You can define both with probability assertions. If you smoke you alter the probability distribution life length. If you pull the trigger the gun will fire with probability 0.99996.
--- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 12:26 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > F > > > > is one of them nonsense? > > > > n > > > > Nick Thompson > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Frank Wimberly > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 9, 2021 2:24 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gene-culture coevolution > > > > My causal reasoning colleagues make a distinction between statistical > causation (smoking causes cancer) and token causation (pulling this trigger > causes this gun to fire). > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, > Santa Fe, NM 87505 > > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > > > On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 9:09 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Pieter, > > > > Are you perhaps caught in a tautology, here? If genetic changes are > DEFINED as those that occur slowly, then the statement that genetic changes > occur slowly has no empirical force. Such tautologies have been the > life-blood of my work. > > > > Gardening makes me skeptical. Why didn’t my peas come up this year, when > the beans right next to them leapt from the soil. I dunno. I can have > hunches, and I do have hunches, and having hunches makes my world seem a > safer place. When I garden, I easily get lost in what Philosophers would > probably call a Humean Swamp. It’s the same as having IBD which 30 percent > of the American population does. Every day’s different; every day’s the > same in being different; and no doctor has a clue. One can do experiments, > and experiments are suggest that changes in the population of some events > will lead to changes in the population of some other events. But to speak > of causality in a single instance, as we all so confidently do, is just > nonsense. > > > > Out here amongst the humus the world returns to its natural state, a > blooming buzzing confusion. I get to wondering how ANY Darwinian process > can occur, anatomical, physiological, OR behavioral: i.e., natural > selection OR learning. For something to be selected in any way, it has to > be isolated from all other consequences except the desired one. In a > garden (as in a gut) things just seem just too ENTANGLED for selection to > be possible. > > > > Now back to our conversation about rate of change. It seems to me that > the rate of change is determined in part by the degree of entanglement of > the trait of interest. Highly entangled traits change slowly, whether by > learning or by natural selection; free standing traits change quickly. THE > BEAK OF THE FINCH has a wonderful example of the bill shapes of one of > Darwin’s finches changing in cycles according to El Nino. (Geez! I hope I > remember that right!) One can suppose that learned traits are easier to > disentangle than “genetic” ones, but I don’t know any rule that makes that > so. > > > > I think the puzzle of evolution and the puzzle of learning are the same. > In whose interest is the platform, the level playing field, the > disentanglement, that makes selection possible. Is it possible that > Darwinian mechanisms are self -disentangling? > > > > Pieter, I have taken the liberty of forwarding this to the list, so I can > resume being dope-slapped by the Erics and Glencus. It’s time to drain my > Humean swamp. > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > Nick Thompson > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Pieter Steenekamp <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:13 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gene-culture coevolution > > > > Nick, please enjoy your gardening, I really don't mind if you ignore this > email. > > You say the physiological resistance changes rapidly. How rapidly? If it's > in let's say two or three generations, then it's obviously not genetic. In > this case I don't have a clue how that happens. If it's say 100 generations > or more, genetic evolution could well explain that and I can't think of a > better explanation. If you offer a better explanation then I'll accept it. > In the absence of a better explanation I'll accept that the best > explanation given for physiological resistance is genetic evolution. > > It makes perfect sense that the speed of genetic evolution on > physiological resistance is much faster than the genetic evolution on > behaviour change. The venom kills the animal and that very quickly removes > the genes from the gene pool. To evolve to change the genes to change the > behaviour back to before the prairy dog got in contact with snakes has a > much weaker influence and will obviously take much longer. The prairy dogs > that still have the genes causing defensive behaviour are not removed from > the gene pool, or if then very slowly. > > If the behaviour was learned and not caused by the genes, the behaviour > change will obviously be much faster. The slow change in behaviour hints at > genes causing the behaviour. > > You obviously don't like it, but I find it difficult to express the > relationship between genes and traits without using the word "cause". > Do you understand what I mean if I say "genes cause traits"? > Are you offended by me using it like that? > How would you say it? Maybe "genes determine traits"? Or maybe writing the > whole story, explaining all the mechanisms and relationships? > > Bottom line, if you understand what I mean by using "genes causing traits" > and you are not offended by it, then I prefer to carry on using it like > that. I think it conveys the meaning perfectly well. There are many > instances where intelligent people confuse correlation with causation. I > have a sort of bee in my bonnet about this. That's why I generally tend to > emphasize the cause, to distinguish it from the correlation. There are > certain genes that correlate with certain traits, in this case it's not > just an arbitrary correlation, there is also causation. > > > > But if you don't understand it or are offended by it, then I'll gladly > change my wording in future. > > > Pieter > > > > On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 at 21:47, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well, then, why does the physiological resistance to the snake venom, > which presumably is a genetic thing, change rapidly. > > > > Also, while I am quibbling, I am never sure that a gene is the sort of > “thing” that can cause anything. How can things, which are extended in > time, be the cause of things. Don’t causes need to be events? Shouln’t we > talking about the events necessary of sufficient for an the increase or > decrease in the relative frequency of an observation event? Any way, I am > still on leave from FRIAM and should keep my mouth shut. The garden is > starting to look like something. Whenever my instructions weren’t clear, > my planter put in lettuce sets. So now I have roughly 40 perfect heads of > multicolored lettuce. Need human rabbits to partake. > > > > > > Nick > > > > Nick Thompson > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Pieter Steenekamp <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 8, 2021 12:51 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gene-culture coevolution > > > > Nick, I'm not sure I follow your logic. It seems you imply behaviour > cannot be caused by genes? Help me if I understand you wrong. The way I see > it is that the behaviour of the prairie dogs is caused mainly by their > genes, that's why it changes very slowly. > > Human behaviour on the other hand is caused to a much larger extent, but > certainly not exclusively, we are not born blank slates, by culture that's > why it changes much faster. > > > > On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 at 17:36, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dispatch from the bog. Assumption that behavioral adaptation is necessary > quicker than genetic gratuitous STOP in region of west where there have > been no rattle snakes for a zillion years, prairie dogs still have > behavioral defenses long after their venom resistance has faded STOP yes I > can think of other explanations STOP there are always other explanations > STOP Also, genes are relations not things STOP > > > > Nick > > > > Nick Thompson > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 8, 2021 12:40 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] gene-culture coevolution > > > > The paper makes intuitive sense for me. Human traits are a complex > function of genes and culture. Genetic evolution has stopped, or is very > weak, and culture is evolving very fast. The changes in future human traits > will therefore almost exclusively be determined by cultural evolution. > > But, this is assuming humans are not going to modify their genes, or the > genes of their children. With current technology it's probably very risky > to do that, but what will the future hold? > > > > On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 at 04:25, Prof David West <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have been trying to make the point about culture - not only for > evolution, but for cognition as well. Had many an argument with Nick on > this topic at Mother Church. > > davew > > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, at 2:17 PM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote: > > Researchers: Culture drives human evolution more than genetics > > https://phys.org/news/2021-06-culture-human-evolution-genetics.html > > > > Paywalled Paper: > > https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2021.0538 > > > > Accessible version: > > > https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=eco_facpub > > > > -- > > ☤>$ uǝlƃ > > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
