Steve,
Thanks for allowing me to sling irresponsible insults at you with impunity.
It has been VERY helpful to my recovery. You might consider opening a
clinic.
I considered calling "quantum randomness" "notional", but I wasn't sure WTF
I meant by that. There's a dimension here I am
Nick -
Thanks for allowing me to sling irresponsible insults at you with
impunity. It has been VERY helpful to my recovery. You might
consider opening a clinic.
One of my favorite authors, Chuck Palahnuik, wrote a protaganist who
visits his mother in a dementia/alzheimer's ward every
Mendel discovered cross-overs.
N
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Grant Holland
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017
I've read on Twitter that Brian Hayes was in Santa Fe this week and visited the
SFI. I suggested him to contact Owen if he is interested in taking part in a
FRIAM meeting. Do you still meet on friday morning to discuss complex systems
in one of the cozy and trendy Santa Fe cafes? Anyway, here
On 8/12/17 9:49 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:
This paragraph (for whatever reason) makes progress toward my counter-argument AGAINST
both Monod-via-Grant and Wagner-via-Jenny. While it may be true that mutation is
necessary for innovation, it's insufficient to claim that innovation comes only through
your point about "point mutations" and non-connected spaces (not
connected by point mutations anyway) is well taken and is what I think
your last message that I was calling "latent" (expression) is about.
From my daughter's sage anecdotal claims about Cancer, it seems that
something like 7
Steve writes:
"The question in this
metaphor might be whether the body (humankind) has the ability to fight
back against this? It fits my Candide/Pollyanna idea that times such as
these are good times to focus significant resources on simply "tending
your own garden".The world will have a
Glen writes:
"Can we truly say that the crossover had nothing to do with the "innovation"
... that it only preserved the innovation and the mutation caused it? A
neutral mutation can't be considered an "innovation", right?"
A function related by rotation might be a candidate for crossover.
Exactly. And even though we're conflating the model of evolution with the real
thing, I find it difficult to believe the "space" operated on by evolution is
entirely convex or even connected. So, (point) mutation alone may *never*
reach some regions, regardless of infinite individuals,
Glen writes:
"I find it difficult to believe the "space" operated on by evolution is
entirely convex or even connected."
I've never tried this approach, but it seems plausible. The link may be
pay-walled, but the gist is to evolve fancier operators using masking of the
genome.
Glen,
Actually, I think you are probably right about crossovers! I can see how
innovation can be attributed to them too. Thanks for pointing that out,
Glen. (Had crossovers been discovered in '72 when Monod wrote his book?)
But that is because crossovers, too, like mutations, are stochastic.
This paragraph (for whatever reason) makes progress toward my counter-argument
AGAINST both Monod-via-Grant and Wagner-via-Jenny. While it may be true that
mutation is necessary for innovation, it's insufficient to claim that
innovation comes only through mutation. Imagine two point mutations
Great info, thanks.
A few constraints:
- I've finally gotten back to Write & Run JavaScript, no transpiling.
- My workflow also is simplified: only npm scripts possibly using a node
script.
- I run a local hot-loading node http server so Write & Run is automatic.
All managed by a npm script.
Dear all:
Fabio here. I am in Santa Fe right now, but only until Tuesday.
One of the reasons I am here is to find a home for my winter stay.
I plan to be in Santa Fe from January 15, 2018 until April 15 (3 months).
Do you know someone who may have a house for rent?
If not, can you spread the
14 matches
Mail list logo
