Unbacktrackability

Vocaboly.com
Vocabulary builder software for SAT, TOEFL, GRE, GMAT and more

FAQ

Memberlist

Profile

Unbacktrackability
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Vocaboly.com Forum Index -> alt.usage.english

Author

Message

Iain
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 5:34 am Post subject: Unbacktrackability

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

Skitt
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 5:42 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.

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?

I don't know how to summarize it, but it reminds me of the days when I had
to modify firmware, reburning the least number of chips possible.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Harvey Van Sickle
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:22 pm Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability

On 08 Oct 2005, 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.

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?

Good question; deceptively simple, but harder the more I consider it.

Perhaps the problem arises from trying to define the principle
negatively (stating that one can't go back) rather than looking for a
positive definition (stating that one can only go forward).

Something like "preconstrained development" or "cumulative
redevelopment"?

--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van

Iain
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

Quote:

On 08 Oct 2005, 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.

Any ideas?

Good question; deceptively simple, but harder the more I consider it.

Perhaps the problem arises from trying to define the principle
negatively (stating that one can't go back) rather than looking for a
positive definition (stating that one can only go forward).

Something like "preconstrained development" or "cumulative
redevelopment"?

It would be nice to summarise the principle in memorable sentence; The
E = MC squared of biology.

Cumulative readjustment builds machines?

~Iain

Martin Ambuhl
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 8:13 pm Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability

Iain wrote:

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.

Harvey Van Sickle
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 8:29 pm Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability

On 08 Oct 2005, Martin Ambuhl 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.

Any ideas?

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.

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.

--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van

Mike Lyle
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 9:15 pm Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability

Martin Ambuhl wrote:

Quote:

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. And it seems to my lay mind that such an organism might
well have descendants which, under changed circumstances, re-evolved
an analogous organ.

--
Mike.

John O'Flaherty
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 9:45 pm Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability

Iain wrote:

Quote:

It reminds me of the need for new versions of software to have backward
compatibility. Incrementalism, ad hoc impromptu changes, never a
fundamental redesign, because there is no designer to rethink
everything. This is an argument why ever-increasing complexity actually
argues against a conscious designer, unless it's a very sloppy one.
--
john

Martin Ambuhl
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 10:13 pm Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability

Mike Lyle wrote:

Quote:

I hope you are responding to Iain. My position included the claim that
change occurs from the present situation with no knowledge of the past
or of what "goals" one might later say changes met. That lack of memory
of the past and of goals to be met means that one cannot actively erase,
but that there is nothing against erasing either. Iain may claim such
erasure is impossible, but I doubt it. I think he also intends that
intentional erasure is excluded, although his expression differs from mine.

Either you are burning a straw man or addressing your remarks to the
wrong person.

Mike Lyle
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 10:31 pm Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability

Martin Ambuhl wrote:

Quote:

Mike Lyle wrote:
Martin Ambuhl wrote:

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.

Any ideas?

I think you have been caught in a trap. The creationists line of
"irreducible complexity" is used to demonstrate the necessity of
a
designer. [...]

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. And it seems to my lay mind that such an organism might
well have descendants which, under changed circumstances,
re-evolved
an analogous organ.

I hope you are responding to Iain. My position included the claim
that change occurs from the present situation with no knowledge of
the past
or of what "goals" one might later say changes met. That lack of
memory of the past and of goals to be met means that one cannot
actively erase, but that there is nothing against erasing either.
Iain may claim such erasure is impossible, but I doubt it. I think
he also intends that intentional erasure is excluded, although his
expression differs from mine.

Either you are burning a straw man or addressing your remarks to
the
wrong person.

Neither. Just punctuating or snipping badly. I felt it reasonable to
leave a hint of your comment in place when adding mine.

--
Mike.

Ross Howard
Guest

Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 10:32 pm Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 14:13:52 GMT, Martin Ambuhl
<mambuhl@earthlink.net> wrought:

Quote:

The creationists line of
"irreducible complexity" is used to demonstrate the necessity of a
designer.

Oy!

--
Ross Howard

Iain
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:16 am Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability

Mike Lyle wrote:

Quote:

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.

~Iain

Iain
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:22 am Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability

Martin Ambuhl 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.

Any ideas?

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.

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?

~Iain

Iain
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:24 am Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability

Martin Ambuhl 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.

Any ideas?

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.

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.

~Iain

John O'Flaherty
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:54 am Post subject: Re: Unbacktrackability

Iain wrote:

Quote:

Martin Ambuhl wrote:
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.

Any ideas?

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.

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?

There are lots of genes in the genome of the fish. If it came to a
vote, how many would accept suicide to promote the genes the fish has
in common with the bacterium? Any sensible gill gene would say 'I don't
think so!'.
There are plenty of living exemplars of the citric acid cycle. Why
should we go for the lowest common denominator? Isn't there room for
eukaryotes too? Can't we all just get along?
--
john

	Vocaboly.com Forum Index -> alt.usage.english	All times are GMT + 1 Hour Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Office Forum Access Forum Electronics Exchange Server
Powered by phpBB