Schrodinger's concept of consciousness/How it relates to
Michael Ragland
Remarks on Schrodinger's Concept of Consciousness
Ivan M. Havel
One of the greatest physicists of 20th Century, Erwin Schrodinger is
known for having a large breath of interests in non-physical
disciplines, including biology and philosophy. In particular, his small
book (or long essay) from 1944, What is Life? [1], has been often
mentioned in this respect. Schrodinger's ideas about the structure of
material carrier of life, in particular of genetic information, and his
ideas about living organisms feeding upon their negative entropy has
greatly influenced quite a few prominent biologists of the time.
Somewhat less known are his thoughts about the nature of consciousness
and the Self included in the same essay as well as in his other works
and lectures ([1], [2]). It is worth noting that his views did not
change considerably over the period of almost forty years.
In his first text, written in 1925 (shortly before his discovery of wave
mechanics), Schrodinger considers four key philosophical questions,
(1) Does there exist a Self?
(2) Does there exist a world outside Self?
(3) Does this Self cease with bodily death?
(4) Does the world cease with my bodily death?
([2], p. 12). He claims there is no satisfactory combination of 'yes'
and 'no' answers to these questions due to the paradoxical role of one's
own individual Self in the external world. Schrodinger does not find the
issue and its possible solution in the subject-object dualism, but
rather in the singular-plural dualism.
According to him, "the real difficulty lies in the spatial and temporal
multiplicity of observing and thinking individuals." (p. 18).
Here (and again in later works) Schrodinger refers to the old Vedantic
vision according to which consciousness is only one, singular,
identifiable with its universal source (Brahman). The perceived spatial
and temporal plurality of consciousnesses or minds is just an appearance
or illusion.
[...] knowledge, feeling and choice [which you call your own] are
essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay
in all sensitive beings,"
he writes in 1925 (p. 21). Nineteen years later:
Consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown; that there
is only one thing and that what seems to be a plurality is merely a
series of different aspects of this one thing, produced by a deception.
([1], p.89).
Thirty years later:
There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds
or consciousnesses. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there
is only one mind. (p. 129).
And thirty six years later, shortly before his death, he writes again
(as a comment to a line in Upanishads):
[...] the plurality of sensitive beings is mere appearance (maya); in
reality they are all only aspects of the one being." ([2], p.101).
Schrodinger, as a scientist, would seek an organic or even physical
nature of that unity. One hint is to think of genetically connected
individuals whose bodily and spiritual life is not interrupted between
generations but only constricted, similar to the individual's
consciousness during a sleep. An individual's memory interacts with
supra-individual memory stored, e.g., in instincts.
For some of us Schrodinger's concept of the singular Self may seem
absurd. But then why not to consider similarly absurd the idea of a
singular objective real world, yet accessible only through a
multiplicity of various of its "personalized" versions, each being a
private product of somebody's perception and thought.
In fact, the issue of objectivity, or objectification ([2], p.117ff), is
also exposed by Schrodinger who points to its paradoxical aspect: how to
exclude my own consciousness from the real world if I do not exclude my
body, other persons' bodies, and their consciousnesses (which I can take
as objective manifestations of their brains). What is so specific about
me, occupying one (why this one?) of the bodies walking around in the
objective world?
It is interesting to compare Schrodinger's thoughts with views of one of
our contemporary philosophers, Thomas Nagel. According to Nagel we can
imagine every (let us say, my own) Self as composed of two parts, the
subjective self and the objective self. The former is biased by (my)
personal perspective while the latter is centerless, i.e. it admits an
arbitrary perspective without any preference.
The centerless view of the world is, according to Nagel, "one on which
different persons can converge." Thus, from a different direction, he
gets close to Schrodinger's view: "The pursuit of objectivity requires
the cultivation of a rather austere universal objective self." ([3],
p.63).
Schrodinger is very much interested in the nature of material process
connected with consciousness. What we know about the functioning of the
brain does not give enough clues to distinguish which particular
processes serve consciousness and which do not.
However, the observation that what repeats itself very often gradually
drops out of the domain of consciousness suggests, according to
Schrodinger, that
[...] consciousness is associated with those functions [of our nervous
system] that adapt themselves by what we call experience to a changing
environment [...] with the learning of the living substance; its knowing
how (Konnen) is unconscious. ([1], p.99).
I believe that many of Schrodinger's ideas still wait for a full
recognition. One of them is related to a theme which, if properly
elaborated, may help to understand some of the most complicated
processes in nature. It is the mutual interactive coupling of entities
at different levels of description - a part with the whole, an
individual with the collective, the particular with the generic, etc. -
while being, life and evolution of one cannot be, without lack of
understanding, separated from being, life and evolution of the other.
A typical example is the mutual interaction of the actual life and
behavior of an individual living organism (specimen) with the evolution
of its species. The individual, with its structure, properties and basic
patterns of behavior, is subordinate to the laws of the species - in the
same way as a game player is subordinate to the rules of the game, or
each of us to the rules of social behavior. On the other hand, the
individuals are carriers, transmitters, and even modifiers of the laws
and rules they obey.
In fact every individual life, indeed every day in the life of an
individual, has to represent a part, however small, of evolution [of our
species], a chisel-stroke, however insignificant, on the eternally
unfinished statue of our species.
writes Schrodinger ([2], p.54).
In this way Schrodinger finds the specific role of consciousness in
relation to biological evolution. He understands consciousness as the
guardian of anomalies, unusual events, and other novelties that are not
yet shifted to the unconscious knowledge and eventually to the genetic
memory.
The mutual interactive coupling across different levels may help us to
elaborate Schrodinger's idea of singularity of consciousness as opposed
to the plurality of persons. One can just think of two tightly coupled
and unseparable levels, one corresponding to the universal common
consciousness in singular, the other to individual personal
consciousnesses in plural. An analogous coupling exists, e.g., between a
species and its specimens (as mentioned above), between a game and its
matches, between a language and its utterances, between a song and its
singings, between an artistic style and works of art, between a disease
and its occurrences, or between a law and its applications. What is
important: the higher level entity has its own "life"; it is not
(defined as) an arbitrary collection of lower level entities but rather
it involves an actual dynamic interaction between entities of both
levels across a large gap in spatio-temporal scales.
My proposal is to treat the singular consciousness together with the
plurality of all its embodiments as one dynamically coupled interactive
system of the above type.
REFERENCES
[1] E. Schrodinger, What is Life? with Mind and Matter and
Autobiographical Sketches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
(Original editions: "What is Life?", Cambridge, 1944, "Mind and Matter",
Cambridge, 1956)
[2] E. Schrodinger, My View of the World. Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge,
Conn., 1983 (original German edition: Meine Weltansicht, Paul Zsolnay
Verlag, Wien 1961). This book includes two essays, "Seek for the Road",
written 1925, and "What is Real?", written 1960.
[3] T. Nagel: The View from Nowhere. Oxford University Press, Oxford
1986.
Faux_Pseudo
|
| Remarks on Schrodinger's Concept of Consciousness
And here I was about ready to unsubscribe to this group because it
didn't have any content of interest to me. Great paper.
'---...____ Faux_Pseudo ________________...---~~~
--
ICQ=66618055 : --(-<= Now Playing =>-)-- http://asciipr0n.com/fp
YIM=faux_pseudo : Rev: /guns_n_roses/Guns_N'_Roses_-_Don't_You_Cry.mp3
Stale incense : Now: /tool/perfect_Circle/Diary_of_a_Madman_.mp3
old sweat. : Fwd: s_n_roses/Guns_N'_Roses__It`s_Allright__Live.mp3
pete
<ragl...@webtv.net> sez:
`
`
` Remarks on Schrodinger's Concept of Consciousness
`
` Ivan M. Havel
`
` One of the greatest physicists of 20th Century, Erwin Schrodinger is
` known for having a large breath of interests in non-physical
` disciplines, including biology and philosophy.
[...]
` And thirty six years later, shortly before his death, he writes again
` (as a comment to a line in Upanishads):
` [...] the plurality of sensitive beings is mere appearance (maya); in
` reality they are all only aspects of the one being." ([2], p.101).
` Schrodinger, as a scientist, would seek an organic or even physical
` nature of that unity. One hint is to think of genetically connected
` individuals whose bodily and spiritual life is not interrupted between
` generations but only constricted, similar to the individual's
` consciousness during a sleep. An individual's memory interacts with
` supra-individual memory stored, e.g., in instincts.
`
` For some of us Schrodinger's concept of the singular Self may seem
` absurd.
Only those who don't get out much.
[...]
` It is interesting to compare Schrodinger's thoughts with views of one of
` our contemporary philosophers, Thomas Nagel. According to Nagel we can
` imagine every (let us say, my own) Self as composed of two parts, the
` subjective self and the objective self. The former is biased by (my)
` personal perspective while the latter is centerless, i.e. it admits an
` arbitrary perspective without any preference.
`
An "objective self" has got to be the ultimate oxymoron. It reminds
me of the guy who said he "didn't believe in qualia" (!??).
[...]
`
` I believe that many of Schrodinger's ideas still wait for a full
` recognition.
I'll go along with that. I have never looked into his stuff, as I
foolishly accepted as representative of his thinking a paraphrase
I read summarizing his work, which I dismissed as rather half
thought out. Obviously the guy who wrote the summary hadn't grasped
what Schrodinger was saying, as the quotes here make abundantly clear.
[...]
`
` REFERENCES
` [1] E. Schrodinger, What is Life? with Mind and Matter and
` Autobiographical Sketches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
` (Original editions: "What is Life?", Cambridge, 1944, "Mind and Matter",
` Cambridge, 1956)
` [2] E. Schrodinger, My View of the World. Ox Bow Press, Woodbridge,
` Conn., 1983 (original German edition: Meine Weltansicht, Paul Zsolnay
` Verlag, Wien 1961). This book includes two essays, "Seek for the Road",
` written 1925, and "What is Real?", written 1960.
` [3] T. Nagel: The View from Nowhere. Oxford University Press, Oxford
` 1986.
`
`
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
Bernd Ehlert
The dealings with this singular entity is very difficult, that shows
nothing else but the contradictions between the different religions. But
at first there is the question when the consciousness or the mind arose
in evolution. I think that happened at the transition from vegetarian
being to animal
being.
One day it may be attractive for vegetarian being, to develop a
self-movement. But it only would be appropriate if the self-movement
would be not a confused but a controlled movement, because of the great
energy it needs. So the evolution has to develop sense-perceptions and
because of the light-sensitiveness at first probably the eye was
developed. But with only one eye the orientation was not efficiently. In
this case there were no lawful relations between the eye-perceptions,
strictly speaking between the size of the image on the retina and the
distance between objekt and eye. In this way there was no distinction
between a big thing very far and a small thing very near. But when there
were two eyes which images were linked together then there was a lawful
relation because the relation between the size of the image and the
shifting of the two images was a constant. In this way the two eyes
perceived a certain being and if this perceived being moved away the
images at the retina got smaller but the shifting of the two images
also so that the quotient was constant. That was the beginning of
spatial seeing, but also of the spatial consciousness. A constant being
in space and time was perceived, that was the fundamental abstraction
and in this not only the first mental performance but also the first
linguistic field. We perceive the being of an animal in time and space
and simultaneously this animal perceives us as a being in time and
space. That enables a coordinated behavior as the behavior "hunting". So
every animal have got two eyes not only one.
I think this method of the two-eye-seeing is a very important method.
The attempt to get a constant or an accordance between two different
points of view is an important step to a real objectivity and its in
accordance with the demands of William Whewell regarding an objektive
truth. William Whewell was quoted by Wilson in his book "Consilience".
One also can apply this method towards the confusion among the religions
or towards the mystic singular entity.
Schrodinger has mentioned the Vedantic vision but I would suggest to
compare the original Budhhist with the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart.
The Buddha has teached that the I only is an illusion and that the
foundation of the world is emptiness. Meister Eckhart has said:
"Well, how should I love Him then?"
"You should love Him as He is: a non-God, a non-spirit, a non-person, a
non-image; rather, as He is a sheer pure limpid One, detached from all
duality. And in that One may we eternally sink from something (Quint) to
nothingness. So help us God. Amen." (M.O´C.Walshe 1979, Meister Eckhart,
Element Books Ltd, Longmead,Shaftesbury, Dorset, Vol.2, page 335)
Meister Eckhart has stated that God doesn´t have a being that he is a
nothingness. This understanding of God doesn´t contradict to the
original
Buddhist understanding (but it contradicts to the nowadays Buddhist
understanding without of one Buddhist school in Thailand which teaches
that the nowadays Buddhism is a relapse into Hinduism because of the
belief in rebirth of bodies) and also there is no contradiction towards
the theory of evolution, which says that the being of man fundamentally
is the same
created and transient phenomenon as an animal, a plant or even a wave in
the ocean.
The philosopher Kant has teached that we don´t know the real outside
world and that we never will know it. He has said that we only know the
phenomenons of the real things but not the real things by themself and
that we know these phenomenons in the categories of time and space. But
according to the teachings of Meister Eckhart and the original Buddhism
"being" belongs also to these categories, that will say there is no
substantiell being. So when we try to recognize something beyond the
world, also regarding the big bang, we are thinking to recognize
something but truly we only
recognize our categories of cognition namely space, time and being. Even
a nothingness we only could imagine as a being. A supposed being beyond
the world is only a part of the world and it is a
fantasy part. All these different fantasies contradicted to each other
and no one of them is in acordance with an objektive truth of this
world. There is a great mystery, but it does´t lay within the world. It
concerns the creation of the world but we never will recognize it.
Concerning things beyond the world we only get contradictions as in the
case of the different religions or paradoxes as in the case of
particel-physics.
The real singular unity or entity isn´t a part of this world, the world
is synonymous with duality and multiplicity, "we" never will find it.
Bernd Ehlert
John Wilkins
....
> An "objective self" has got to be the ultimate oxymoron. It reminds
> me of the guy who said he "didn't believe in qualia" (!??).
Why? It seems to me a silly idea.
[Masses of self-referential irony inserted above]
--
John Wilkins
[I]magine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "...interesting
hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? ...
must have been made to have me in it." Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
Srinivas S
<snip>
>
> The philosopher Kant has teached that we don´t know the real outside
> world and that we never will know it. He has said that we only know the
> phenomenons of the real things but not the real things by themself and
> that we know these phenomenons in the categories of time and space. But
> according to the teachings of Meister Eckhart and the original Buddhism
> "being" belongs also to these categories, that will say there is no
> substantiell being. So when we try to recognize something beyond the
> world, also regarding the big bang, we are thinking to recognize
> something but truly we only
> recognize our categories of cognition namely space, time and being. Even
> a nothingness we only could imagine as a being. A supposed being beyond
> the world is only a part of the world and it is a
> fantasy part. All these different fantasies contradicted to each other
> and no one of them is in acordance with an objektive truth of this
> world. There is a great mystery, but it does´t lay within the world. It
> concerns the creation of the world but we never will recognize it.
