals never changed
by wishing.
--
Naturally selective -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:53 am
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
On 09 Oct 2005, Donna Richoux wrote
| Quote: | Iain <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote:
Basically I am trying to describe the difference between a
bacterium of environment X and a fish of the same environment.
The best functional adaptation a fish can make is to become like
the bacteria, which is successful in its implicity, and is more
likely to reproduce than the fish, however, the fish species
cannot do this because it is too complex to turn back, so it has
to improve on what it already has.
How does one describe this disinclination to become like the
bacteria?
An adaptation has to be adapting to *something*. What is the the
change the fish must adapt to? Warmer water? Toxic sludge? An
invasion of a new sort of competitive fish?
None of these things have anything to do with wanting to be like
bacteria in their implicity, whatever that means.
|
I read that as a typo for "simplicity"; maybe I'm cutting Iain too
much slack. Dunno.
| Quote: | Animals never changed by wishing.
|
Is the concept of "wishing" in there? (That is, can't evolution embody
a principle of "disinclination" without implying intent?)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TsuiDF
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:02 am
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
Donna Richoux wrote:
| Quote: |
Yes, haven't you heard of extinction? Tons of life forms have *not*
found a means of surviving hindrances. Human societies, too.
But a word for can't be erased or restarted would be "irrevocable."
|
I agree with Donna, and also wonder whether 'irreversible' might not be
part of the concept.
Stephanie
in Brussels |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Nitabach
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:19 am
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1128728080.104670.56130@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
| Quote: |
I am trying to summarise philosophically the means by which
complexity arises in nature. I am describing the idea that, given
that whatever hinders a population without ending it only makes it
apter, and that this process cannot restart in order to achieve a
simplified means of being functional, that complexity arises from
the inability of functional development to backtrack, and so a
machine-building mechanism is set in motion, always finding a
roundabout means of surviving.
I am trying to express that concept of having work that you cannot
rub out with an eraser, or start from scratch. Imagine a designer
who can only ever modify what he has, like an organised mess, to
deal with the latest circumstances, and simply has to make the
most of previous developments in conjunction with his new ones.
Any ideas?
|
As others have pointed out, this is not how biological evolution
works. To add to the other apt remarks, a good example of the ability
"of functional development to backtrack" is provided by the
urochordates. These organisms have a tadpole larval stage homologous
to that of other chordates (which includes the vertebrates). The
larva finds a good place to settle down and then metamorphoses into a
sessile "sea squirt" adult. This sessile adult represents a
"backtrack" to a simpler body plan and life strategy from the motile
one possessed by other chordates.
--
Mike Nitabach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Maurer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:14 am
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
Iain wrote:
I am trying to summarise philosophically the means by which
complexity arises in nature. I am describing the idea that,
given that whatever hinders a population without ending it
only makes it apter, and that this process cannot restart
in order to achieve a simplified means of being functional,
that complexity arises from the inability of
functional development to backtrack, and so a machine-building
mechanism is set in motion, always finding a roundabout means
of surviving.
I am trying to express that concept of having work that you
cannot rub out with an eraser, or start from scratch.
Imagine a designer who can only ever modify what he has,
like an organised mess, to deal with the latest circumstances,
and simply has to make the most of previous developments
in conjunction with his new ones.
The question of finding a catchy phrase is still open
(if 'irreversible' is too bland). In a strangely on topic
way perhaps you could use language as the metaphor.
One magazine writer can introduce one or two new words
to their audience, or perhaps a new piece of syntax.
But if the writer were to use 300 of the new words and
30 new pieces of syntax that will become common
one hundred years hence, the communication with the
audience would fail. Big changes succeed most often
when they are a chain of successful small changes.
Now as to the facts of our world:
(1) The simple creatures are surviving just fine -- viruses,
bacteria, prions, fungi.
(2) How would you tell if some standard cockroaches had
backtracked from advanced cockroaches? That is, unless the
standard cockroaches had been extinct for 10,000 years.
Even then, wouldn't the assumption be that a small group
had miraculously survived in an isolated area?
(3) For the animals that became complex, it could be that
the gene mechanism has a preference for adding genes,
and was not very good at snipping out genes.
If a good snipper had been introduced earlier, there
might well be a lot of subtractive as well as additive
complexity.
(4) Backwards changes would allow recently introduced
predators (the ones that prompted the forward changes)
another chance to wipe out the species.
(5) The law of large numbers. If a species had as few as 100
boolean genes acting randomly, it would be
Borelianly impossible (practically impossible) to return
to a previous state.
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Maurer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:04 am
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
Richard Maurer wrote:
(5) The law of large numbers. If a species had
as few as 100 boolean genes acting randomly,
it would be Borelianly impossible (practically impossible)
to return to a previous state.
A numerical correction: Emile Borel dechanced at 10^50,
so the above paragraph should have a comfortable 300 genes.
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iain
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:08 am
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
Richard Maurer wrote:
| Quote: | Iain wrote:
I am trying to summarise philosophically the means by which
complexity arises in nature. I am describing the idea that,
given that whatever hinders a population without ending it
only makes it apter, and that this process cannot restart
in order to achieve a simplified means of being functional,
that complexity arises from the inability of
functional development to backtrack, and so a machine-building
mechanism is set in motion, always finding a roundabout means
of surviving.
