Of course you are correct. If the Mother is X1+X2, and the Father is X3+Y, I seem to recall vaguely that the Mother's X contribution is essentially a string of snippets from X1 and X2, whereas the Father contributes either a pure X3 or a pure Y to the Child.
If my recollection is correct, then this leads us to the 4th point "Godhood of Father" Sarbajit On 3/17/12, Nicholas Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Thanks, Sarbajit, > > One quibble: > > "a child is the genetic sum of its parents" > > If we are talking genetic tokens (as opposed to types), a child has half the > genes of each of its parents. > > N > > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf > Of Sarbajit Roy > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:33 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > John, > > wrt statement #2 > > IF our ancestors are contained within "us" AND "live" (on) in us, THEN all > the information "we" have is in our ancestors too. {Life as an information / > communication problem} > > Of course "we" can be more than the sum of our parents. The information is > already out there in the wild/cloud, "we" are just downloading it onto our > genetic hard drives at an increasingly faster biological rate. > > To clarify with an example. > > In the early 1980's I coded boot sector computer virii. These code strings > would "infect" by attaching themselves to the"end" of a "copy" > of another executable program (which may have already been infected by code > strings by some other hacker - and not only at the "end" but perhaps also > inserted in the "middle"). The actual application software (say > "pacman.exe") would continue to run until the competing information strings > being "injected / infected" clashed and caused it to "die". > > Similarly, a child is the genetic sum of its parents (and through them the > ancestors) and information strings (via culture / television / parent et.al > ) which attach itself to the child's "memory" ("memes"). > > Sorry, if I'm somewhat vague/unclear - buts its not easy reconciling > "religion" and "science". > > Sarbajit > > On 3/17/12, John Kennison <jkenni...@clarku.edu> wrote: >> >> Sarbajit, >> Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking of genes as hereditary units > but >> I guess they can also refer to any chemical strings of a certain type. > How >> about statement (2)? Can't we be more than the sum of our ancestors? >> --John >> ________________________________________ >> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf >> Of Sarbajit Roy [sroy...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:22 PM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> Lets take those points 1 by 1 >> >> 1) "Information is transmitted genetically". >> >> a) Instead of information being transmitted as am electronic series >> (string) of "0"s and "1"s" (ie. base 2 encoding), its transmitted as a >> chemical series (string) of base 4 proteins, both series being >> "readable". >> >> b) The statement does not imply that information cannot be transmitted >> by books or converstaions or culture or upbringing etc. >> >> c) The 19th century reference is probaby with reference to experiments >> by Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose, who did some work on what would be termed >> nowadays as "memory RNA" (involving plants and not planaria soup). >> >> d) Data such as "blue eyes" are transmitted (imperfectly) genetically >> onto copies using GCTA, just as I suppose a colour photocopier does >> using CMYK. >> >> Sarbajit >> >> On 3/16/12, John Kennison <jkenni...@clarku.edu> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yes, sometimes scientific theories resemble religions and vice-versa >>> and sometimes the debate on how genes evolve looks a bit like a >>> battle between competing religions. >>> >>> I would disagree with principles (1) and (2): As for (1) I sometimes >>> find that knowledge is transmitted via books or conversations or even >>> lectures but none of these transmissions seem to be genetic. As for >>> (2) we are not the sum of our ancestors because we are affected by >>> our upbringing, our culture, our education etc. (I don't see how >>> statement (2) could have been "proven" in the nineteenth century.) >>> >>> As for (3) and (4), I'm not certain what they mean. Can someone >>> explain them to me? >>> >>> --John >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf >>> Of Sarbajit Roy [sroy...@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:09 AM >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>> >>> W.r.t to your pointwise comments to John's points. >>> This to me seems a clear case of reinventing the wheel. >>> It also seems that the inventors do not know that the wheel has been >>> invented. >>> >>> Referring to at least 5,000 years of evolved human history >>> http://brahmo.org/brahmoism-genetics-memetics.html >>> There is at least 1 religion (yes "religion" and not "science") which >>> holds as follows: >>> >>> "# 1) Information / knowledge is transmitted genetically (this was >>> experimentaly proveable in 19th century and is trivial to prove >>> today) # 2) That we are the sum of our ancestors # 3) That we contain >>> all our ancestors in our genes and our bodies and within us # 4) >>> Godhood of father." >>> >>> What is curious is that this "belief" (or variations) seems to span >>> many leading cultures separated by time and distance, and is used as >>> a device to propagate an "idea" or "belief" . >>> >>> I apologise for not being able to state the proposition in the formal >>> manner/practice of Judeo-Christian Western "civilisation" >>> >>> Sarbajit >>> >>> On 3/16/12, Nicholas Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> Hi, everybody, >>>> >>>> Am I the only person that the FRIAM server mucks with the head of? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Anyway, the following was sent in response to John Kennison's >>>> interesting set of questions concerning my gripes about the E. O. Wilson > interview. >>>> Yet, John never got it and it does not, so far as I can see, appear >>>> in the FRIAM archive. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So, here it is again, in case anyone else missed it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net] >>>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:23 AM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for writing, John. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You missed the most important objection. Genes are not the object >>>> of greed. >>>> They are not analogous to coins, in reverse. With a nickel, it makes a >>>> difference whether it came from your pocket or mine. With genes, it >>>> only makes a difference which coin is in the pocket, not who put it > there. >>>> Genes >>>> are all about type, not token. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Comments on your specific points below: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> JK: I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" >>>> but I am not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several >>>> possible >>>> reasons: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Greed is a behavior pattern. An individual genes just >>>> makes a protein or tells another gene when to make a protein. >>>> Gene's can't vary their behavior in telic ways. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> JK:(2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >>>> competition between genes thus overlooking the competition between >>>> groups. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Well, as I suggested above, you are missing Wilson and >>>> Trivers focus on the INDIVIDUAL. To take the greed metaphor >>>> seriously, remember that gold is not greedy; it's people who are >>>> greedy for gold. Genetic greed (I think) is the idea that people are > eager to give away "their" >>>> genes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by > inducing >>>> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] I will agree with that position so long as you record my >>>> skepticism about how resemblance between parents and offspring comes >>>> about. >>>> Given the webby nature of genetic transmission, it's hard for me to >>>> see how it happens. I am inclined to think of the gene as a >>>> construction of evolution, as much as the basis for it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >>>> operate to benefit the group". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Well, that statement is patently false. Groups have evolved. >>>> The >>>> author confuses natural selection with evolution. And I do agree >>>> that natural selection does operate to benefit the group." >>>> [corrected in the current version - sorry.] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hard to disagree with an equation. Full stop. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> [NST ==>] Well, I prefer Evolutionary Psychology, which is more >>>> inclined to >>>> take history and development into account. But I am on board with > using >>>> evolutionary history as a way to understand human behavior. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] >>>> On Behalf Of John Kennison >>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:51 AM >>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Nick, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I >>>> am not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several >>>> possible reasons: >>>> >>>> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >>>> >>>> (2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >>>> competition >>>> between genes thus overlooking the competition between groups. >>>> >>>> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by > inducing >>>> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >>>> >>>> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >>>> operate to benefit the group". >>>> >>>> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >>>> >>>> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >>>> >>>> Am I on the right track with any of these reasons? >>>> >>>> --John >>>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> friam-boun...@redfish.com >>>> [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson >>>> [nickthomp...@earthlink.net] >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:08 PM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am in a rain engulfed open plan, bay-side, house with 5 other >>>> adults and two kids, and many competitors for the one copy of the >>>> new Yorker, and for the space to rethink what I wrote. So it may be >>>> some time before I can get you a proper response. In the meantime, >>>> here is an improper one. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My explicit beef was with the interviewer, not with Wilson. It is >>>> certainly >>>> news to Wilson that, having believed something dumb for decades, he now >>>> comes, in old age, to the obvious truth. But why is it news to us?! >>>> The >>>> news, it seems to me, that there were a few people who stood up to the >>>> deluge of Reagen-biology that saturated the field, and it is to THOSE >>>> people, not Wilson, that we should look for insight. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am not sure there IS redemption for an academic who has killed off > many >>>> good ideas (and presumably graduate students) to make a towering > academic >>>> career, and then sees the truth in his dotage. At least, he has to do >>>> more >>>> than just change he mind. He has to make restitution: hasto pay back >>>> his >>>> royalties and recompense damages to those whom he has injured. And >>>> probably all the other items in the 12 step list, as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Worse than the belated discovery of the truth, is the belated discovery >>>> of >>>> foolishness. Perhaps the most dramatic instance of this was Donald >>>> Griffin, who after a career of tough minded neurophys, woke one day as a >>>> mentalist. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Oh was that ugly. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> friam-boun...@redfish.com >>>> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> >>>> [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:58 PM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But, Nick, later in the article it says, ".even as Wilson campaigned for >>>> sociobiology, he began to grow dismayed with the scientific framework >>>> that >>>> made it possible. 'I noticed that the foundations of inclusive fitness >>>> were >>>> crumbling,' Wilson says. 'The reasoning that had convinced me it was >>>> correct no longer held.' For instance, after pursuing Hamilton's >>>> haplodipoidy hypothesis, scientists discovered that many of the most >>>> cooperative insect species, such as termites and ambrosia beetles, >>>> weren't >>>> actually haplodiploid. Furthermore, tens of thousands of species that >>>> did >>>> manifest haplodiploidy never evolved eusociality-although these insects >>>> were >>>> closely related, they didn't share food or serve the queen.[Wilson] >>>> concluded that inclusive fitness was no longer a tenable concept." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Didn't he redeem himself by your lights? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank C. Wimberly >>>> >>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >>>> >>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:wimber...@gmail.com%3cmailto:wimber...@gmail.com> >>>> wimber...@gmail.com<mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> >>>> <mailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu%3cmailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu> >>>> wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu<mailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu> >>>> >>>> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: >>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com%3cmailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >>>> friam-boun...@redfish.com<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >>>> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> >>>> [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]< >>>> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> >>>> mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> On Behalf Of Nicholas > Thompson >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:10 AM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Owen, etc., >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning how >>>> to >>>> access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can do is send >>>> you >>>> a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it >>>> now, >>>> I am in danger of experiencing "irk-guilt", but here it is, anyway. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the > individual >>>> thing that goes on in interviews. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist ." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:[cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0]> >>>> [cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: >>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com%3cmailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >>>> friam-boun...@redfish.com<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >>>> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> >>>> [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]< >>>> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> >>>> mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:57 AM >>>> >>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank C. Wimberly >>>> >>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >>>> >>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <mailto:wimber...@gmail.com%3cmailto:wimber...@gmail.com> >>>> wimber...@gmail.com<mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> >>>> <mailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu%3cmailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu> >>>> wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu<mailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu> >>>> >>>> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: >>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com%3cmailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >>>> friam-boun...@redfish.com<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >>>> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> >>>> [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]< >>>> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> >>>> mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> On Behalf Of Owen Densmore >>>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:10 AM >>>> >>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >>>> <mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net%3cmailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >>>> nickthomp...@earthlink.net<mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Robert, 'n all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked > me, >>>> courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer> >>>> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> >>>> 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> 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> 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 >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> 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 >> >> ============================================================ >> 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 > > > ============================================================ > 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