> Concerning things beyond the world we only get contradictions as in the
> case of the different religions or paradoxes as in the case of
> particel-physics.
> The real singular unity or entity isn´t a part of this world, the world
> is synonymous with duality and multiplicity, "we" never will find it.
>
> Bernd Ehlert
Even in the world that we see, there is a singular unity. that is 'energy'.
From Einstein's mass-energy equivalence, even mass can be treated as a form
of energy. The inanimate objects or intelligent machines or living beings
are all various expressions of energy. Theoretically all forms of
energy(heat, electromagnetic, sound etc) are interconvertible and thus even
without going into philosophy, we have something that manifests itself in
all the things. The apparent forms of energy is again an illusion, for
example, heat that can be produced from light, sound and electricity are not
different and cannot be differentiated.
Srinivas S
John W Edser
"Michael Ragland" <ragl...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> MR:-
> Remarks on Schrodinger's Concept of Consciousness
> Ivan M. Havel
> ...Schrodinger considers four key philosophical questions,
> (1) Does there exist a Self?
> (2) Does there exist a world outside Self?
> (3) Does this Self cease with bodily death?
> (4) Does the world cease with my bodily death?
> ([2], p. 12). He claims there is no satisfactory combination of 'yes'
> and 'no' answers to these questions due to the paradoxical role of one's
> own individual Self in the external world. Schrodinger does not find the
> issue and its possible solution in the subject-object dualism, but
> rather in the singular-plural dualism.
> According to him, "the real difficulty lies in the spatial and temporal
> multiplicity of observing and thinking individuals." (p. 18).
> Here (and again in later works) Schrodinger refers to the old Vedantic
> vision according to which consciousness is only one, singular,
> identifiable with its universal source (Brahman). The perceived spatial
> and temporal plurality of consciousnesses or minds is just an appearance
> or illusion.
JE:-
The east has the opposite starting point to
basic causation, compared to the west. The west
suggests that consciousness is just a by-product of material
complexity whereas the east considers material
complexity to be just a by-product of consciousness.
Using the eastern spiritual view, when material complexity
unravels, a consciousness must persist. However, within the
western materialistic view the opposite holds. When
consciousness ceases a material complexity may persist.
In the western view, when material complexity entirely
breaks that consciousness must cease. Either consciousness A
causes complexity or complexity causes consciousness
B. Two other views are also possible. Either complexity
and consciousness are just the affect of another, unknown
cause C, or complexity and consciousness are simple equalities,
i.e. they are exactly the same thing but given different names
so that any difference between them is purely semantic.
Either:
1) A causes B
2) B causes A
3) C causes both A and B
4) A is equal to B
Using set theory:
Either B is entirely a subset of A,
or A is entirely a subset of B
for propositions 1 and 2, i.e. they are
contradictions so they _both_ cannot
be true. Much of the time such contradictions
can be tested. Note that the
eastern view has always been the more
seductive view because it provides the greater
hope for a life after death. On this point alone, the
eastern view is predicted to be more popular!
The eastern perspective seems to be
suggesting that the brain is more of a receiver of
consciousness than a generator of it. Here
the brain is predicted to act something like a radio
receiver. Multiple personality disorders could now
be explained as a brain just changing it's "radio station".
Apparent "ghosts" could be explained as pure consciousness
(radio signal) wafting about the place. To some extent it
all fits quite nicely. However, from a scientific perspective
only the western view is testable. This more modern
view allows for an experimental construction of consciousness
as a predicted, emergent, property found within increased
complexity.
In the eastern view consciousness must be indestructible.
However, for consciousness to be emergent from complexity
as predicted by the western view, energy must be shown to
indestructible. It can be shown empirically that energy is
indestructible but the same cannot be claimed for consciousness.
In reality, complexity is something we can today, measure but
consciousness is not. Consciousness is a non testable belief. Science
cannot be validly founded on such a belief since it requires testable
suppositions.
> MR:-
> [...] knowledge, feeling and choice [which you call your own] are
> essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay
> in all sensitive beings,"
> he writes in 1925 (p. 21). Nineteen years later:
> Consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown; that there
> is only one thing and that what seems to be a plurality is merely a
> series of different aspects of this one thing, produced by a deception.
> ([1], p.89).
> Thirty years later:
> There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds
> or consciousnesses. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there
> is only one mind. (p. 129).
JE:-
None of the views above are testable so that
presented in this form, science can validly ignore them.
> MR:-
> And thirty six years later, shortly before his death, he writes again
> (as a comment to a line in Upanishads):
> [...] the plurality of sensitive beings is mere appearance (maya); in
> reality they are all only aspects of the one being." ([2], p.101).
> Schrodinger, as a scientist, would seek an organic or even physical
> nature of that unity. One hint is to think of genetically connected
> individuals whose bodily and spiritual life is not interrupted between
> generations but only constricted, similar to the individual's
> consciousness during a sleep.
> An individual's memory interacts with
> supra-individual memory stored, e.g., in instincts.
JE:-
Only clones are "genetically connected
individuals ". Sexually reproduced individuals,
even if they share over 95% of their genome
sequence with a rat, are genetically _diverse_
because phenotypes are a product and
not just the simple addition, of genetic diversity.
> For some of us Schrodinger's concept of the singular Self may seem
> absurd. But then why not to consider similarly absurd the idea of a
> singular objective real world, yet accessible only through a
> multiplicity of various of its "personalized" versions, each being a
> private product of somebody's perception and thought.
JE:-
A more correct term to "absurd" is, "testable".
What separates ideas are their testability. Science
does not exclude any assumptions, no matter how
absurd they appear, if and only if, they can be tested.
All non testable suppositions are excluded.
> MR:-
> In fact, the issue of objectivity, or objectification ([2], p.117ff), is
> also exposed by Schrodinger who points to its paradoxical aspect: how to
> exclude my own consciousness from the real world if I do not exclude my
> body, other persons' bodies, and their consciousnesses (which I can take
> as objective manifestations of their brains). What is so specific about
> me, occupying one (why this one?) of the bodies walking around in the
> objective world?
JE:-
The Western view does exclude body and thus consciousness from
the world but only at organism death. It is only the western view that
dictates
that life cannot be sustained, i.e. at some point it must cease.
However this does not mean that some part of it cannot be reproduced
before this happens. This can be measured to happen
in nature, producing Darwinian evolution in its wake.
> MR:-
> It is interesting to compare Schrodinger's thoughts with views of one of
> our contemporary philosophers, Thomas Nagel. According to Nagel we can
> imagine every (let us say, my own) Self as composed of two parts, the
> subjective self and the objective self. The former is biased by (my)
> personal perspective while the latter is centerless, i.e. it admits an
> arbitrary perspective without any preference.
> The centerless view of the world is, according to Nagel, "one on which
> different persons can converge." Thus, from a different direction, he
> gets close to Schrodinger's view: "The pursuit of objectivity requires
> the cultivation of a rather austere universal objective self." ([3],
> p.63).
> Schrodinger is very much interested in the nature of material process
> connected with consciousness. What we know about the functioning of the
> brain does not give enough clues to distinguish which particular
> processes serve consciousness and which do not.
> However, the observation that what repeats itself very often gradually
> drops out of the domain of consciousness suggests, according to
> Schrodinger, that
> [...] consciousness is associated with those functions [of our nervous
> system] that adapt themselves by what we call experience to a changing
> environment [...] with the learning of the living substance; its knowing
> how (Konnen) is unconscious. ([1], p.99).
>snip for brevity<
> A typical example is the mutual interaction of the actual life and
> behavior of an individual living organism (specimen) with the evolution
> of its species. The individual, with its structure, properties and basic
> patterns of behavior, is subordinate to the laws of the species - in the
> same way as a game player is subordinate to the rules of the game, or
> each of us to the rules of social behavior.
JE:-
A basic prediction of Darwinism is that
the individual is not subordinate to
any species grouping it is suggested
to belongs to, that species and the
entire process of speciation is enturely
subordinated to selected individuals.
In a testable Darwinian world,
"species" now becomes a term of convenience and
ceases to be the artificial fixed entity that creationists
assumed that they were.
>MR:-
>snip for brevity<
> The mutual interactive coupling across different levels may help us to
> elaborate Schrodinger's idea of singularity of consciousness as opposed
> to the plurality of persons.
JE:-
The logic of mutuality firstly requires separatness, not togetherness.
Unless mutualising systems are separate, independent, systems
to start with, they cannot work for a mutual benefit, later on.
If they do eventually work for mutual but not necessarily equal
benefit, they can only sustain this if they remain entirely separate
systems.
> MR:-
>One can just think of two tightly coupled
> and unseparable levels, one corresponding to the universal common
> consciousness in singular, the other to individual personal
> consciousnesses in plural. An analogous coupling exists, e.g., between a
> species and its specimens (as mentioned above), between a game and its
> matches, between a language and its utterances, between a song and its
> singings, between an artistic style and works of art, between a disease
> and its occurrences, or between a law and its applications.
JE:-
While I agree it is possible for competition to provide
cooperation at a higher level, both are only possible if the
respective lower systems remain independent. A species fitness as
just an organism additive fitness total cannot be selected at the
species level, but each, separate, organism fitness within that species
grouping, can be. Wiping out one entire species via a single
selective act is _not_ an act of species selection, it is an act of
equal negative selection at each additive, individual fitness
interface, within the one species grouping.
> MR:-
> What is
> important: the higher level entity has its own "life"; it is not
> (defined as) an arbitrary collection of lower level entities but rather
> it involves an actual dynamic interaction between entities of both
> levels across a large gap in spatio-temporal scales.
JE:-
Within any fitness system that is composed of many fitness
levels, selection can only operate at the 1st additive level.
All the other levels above it evolve via selection at just this one,
additive, interface.
> MR:-
> My proposal is to treat the singular consciousness together with the
> plurality of all its embodiments as one dynamically coupled interactive
> system of the above type.
JE:-
Since this is an evolutionary theory discussion
forum, can I ask, does this "singular consciousness"
evolve via selection on itself or is it only selectable via
the "plurality of all its embodiments"?
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
Michael Ragland
Since this is an evolutionary theory discussion forum, can I ask, does
this "singular consciousness" evolve via selection on itself or is it
only selectable via the "plurality of all its embodiments"?
John Edser
Mr. Edser:
It would serve you well if you carefully read a post before formulating
a response to it. The article states, "The individual, with its
structure, properties and basic patterns of behavior, is subordinate to
the laws of the species." I believe you snipped the next sentence which
stated, "On the other hand, the individuals are carriers, transmittors,
and even modifiers of the rules and laws they obey." The author (who is
Viktor Havel and not me) was not stating categorically an individual is
subordinate to the laws of the species. If you have read and registered
the next sentence that would have dawned on you.
Mr. Havel states, "In this way Schrodinger finds the specific role of
consciousness in relation to biological evolution. He understands
consciousness as the guardian of anomalies, unusual events, and other
novelties that are not yet shifted to the unconscious knowledge and
eventually to the genetic memory."
This sounds like a possible describtion of emergence. I agree with you
emergence by itself is not enough for Darwinian evolution. Darwinian
evolution is incredibly slow and Havel seems to be saying the phenomenon
of emergence is related to material aspects of consciousness we still
don't know much about and it appears on an individual level rather than
an Darwinian evolution level. That is why he states Schrodinger
understands consciousness as the guardian of anomalies, unusual events,
and other novelties that are not yet shifted to the unconscious
knowledge and eventually to the genetic memory.
You ask, "Since this is an evolutionary theory discussion forum, can I
ask, does this "singular consciousness" evolve via selection on itself
or is it only selectable via the "plurality of all its embodiments"? The
first thing you need to understand is Schrodinger was not only a
scientist but a metaphysicist. I see his concept of a single
consciousness as being a philosophical and theoretical framework for the
mutual interactive coupling across different levels or the mutual
interaction of the actual life and behavior of an individual living
organism (specimen) with the evolution of its species.
I think it is safe to say we don't know enough about emergence and how
it may relate to a single consciousness to know how it evolves and what
selection pressures are involved.
Michael Ragland
Srinivas S
John W Edser wrote:
The word "eastern" is not correct to use, as there are many cultures in east
and not all of them believe in the same philosophy. The differences, however
subtle they may be, are significant in terms of their worth . But I would like
to focus on the upanishad (vedantic view that apparently schrodinger was
fascinated with). It does not say that consciousness causes complexity. To say
that would be like saying that consciousness is synonymous with our awareness
of multiplicity. Infact this is totally opposite of the vedantic view. What it
says is that real consciousness is the realization of the single unifying
entity (if you want a practical instance of this entity, please look at the
explanation in my previous post on this thread) that manifests itself in both
simple and complex forms. That there are not men, women, dogs, cats, tree,
sun, light etc, but just different expressions of the same unifying entity. To
explain upanishad ( actually there are so many of them) in this mail would be
impossible, but you can refer some good books.
Also please note that the upanishad does not believe in birth or death,
because it does not believe in multiplicity. rebirth and concepts like that
are interpretations of some religions(especially hinduism) that are inspired
by philosophies similar to the upanishad. Upanishad should not be treated as a
reflection of hindu beliefs as is commonly(and incorrectly) done.
>
>
> In the eastern view consciousness must be indestructible.
> However, for consciousness to be emergent from complexity
> as predicted by the western view, energy must be shown to
> indestructible. It can be shown empirically that energy is
> indestructible but the same cannot be claimed for consciousness.
> In reality, complexity is something we can today, measure but
> consciousness is not. Consciousness is a non testable belief.
I agree that consciousness is not measurable, but it is definitely testable
logically. Not all tests are arithmetic based, they can be logical also. This
does not mean that the result of the logical test would be conclusive and
everyone would agree with it. There are so many theories in selection and
evolution that are still debated but never accepted by everyone. Even on this
newsgroup, we can see disagreements on most of the issues. However, for a
logical test, one needs to first define "consciousness"( i mentioned one such
definition above) and then people have to agree to it. Then it is to be seen
whether the arguments fit within accepted assumptions.
> Science
> cannot be validly founded on such a belief since it requires testable
> suppositions.
I would say that science does not really target at this level of
understanding. So it would take a change in the mindset of people to really
incorporate such a non-measurable concept into the realm of science.
