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 better chance of fighting off
this malignancy if it maintains it's overall health (social, economic,
spiritual) otherwise.   We can't let this malignancy weaken our immune
system any more than it already has."


I noticed a liberal neighbor of mine that used to drive an inconspicuous car 
now has a new Range Rover.   I wonder if it was retail therapy, or maybe I was 
just projecting?  Does that count as "tending your own garden"?   While the 
storm passes she'll have a nice ride.  Or maybe it won't pass and she just 
wants to be sure she can get around after public services collapse?



Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Steven A Smith 
<sasm...@swcp.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 1:10:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

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 independent cellular reproduction mechanisms have to
fail or be jiggered for cancer to emerge in healthy cells.   I don't
know if that literally means 7 independent mutations must occur
simultaneously or if more likely 7 have to "accumulate", which seems
more likely, and follows (I think) your example.   In the light of this
discussion, I should probably ask her for a more thorough description of
what she meant by all of that.

In the socio/political/religious/economic realm it seems that multiple
simultaneous mutations are more obvious to observe.   I think we see
humans mis-copy their memetic code (misinterpret their holy scriptures,
or their parents or masters teachings, etc.) very often and sometimes in
several dimensions at once. Perhaps the "robustness" of the underlying
unit (a human being) allows for such wild mutations (highly antisocial
behaviour by most measures) in a single copy, is what allows for what
seems like some fairly fast memetic evolution at the social level?

i'm probably reaching here, but in this petri dish that is the USA with
Trump or the first world with Trump, et al, or even the globally
connected (bits, atoms, virus particles, memes, oh my!) first, second
and third world there is likely to be some relatively unprecedented
mutations recognized and even selected for.  Some could say that Donald
Trump represents a half-dozen (or more) mutations in the
socio/economic/political code and yet HE WAS SELECTED FOR and is almost
surely malignant and seems to be metastasizing (other populist whitelash
fascist movements around the first world).  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 better chance of fighting off
this malignancy if it maintains it's overall health (social, economic,
spiritual) otherwise.   We can't let this malignancy weaken our immune
system any more than it already has.

buh,

  - Steve


On 8/12/17 10:14 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:
> 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, infinite 
> generations, or infinite space and time.
>
> On 08/12/2017 09:07 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> "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.
>>
>> f(x,y,z,...) -> good
>> f(y,z,x,...) -> good
>> f(z,x,y,...) -> good
>> f(x,z,y,...) -> bad
>>
>> Going through the combinations just by using mutation takes forever.  But 
>> splicing at different points would help.   One could imagine for motor 
>> functions these symmetry or shift detectors could be important.   (Here it 
>> is just 1 dimensional.)


============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
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-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Reply via email to