Edwina,
I put myself forth *as* a biologist before anything else and I object to your classification of mutation/natural selection (rather, descent with modification) as a *neoDarwinian hypothesis*. That’s just terrible. There is a lot that has been contemplated about chance/spontaneity in evolutionary processes. Goldschmidt’s hopeful monsters and Waddington’s epigenetic landscape and atavism come to mind (cf., Baldwin effect). From a quick glance of the introduction of Brooks/Wiley book, I suspect there ought to be no contradictions between these since it was Waddington who organized the Bellagio conference. Best, Jerry R On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > Clark, list: > > 1) First - I don't accept the neoDarwinian hypothesis that adaptation and > evolution are due to randomness and Natural Selection. I think that > adaptation and evolution are actions of Mind; that is, the biological > systems adapt to environmental realities - not randomly - but as INFORMED > systems. That is, to leave adaptation up to randomness - would effectively > mean extinction for the species - since a 'lucky guess' coming along 'just > in time' is as specious a hope as my winning the lottery [sigh]. I consider > that biological systems as semiosic are informationally networked with > their environment and therefore, develop a number of potential responses to > environmental stresses. Any one of these potential responses would be > functional. The selection of ONE of these potential responses MIGHT > be 'random' but again, any one of these potential responses would have been > functional. > > As has been pointed out by several of us, chance is not the same as > randomness. Change/spontaneity is an action of freedom-to-develop; in this > case, a freedom to develop a new morphological nature as an INFORMED > response to environmental realities. This is NOT a random action but a free > action, based on informed knowledge of 'what's going on out there'. A > common example is where a bird will develop a harder beak as the seeds in > the environment develop harder shells. This is NOT random, which means > UNINFORMED and pure 'lottery-win' [though I have my doubts about the > randomness of lottery wins...mutter, mutter...] > > That is, - and this is found in a number of modern biologists - [see > Daniel Brooks: Evolution as Entropy] - this view rejects equilibrium > between organisms and their environment; rejects randomness as the cause of > new morphologies; rejects natural selection as the ultimate cause; rejects > optimality theory; rejects independent evolution of each species. > > By entropy I am referring to the nature of a biological system that > 'holds' or binds energy as matter within its morphological nature. So, a > particular biological species that changes its capacity to hold onto this > matter-and its metabolic transformation, and it might to this for any > number of reasons - might release energy/matter to the 'world', which is > then rapidly made use of by another biological system. So, we will see an > increasing complexity in an ecosystem. A swamp with myriad grasses might > see the development of more 'individualistic grasses' which function only > in a narrow range of the swamp, BUT, this might lead to a proliferation of > more diverse grasses and plants; more diverse insects and birds - some at > the periphery of the swamp, some in the mainstream. > > In each of these new types of organic systems, a new 'habit of existence > and continuity' will develop. > > I don't know if this helps. I suspect that it's not really clarifying your > questions. > > Edwina > > > > > -- > This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's > largest alternative telecommunications provider. > > http://www.primus.ca > > On Thu 06/04/17 1:45 PM , Clark Goble cl...@lextek.com sent: > > > On Apr 6, 2017, at 6:34 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > - chance does not form habits but only facilitates breaking them - and > since chance/Firstness is primordial, then, breaking habits is so to speak, > necessary and normal in the universe. Just as habits are primordial; just > as differentiation into discrete instantiations is primordial.. > > > Could you clarify this? Are you speaking of biological systems at a > starting point where our analysis presumes they already are there? (Say a > swamp in the year 2000 as the starting point - there are already habitual > behaviors in place) > > The question I have is that I assume you think new habits can develop. > While this isn’t purely random due to selection, surely chance is a major > component to developing new habits. > > John, list - I agree with you that Firstness, in itself, is not entropic - > since it also operates within a stable system as vagueness, openness. But > Firstness as spontaneity, within that vagueness, can lead as Peirce pointed > out to minute changes in the form of the system, which can be accepted > within Thirdness and lead to new habits of formation and interaction. > > I also agree that randomness and spontaneity are not identical - and that > Firstness is 'spontaneity'. > > > I’ll hold off for now discussing the distinction between spontaneity, > chance and randomness. I do think if we use the terms we need to be clear > what we mean by them since they are all ambiguous terms. > > The problem I have here is what you mean by entropy and change. After all > change can happen that doesn’t increase entropy. While change typically > increases entropy of the system of course it can reduce the entropy of the > subsystem (as is common in evolutionary change). So I’m not quite sure > relative to your topic of biological creatures what you mean by entropy. > Could you clarify a little? (Sorry as my training just isn’t in biology but > physics. I recognize I’m bringing a set of expectations that perhaps don’t > apply.) > > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