>
>
> > MR:-
> > [...] knowledge, feeling and choice [which you call your own] are
> > essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay
> > in all sensitive beings,"
> > he writes in 1925 (p. 21). Nineteen years later:
> > Consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown; that there
> > is only one thing and that what seems to be a plurality is merely a
> > series of different aspects of this one thing, produced by a deception.
> > ([1], p.89).
> > Thirty years later:
> > There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds
> > or consciousnesses. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there
> > is only one mind. (p. 129).
>
> JE:-
> None of the views above are testable so that
> presented in this form, science can validly ignore them.
Whether to ignore such things or not depends upon what you think are the goals
of science. If you think that finding new cures for diseases or cloning or
sending man to mars are the types of the things that science should stick to,
then it can ignore this topic. If you think that science should satisy a
deeper thirst for knowledge( after sending man to neptune or pluto or
something like that), may be it is wise not to ignore this.
Uncertainity principle says that it is not possible to measure both the
position and momentum of a particle to the exact precision simultaneously.
This does not mean that the particle does not have a momentum and position at
an instant. You can only conclude that they do not fit into your
interpretation of meaningful measurement( and hence the position-momentum pair
is not a subset of the measurable world). A concept does not become useless
just because it is fuzzy.
> > MR:-
I agree.
Bernd Ehlert
> Even in the world that we see, there is a singular unity. that is 'energy'.
> From Einstein's mass-energy equivalence, even mass can be treated as a form
> of energy. The inanimate objects or intelligent machines or living beings
> are all various expressions of energy. Theoretically all forms of
> energy(heat, electromagnetic, sound etc) are interconvertible and thus even
> without going into philosophy, we have something that manifests itself in
> all the things. The apparent forms of energy is again an illusion, for
> example, heat that can be produced from light, sound and electricity are not
> different and cannot be differentiated.
>
> Srinivas S
Could "we" see the real energy which cannot be differentiated so that
the energy watches itself? I think if there is the being of energy as
the singular entity then there is differentation because "being"
includes duality and differentation. In every case a being at least has
a surroundings and so there is duality. Further on "we" only can
recognize something as a being and we only can recognize something as a
being. So I
think if there is a real singular unity without any differentation,
there is no being, no recognition and no world, otherwise
if there apparently is a being and the recognition of the singular
unity, then it "is" not the real singular unity.
Bernd Ehlert
pete
<ed...@ozemail.com.au> sez:
` JE:-
A nice analysis, but I suggest there is another option you haven't
enumerated: in analogy with the observed processes of the physical
universe, where quantum "complementary" entities are in some ways
the same thing, yet give the appearance of being wholly dissimilar,
eg waves & particles, and as well the notion of "symmetry breaking"
yeilding a diversity of apparently independent entities from a
single source, I suggest that the objective and subjective natures
of the universe are a result of of a symmetry breaking from a
heirarchically overarching single essence within which the apparently
unresolvable differences of the subjective and objective are
subsumed in a seamless whole. In this case, essentially all four
of your options are to some degree valid. (Does electricity
cause magnetism, or does magnetism cause electricity, or are
electricity and magnetism both aspects of the same thing, or
are electricity and magnetism both symmetry breaking results
from the electr-weak force? Yes to all!)
John W Edser
"pete" <vin...@triumfunspam.ca> wrote
> P:-
> A nice analysis, but I suggest there is another option you haven't
> enumerated: in analogy with the observed processes of the physical
> universe, where quantum "complementary" entities are in some ways
> the same thing, yet give the appearance of being wholly dissimilar,
> eg waves & particles, and as well the notion of "symmetry breaking"
> yeilding a diversity of apparently independent entities from a
> single source, I suggest that the objective and subjective natures
> of the universe are a result of of a symmetry breaking from a
> heirarchically overarching single essence within which the apparently
> unresolvable differences of the subjective and objective are
> subsumed in a seamless whole. In this case, essentially all four
> of your options are to some degree valid. (Does electricity
> cause magnetism, or does magnetism cause electricity, or are
> electricity and magnetism both aspects of the same thing, or
> are electricity and magnetism both symmetry breaking results
> from the electr-weak force? Yes to all!)
JE:-
Such a view is interesting but non testable.
Thus it holds little interest to the sciences.
Only if at least one of the 4 general logical
structures is EXCLUDABLE, can a view
even possibly be tested. Only if it can be
tested is the view scientific.
John W Edser
"Srinivas S" <sga...@cisco.com> wrote
> S:-
> The word "eastern" is not correct to use, as there are many cultures in
east
> and not all of them believe in the same philosophy. The differences,
however
> subtle they may be, are significant in terms of their worth .
JE:-
OK. I only meant the category to be very loose.
> S:-
> But I would like
> to focus on the upanishad (vedantic view that apparently schrodinger was
> fascinated with). It does not say that consciousness causes complexity. To
say
> that would be like saying that consciousness is synonymous with our
awareness
> of multiplicity. Infact this is totally opposite of the vedantic view.
What it
> says is that real consciousness is the realization of the single unifying
> entity (if you want a practical instance of this entity, please look at
the
> explanation in my previous post on this thread) that manifests itself in
both
> simple and complex forms. That there are not men, women, dogs, cats, tree,
> sun, light etc, but just different expressions of the same unifying
entity.
JE:-
Such a view is non testable so it
has little interest to an evolutionary discussion
group, unless you can propose a way in which
this singularity can even begin, to evolve.
> S:-
> Also please note that the upanishad does not believe in birth or death,
> because it does not believe in multiplicity. rebirth and concepts like
that
> are interpretations of some religions(especially hinduism) that are
inspired
> by philosophies similar to the upanishad. Upanishad should not be treated
as a
> reflection of hindu beliefs as is commonly(and incorrectly) done.
JE:-
The logical structure of such a belief seems
to be almost entirely reversible, something like
mathematic appears to be. Everything across
the "=" sign is another manifestation of the same
thing, i.e. it is just a mathematical equality.
Such predominately reversible systems are
logical but not rational. Godel reasoned they
are not self consistent so something
is needed to try to explain them. I reason
that this missing something is hidden, non reversible
logical linkages within the argument. These
can be more easily illustrated using nested
sets. Mathematics is based on set theory.
However, the Venn set system does not
include common, nested sets ( Russian Dolls).
Multiplication is not entirely reversible as
mathematics suggests that it is, i.e. 2*3
is not entirely the same as 3*2. This
can be shown using nested sets.
The set of two integers is nested within a
set of 3 integers OR the set of 3 integers
can be nested within a set of 2. Both
nested sets contain the same
number of integers, but do not contain
the same nested sub structure. Thus
2 books of 3 stamps is not physically
the same as 3 books of 2 stamps
even if they contain the same number,
i.e. 6 stamps. Such a difference in
sub structure (which set is nested
within another) is critical to evolutionary
reasoning but is lost to mathematics.
> > JE:-
> > In the eastern view consciousness must be indestructible.
> > However, for consciousness to be emergent from complexity
> > as predicted by the western view, energy must be shown to
> > indestructible. It can be shown empirically that energy is
> > indestructible but the same cannot be claimed for consciousness.
> > In reality, complexity is something we can today, measure but
> > consciousness is not. Consciousness is a non testable belief.
> S:-
> I agree that consciousness is not measurable, but it is definitely
testable
> logically. Not all tests are arithmetic based, they can be logical also.
This
> does not mean that the result of the logical test would be conclusive and
> everyone would agree with it.
JE:-
Science requires that at least something can be
measured. Logic alone, is not enough.
> S
> There are so many theories in selection and
> evolution that are still debated but never accepted by everyone. Even on
this
> newsgroup, we can see disagreements on most of the issues.
JE:-
Darwinism is accepted as the
basic system. However, even this
basic view is not fully understood.
>snip<
JE:-
Don't get me wrong. Metaphysics is basic to the imagination
and science requires the imagination, but imagination, alone,
is not science. Many views sit at the gates of
science waiting to cross over using the correct application
of reason to an imagined idea. Darwin thought up the natural
selective principle in a fraction of a second. He then spent
his entire life guiding it over the threshold of the imagination
and through the bear pit of scientific discussion, testing
his theory of evolution.
>snip<
> > JE:-
> > A more correct term to "absurd" is, "testable".
> > What separates ideas are their testability. Science
> > does not exclude any assumptions, no matter how
> > absurd they appear, if and only if, they can be tested.
> > All non testable suppositions are excluded.
> S:-
> Uncertainity principle says that it is not possible to measure both the
> position and momentum of a particle to the exact precision simultaneously.
> This does not mean that the particle does not have a momentum and position
at
> an instant. You can only conclude that they do not fit into your
> interpretation of meaningful measurement( and hence the position-momentum
pair
> is not a subset of the measurable world). A concept does not become
useless
> just because it is fuzzy.
JE:-
If a fuzzy concept is testable then it valid.
> > JE:-
> > A basic prediction of Darwinism is that
> > the individual is not subordinate to
> > any species grouping it is suggested
> > to belongs to, that species and the
> > entire process of speciation is entirely
> > subordinated to selected individuals.
> > In a testable Darwinian world,
> > "species" now becomes a term of convenience and
> > ceases to be the artificial fixed entity that creationists
> > assumed that they were.
> S
> I agree.
JE:-
Then you are one of a select group!
Most people here embrace, without
a second thought, the multi unit theory
of natural selection.
John W Edser
"Michael Ragland" <ragl...@webtv.net> wrote
> MR:-
> It would serve you well if you carefully read a post before formulating
> a response to it. The article states, "The individual, with its
> structure, properties and basic patterns of behavior, is subordinate to
> the laws of the species." I believe you snipped the next sentence which
> stated, "On the other hand, the individuals are carriers, transmittors,
> and even modifiers of the rules and laws they obey." The author (who is
> Viktor Havel and not me) was not stating categorically an individual is
> subordinate to the laws of the species. If you have read and registered
> the next sentence that would have dawned on you.
JE:-
Mr Ragland, it would serve you better to fully understand
the quotes that you used, before you quoted them.
The author you quoted cannot have it both ways, thus
playing politics with science. Either the individual "is subordinate
to the laws of the species" or species are subordinate
to the laws of the individual. Just adding that " individuals
are carriers, transmittors, and even modifiers of the rules
and laws they obey" does not alter the fact that the author,
using just these quotes, is categorically suggesting that individuals
are subject to the laws of the species. You must be
aware that this is termed "group selection" and has been
debated for over 50 years within evolutionary theory and
still remains a major point of contention.
The Darwinian view does not include group selection.
It was Wallace and not Darwin, who proposed it.
The Darwinian view was explicit: species are subject to
the laws of _individuals_, i.e. species only evolve because
individuals are selected , not because species
are selected. Within Darwinism these two views
are logically self exclusive, i.e. they both cannot be true.
If one is true the other must be false. However within Neo
Darwinism both are now suggested to be true. However no
logic has ever been supplied to show how such an
contradictory event is possible. Closer examination
of Neo Darwinian examples of "muli levels of selection"
show that they are either over simplifications of the one Darwinian
level, e.g. selfish geneism, or they are poorly defined Darwinian
levels, e.g. apparent organism fitness altruism in the eusocals,
described by Hamilton where infertile forms were wrongly suggested
to have a Darwian fitness. In all cases, the correct Darwinian level:
the fertile organism level, is alone sufficient to explain the
observations. Not one group selective event has
ever been documented within nature that cannot be explained by
selection only at the Darwinian level. Since the
Darwinian level is simpler, group selection can be validly
deleted using Occam's Razor, and has been for many years.
>snip<
> MR:-
> You ask, "Since this is an evolutionary theory discussion forum, can I
> ask, does this "singular consciousness" evolve via selection on itself
> or is it only selectable via the "plurality of all its embodiments"? The
> first thing you need to understand is Schrodinger was not only a
> scientist but a metaphysicist. I see his concept of a single
> consciousness as being a philosophical and theoretical framework for the
> mutual interactive coupling across different levels or the mutual
> interaction of the actual life and behavior of an individual living
> organism (specimen) with the evolution of its species.
JE:-
I have difficulty making evolutionary sense of the above.
If there exists only a "singular consciousness" then
it has nothing to compete with. Thus any evolution
of it now becomes impossible except via competition
between the "plurality of all its embodiments". This being
the case, selection is only happening on the lower pluralities
and not the higher singularity. The logical structure of this
argument carries the same error as the classical group selective
proposition. IF a group is the simple fitness addition of the
selected parts THEN the group is not selected only
the parts are. The group is not one single entity, only
the parts are. If the fitness of the
group is a complex multiple of the fitness of the parts
then only the group is selectable and not the parts.
Here evolution requires at least two competing
group entities where the groups must be able to actually
reproduce groups, not just individuals. Under no
circumstances can both groups and individuals be
logically suggested to be selectable entities.
> MR:-
> I think it is safe to say we don't know enough about emergence and how
> it may relate to a single consciousness to know how it evolves and what
> selection pressures are involved.
JE:-
As long as we can propose a self
consistent logic of evolution we can
validly have a stab at it.
Michael Ragland
Mr. Edser:
>From a Darwinian perspective you're points are well made and
Schrodinger's concept of a singular consciousness doesn't make any
sense. The article by Havel was short but my interpretation of
Schrodinger's concept of a singular consciousness was it was not
intended to be necessarily limited to the processes of Darwinian
evolution. This is my interpretation, not necessarily what Schrodinger
thought.
I wrote, "I see his concept of a single consciousness as being a
philosophical and theoretical framework for the mutual interactive
coupling across different levels or the mutual interaction of the actual
life and behavior of an individual living organism (specimen) with the
evolution of its species." I trust you realize Schrodinger's ideas here
are very tentative and incomplete, unlike Darwin, and are not backed by
solid scientific evidence. However, I think it would be narrowminded to
not explore Schrodinger's concept of a singular consciousness and how it
has or may relate to our evolution as long as it is made clear there is
presently no scientific evidence supporting it.
Why? I will explain that in a moment but for the time being I think
Schrodinger does provide a philosophical and theoretical framework for
the mutual interactive couplings across different levels or the mutual
interaction of the actual life and behavior of an individual living
organism with the evolution of the species.
I think Schrondinger's concept of a singular consciousness may have much
more viability as well as being supported by scientific evidence in the
future. I agree with you Schrodinger's concept of a singlular
consciousness doesn't jibe with Darwinian evolution.
I would ask you, however, if you believe Darwinian evolution will
"eternally" be the only mode of evolution for humans? Do you think the
human species might eventually reach a stage where it guides its own
evolution? Do you think it is possible artificial wombs will come about
where human brain size can be augmented and genetic engineering
facilitated?
