subject:"Re\: \[FRIAM\] random v stochastic v indeterminate"

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-22 Thread gepr ⛧

when the idea
>was
>> first proposed by England in his 2013 paper
>> <http://www.englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/2013jcpsrep.pdf>.
>>
>>
>> A physicist has proposed the provocative idea that life exists
>because
>> the law of increasing entropy drives matter to acquire life-like
>physical
>> properties
>>
>>
>> Perhaps very much prematurely, England is being touted as the new
>Darwin.
>> His theory, however, does not replace natural selection but provides
>a
>> deeper expanation for "fitness."
>>
>> In an hour-long lecture that I listened to
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e91D5UAz-f4> recently, England
>admits
>> that we cannot really attribute any of this to randomness ... we
>don't
>> really know precisely what that is. What it seems to come down to,
>though,
>> are--as you say--the "best" hypotheses for the seemingly improbable
>> (considering the Second Law of Thermodynamics) building of new
>structures
>> in a prevailing heat bath that dissipate the most Gibbs free energy.
>Erwin
>> Schrödinger noted something similar in his 1944 essay *What is Life*.
>>
>> If I understand this, what creates these "fit" structures is this
>> tendency for all matter, not just living matter, (i.e., arrangements
>of
>> atoms or molecules) to self-organize into new organizations--your
>> *hypotheses*--that maximize the dissipation of free energy. It is
>indeed
>> the evolving, prevailing environment that provides the opportunities
>for
>> various, different "hypotheses" to arise at different times in
>geological
>> history. So, in a sense, you *can *say that natural selection
>*creates
>> and preserves* innovations if you see it as an interactive process as
>> both Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead both did at the
>beginning of
>> the twentieth century.
>>
>> From the same *Scientific American* article, this is notable:
>>
>> Having an overarching principle of life and evolution would give
>>> researchers a broader perspective on the emergence of structure and
>>> function in living things, many of the researchers said. “Natural
>selection
>>> doesn’t explain certain characteristics,” said Ard Louis, a
>biophysicist at
>>> Oxford University, in an email. These characteristics include a
>heritable
>>> change to gene expression called methylation, increases in
>complexity in
>>> the absence of natural selection, and certain molecular changes
>Louis has
>>> recently studied.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If [*Jeremy*] England’s approach stands up to more testing, it could
>>> further liberate biologists from seeking a Darwinian explanation for
>every
>>> adaptation and allow them to think more generally in terms of
>>> dissipation-driven organization. They might find, for example, that
>“the
>>> reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not
>be
>>> because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make
>it
>>> easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve,” Louis said.
>>
>>
>> For students and practitioners of complexity science, this seems more
>than
>> just interesting.
>>
>> Hope this adds something to this interesting thread.  It got my
>attention.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Robert
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Nick Thompson <
>> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Wagner seems to support utterly my intuition that what the genome
>offers
>>> up is not random mutations but hypotheses for good living.  The idea
>of
>>> evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd.
>>>
>>> "inadequate," my tush.  (};-)]
>>>
>>> N
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>> Clark University
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g???
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:11 PM
>>> To: friam@redfish.com
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, Dave promised to give us a gist of Wagner.  And Grant has
>chimed in
>>> regarding the stochasticity of crossover, which provoked an
>inadequate
>>> response from Nick, if I remember correctly.  Since you're actively
>reading
>>> Wagner now, Nick, perhaps you could give us a summary of what he
>might have
>>> meant by Jenny's quote?  Repeated here for convenience:
>>>
>>> On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
>>> >
>>> > An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest:
>how
>>> nature innovates by Andreas Wagner.
>>> >
>>> > From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond
>dispute,
>>> but this power has limits. Natural selection can preserve
>innovations, but
>>> it cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them
>random is
>>> just another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any
>>> innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles
>that
>>> accelerate life's ability to innovate, its innov

-- 
⛧glen⛧


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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-22 Thread Eric Charles

able
> (considering the Second Law of Thermodynamics) building of new structures
> in a prevailing heat bath that dissipate the most Gibbs free energy. Erwin
> Schrödinger noted something similar in his 1944 essay *What is Life*.
>
> If I understand this, what creates these "fit" structures is this
> tendency for all matter, not just living matter, (i.e., arrangements of
> atoms or molecules) to self-organize into new organizations--your
> *hypotheses*--that maximize the dissipation of free energy. It is indeed
> the evolving, prevailing environment that provides the opportunities for
> various, different "hypotheses" to arise at different times in geological
> history. So, in a sense, you *can *say that natural selection *creates
> and preserves* innovations if you see it as an interactive process as
> both Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead both did at the beginning of
> the twentieth century.
>
> From the same *Scientific American* article, this is notable:
>
> Having an overarching principle of life and evolution would give
>> researchers a broader perspective on the emergence of structure and
>> function in living things, many of the researchers said. “Natural selection
>> doesn’t explain certain characteristics,” said Ard Louis, a biophysicist at
>> Oxford University, in an email. These characteristics include a heritable
>> change to gene expression called methylation, increases in complexity in
>> the absence of natural selection, and certain molecular changes Louis has
>> recently studied.
>
>
>
>>
>> If [*Jeremy*] England’s approach stands up to more testing, it could
>> further liberate biologists from seeking a Darwinian explanation for every
>> adaptation and allow them to think more generally in terms of
>> dissipation-driven organization. They might find, for example, that “the
>> reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be
>> because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make it
>> easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve,” Louis said.
>
>
> For students and practitioners of complexity science, this seems more than
> just interesting.
>
> Hope this adds something to this interesting thread.  It got my attention.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Robert
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Nick Thompson <
> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Wagner seems to support utterly my intuition that what the genome offers
>> up is not random mutations but hypotheses for good living.  The idea of
>> evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd.
>>
>> "inadequate," my tush.  (};-)]
>>
>> N
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>> Clark University
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g???
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:11 PM
>> To: friam@redfish.com
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
>>
>>
>> Well, Dave promised to give us a gist of Wagner.  And Grant has chimed in
>> regarding the stochasticity of crossover, which provoked an inadequate
>> response from Nick, if I remember correctly.  Since you're actively reading
>> Wagner now, Nick, perhaps you could give us a summary of what he might have
>> meant by Jenny's quote?  Repeated here for convenience:
>>
>> On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
>> >
>> > An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest: how
>> nature innovates by Andreas Wagner.
>> >
>> > From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute,
>> but this power has limits. Natural selection can preserve innovations, but
>> it cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them random is
>> just another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any
>> innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that
>> accelerate life's ability to innovate, its innovability.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08/22/2017 08:10 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> > I have been trying to get somebody to tussle with me over this claim
>> since it was first made.
>> > I think it’s nonsense, but I am not sure.
>> >
>> > *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric
>> > Charles
>> > *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 8:11 PM
>> > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> > <friam@redfis

