Well, EricS is a scholar, which means he will respond responsibly and with content. I, by contrast, am a hack and will respond irresponsibly and off-the-cuff. 8^D
I *do* think the project worthwhile, but only if you abandon any ontological or metaphysical commitment to the distinction between advertent and inadvertent. For example, there seems to me a clear difference between exaptation and the unintended usage of a computer program. Similarly, I think there's a clear difference between exaptation and new use approvals or patents for drugs. As best I can tell, the difference is the lack of an Intelligent Designer for evolution ... or with less triggering language, the lack of a "small model" (by contrast with Rosen's "largest model"). When Pfizer discovers a drug (mostly by accident ... but a sweat-laden accident), it's a very purposeful, intelligent, perspective laden thing (mostly money, but some honest Do Gooding interwoven). When a team of programmers builds a [soft|hard]ware service, it's an intelligently designed thing. When the amorphous cloud of nothingness that is "selection pressure" builds a trait, it is not an intelligently designed thing, it MAY NOT EVEN BE an optimized thing ... where "otpimized" means perspective-laden, objective-focused, etc. I'm not saying it *is not* an optimized thing. I'm saying it may not be. That's why I encourage you to abandon the ontological commitment. This sort of thing is discussed quite a bit in the open-ended evolution literature, which you may be more familiar with than I am. So, if you would play *that* game, I think you'd make some progress. On 9/23/21 10:18 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Dear Glen and EricS > > > > My friends are all too busy, so I have to turn to my frenemies for help. > > > > My palaver about epiphenomena grows out a much larger project: to identify > the resemblance among a bunch of concepts loosely related to the idea of an > epiphenomenon. Since the word has started to get us into trouble, I have > been searching around for another. How about “inadvertent”? To “advert” to > something is to orient toward it, to turn toward it, to point at it. > INadvertent consequences are those of an action toward which the action > itself did not point. Since, in my lingo, the goal of an action is that > toward which it points, we are speaking of the consequences of an action > which were not among that action’s goals. These we will call > “inadvertents”, “which is ugly enough to be safe from kidnappers.” Now as > the concept of exaptation makes clear, whether a trait is an advertent or an > inadvertent depends on the context of its design. Thus a trait evolved > inadvertently in the contest of competition at the kill (the pseudo=penis of > the female hyena) can become an > advertent within the context of dominance display. > > > > The concept gnaws at me, these days, because so much about old age is > “inadvertent”. That was George William’s theory of senescence: that the ills > of old age are the inadvertent consequences of the adaptations of the young. > Inadvertency seems to be a key to so many confusions in psychology, > philosophy, and even biology. Think about the distinction between > “intension” and “extension”. (Poor Lady Astor!) Think about > “intentionality” generally. Think about spandrels and exaptation (= > secondary advertency). Think about the relation between functions and > purposes. Think about the distinction between effects and side effects of > medicines. This fundamental idea is everywhere in our thought. Think about > the indeterminacy of metaphors. Think about all the things a newly minted > program can do that it's designer did not intend it to do. > > > > Now, the piece I want to write and which you (over your dead bodies) have > been helping me write, will hold a Wittgensteinian “family” reunion among all > these instances of inadvertency and try to discover if they are all of a > piece and if there is anything useful to be said about them all. > > > > My first question of you, two, is, Do you see this project as useful? Do you > see a benefit in such family reunions? Would you find such a piece, once > written, to be of any use in your own thinking? The question is of importance > to me because, cantankerous as you sometimes are, I find your opinions on > such matters to be of great use, and I fear that your opinion will be that > such projects are nugatory. “Words, words, WORDS!”, you will say. This > will be a disappointment to me because two of the pieces of writing I am > proudest of are those that showed the concepts of gene and adaptation > belonged to the family of intensional concepts in psychology and those that > showed that D.S.Wilson’s concept of trait group selection was not an example > of /selection/ at all, but a run-of-the-mill instance of quantitative > /inheritance/. In other words, I think there is some value in rearranging > the deck chairs on the Titanic, and you do not. > > > > In case anybody wants to discuss any of this in vPerson I am going to try to > be at friam between 9 and 11 tomorrow. -- "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." ☤>$ uǝlƃ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