Do you think its possible humans will be able to artificially select
genetic characteristics rather than nature selecting them? Do you think
the human species can become a genetically self designing species?
And if that happens Mr. Edser then what do we make of concepts of group
selection and individual selection? It's a whole different ball game. Of
course, these developments will occur very gradually and incrementally.
The ultimate outcome, however, would be our evolution would be very
different from the way it has been for millions of years.
Under this scenario I think Schrodinger's concept of a singular
consciousness accounting for the mutual interactive couplings across
different levels or the mutual interaction of the actual life and
behavior of an individual living organism with the evolution of the
species has possible validity and efficacy.
Also, Schrodinger has mentioned consciousness is a guardian of
anomalies, unusual events, and novelties and that individuals are
carriers, transmittors, and even modifiers of the rules and laws they
obey. While one can debate whether this is true or not there is no
question continued advances in molecular biology will likely shed light
on those unusual events, anomalies, and novelties and this was not
possible in th past. This may well aid in possibly discerning a singular
consciousness.
In our past evolution such anomalies and novelties which may be
representative of a singular consciousness haven't been able to be
transmitted to the collective genetic memory but with the advent of
molecular biology and future of genetic engineering acquired knowledge
may be able in some respects to be gradually transmitted to the
collective genetic memory.
Michael Ragland
Srinivas S
>> But I would like
>> to focus on the upanishad (vedantic view that apparently
>>schrodinger was fascinated with). It does not say that
>>consciousness causes complexity. To say that would be like
>>saying that consciousness is synonymous with our awareness
>> of multiplicity. Infact this is totally opposite of the
>>vedantic view. What it says is that real consciousness is
>> the realization of the single unifying entity (if you
>>want a practical instance of this entity, please look at the
>> explanation in my previous post on this thread) that
>>manifests itself in both simple and complex forms.
>>That there are not men, women, dogs, cats, tree,
>> sun, light etc, but just different expressions of the
>>same unifying entity.
JE:-
>Such a view is non testable so it
>has little interest to an evolutionary discussion
>group, unless you can propose a way in which
>this singularity can even begin, to evolve.
I dont know if you really read the post i asked you to.
Nevertheless, I will explain again. Life(charecterized
by metabolism, replication and growth among other things)
is just one of the possible forms that energy can take.
So energy is one possible interpretation of the singular
entity.Consciousness is a property(of life) of realization
of such an entity.
I will accept that this concept is untestable only if you
prove the following 2 things:
a) that life is not dictated by the same laws of physics
that apply to non-life.
b) that life interacts with other entities in a totally
unique way at an elementary level.
As for the relevance of this topic on a evolutionary
discussion group, I think it is pertinent w.r.t. the
nature of our understanding of origin of life, unless
you have pre-decided that life is a strange accident of
probability producing a super natural entity in the midst
of a predictable world. I dont know why you should insist
that every concept relating to evolution should also belong
to the set of selected entities.
S:-
>>Also please note that the upanishad does not believe
>>in birth or death,because it does not believe in
I have a serious problem with the limitation you
are posing on the scope of mathematics. I do not know
why your idea of mathematics is confined to venn's diagram.
Mathematics has different data structures like arrays,
linked-lists, stacks, queues, trees and combinations of
these structures. Infact these are some of the basic concepts
used in programming languages. All these have a directional
property and a sub-structure within the universal set of
all the members of the structure.
ok now let's come back to your problem with the equality that
is suggested by the singular consciousness. I think that is
where the beauty of the view lies.Let me say something about
the different levels of abstraction of ideas. To give you an
example, you can view this post at several different levels
of abstractions.
a)as a message that i am trying to communicate to this group
b)as a text produced by the news reader software
c)as a image produced by electrons bombarding the screen of
your computer monitor.
and so on..
There is truth in every level of abstraction. One level is not
a higher truth over others.
This is the exact analogy between the evolutionary theory
view-point and the view-point of the upanishad.
S:-
>>I agree that consciousness is not measurable, but it is
>> definitely testable logically. Not all tests are
>>arithmetic based, they can be logical also. This
>> does not mean that the result of the logical test
>>would be conclusive and everyone would agree with it.
JE:-
>Science requires that at least something can be
>measured. Logic alone, is not enough.
Yes, I agree that the conventional definition of science needs
observability and measurability. But I still feel that there is
scientific merit in the concept, whether or not it conforms
to our "agreed" scope of science.
Srinivas S
John W Edser
"Michael Ragland" <ragl...@webtv.net> wrote
> MR:-
> From a Darwinian perspective you're points are well made and
> Schrodinger's concept of a singular consciousness doesn't make any
> sense. The article by Havel was short but my interpretation of
> Schrodinger's concept of a singular consciousness was it was not
> intended to be necessarily limited to the processes of Darwinian
> evolution. This is my interpretation, not necessarily what Schrodinger
> thought.
JE:-
This is an evolutionary theory discussion
group so you must expect such ideas
to be discussed relative to evolutionary
theory. Evolutionary science seems to littered with
physicists and mathematicians making fundamental
biological errors.
> snip <
> ..I think it would be narrowminded to
> not explore Schrodinger's concept of a singular consciousness and how it
> has or may relate to our evolution as long as it is made clear there is
> presently no scientific evidence supporting it.
> Why? I will explain that in a moment but for the time being I think
> Schrodinger does provide a philosophical and theoretical framework for
> the mutual interactive couplings across different levels or the mutual
> interaction of the actual life and behavior of an individual living
> organism with the evolution of the species.
JE:-
Mutualising selection is my speciality. However
I think you will find that this concept hardly
exists at all within the establishment. They all
seem to prefer the illogical concept of fitness altruism.
This seems to be because Hamilton remains the
darling of evolutionary theory. I refer you to my
recent post "Re: Kin Selection".
I am very happy to open or reply to, any discussion
re: unequal fitness mutualisation as long as this view is
entirely separated within any respondents mind to the logic
of fitness altruism. So far I have zero discussion with
anybody here who can/is willing, to make this basic
separation.
> MR:-
> I think Schrondinger's concept of a singular consciousness may have much
> more viability as well as being supported by scientific evidence in the
> future. I agree with you Schrodinger's concept of a singlular
> consciousness doesn't jibe with Darwinian evolution.
JE:-
Since it is a new idea, my interest is in trying to
inspire people to think of different ways it could
be incorporated into existing, i.e. testable,
evolutionary theory.
> MR:-
> I would ask you, however, if you believe Darwinian evolution will
> "eternally" be the only mode of evolution for humans? Do you think the
> human species might eventually reach a stage where it guides its own
> evolution? Do you think it is possible artificial wombs will come about
> where human brain size can be augmented and genetic engineering
> facilitated?
JE:-
Within the Darwinian argument, almost since it's
inception, it has been logically understood that
it is possible for humanity to guide " its own evolution".
IMO no contradiction exists between Darwinism and the
evolution of human culture via humans selecting themselves
using an artificial form of _default_, cultural selection. Problems
seem to lie within gene centric Neo Darwinism, not Darwinism.
Many such Neo Darwinians seem to be Darwinistically,
illiterate. Nobody seems to be able to put Mendel's
genes into Darwinian evolution without destroying the
Darwinian selectee and thus the testability of all
evolutionary theory.
Not long after Darwin published his book, L.
Morgan published his view of "organic selection".
Here a group of organisms of the same species can exert
a considerable selective force on Darwinian individuals.
Note that a grouped selective force is NOT group
selection. Group selection only applies to a grouped
Darwinian selectee, not a grouped selector. Organic selection
became better known as the "Baldwin effect" after
an author of the same name.
> MR:-
> Do you think its possible humans will be able to artificially select
> genetic characteristics rather than nature selecting them? Do you think
> the human species can become a genetically self designing species?
JE:-
This is already being done in both human and non human
evolutionary systems.
> MR:-
> And if that happens Mr. Edser then what do we make of concepts of group
> selection and individual selection?
JE:-
Their logics remain contradictory,
thus their predictions remain contradictory.
When I talked about a grouped cultural selective
force (not a grouped selectee!) being used
to produce cultural evolution by DEFAULT
selection within the system (see above), I
didn't mean Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, I
meant a parliamentary democracy and a free
market system, i.e. trade based on an individual
and not grouped, fitness.
> MH:-
> It's a whole different ball game.
JE:-
No its the same old ball game, with
the same rules, providing the same
unequal but mutual, benefits.
>snip<
> MH:-
> Under this scenario I think Schrodinger's concept of a singular
> consciousness accounting for the mutual interactive couplings across
> different levels or the mutual interaction of the actual life and
> behavior of an individual living organism with the evolution of the
> species has possible validity and efficacy.
JE:-
Perhaps as a grouped selector but
not as a grouped selectee.
> snip<
> MR:-
> In our past evolution such anomalies and novelties which may be
> representative of a singular consciousness haven't been able to be
> transmitted to the collective genetic memory ...
JE:-
Sorry, no valid _collective_ "genetic memory" exists,
just pools of genes for Darwinian populations. Each
gene, like individual words, all mean different
things within different _contexts_ because their
associative meanings (fitnesses) are all multiplicative
and not just additive. The gene for blue eyes, like
the word "carrot" depends on it's context,
for it's selective worth. Plasticity is coded for in
the genes (plural), but no single plastic act is coded
for, just all possible plastic activity. Genes just set limits.
Cultural selection then determines which plastic
act is selected, forcing the genetic limits to expand
or contract.
Michael Ragland
Mr. Edser:
Your statement, "Sorry, no valid_collective_ "genetic memory" exists,
just pools of genes for Darwinian populations may apply for Darwinian
evolution but it certainly doesn't apply to mythology. I want to
concentrate on Jung's archetypes here as I think it strongly argues
there is a collective genetic unconscious of archetypes and because
unlike Dawkins memes which Dawkins makes it point to state aren't
genetically transmittable, Jung clearly stated he believed the archetype
was in our genetic code.
Jung linked the primordial archetypes with the physiological urges of
instincts and went so far as to say that, "Because the brain is the
principal organ of the mind, the collective unconscious depends directly
upon the evolution of the brain". A more precise statement of the
mind/body/spirit link, and of the religious implications of biological
kinship, would be hard to find.
Jung also believed biological factors accounted for differences in the
collective unconscious of the races. With the beginning of racial
differentiation, essential differences are developed in the collective
psyche as well.
I basically agree with Jung. I think there are some fundamental
archetypes which are expressed in all human sub-species but I also think
there are differences in the collective unconscious of the races too.
I have made it clear I believe there is genetic variation amongst
groups. I would even say there is genetic variation within and between
races. The reason I have not stated the latter is because of the
unfortunate stigma of the word "race" and the continuing efforts of many
who in the name of "race" engage in pseudo-science in simplifying and
distorting genetic variation in the service of a social-political
agenda.
If one accepts religion as an archetype which is in the genetic code
there is a strong argument there are biological differences in the
collective unconscious of races. In the East, Buddhism and Hinduism are
major religions. When compared to Judaism and Christianity, Buddhism and
Hinduism are very different. What is to account for these dramatic
differences?
Is it culture? Seems unlikely. Not too long ago there was a discussion
on sci.bio.evolution and there was pretty much a consensus culture and
biology are not separate entities. That leaves at least a partial Asian
genetic explanation for the development of Buddhism and Hinduism. Is
that genetic role enough to account for biological differences from the
development of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? I think so.
In focusing on Darwinian evolution and the all importance of the
individual do you ignore, disregard, or disbelieve in the phenomenon of
the archetypes as physiological urges of instincts represented in
mythological forms of the collective unconscious?
Bear in mind unlike Dawkins memes which IMO can be easily criticized
Jung's concept of the archetypes are pretty much accepted and standard.
If you do accept the concept of the archetype what do you think accounts
for it? Archtypes are not individual genes which mean different things
within different contexts. They are the physiological urges of instincts
represented in mythological forms of the collective unconscious. In a
sense they are "eternal".
For example, Christianity has existed for thousands of years. During
that time Europeans have been subject to natural selection. Arguably,
however, Christianity hasn't. This gets back to my own concept of a meme
(or in this case archetype) being genetically transmitted and
continously recycled. Yes, I'm aware an archtype can't be vertically
genetically transmitted from parent to child but it doesn't require
fitness altrism or group selection for an archtype to be more than just
the genetic pieces of a genetic map.
You state, "Genes just set limits. Cultural selection then determines
which plastic
act is selected, forcing the genetic limits to expand or contract." I
truly believe cultural selection is extremely limited in forcing genetic
limits to expand or contract. I have difficulty seeing genetic
engineering in the light of traditional cultural selection. However, I
think genetic engineering more than any other mechanism of cultural
selection offers the possibility of expanding/contracting genetic limits
and increasing complexity.
In my opinion, natural selection has continued to operate in our genes
(although less effective today) but this natural selection has not
equated with a "natural selection of our mind". And although natural
selection doesn't work as effectively as it did there is nothing yet to
replace it so there still remains no "natural selection of the mind".
When I say "natural selection of the mind" I mean the archetypes, memes,
etc.
Genetic engineering offers the hope of a "natural selection of our
minds" i.e. of altering the archetypes and gradually replacing them with
new more advanced and complex archetypes and memes.
Michael Ragland
John W Edser
"Michael Ragland" <ragl...@webtv.net> wrote
> Your statement, "Sorry, no valid_collective_ "genetic memory" exists,
> just pools of genes for Darwinian populations may apply for Darwinian
> evolution but it certainly doesn't apply to mythology. I want to
> concentrate on Jung's archetypes here as I think it strongly argues
> there is a collective genetic unconscious of archetypes and because
> unlike Dawkins memes which Dawkins makes it point to state aren't
> genetically transmittable, Jung clearly stated he believed the archetype
> was in our genetic code.
JE:-
The complex phenotype of a Jung archetype
could be coded for in the genes via complex
epistasis.
Your problem here appears to be based
on your understanding of the epistemology
of genetics. Genetics _correlates_ one organism phenotype
with one DNA/RNA gene. The only way to prove that one
gene alone, codes for the phenotype in question is to grow
the phenotype "in vitro" without any other genes being
involved. While this is possible for some very
simple phenotypes it is not possible for the
majority. Clearly it is useful to just
assume that the simple pigmentation phenotypes
that Mendel observed in pea plants were each
coded for by just one gene. However even here
complex epistasis exists.
> MR:-
> Jung linked the primordial archetypes with the physiological urges of
> instincts and went so far as to say that, "Because the brain is the
> principal organ of the mind, the collective unconscious depends directly
> upon the evolution of the brain". A more precise statement of the
> mind/body/spirit link, and of the religious implications of biological
> kinship, would be hard to find.
