Nick, You're the scientist; I'm only a computer scientist. So you are more qualified to talk about science and cause.
Do you think science organizes its theories in terms of causes? I see equations, entities, structures, geometries, and mechanisms, but I don't see causes. As I'm sure you know, the notion of "cause" is very slippery. I think science is better off without it. But I'm interested in your perspective. What do you think? [If this is a thread hijack, I apologize. I am very interested in the subject, though.] *-- Russ Abbott* *_____________________________________________* *** Professor, Computer Science* * California State University, Los Angeles* * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688* * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach *_____________________________________________* On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Russ - > > > Steve, you mentioned Lamarkian evolution. I'd be very interested to find > out more about some of your daughter's examples. > > This was on a long drive from NM to OR last Thanksgiving... in the course > of about 30 hours of driving we talked about a LOT of things. > > I am pretty sure this first exmaple is merely "neo-Lamarckian" or > "Lamarckianesque" as they only applied to the single next generation. > The germline of the child does not carry the changes, although if the child > experiences the same conditions the parent did, the same epigenetic > mechanisms would be in effect in the subsequent generation. This example > had to to do with Long Term Potentiation (a feature of neural > connectivity). What surprised me most was that this particular example > involved the female/mother/eggs which are not manufactured "on the fly". > It seems more likely that the father/male/sperm would be prone to this type > of effect? There may have been two sub-examples, one about memory and one > about "bad mothering"? > > A more Lamarckian example was, I think, in Roundworms and involved RNA > interference. The result (minus the details) was something like > hereditible immunity. > > A parallel example I *can* remember was the case of Tasmanian Devils and > what is known as DFTD for Devil Facial Tumor Disease. Apparently it is an > *infectuous* cancer (non-viral, meaning it isn't about a virus transferring > from one host to another, then causing cancer). A cancerous cell from one > individual literally becomes part of the other individual's organism... > like an accidental organ donation or skin graft. Apparently the Devils > are prone to lots of scrapping with each other and when one with a tumor on > it's face scraps with one without, a cancerous cell (or cells) can get > transferred to from the skin of one to the other and it can in fact 'graft' > right into the epithelial layer. I don't know if this is more > common/likely because it is cancerous, or if Devils were already exchanging > skin cells before this cancer emerged? > > The point of this Tasmanian Devil example is that it is as unexpected (to > me anyway) as examples of Lamarckian evolution would be. > > > > *-- Russ Abbott* > *_____________________________________________* > * Professor, Computer Science* > * California State University, Los Angeles* > > * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688 > * > * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 > Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ > * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ > CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach > *_____________________________________________* > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Gary/Pamela/(Stephen, Carl, Eric, ...) - >> >> I know several (many?) on this list know Stu better than I... so I >> apologize if I sounded overly critical. I prefer Pamela's description of >> him being *careless* with references as opposed to my own use of the >> *honest*. I also admit that I do not know if he sees himself as a >> rock-star... that is perhaps the default category I put people in who are >> simultaneously *good*, *self-possessed* and *charismatic*. I actually >> *like* most rock stars (within reason) even if I might not care for their >> music. >> >> As an aside... does anyone remember Chris Langton appearing in Rolling >> Stone (CA 1990?)... I searched their archives and did not find any >> references (nor on the internet at large?). I remember the article >> including a sexed-up spread of him in front of a Connection Machine? I >> suppose I could be hallucinating or have come from an alternate history? >> >> I also smiled at your term "demigod" as I often use "Titans" to describe >> the pantheon of my wife's sibling group... she is oldest of 8 *mostly* >> high functioning, *very* charismatic, *definitely* self-possessed siblings. >> They all revered their father who was a humble but charismatic physics >> professor. None of them took up science per se, though one has a PhD in >> psychology. I would not use *rock star* to describe any of their >> self-image, though there is one who insists he *is* Elvis... and sometimes >> we are tempted to believe him. There are definitely characters right out >> of Greek, Roman, Norse, even Hindu mythology in her family... My wife is >> Kali *and* Loki rolled into one I think. >> >> I have always been inspired by Kauffman's ideas as best I could >> understand them, which has been highly variable, depending on the >> circumstance. This says more about me than about Stu. I read his lecture >> notes in the late-nineties... the ones which ultimately became the core of >> _Investigations_ (or so it seemed to me). I had read _OofO_ and _At Home >> in the Universe_ previously. It may have been coincidence or something >> stronger like kismet that I read Investigations interleaved with my reading >> of Christopher Alexander's (Pattern Language fame) _Notes on the Synthesis >> of Form_ with D'Arcy Thompson's _On Growth and Form_ as backup reference. >> I was traveling lightly in New Zealand at the time with none of my usual >> distractions nagging me. It was a month of deep thought informed by >> Alexander and Kauffman equally. >> >> My nature is to be guarded around people with significant charisma (and >> me married into aforementioned pantheon!). I appreciate the need for and >> the value of the persuasive and the self-confident, even in the realm of >> science where ideas *by definition* must stand on their own. There is >> value for those who can bring us to *want* to believe enough to put in the >> hard work to believe things on their own merits. Unfortunately that might >> be the dividing line between science and Science(tm). I suppose I >> mistrust those who appear to be trying to corner the franchise on >> Science(tm) in their neighborhood. >> >> Nevertheless, I am *more* interested in Kauffman's ideas here and hope >> that we will discuss them a bit? >> >> - Steve >> >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