I am trying to express that concept of having work that you
cannot rub out with an eraser, or start from scratch.
Imagine a designer who can only ever modify what he has,
like an organised mess, to deal with the latest circumstances,
and simply has to make the most of previous developments
in conjunction with his new ones.
The question of finding a catchy phrase is still open
(if 'irreversible' is too bland). In a strangely on topic
way perhaps you could use language as the metaphor.
One magazine writer can introduce one or two new words
to their audience, or perhaps a new piece of syntax.
But if the writer were to use 300 of the new words and
30 new pieces of syntax that will become common
one hundred years hence, the communication with the
audience would fail. Big changes succeed most often
when they are a chain of successful small changes.
Now as to the facts of our world:
(1) The simple creatures are surviving just fine -- viruses,
bacteria, prions, fungi.
(2) How would you tell if some standard cockroaches had
backtracked from advanced cockroaches? That is, unless the
standard cockroaches had been extinct for 10,000 years.
Even then, wouldn't the assumption be that a small group
had miraculously survived in an isolated area?
|
You misunderstand. I'm not saying organisms cannot simplify, only that
the reason they are complex is because they can only modify the latest
developments to deal with the current circumstances(there is no genetic
archive anywhere of previous forms), so that if the evolving
circumstances are varied, and then come full circle, the formerly
simple form now deals with cicumstances in a complex roundabout
way(that its ancestors would have delt with simply), utilising remnants
of changes gained from previous circumstances. The net effect of that
is a machine-building principle in action.
~Iain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:16 am
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
Iain wrote:
| Quote: | I am trying to summarise philosophically the means by which complexity
arises in nature. I am describing the idea that, given that whatever
hinders a population without ending it only makes it apter, and that
this process cannot restart in order to achieve a simplified means of
being functional, that complexity arises from the inability of
functional development to backtrack, and so a machine-building
mechanism is set in motion, always finding a roundabout means of
surviving.
.... |
How about "there's no change log", "there's no Undo", "there are no
backups"?
Of course I agree with Martin's fundamental point about teleology, but
teleological language is really convenient. Depending on your
audience, I think it might be all right to use such language as long as
you start with a warning, and occasionally say, "Remember that the
organism doesn't 'want' this--what's really happening is..."
--
Jerry Friedman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:26 am
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
Richard Maurer wrote:
....
| Quote: | (5) The law of large numbers. If a species had as few as 100
boolean genes acting randomly, it would be
Borelianly impossible (practically impossible) to return
to a previous state.
|
The laws of large numbers seem to be something else:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers>.
--
Jerry Friedman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lanarcam
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 2:54 am
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
Richard Maurer wrote:
| Quote: | Iain wrote:
I am trying to summarise philosophically the means by which
complexity arises in nature. I am describing the idea that,
given that whatever hinders a population without ending it
only makes it apter, and that this process cannot restart
in order to achieve a simplified means of being functional,
that complexity arises from the inability of
functional development to backtrack, and so a machine-building
mechanism is set in motion, always finding a roundabout means
of surviving.
I am trying to express that concept of having work that you
cannot rub out with an eraser, or start from scratch.
Imagine a designer who can only ever modify what he has,
like an organised mess, to deal with the latest circumstances,
and simply has to make the most of previous developments
in conjunction with his new ones.
The question of finding a catchy phrase is still open
(if 'irreversible' is too bland). In a strangely on topic
way perhaps you could use language as the metaphor.
One magazine writer can introduce one or two new words
to their audience, or perhaps a new piece of syntax.
But if the writer were to use 300 of the new words and
30 new pieces of syntax that will become common
one hundred years hence, the communication with the
audience would fail. Big changes succeed most often
when they are a chain of successful small changes.
(3) For the animals that became complex, it could be that
the gene mechanism has a preference for adding genes,
and was not very good at snipping out genes.
If a good snipper had been introduced earlier, there
might well be a lot of subtractive as well as additive
complexity.
|
Changes occur by random mutation at specific locations
in the genome. If a mutation results in the loss of
a function it has less chance of giving the host a
comparative advantage than a mutation which adds a
function. A knife with ten blades offers more
possibilities than a knife with only nine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:32 am
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
Lanarcam wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | A knife with ten blades offers more
possibilities than a knife with only nine.
|
Not if all ten functions work less well as a result -- and they will.
The magnifying-glass and the corkscrew on my biggest and silliest
Swiss knife are crap; the tweezers are good only in an emergency;
etc, etc. A single-bladed knife is the norm in any kitchen I've ever
seen, and that's because it's best. Sharks don't, as far as research
has so far discovered, write.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 6:32 am
Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability |
|
|
"Iain" writes:
| Quote: | You misunderstand. I'm not saying organisms cannot simplify, only that
the reason they are complex is because ... if the evolving
circumstances are varied, and then come full circle, the formerly
simple form now deals with cicumstances in a complex roundabout
way ...
|
Ah! Now that actually makes sense. (Why dincha say so in the first
place?) The key point here is the one about circumstances "coming
full circle" -- that is, it's not that backtracking is impossible,
but only that *if the same condition is reached from different
directions in the space of circumstances*, then it may be impossible.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "... trapped in a twisty little maze
msb@vex.net of backslashes ..." -- Steve Summit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in