> Jung also believed biological factors accounted for differences in the
> collective unconscious of the races. With the beginning of racial
> differentiation, essential differences are developed in the collective
> psyche as well.
JE:-
Since organism groups evolve via natural selection
race, like species, is not a hard term anymore.
Within Darwinism they are just a term of convenience.
Species groups are suggested to be able to more easily
swap genes within the same group and members of the
same race are suggested to have more genes in common
than those that are not members.
> MR
> I basically agree with Jung. I think there are some fundamental
> archetypes which are expressed in all human sub-species but I also think
> there are differences in the collective unconscious of the races too.
JE:-
Given that such a thing was true, you have to
separate out what is passed on above the
gene level to what is passed on only at the
gene level. It would make little sense for
the gene level to pass on archetypes since
it would take too long to modify them via
gene freq changes and too expensive to code
for them. At the gene level it would be
cheaper for nature to just assume the need
to provide archetypes was genetic not
each archetype itself. It would
then be necessary to "fill in" this need
via archetype invention, as an above the
gene cultural form of inheritance.
This means that different groups
with quite similar genes could create
different archetypes using
cultural inheritance.
Another possibility exists: chemical
inheritance above the DNA/RNA level.
It can be shown that epigenetic inheritance
does exist in some forms. Sonniborn
proved that changes in the cortex of some protists
that were altered by surgery can be inherited
over subsequent generations. Prion disease
is pointing to the existence of protein folds
acting as a valid carrier for heritable information.
This whole field has a massive bias against
it simply because of a misuse of the refutation
by Mendel, of Lamarckian inheritance.
All that Mendel actually refuted was the
view that genetic information could also flow
from phenotype to genotype. This reverse
flow of genetic (coding) information can
never be the true as long as the central
dogma of biochemistry remains non
refuted.
>snip<
> MR:-
> If you do accept the concept of the archetype what do you think accounts
> for it?
JE:-
Cultural inheritance systems are
complex phenotype that are themselves
based on genetic inheritance that set
a definite limit to the extent of cultural
inheritance.
> MR:-
> Archtypes are not individual genes which mean different things
> within different contexts.
JE:-
They are cultural beliefs that are also subject to
context, just like genes.
> For example, Christianity has existed for thousands of years. During
> that time Europeans have been subject to natural selection. Arguably,
> however, Christianity hasn't.
JE:-
Lets use Dawkins catchy prase for a moment.
Genes limit memes. One unit of selection
is a non reversible logical structure that
comprises _both_ genes and memes such
that:
genes ---> memes
NOT:-
memes ---> genes
AND:
Only each gene/meme complex
is selectable not each separate gene
or each separate meme.
HERE:-
Genes limit memes.
Memes control genes.
THUS:
Genes code for memes but
genes are not selectable except
via their memetic phenotypes.
..
> MR:-
> This gets back to my own concept of a meme
> (or in this case archetype) being genetically transmitted and
> continously recycled. Yes, I'm aware an archtype can't be vertically
> genetically transmitted from parent to child but it doesn't require
> fitness altrism or group selection for an archtype to be more than just
> the genetic pieces of a genetic map.
JE::-
It would not make much sense for
nature to code each archetype.
> MR:-
> You state, "Genes just set limits. Cultural selection then determines
> which plastic
> act is selected, forcing the genetic limits to expand or contract." I
> truly believe cultural selection is extremely limited in forcing genetic
> limits to expand or contract.
JE:-
I think it is much stronger than you give it credit.
For humans, trade is by far the largest _cultural _
selective force since it provides most of the
wealth that is necessary to expand Darwinian
fitness per human. Human Darwinian fitness
requires an increase in the reproduction of
a fertile organism WITH a set of complex
ideas in it's head that it can USE. The reproduction
of ideas and their usage depends on expensive
machines. One valid human unit of Darwinian
selection is a VERY expensive unit to reproduce.
You not only have to reproduce a fertile human
individual you have to educate it and provide
it with the means to acquire the machines it requires
to apply the ideas it has in its head.
> MR:-
> I have difficulty seeing genetic
> engineering in the light of traditional cultural selection.
JE:-
I disagree, I think it is a good example.
>snip<
> MR:-
> In my opinion, natural selection has continued to operate in our genes
> (although less effective today) ..
JE:- I think that massive selection
is being applied to our genome. The genome
is being selected to maintain and expand the
human mental capacity, via trade. More than
this we are being selected to outgrow a tribal
identity mechanism, using sport etc, before it
destroys use completely.
>snip<
Michael Ragland
"Michael Ragland" <ragl...@webtv.net> wrote
Your statement, "Sorry, no valid_collective_ "genetic memory" exists,
just pools of genes for Darwinian populations may apply for Darwinian
evolution but it certainly doesn't apply to mythology. I want to
concentrate on Jung's archetypes here as I think it strongly argues
there is a collective genetic unconscious of archetypes and because
unlike Dawkins memes which Dawkins makes it point to state aren't
genetically transmittable, Jung clearly stated he believed the archetype
was in our genetic code.
JE:-
The complex phenotype of a Jung archetype could be coded for in the
genes via complex epistasis.
Your problem here appears to be based
on your understanding of the epistemology of genetics. Genetics
_correlates_ one organism phenotype with one DNA/RNA gene. The only way
to prove that one gene alone, codes for the phenotype in question is to
grow the phenotype "in vitro" without any other genes being involved.
While this is possible for some very simple phenotypes it is not
possible for the majority. Clearly it is useful to just
assume that the simple pigmentation phenotypes that Mendel observed in
pea plants were each coded for by just one gene. However even here
complex epistasis exists.
[Ragland: Mr. Edser I understand genetics correlates one organism
phenotype with one DNA/RNA gene but I think it is wrong to assume
anything. I found a class question on the internet which asked students
if human skin pigmentation is a product of epistasis or pleiotrophy.
Since the the question mentioned 5 or 6 genes are responsible for skin
pigmentation my answer was "epistasis" since plelotrophy by definition
is when one gene effects more than one phenotype. Now, nothing is really
simple in biology but if a phenotype like skin pigmentation is the
interaction of 5 or 6 genes it "seems" the phenotypes of archetypes
would involve the interaction of many more genes. Also, it seems to be
it might be possible for epistasis and pleitrophy to overlap to produce
polygenic phenotypes. If the current dogma is genetics correlates one
organism phenotype with one DNA/RNA gene then I think that needs to be
revised. I think the position should be taken genetics correlates one
organism phenotype with several DNA/RNA genes. If what I read was
accurate that 5 or 6 genes interact to produce pigmentation than I think
it is highly likely epistasis is the rule and not the exception.
Personally, I have great difficulty believing any one phenotype is the
product of merely one DNA/RNA gene separated from any other genes. I
could be mistaken but isn't eye color as well a product of epistasis?
So, I have a problem equating one gene coding for a phenotype with
complex epistasis when obviously other genes are involved.]
MR:-
Jung linked the primordial archetypes with the physiological urges of
instincts and went so far as to say that, "Because the brain is the
principal organ of the mind, the collective unconscious depends directly
upon the evolution of the brain". A more precise statement of the
mind/body/spirit link, and of the religious implications of biological
kinship, would be hard to find.
Jung also believed biological factors accounted for differences in the
collective unconscious of the races. With the beginning of racial
differentiation, essential differences are developed in the collective
psyche as well.
JE:-
Since organism groups evolve via natural selection race, like species,
is not a hard term anymore. Within Darwinism they are just a term of
convenience. Species groups are suggested to be able to more easily swap
genes within the same group and members of the same race are suggested
to have more genes in common than those that are not members.
[Ragland: Within Darwinism, yes. Not sure what you mean by "species
groups are suggested to be able to more easily swap genes within the
same group. I assume you mean a member of the human species can swap its
genes with another member of the human species but if it tried to do
this with a dog or horse the results would not be fruitful.]
MR
I basically agree with Jung. I think there are some fundamental
archetypes which are expressed in all human sub-species but I also think
there are differences in the collective unconscious of the races too.
JE:-
Given that such a thing was true, you have to separate out what is
passed on above the gene level to what is passed on only at the gene
level. It would make little sense for the gene level to pass on
archetypes since it would take too long to modify them via gene freq
changes and too expensive to code for them. At the gene level it would
be
cheaper for nature to just assume the need to provide archetypes was
genetic not
each archetype itself. It would
then be necessary to "fill in" this need via archetype invention, as an
above the gene cultural form of inheritance.
This means that different groups
with quite similar genes could create
different archetypes using
cultural inheritance.
[Ragland: What you're saying seems contradictory. You state, "It would
make little sense for the gene level to pass on archetypes since it
would take too long to modify them via gene frequency changes and too
expensive to code for them. At the gene level it would be cheaper for
nature to just assume the need to provide archetypes was genetic not
each archetype itself." Assuming complex epistasis accounts for the
"genetic need" of the archetypes it would seem apparent to me at a
fundamental level the genetic need of the archetypes was genetically
coded for via epistasis.]
Another possibility exists: chemical
inheritance above the DNA/RNA level.
It can be shown that epigenetic inheritance does exist in some forms.
Sonniborn
proved that changes in the cortex of some protists that were altered by
surgery can be inherited over subsequent generations. Prion disease is
pointing to the existence of protein folds acting as a valid carrier for
heritable information. This whole field has a massive bias against it
simply because of a misuse of the refutation by Mendel, of Lamarckian
inheritance.
All that Mendel actually refuted was the view that genetic information
could also flow from phenotype to genotype. This reverse flow of genetic
(coding) information can never be the true as long as the central dogma
of biochemistry remains non
refuted.
snip<
[Ragland: I'm more inclined to accept epistasis in the genetic need for
archetypes than epigenetic phenomenon. I don't accept epigenesis as a
factor in the archetypes. The genetic need for the archetypes is
fundamental and IMO genetically coded via epistasis. As I've previously
mentioned, the archetypes are universal and unchanging. Even in modern
times this remains true. Take a film like Star Wars which was hugely
successful but more than anything representative of the archetype: the
struggle between good and evil, the wise old man, the stuggle with the
father, the princess sister, the hero, etc. Because the archetypes are
the result of epistasis [I'm assuming here] there is no need for gene
frequency changes and because so many genes are involved it is not
expensive to code for them. As you mentioned, it is best to look at a
genetic need for the archetypes rather than each archetype itself being
genetically coded for.]
MR:-
If you do accept the concept of the archetype what do you think accounts
for it?
JE:-
Cultural inheritance systems are
complex phenotype that are themselves
based on genetic inheritance that set
a definite limit to the extent of cultural inheritance.
[Ragland: I agree.]
MR:-
Archtypes are not individual genes which mean different things within
different contexts.
JE:-
They are cultural beliefs that are also subject to context, just like
genes.
[Ragland: Yes.]
MR:-
For example, Christianity has existed for thousands of years. During
that time Europeans have been subject to natural selection. Arguably,
however, Christianity hasn't.
JE:-
Lets use Dawkins catchy prase for a moment. Genes limit memes. One unit
of selection is a non reversible logical structure that comprises _both_
genes and memes such
that:
genes ---> memes
NOT:-
memes ---> genes
AND:
Only each gene/meme complex
is selectable not each separate gene
or each separate meme.
HERE:-
Genes limit memes.
Memes control genes.
THUS:
Genes code for memes but
genes are not selectable except
via their memetic phenotypes.
[Ragland: I disagree with Dawkins. First, disagree with his concept of
the meme not being genetically transmittable. I've explained my position
before on this. Dawkins concept of the meme and Jung's concept of the
archtype are not the same thing. Since this discussion is on the
archetype and my contention it is genetically based I will rephrase your
example:
HERE:- Genes limit archetypes
Archetypes control genes.
THUS:
Genes code for archetypes but
genes are not selectable except
via their archetypic phenotypes.
I'm accept that genes limit archetypes. I don't accept archetypes
control genes. That's pretty redundant if one assume the archetypes are
genetically coded for (epistasis). It's like saying your genes control
your genes. I very much disagree genes are not selectable except via
their archetypic phenotypes. I'm not even sure what this means. Genes
are not selectable except through natural selection (which by the way
isn't working very effectively despite your love of free trade) and
through genetic engineering, etc. As I've previously mentioned, it is my
belief natural selection doesn't operate on the archetypes. Why? Part of
the answer may be because they are the product of extremely complex
epistasis. Another reason is Darwinian evolution moves at an incredibly
slow pace. Natural selection by itself isn't sufficient. As a
consequence the primordial archetypes have remained. Furthermore,
although natural selection doesn't work as effectively as it once did
there has been nothing to replace it except our inability as a species
to keep up with cultural evolution.]
MR:-
This gets back to my own concept of a meme (or in this case archetype)
being genetically transmitted and continously recycled. Yes, I'm aware
an archtype can't be vertically genetically transmitted from parent to
child but it doesn't require fitness altrism or group selection for an
archtype to be more than just the genetic pieces of a genetic map.
JE::-
It would not make much sense for
nature to code each archetype.
[Ragland: Is it impossible for epistasis to code for genes or play a
role? I'm not stating nature codes for each archtype. That would negate
the role of epistatis. But if there is a genetic need for the archetype
than epistasis would play a role.]
MR:-
You state, "Genes just set limits. Cultural selection then determines
which plastic
act is selected, forcing the genetic limits to expand or contract." I
truly believe cultural selection is extremely limited in forcing genetic
limits to expand or contract.
JE:-
I think it is much stronger than you give it credit. For humans, trade
is by far the largest _cultural _ selective force since it provides most
of the wealth that is necessary to expand Darwinian fitness per human.
Human Darwinian fitness requires an increase in the reproduction of
a fertile organism WITH a set of complex ideas in it's head that
it can USE. The reproduction of ideas and their usage depends on
expensive machines. One valid human unit of Darwinian selection is a
VERY expensive unit to reproduce. You not only have to reproduce a
fertile human individual you have to educate it and provide it with the
means to acquire the machines it requires to apply the ideas it has in
its head.
[Ragland: You think trade is by far the largest cultural selective force
since it provides most of the wealth necessary to expand Darwinian
fitness per human. How does this force genetic limits to expand and
contract? Yes, I agree it requires a complex set of ideas in the head to
use. How are those ideas used? Please LOOK carefully at the world today
and the issues and problems it faces and tell me what gains have been
made in Darwinian fitness. One valid unit of Darwinian selection should
be well worth the cost don't you think? Especially, since the world is
overpopulated and there are arguably millions and millions of invalid
units of Darwinian selection.]
MR:-
I have difficulty seeing genetic
engineering in the light of traditional cultural selection.
