It's beautiful here back in LA. So this will be short. I read and enjoyed the book too. But I didn't find the metaphor misleading. (Perhaps I didn't take the metaphor seriously.)
As a programmer, I'm used to having a program whose operational consequences depend on things in its environment. As a simple example, consider a loop that executes a certain number of times depending on a control parameter. If the loop is one of the tools in the toolkit and the parameter is one of the controls, the loop--which may generate one vertebra per loop, for example--will generate different numbers of vertebrae depending on the control parameter. There's no intelligence or designer. It's a simple two-level construct (the mechanism and its control) that are both created by evolutionary processes. The vertebra-generating loop is one of the "tools" which appear on multiple organisms. The control parameter differs from one organism to another. The problem is that not enough people know how to think like programmers. By the way, I mean that seriously. See Jeanette Wang on computational thinking<http://www.nsf.gov/attachments/114605/public/2009_03_13_reu-sites.ppt>. -- Russ On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote: > Sorry. Misspoke. Don't really make a distinction between human nature > and the human condition. Each is a creation of the other. they are > dialectically intertwined.... or whatever. So, you cant disagree with me on > that point any more. > > So, let's take this occasion to transition to a different topic ... > development. I have been Sean Carroll's Endless Forms most Beautiful. It > is the forth book I have read written by a brilliant author designed to > explain modern "EvoDevo" to the great unwashed. And I have to say, I still > don't quite "get it" But I think I am beginning to understand why ... the > metaphors they use are bad. Nobody has come up with a good metaphor to come > up with how we now know development to work. How do we get *pluris e uno? > * > > The stunning discovery of the last 25 years is how widely and in what > detail sequences of genes are similar among animals of widely different > form. The metaphor they use is of a genetic tool kit. Even tho organisms > have many different genes, they all share an essential toolkit. Carroll > actually depicts a little toolbox with cubbies in for the "tools". The DNA > sequences in this basic, shared tool kit are often similar down to the last > base. So even though planaria, bees, octopi, and humans have wildly > different eyes, the making of eyes in all of these species is dependent upon > a shared sequence of genes that generate a shared bunch of proteins. > > But the tool kit metaphor leads Carroll into a ghastly anthropomorphic > trap. Once we have tools, we need a craftsman, right? Well, in Carroll's > hand, the tools themselves become the craftsmen. So, in caption of a > photography showing the embryonic development of a frog's "hand" we get the > following: "The BMP4 tool kit a gene marks the tissue between the digits > that will die." In general, reading the text, one is seduced into a vision > of the genes or the proteins crawling over the embryo, measuring it out for > this and that, and leaving stakes in the ground so that the different > contractors that are coming along will know what to put where. > > Now, don't get me wrong. I think Carroll's book is stupendous, and I would > urge you all to drop what you are doing and order it on Amazon today. Buy > this "toolkit" thing has to be wrong. What is really going on is > that fundamental physical asymmetries in the ovum are serving as cues that > excite portions of embryo to produce one or more of these "tookkit" > proteins, which then defuse ac cross the embryo. Then the concentration > gradients of these proteins, in turn, serve as the cues for the production > of proteins that further organize the portions of the embryo for further > functions. > > So, assuming that I have this correctly, what would be GOOD metaphor to > encapsulate this process? Remember, we have stipulated here repeatedly that > all metaphors are faulted and that a GOOD metaphor is one whose faults do > not encourage defunct notions of what is going on. So, for instance, in > matters of development, a GOOD metaphor should scrupulously avoid any > implication of intelligence in its description of what these "organizing" > proteins are doing. > > Does any one have a better metaphor? > > If any of you are wondering why I am so verbose and wondering, further, > when it will stop, try sending some decent weather to Massachusetts. > Eleventh straight day of rain. > > N > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([email protected]) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* peggy miller <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *Sent:* 6/21/2009 11:42:22 AM > *Subject:* [FRIAM] vol 72, issue 25 response > > I only wish to say that I disagree with the statement that "ethical > behavior is built on human nature". It is the "human nature" part that I > take issue with. I believe each person's sense of ethics comes from a > combination of education/experiences, social network, physiological > chemistry of that person, IQ, and genetic makeup. That combination causes a > person to form a construct of ethics they rely on to defend their behavior. > The only other part that throws a crux into their formula is the level of > spiritual connection they have to the greater universe, and I am not yet > unconvinced that that particular level of connection may also be a genetic > thing. > > thanks for listening. > Have a good day! > > Peggy Miller > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