JE:-
I disagree, I think it is a good example.
snip<
[Ragland: No, its not. For the simple reason genetic engineering is in
its infancy and there have been few applications of it. That being the
case plus the fact it has the likely potential of altering human biology
and changing our evolutionary history profoundly, it is a tremendous
divegence from traditional cultural selection.]
MR:-
In my opinion, natural selection has continued to operate in our genes
(although less effective today) ..
JE:- I think that massive selection
is being applied to our genome. The genome is being selected to maintain
and expand the human mental capacity, via trade. More than this we are
being selected to outgrow a tribal identity mechanism, using sport etc,
before it destroys use completely.
snip<
[Ragland: Due to modern science, technology, and medicine many humans
survive today who would have died in the past. There is serious human
overpopulation in the world. Natural selection no longer works as
effectively. There is not massive selection by trade. There is puny
selection by trade where a incredibly small handful of men control the
world's resources and fatten themselves.]
John Edser
John W Edser
"Michael Ragland" <ragl...@webtv.net> wrote :
>MR: Mr. Edser I understand genetics correlates one organism
> phenotype with one DNA/RNA gene but I think it is wrong to assume
> anything. I found a class question on the internet which asked students
> if human skin pigmentation is a product of epistasis or pleiotrophy.
> Since the the question mentioned 5 or 6 genes are responsible for skin
> pigmentation my answer was "epistasis" since plelotrophy by definition
> is when one gene effects more than one phenotype. Now, nothing is really
> simple in biology but if a phenotype like skin pigmentation is the
> interaction of 5 or 6 genes it "seems" the phenotypes of archetypes
> would involve the interaction of many more genes.
JE::-
One active gene only codes for one polypeptide. Almost
all proteins are formed from more than one polypeptide.
In fact the finished protein product normally has some peptide
parts snipped out as well as, recombined. My point is,
that in reality, epistasis governs all selectable phenotypes.
Only non additive epistasis is real epistasis. Additive
epistasis, like additive anything, does not alter the
things added, in any way.
It is valid to make oversimplifications
of known nature within a model situation, to help
deal with an over complex reality. This is rather like forming
an essential experimental control. Science tries to eliminate
all the variables except one, to test that variable.
Models attempt to do this _hypothetically_ and can be
a valuable aid. However they can be, and unfortunately
commonly are, misused within evolutionary theory.
I have spent nearly 4 years posting to sbe re: this
very question. Not a single person here will admit
that any misuse has occurred.You may like to make
a Google search to review replies by Prof. J. Felsenstein,
a very highly respected population geneticist, Dr
O'Hara and Guy Hoelzer to myself and make up your
own mind.
Most of my alleged misuse can
be found within population genetics models, e.g.
the deletion of epistasis within Hamilton's rule
providing false theories of fitness altruism within
nature. The net effect of this misuse was to remove
non group selective arguments for unequal fitness mutualism
within nature. Fitness mutualism remains unexplored
because of the constant, ongoing, population genetic
misuse of the simplified Hamiltonian model of fitness altruism
that almost entirely, dominates evolutionary theory even
today.
A major source of confusion is additive _fitness_.
For _any_ biological entity to be independently
selectable it must only form additive associations
to similar entities. This is commonly termed "a
population". Polygenetic genes can form additive
phenotypes, e.g. human height where the contribution
of each gene to the one height phenotype is just +/- additive.
However, the FITNESS of each polygene gene is _not_
additive. Originally, it was Fisher's population genetics
that confused this critical difference. His error was
subsequently compounded within the modern population
genetic models that assumed genomic genes are
independently selectable, deleting, common, known,
multiplicative genetic epistasis.
Common, additive polygenetic phenotypes do NOT
constitute independently selectable entities within nature.
Not one instance of an, additive, i.e. independent selectable
fitness BELOW the level of the Darwinian fertile organism
phenotype, has ever been documented. The common
assumption of multi units of selection form the gene
up, are just utterly misused, over simplified modes of
known, testable, reality.
> MR:-
> Also, it seems to be
> it might be possible for epistasis and pleitrophy to overlap to produce
> polygenic phenotypes. If the current dogma is genetics correlates one
> organism phenotype with one DNA/RNA gene then I think that needs to be
> revised.
JE:-
Genetics has two branches, analytical and synthetic.
Analytical genetics searches for genes but not _exactly_ what
they code for. It can validly divide up a genome into separate
coding entities. It does not matter if you oversimplify
a phenotype if all you wish to do with it is determine
one gene's existence. Once you assemble all these genes, what
are you going to do with them? We know the human genome
has a little over 30,000 genes. That was the easy bit! What
we now going to do with them becomes the province of
synthetic genetics. Here all the genes must be put back
together again (like Humpty Dumpty) so that it can be determined
how a phenotype is coded. C. H. Waddington tried to pioneer
a form of synthetic genetics. He was soundly ignored,
simply because his view involved a _critical_ analysis of
population genetics, assumptions. Waddington modified Fisher
and Haldane's basic population genetic equations within his
book "Evolution of an Evolutionist. The oversimplifications
of analytical genetics are no longer valid within synthetic
genetics because the logical focus here, is on the phenotype
and not the genotype.
> MR:-
> I think the position should be taken genetics correlates one
> organism phenotype with several DNA/RNA genes.
JE:-
Agreed.
Once anybody admits to this then the minimal
selectable entity becomes a phenotype coded
for by a group of several genes where just
one, grouped, genomic gene fitness is NOT
validly constituted by a simple, additive
fitness per gene, then Mendelism will have
began to be correctly joined to Darwinism,
within a valid Neo Darwinism.
>snip<
> MR:-
> Jung linked the primordial archetypes with the physiological urges of
> instincts and went so far as to say that, "Because the brain is the
> principal organ of the mind, the collective unconscious depends directly
> upon the evolution of the brain". A more precise statement of the
> mind/body/spirit link, and of the religious implications of biological
> kinship, would be hard to find.
> Jung also believed biological factors accounted for differences in the
> collective unconscious of the races. With the beginning of racial
> differentiation, essential differences are developed in the collective
> psyche as well.
>
> JE:-
> Since organism groups evolve via natural selection race, like species,
> is not a hard term anymore. Within Darwinism they are just a term of
> convenience. Species groups are suggested to be able to more easily swap
> genes within the same group and members of the same race are suggested
> to have more genes in common than those that are not members.
>
> MR: Within Darwinism, yes. Not sure what you mean by "species
> groups are suggested to be able to more easily swap genes within the
> same group. I assume you mean a member of the human species can swap its
> genes with another member of the human species but if it tried to do
> this with a dog or horse the results would not be fruitful.
JE:-
Yes. Species isolate genes.
>snip<
>
> MR:- What you're saying seems contradictory. You state, "It would
> make little sense for the gene level to pass on archetypes since it
> would take too long to modify them via gene frequency changes and too
> expensive to code for them. At the gene level it would be cheaper for
> nature to just assume the need to provide archetypes was genetic not
> each archetype itself." Assuming complex epistasis accounts for the
> "genetic need" of the archetypes it would seem apparent to me at a
> fundamental level the genetic need of the archetypes was genetically
> coded for via epistasis.
JE:-
A coded genetic need for an archetype is not the
archetype itself, just a coded need to establish one
of many possible, archetypes.
You must discriminate between limit and control
within any testable hypothesis of causation.
I am suggesting, that within a multiplicative
code, it may be possible for each archetype to
be hard coded. However, I am also suggesting that
once you have the genes to code for very plastic
behaviours, coding each separate archetype that way
does not make sense because it is too expensive,
too slow and too limiting to do it that way.
It is cheaper and better to pass on an archetype
as a learned response to a genetically coded need.
> JE:-
> Another possibility exists: chemical
> inheritance above the DNA/RNA level.
> It can be shown that epigenetic inheritance does exist in some forms.
> Sonniborn
> proved that changes in the cortex of some protists that were altered by
> surgery can be inherited over subsequent generations. Prion disease is
> pointing to the existence of protein folds acting as a valid carrier for
> heritable information. This whole field has a massive bias against it
> simply because of a misuse of the refutation by Mendel, of Lamarckian
> inheritance.
> All that Mendel actually refuted was the view that genetic information
> could also flow from phenotype to genotype. This reverse flow of genetic
> (coding) information can never be the true as long as the central dogma
> of biochemistry remains non
> refuted.
> snip<
>
> MR: I'm more inclined to accept epistasis in the genetic need for
> archetypes than epigenetic phenomenon. I don't accept epigenesis as a
> factor in the archetypes. The genetic need for the archetypes is
> fundamental and IMO genetically coded via epistasis.
JE:-
You can just assume anything you wish as long
as it forms a testable hypothesis. However, it
makes more sense to me to assume that _both_
genes and epigenes code for (limit) a phenotype
but do not determine (control) it.
If we had two levels of inheritance and not just one,
i.e. genes and epigenes, then more inherited variation
with much more inherited control would now be
possible. Nobody, especially gene centric Neo Darwinists
want inherited epigenes to exist so almost nobody is looking
for them, yet evidence exists that they do exist.
Inherited epigenes would provide enormous gains for
the coding and adaptation of complex phenotypes like
an archetype.
> MR:-
>snip<
>. Because the archetypes are
> the result of epistasis [I'm assuming here] there is no need for gene
> frequency changes and because so many genes are involved it is not
> expensive to code for them.
JE:-
It is very expensive because a multiplicative
phenotype must be constantly buffered.
This was a discovery of C. H. Waddington.
He called it genetic canalisation. Here the
system must work very hard just to keep the same
phenotypic development within a changed genetic
environment, always found using normal sex since
50% of the genes are exchanged. The opposite of
canalisation is genetic assimilation. This produces a
faster phenotypic change that can become heritable.
Epistasis produces vast amounts of heritable variation.
Indeed, without multiplicative epistasis a human genome
consisting of just 30,000 or so genes makes no sense
since not enough additive information exists within it.
IMO heritable variation is mostly coded for using gene,
multiplicative, associations (epistasis). It was
all this variation that Fisher just deleted as "non heritable".
He assumed this must be the case since epistatic
genotypes are not easily conserved using normal sex
since the genome becomes "shredded" at meiosis.
However, after Waddington's work this assumption
of Fisher's becomes untenable. This one of the reasons
Waddington (much of his work was done in the 60's and
early 70's) was ignored.
> JE:-
> As you mentioned, it is best to look at a
> genetic need for the archetypes rather than each archetype itself being
> genetically coded for
JE:-
This would make more sense to me.
> MR:-
> If you do accept the concept of the archetype what do you think accounts
> for it?
> JE:-
> Cultural inheritance systems are
> complex phenotype that are themselves
> based on genetic inheritance that set
> a definite limit to the extent of cultural inheritance.
> MR:- I agree.
> MR:-
> Archtypes are not individual genes which mean different things within
> different contexts.
> JE:-
> They are cultural beliefs that are also subject to context, just like
> genes.
> MR:-Yes.
> MR:-
> HERE:- Genes limit archetypes
> Archetypes control genes.
> THUS:
> Genes code for archetypes but
> genes are not selectable except
> via their archetype phenotypes.
JE:-
The above is IMO a good, testable,
hypothesis.
> MR:-
> I'm accept that genes limit archetypes. I don't accept archetypes
> control genes. That's pretty redundant if one assume the archetypes are
> genetically coded for (epistasis).
JE:-
Stating the obvious is NEVER redundant,
given the high level of prejudice within the
human mindset.
It is critical, within any reasoned argument,
to state clearly, what are the limiting and controlling
factors assumed within it, since if you confuse them
and reverse them, testable causation will also become
reversed.
> MR:-
> It's like saying your genes control
> your genes.
JE:-
No, it is _not_ just a tautology, you
are in serious error. If just a need for
an archetype and not the archetype
itself is coded in the genes, then
the genetic code for "an archetype
need" is not equal to any one archetype,
itself. Thus "your genes do not control
your genes".
> MR:-
> I very much disagree genes are not selectable except via
> their archetypic phenotypes. I'm not even sure what this means.
JE:-
It simply means that any archetype's genotype is
a general, limiting factor that only codes for the
need to establish an archetype and is not a code
for any one, specific, archetype itself. Like ANY genotype,
only a phenotype expression of it is selectable because
of the central dogma. A genotype for all archetypes is
sub selected jointly, by all the different phenotypes expressions
it can code for.
> MR:-
> Genes
> are not selectable except through natural selection (which by the way
> isn't working very effectively despite your love of free trade) and
> through genetic engineering, etc. As I've previously mentioned, it is my
> belief natural selection doesn't operate on the archetypes.
JE:-
Firstly, it is not my "love of free trade" that
is my motivation, it is the simple, testable
fact that the freer the trade the greater
the total disposable wealth, no matter how
unequally is it dispensed. For humans,
trade limits Darwinian fitness more than
anything else does.
Secondly, genes are selectable via
the Baldwin effect (organic selection).
Trade acts as a unique, organic selective force
(a human selector) that can result in large gene
freq changes. Note, it is via a gene freq change
and not for a gene freq change! If it was
acting for a gene freq change, then testable
causation would have been entirely reversed.
>snip<
> MR:-
> Another reason is Darwinian evolution moves at an incredibly
> slow pace.
JE:-
Waddington proved that genetic epistasis can
hold or accelerate gene freq changes via
the processes of canalisation and assimilation,
respectively. I suggest you do a search on
both terms.
> MR:-
> Natural selection by itself isn't sufficient. As a
> consequence the primordial archetypes have remained.
JE:-
Equally, the reverse is true:
Natural selection by itself is sufficient. As a
consequence the primordial archetypes have
remained via massive stabilising selection.
I suggest you do a search on stabilising
and directional selection.
>snip<
> MR:-
> This gets back to my own concept of a meme (or in this case archetype)
> being genetically transmitted and continously recycled. Yes, I'm aware
> an archtype can't be vertically genetically transmitted from parent to
> child but it doesn't require fitness altrism or group selection for an
> archtype to be more than just the genetic pieces of a genetic map.
> JE::-
> It would not make much sense for
> nature to code each archetype.
> MR:-
>snip<
>But if there is a genetic need for the archetype
> than epistasis would play a role.
JE:-
Yes, but a coded need is not any one
archetype.
>snip<
> MR:- You think trade is by far the largest cultural selective force
> since it provides most of the wealth necessary to expand Darwinian
> fitness per human. How does this force genetic limits to expand and
> contract?
JE:-
Stabilising selection maintains the genes necessary
to keep the cultural, complex phenotype "trade" so it
forces a limit at this level of genetic variation. At the same
time trade requires human specialisation, e.g. pot makers
that mostly stay at home and hunters that roam about.
Thus the genes that code for pot makers may be different to
the genes that code for hunters so that directional
selection via the Baldwin effect may now cause an expansion of
genetic differences within an anotherwise stabilised, trade phenotype.
> Yes, I agree it requires a complex set of ideas in the head to
> use. How are those ideas used?
JE:-
Via machines.
> MR:-
>Please LOOK carefully at the world today
> and the issues and problems it faces and tell me what gains have been
> made in Darwinian fitness.
JE:-
Yes, they have, massively.
We no longer live in tiny tribes of about 500.
Inter-tribal (between) trade now dominates
intra-tribal (within) trade.
For the 1st time ever, humans in other tribes must
be given human rights equal to those within
the home tribe if inter-tribal trade is to contine
to expand. For the 1st time mutuality is being
slowly but surely, discovered. Within world trade
if one parter fails, we all pay the price.
> MR:-
> One valid unit of Darwinian selection should
> be well worth the cost don't you think?
JE:-
As long as it is not you?
> MR:-
> Especially, since the world is
> overpopulated and there are arguably millions and millions of invalid
> units of Darwinian selection.
JE:-
The above can only be true if selection
determines it, not if you suggest that it
should be. Unlike Stalin's "science", real science
is a study of nature not a study of Stalin's
or anybody elses, wishes.
> MR:-
> I have difficulty seeing genetic
> engineering in the light of traditional cultural selection.
> JE:-
> I disagree, I think it is a good example.
> snip<
> MR:
> No, its not. For the simple reason genetic engineering is in
> its infancy and there have been few applications of it. That being the
> case plus the fact it has the likely potential of altering human biology
> and changing our evolutionary history profoundly, it is a tremendous
> divegence from traditional cultural selection.
JE:-
Viruses have been doing natural genetic engineering for years.
At the moment we do not know how may cross species
genes have been spliced into our genome via RNA viruses.
We have no idea if traditional cultural practices incorporated
unwittingly, RNA viral infection to provide useful DNA
variation for cultural selection.
All we are doing today is using this viral system, something like
using the natural sexual system with selective breeding. My view
is that until we know how common cross species gene splicing
actually is within nature, we must not just assume that genetically
modified food is safe. I am pleased to see that Australia, unlike
the USA, is unwilling to take this risk.
> MR:-
> In my opinion, natural selection has continued to operate in our genes
> (although less effective today) ..
>
> JE:- I think that massive selection
> is being applied to our genome. The genome is being selected to maintain
> and expand the human mental capacity, via trade. More than this we are
> being selected to outgrow a tribal identity mechanism, using sport etc,
> before it destroys use completely.
> snip<
> MR: Due to modern science, technology, and medicine many humans
> survive today who would have died in the past.
JE:-
This is an example of cultural selection altering
gene freq.
> MR:-
> There is serious human
> overpopulation in the world. Natural selection no longer works as
> effectively. There is not massive selection by trade. There is puny
> selection by trade where a incredibly small handful of men control the
> world's resources and fatten themselves.]
JE:-
Being a scientific sceptic you must also test the
_opposing_ hypothesis: Here massive selection,
both stabilising and directional via trade, exists.
If trade only produced "puny selection" then
it is simply not possible for just a small handful of
men ( I do not agree this is true) "to control the
world's resources and fatten themselves".
"Just a handful", implies simply massive
cultural selection via trade. I put it to you that trade
is producing both stabilising and directional
selection on everybody, not just a handful, such
that for most people, the selective force it applies
is too much for their genetic system to handle.
Michael Ragland
Mr. Edser:
My introduction to biological terms hasn't changed my thoughts too much
on the "essential forms" of human primordial archetypes. However, I
think its possible assimilation and canalization have played roles in
the gene frequency of epistatic genes coded for the archetypes in
stabilizing selection. I also agree with you it is more likely epistasis
and epigenes have played roles in the archetypes.
I get the impression there was a dispute 4 years ago between you, Dr.
O'Hara, Guy Hoelzer and Professor J. Felsenstein over Hamilton's Rule. I
take it at the time you still subscribed to population genetics. Or put
in a different wording, in criticizing Hamilton's Rule you considered
it. I have not done a google search for the archived correspondence but
I get the impression from you Professor Felsenstein, Dr. O'Hara and Guy
Hoelzer criticized you for misuing population genetic models by deleting
epistatis in Hamilton's Rule.
You mention its valid to make oversimplifications of nature within a
model situation but this can be misused and has been in evolutionary
biology. You state in 4 years you've posed the question of model misuse
and not one person has admitted to such misuse. Assuming you're right,
apparently you 'kind of' admitted to such misuse since you removed
non-group selective arguments for unequal fitness mutualism within
nature.
I also recall you saying not too long ago that not once yet have you
been able to have a discussion with any of the posters on your concept
of unequal fitness mutualism as long as group selection and altruism
aren't entered into the picture.
I guess what I'm wondering is there really any scientific basis for
Hamilton's rule. If there is then arguably you were misusing the
population genetic model. If there isn't, however, then there is no
basis you misued the model. At most, your deletion of epistasis within
Hamilton's Rule constituted an encroachment upon the tentative
ideational altruistic model.
You've apparently made it a condition if any poster wants to discuss
fitness mutualism you will discuss it with them as long as altruism
isn't brought into the picture. To date, you've stated nobody has taken
you up on it.
Personally, I don't take a position either way. I'm unqualified in such
matters. I would think, however, people's arguments stand on their own
merit. Unless somebody is terminally obtuse I would think if their
arguments were thoroughly refuted i.e. shown to have many logical
errors, nothing to back it up, etc. they would get a clue and either
revise their theories or at the very least discuss it with similar
minded people.
If you haven't had any posters (old or new) address any posts of yours
on fitness mutualism that is suggestive you are either a genius or your
theory doesn't hold much water. Just out of curiousity, have you
received any interesting responses?
Michael Ragland
John W Edser
"Michael Ragland" <ragl...@webtv.net> wrote
> MR:-
> My introduction to biological terms hasn't changed my thoughts too much
> on the "essential forms" of human primordial archetypes. However, I
> think its possible assimilation and canalization have played roles in
> the gene frequency of epistatic genes coded for the archetypes in
> stabilizing selection. I also agree with you it is more likely epistasis
> and epigenes have played roles in the archetypes.
JE:-
Canalisation and assimilation are just ignored within
sbe discussion. I have had many private email
discussions re; this subject. It appears to be "taboo"
to be seen _publicly_ agreeing with Waddington!
What is particularly galling about this is that they
are both, a real phenomenon that required a revision
of Haldane and Fisher's basic population genetics
equations. I do not pretend to be a population
geneticist! However, I have repeatedly asked
the professionals here, to review Waddington's
revision found in his book, "Evolution
Of An Evolutionist". No reply's to sbe was
forthcoming.
> MR:-
> I get the impression there was a dispute 4 years ago between you, Dr.
> O'Hara, Guy Hoelzer and Professor J. Felsenstein over Hamilton's Rule. I
> take it at the time you still subscribed to population genetics. Or put
> in a different wording, in criticizing Hamilton's Rule you considered
> it.
JE:-
I stated categorically, that IMO population genetics
is a valid but misused, modelling device.
> MR:-
> I have not done a google search for the archived correspondence but
> I get the impression from you Professor Felsenstein, Dr. O'Hara and Guy
> Hoelzer criticized you for misuing population genetic models by deleting
> epistatis in Hamilton's Rule.
JE:-
No the other way around.
I criticised them for misusing
population genetic models by deleting
epistasis within Hamilton's Rule.
> MR:-
> You mention its valid to make oversimplifications of nature within a
> model situation but this can be misused and has been in evolutionary
> biology. You state in 4 years you've posed the question of model misuse
> and not one person has admitted to such misuse. Assuming you're right,
> apparently you 'kind of' admitted to such misuse since you removed
> non-group selective arguments for unequal fitness mutualism within
> nature.
JE:-
The above is mixed up. Darwinian
fitness altruism proposed by Hamilton, that
deleted all epistasis, attempted to replace
discredited group selection, the then only
mechanism proposed to predict Darwinian
fitness altruism. I propose that unequal fitness
mutualism that requires zero fitness
altruism, has been _routinely_ mistaken
for fitness altruism within evolutionary
theory. It is me and not they, that
is trying to introduce fitness mutualism
within sbe.
> MR:-
> I also recall you saying not too long ago that not once yet have you
> been able to have a discussion with any of the posters on your concept
> of unequal fitness mutualism as long as group selection and altruism
> aren't entered into the picture.
JE:-
No, the condition I set was that a responder
must be able to discriminate between them.
Four years of frustrating discussion with Jim
McGinn on this very point, forced this condition.
>snip<
Guy Hoelzer
ed...@ozemail.com.au wrote on 10/4/02 8:28 AM:
> JE:-
> Canalisation and assimilation are just ignored within
> sbe discussion. I have had many private email
> discussions re; this subject. It appears to be "taboo"
> to be seen _publicly_ agreeing with Waddington!
I strongly disagree with the claim of 'taboo' here, and I am one of those
who have discussed these topics with John in private emails.
To set the record straight, and undermine the claim that I (and I believe
others) make public arguments that are different from my true positions, I
make the following position statement. I THINK THAT DEVELOPMENTAL
CANALIZATION AND GENETIC ASSIMILATION (THE BALDWIN EFFECT) ARE REAL AND
IMPORTANT BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA.
I don't think I have ever posted anything in sbe that contradicts this
position. If I have ever given an impression that this is not my position,
I apologize for my part in the misunderstanding. This could have happened
in the context of some sbe threads where I thought these issues represented
distractions from the points of discussion.
Guy Hoelzer
John W Edser
"Guy Hoelzer" <hoe...@unr.edu> wrote
> > JE:-
> > Canalisation and assimilation are just ignored within
> > sbe discussion. I have had many private email
> > discussions re; this subject. It appears to be "taboo"
> > to be seen _publicly_ agreeing with Waddington!
> GH:-
> I strongly disagree with the claim of 'taboo' here, and I am one of those
> who have discussed these topics with John in private emails.
> To set the record straight, and undermine the claim that I (and I believe
> others) make public arguments that are different from my true positions, I
> make the following position statement. I THINK THAT DEVELOPMENTAL
> CANALIZATION AND GENETIC ASSIMILATION (THE BALDWIN EFFECT) ARE REAL AND
> IMPORTANT BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA.
JE:-
I would like to thank Guy for his unambiguous
public endorsement of canalization and genetic
assimilation. However, I do not think that the
Baldwin Effect is exactly the same as genetic
assimilation.
I hope that others I have discussed this topic
with on a private basis will also, publicly,
let everybody know where they stand on this
important issue and contribute to a public
review of C. H. Waddington's work within
sbe.
>snip<
IMO, what needs to happen now is that a review
and vigorous discussion of Waddington should proceed
on a public basis, i.e. within sbe.
I would like to start discussion with the following
questions:-
1) How does Waddington's work affect gene
centric evolutionary theory? Does it enforce
it, contest it, or does it remain neutral to it?
2) What was Waddington's review of Fisher
and Haldane's population genetics equations?
Was Waddington's review of these basic
population genetic equations, valid?
3) How does genetic assimilation tie into
the Baldwin effect?
John Wilkins
> "Guy Hoelzer" <hoe...@unr.edu> wrote
>
> > > JE:-
> > > Canalisation and assimilation are just ignored within
> > > sbe discussion. I have had many private email
> > > discussions re; this subject. It appears to be "taboo"
> > > to be seen _publicly_ agreeing with Waddington!
>
> > GH:-
> > I strongly disagree with the claim of 'taboo' here, and I am one of those
> > who have discussed these topics with John in private emails.
> > To set the record straight, and undermine the claim that I (and I believe
> > others) make public arguments that are different from my true positions, I
> > make the following position statement. I THINK THAT DEVELOPMENTAL
> > CANALIZATION AND GENETIC ASSIMILATION (THE BALDWIN EFFECT) ARE REAL AND
> > IMPORTANT BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA.
>
> JE:-
> I would like to thank Guy for his unambiguous
> public endorsement of canalization and genetic
> assimilation. However, I do not think that the
> Baldwin Effect is exactly the same as genetic
> assimilation.
It is unrelated except insofar as the learnable states organisms can
achieve are determined by the developmental trajectories they can
follow. However, a number of people seem to think that both views are
somehow un-Darwinian (e.g., Mayr), although this is old news as so many
of Mayr's bugbears are.
>
> I hope that others I have discussed this topic
> with on a private basis will also, publicly,
> let everybody know where they stand on this
> important issue and contribute to a public
> review of C. H. Waddington's work within
> sbe.
Why? Waddington is well known and discussed in the literature. If you
want to see such a discussion of this and other developmental aspects of
evolution, try Schlichting and Pigliucci's _Norms of Reaction_ published
a couple of years ago. Nobody can call them marginal.
Developmental biology has been excepted from the usual evolutionary
debates but in part this is because nobody until fairly recently knew
how to incorporate it. The discovery of regulatory genes brings it under
the fold, and works proceeds apace.
I wonder if you are repeating the old battles that find their way into
some books on development and evolution?
>
> >snip<
>
>
> IMO, what needs to happen now is that a review
> and vigorous discussion of Waddington should proceed
> on a public basis, i.e. within sbe.
>
> I would like to start discussion with the following
> questions:-
>
> 1) How does Waddington's work affect gene
> centric evolutionary theory? Does it enforce
> it, contest it, or does it remain neutral to it?
Well Maynard Smith and others were well aware of Waddington's views, and
development was treated as a black box for evolution in order to
simplify the elaboration of the synthesis. So I htink it was very nearly
neutral. His epigenetic landscape has been influential.
>
> 2) What was Waddington's review of Fisher
> and Haldane's population genetics equations?
> Was Waddington's review of these basic
> population genetic equations, valid?
>
No idea.
> 3) How does genetic assimilation tie into
> the Baldwin effect?
As I said above - all it does is constrain the phenotypic norm of
reaction on which the Baldwin Effect relies.
>
> John Edser
> Independent Researcher
>
> PO Box 266
> Church Pt
> NSW 2105
> Australia
>
> ed...@ozemail.com.au
John W Edser
"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote
> > JE:-
> > I hope that others I have discussed this topic
> > with on a private basis will also, publicly,
> > let everybody know where they stand on this
> > important issue and contribute to a public
> > review of C. H. Waddington's work within
> > sbe.
> JW:-
> Why? Waddington is well known and discussed in the literature. If you
> want to see such a discussion of this and other developmental aspects of
> evolution, try Schlichting and Pigliucci's _Norms of Reaction_ published
> a couple of years ago. Nobody can call them marginal.
JE:-
It is not just the developmental aspects I refer to.
Waddington insisted that Haldane
and Fisher's population genetics paradigm was based
on, oversimplification. Canalization and assimilation
have to my knowledge, never been incorporated into
population genetics and thus, gene centric Neo
Darwinism. It is this gene centric Neo Darwinism that
has entirely dominated evolutionary theory for
over 50 years.
> JW:-
> Developmental biology has been excepted from the usual evolutionary
> debates but in part this is because nobody until fairly recently knew
> how to incorporate it. The discovery of regulatory genes brings it under
> the fold, and works proceeds apace.
> I wonder if you are repeating the old battles that find their way into
> some books on development and evolution?
JE:-
Yes I am, simply because they were not resolved.
then and they remain unresolved, today. Does anybody
here really think that hox genes are compatible
with Hamiltonian Neo Darwinistic gene centric
reasoning?
> > JE:-
> > 1) How does Waddington's work affect gene
> > centric evolutionary theory? Does it enforce
> > it, contest it, or does it remain neutral to it?
> JW:-
> Well Maynard Smith and others were well aware of Waddington's views, and
> development was treated as a black box for evolution in order to
> simplify the elaboration of the synthesis. So I think it was very nearly
> neutral. His epigenetic landscape has been influential.
JE:-
Yes, Waddington was, and still is, regarded as just
"neutral" to the dominant gene centric theory. IMO
it was then, and is today, just an act of convenience.
If genetic assimilation and canalization
are true process of nature, then they are fatal
to the gene centric paradigm. It is this point that has
been studiously avoided for more than 50 years.
A classic example is Hamilton's rule. I refer you to
recent sbe discussion. Until Prof. Felsenstein or
somebody else here who represents the establishment,
replies to my charge that genetic epistasis and thus
all possible canalization and assimilation, was entirely
deleted within Hamilton's rule, I rest my case.
> > JE:-
> > 2) What was Waddington's review of Fisher
> > and Haldane's population genetics equations?
> > Was Waddington's review of these basic
> > population genetic equations, valid?
> JW:-
> No idea.
JE:-
Given the dominance of Fisher and Haldane's
basic population genetics equations to evolutionary
theory and Waddington's historical position of trying to
modify their gene centric approach, I am not surprised
that yourself, and most others here that only seem
to pay lip service to Waddington's "well
reviewed" ideas, remain ignorant of what they are.
Could I ask that you and not just myself, request
a professional in the field like Prof. Felsenstein,
or Dr O'Hara, to briefly explain to everybody here
what Waddington's revision actually was and what
was it's significance, if any, to evolutionary theory?
Waddington's revisions were printed within his book,
"Evolution Of An Evolutionist". I cannot, at the moment,
give the exact reference since I have misplaced my
Photostats. I have my own understanding
of what they were and their implications. However I am
not a population geneticist so that I think it is much
more appropriate for a professional in this field
to firstly make such an evaluation.
> > 3) How does genetic assimilation tie into
> > the Baldwin effect?
> JW:-
> As I said above - all it does is constrain the phenotypic norm of
> reaction on which the Baldwin Effect relies.
JE:-
Please provide an example.
Dunk
<ed...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote
The name's the thing.
Eco-devo. Nice article in Nature (aug 8) featuring Scott Gilbert.
Nice ilustrated article in this month's Natural History.
Dunk
John Wilkins
> "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote
>
>
> > > JE:-
> > > I hope that others I have discussed this topic
> > > with on a private basis will also, publicly,
> > > let everybody know where they stand on this
> > > important issue and contribute to a public
> > > review of C. H. Waddington's work within
> > > sbe.
>
> > JW:-
> > Why? Waddington is well known and discussed in the literature. If you
> > want to see such a discussion of this and other developmental aspects of
> > evolution, try Schlichting and Pigliucci's _Norms of Reaction_ published
> > a couple of years ago. Nobody can call them marginal.
>
> JE:-
> It is not just the developmental aspects I refer to.
> Waddington insisted that Haldane
> and Fisher's population genetics paradigm was based
> on, oversimplification. Canalization and assimilation
> have to my knowledge, never been incorporated into
> population genetics and thus, gene centric Neo
> Darwinism. It is this gene centric Neo Darwinism that
> has entirely dominated evolutionary theory for
> over 50 years.
Well, it is interesting that I encountered Waddington's view *in the
context of* the Synthetic debates (yes, I too have read his 1975 book -
even have copies of some of it). A coupla points:
1. It was Schmalhausen who came up with genetic assimilation; Waddington
was independent, and very slightly later.
2. While some (the ubiquitous Mayr) may oppose it on principle, and the
Baldwin Effect as well, the *Synthesis* overall never did. Again, let me
recommend Schlichting and Pigliucci.
>
> > JW:-
> > Developmental biology has been excepted from the usual evolutionary
> > debates but in part this is because nobody until fairly recently knew
> > how to incorporate it. The discovery of regulatory genes brings it under
> > the fold, and works proceeds apace.
> > I wonder if you are repeating the old battles that find their way into
> > some books on development and evolution?
>
> JE:-
> Yes I am, simply because they were not resolved.
> then and they remain unresolved, today. Does anybody
> here really think that hox genes are compatible
> with Hamiltonian Neo Darwinistic gene centric
> reasoning?
Sure. Why not? "Beads on a string" genetics died in the 1920s. If you
are assessing the fitness of an allele, why does it being a regulatory
gene affect that? Likewise, if a regulat*ed* gene varies in fitness
according to the state of the regulatory genes, then how is that
different from varying in fitness contextually in differing
environments?
Methinks you are reaching here.
>
> > > JE:-
> > > 1) How does Waddington's work affect gene
> > > centric evolutionary theory? Does it enforce
> > > it, contest it, or does it remain neutral to it?
>
> > JW:-
> > Well Maynard Smith and others were well aware of Waddington's views, and
> > development was treated as a black box for evolution in order to
> > simplify the elaboration of the synthesis. So I think it was very nearly
> > neutral. His epigenetic landscape has been influential.
>
> JE:-
> Yes, Waddington was, and still is, regarded as just
> "neutral" to the dominant gene centric theory. IMO
> it was then, and is today, just an act of convenience.
> If genetic assimilation and canalization
> are true process of nature, then they are fatal
> to the gene centric paradigm. It is this point that has
> been studiously avoided for more than 50 years.
> A classic example is Hamilton's rule. I refer you to
> recent sbe discussion. Until Prof. Felsenstein or
> somebody else here who represents the establishment,
> replies to my charge that genetic epistasis and thus
> all possible canalization and assimilation, was entirely
> deleted within Hamilton's rule, I rest my case.
Joe has answered this (and I am chuffed that he would read and even
mention *me*). I think your case *is* tired. The synthesis is not a set
of dogma (Mayr quipped once that all it shares is a common species
problem - my PhD will address this :-). When scientists talk about
"heresy" and "orthodoxy" it pays to remember that this is a *metaphor*.
Very often an ironical one as well...
No, instead I'll explain my reasoning. The Baldwin Effect is this: a
local fitness peak that can be reached within the phenotypic norm of
reaction of a group becomes a selective pressure in favour any mutation
that makes attaining it easier or cheaper. This is not, so far as I
understand it, genetic assimilation, but I'm open to being told the
contrary. Assimilation is, as far as I understand it, the incorporation
of physically induced genetic changes. Am I wrong (Joe?)?
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
Mar...@localaccess.com
Ragland) wrote:
Feynman believed that the indeterminacy discovered in
physics applied also to thought and thus to behavior as
well.
He supposed that "mind must be a sort of dynamical pattern,
not so much founded in a neurological substrate as floating
above it, independent of it." *Genius* 321.
I asked him if it could be like the music in an instrument.
Not in it but in the player.....he laughed, shrugged and said it
was a sensible enough notion.
I've thought that once we take into account the quantum idea
that time can run backwards...as evidenced by cloud chamber
tracks....and "explained" by some of Feynman's work, that our
minds might also and thus we might have advanced "knowledge"
of what is coming up next....
Just a thought.
John Baker
Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: Mar...@localaccess.com
"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
_Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler
Michael Ragland
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 22:30:38 +0000 (UTC), ragl...@webtv.net (Michael
Ragland) wrote:
Feynman believed that the indeterminacy discovered in physics applied
also to thought and thus to behavior as well.
He supposed that "mind must be a sort of dynamical pattern, not so much
founded in a neurological substrate as floating above it, independent of
it." *Genius* 321.
[Response]
Physics is the study of the interaction of matter and energy. My
understanding is classical physics with its predictability doesn't
explain the human mind because the human mind is thought of as having
the capacity for unpredictability. Quantum physics, however, with it
uncertainty and unpredictability i.e. indeterminacy is thought by some
of being in some ways possibly applicable to the human mind.
I got to thinking about how human biology as matter (that three pound
glob of jelly) interacts with energy, particularly in terms of our high
entropy civilization. I don't think this requires any quantum
hypotheses. It's pretty clear our cultural evolution i.e. scientific and
technological developments has far outpaced our biological evolution and
continues to do so. Worse, there are genetic features we've retained
which were useful in our evolutionary past but which are highly
disadvantageous and potentially species threatening today. To use an
analogy, its like an appendix or coccyx bone. Just as there are physical
vestigial parts we retain from our evolutionary past which serve no
useful function, there are parts of our DNA which no longer serve any
useful function. Indeed, these vestigial parts of our DNA in many cases
produce severe individual and societal problems. It is much worse and
more serious than just having an appendix.
You write, "Feynman believed that the indeterminacy discovered in
physics applied also to thought and thus to behavior as well.
He supposed that "mind must be a sort of dynamical pattern, not so much
founded in a neurological substrate as floating above it, independent of
it." If Feynman did say that I disagree with the last part. I think the
mind and brain are separate but are at the same time intricately
connected with each other. How to explain this is something I think will
take a long time to understand but if the mind is separate it would not
be able to exist independent of the neurological substrate. That's why I
believe when a person dies their consciousness dies.
.....
I asked him if it could be like the music in an instrument. Not in it
but in the player.....he laughed, shrugged and said it was a sensible
enough notion.
I've thought that once we take into account the quantum idea that time
can run backwards...as evidenced by cloud chamber tracks....and
"explained" by some of Feynman's work, that our minds might also and
thus we might have advanced "knowledge"
of what is coming up next....
Just a thought.
[Response]
I don't know. I'm not familiar with cloud chamber track experiments or
Feynman's work. Quite honestly, I don't have much of an aptitude for
understanding physics. I would be hesitant to extrapolate these cloud
chamber experiments and Feynman's work to the human mind-brain. What do
you mean by cloud chamber tracks providing evidence for the quantum idea
"time runs backwards"? I assume Feynman *explains* this. I get the
impression this is theorizing by Feynman and not proof time literally
runs backwards. If that was the case I think I would want to redo parts
of my life over again.
Michael Ragland
Maurice Barnhill
Mar...@localaccess.com wrote:
> ...
>
> I've thought that once we take into account the quantum idea
> that time can run backwards...as evidenced by cloud chamber
> tracks....and "explained" by some of Feynman's work, that our
> minds might also and thus we might have advanced "knowledge"
> of what is coming up next....
>
> Just a thought.
> John Baker
I wouldn't read Feynman's work as implying that time can run backwards.
It is true that the equations describing an electron moving backwards in
time are much like those of a positron moving forward in time, but that
doesn't mean that time itself is running backwards. In fact, the
statement only makes sense if the direction that time runs is constant.
The distinction between past and future is rather mysterious in
physics. To very high precision, all microscopic physics equations are
unchanged when you change t to -t [t being the time variable]. As far
as anyone knows, all microscopic physics equations are completely
unchanged if you reverse time and space and change the sign of all
charges. Nevertheless, in macroscopic physics entropy always increases
with time, and if you really could reverse time, entropy would
decrease. Something about boundary conditions and/or probabilities
introduces the asymmetry. It might even be that it is a property of our
minds that sets the direction of time. If, for instance, boundary
conditions are the fundamental reason that entropy increases, then it is
the fact that we don't know the future that determines which direction
*is* the future. Even in an antimatter universe or part of the
universe, entropy would increase, so thinking of antiparticles as
particles moving backwards in time doesn't help.
I suspect that my explanation isn't very clear, and I will console
myself with the observation that nobody else's explanations are very
clear either. However, I am sure that no physicist would say that
physics provides an expectation that time should ever run backwards.
[There may or may not be an exception to my last sentence for a few
wierd situations in general relativity, which is nonquantum. As far as
I know these situations all require matter of a type that isn't observed
or amounts of energy totalling more than is present in the entire
observable universe collected into small regions. They are not of
practical interest, even if correct.]
--
Maurice Barnhill
m...@udel.edu [not bellatlantic.net]
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
Robert Karl Stonjek
There is something relevant here. Let's look at the time and entropy
issues just slightly differently.
Consider a sealed enclosure containing two gasses that are aloud to mix.
The boundary condition is that the gasses are separate and not allowed to
mix and this may or may not explain why entropy subsequently rises.
In statistical mechanics, however, no configuration of the gas is unique and
so given enough time all configurations will recur. This basically amounts
to no entropy change for any sealed enclosure given enough time.
Let's return to Feynman's drawings that show time running freely in both
directions. The feature of these drawings is that they show interactions
which are complete or self contained with an introduction of two particles
(always in the past) and their interactions (the complete and isolated
part). If the interactions became entangled with other interactions add
infinitum, then no reversal of time will be possible.
Like the isolated container, if the system can be fully isolated (eg with
quantum noise where particles come into and out of existence by a particle
and its antiparticle separating and then annihilating), then no time vector
can be established.
In real life there is a continuing entanglement with time. As time
progresses, further particles at an ever greater distance become entangled
in the process under observation and so a direction in time can be
established (a slightly different way of stating the 2nd law vis Entropy).
Where we prevent this increased entanglement (eg dilation of thermal energy)
such as with the sealed and isolated container, there is also no indication
of the direction of time (what we observe of time is introduced to the
container).
Thinking about this and the genesis of life we note that any chemical
reaction that runs to completion in isolation is not indicative of life.
If, however, the chemical reactions became entangled with other chemical
reaction so that the entire process could never run to completion then we
may well have something resembling the genesis of life.
Let one set of reactions be confined and the others peripheral and we have a
loose beginning of life. Note that we are looking at the sustaining and
non-isolation of some process.
Note that particles which would, under other conditions, come into and out
of existence *in the same moment*, that become entangled in some other
process, may 'survive' indefinitely. Likewise, a chemical reaction that
would normally run to completion but that becomes entangled in some other
reaction may continue for some substantial time.
--
Kind Regards,
Robert Karl Stonjek.