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-22 Thread Robert Wall

heritable
> change to gene expression called methylation, increases in complexity in
> the absence of natural selection, and certain molecular changes Louis has
> recently studied.



>
> If [*Jeremy*] England’s approach stands up to more testing, it could
> further liberate biologists from seeking a Darwinian explanation for every
> adaptation and allow them to think more generally in terms of
> dissipation-driven organization. They might find, for example, that “the
> reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be
> because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make it
> easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve,” Louis said.


For students and practitioners of complexity science, this seems more than
just interesting.

Hope this adds something to this interesting thread.  It got my attention.

Cheers,

Robert


On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Wagner seems to support utterly my intuition that what the genome offers
> up is not random mutations but hypotheses for good living.  The idea of
> evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd.
>
> "inadequate," my tush.  (};-)]
>
> N
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g???
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:11 PM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
>
>
> Well, Dave promised to give us a gist of Wagner.  And Grant has chimed in
> regarding the stochasticity of crossover, which provoked an inadequate
> response from Nick, if I remember correctly.  Since you're actively reading
> Wagner now, Nick, perhaps you could give us a summary of what he might have
> meant by Jenny's quote?  Repeated here for convenience:
>
> On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
> >
> > An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest: how
> nature innovates by Andreas Wagner.
> >
> > From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, but
> this power has limits. Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it
> cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just
> another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations-
> some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that accelerate life's
> ability to innovate, its innovability.
> >
>
>
>
>
> On 08/22/2017 08:10 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> > I have been trying to get somebody to tussle with me over this claim
> since it was first made.
> > I think it’s nonsense, but I am not sure.
> >
> > *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric
> > Charles
> > *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 8:11 PM
> > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam@redfish.com>
> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry to pull at a still thread, but I find this claim fascinating.
> > "Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create
> them."
> >
> > Would we say the same of artificial selection? I'm pretty sure we
> > would normally claim that artificial selection has lead to all sorts
> > of innovations. Maybe I'm thinking of "innovations" more broadly than
> > is intended?!? Aren't the baring and tail-wagging, multi-colored,
> > short-snouted, cuddly foxes an example of innovation? (For those who
> > don't know, it takes a pretty short number of generations to turn wild
> > foxes into reasonable approximations of domestic dogs, and all you
> > have to do is select against aggression towards humans.)
> >
> > I know what the quote is trying to get at, but I'm not sure it holds up
> in the wider context of things-that-cause biological innovation.
>
> --
> gⅼеɳ
>
> 
> 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

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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-22 Thread Nick Thompson

Well, I am not sure the weight of Wagner's presentation supports that 
conclusion. 

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g???
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 2:28 PM
To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

Heh, so you *agree* with Wagner that natural selection can preserve 
innovations, but it cannot create them?

On 08/22/2017 11:21 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Wagner seems to support utterly my intuition that what the genome offers up 
> is not random mutations but hypotheses for good living.  The idea of 
> evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd. 

--
gⅼеɳ

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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-22 Thread gⅼеɳ

Heh, so you *agree* with Wagner that natural selection can preserve 
innovations, but it cannot create them?

On 08/22/2017 11:21 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Wagner seems to support utterly my intuition that what the genome offers up 
> is not random mutations but hypotheses for good living.  The idea of 
> evolution groping blindly through morphology space is absurd. 

-- 
gⅼеɳ

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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-22 Thread Nick Thompson

Wagner seems to support utterly my intuition that what the genome offers up is 
not random mutations but hypotheses for good living.  The idea of evolution 
groping blindly through morphology space is absurd. 

"inadequate," my tush.  (};-)]

N

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g???
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:11 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

Well, Dave promised to give us a gist of Wagner.  And Grant has chimed in 
regarding the stochasticity of crossover, which provoked an inadequate response 
from Nick, if I remember correctly.  Since you're actively reading Wagner now, 
Nick, perhaps you could give us a summary of what he might have meant by 
Jenny's quote?  Repeated here for convenience:

On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
>
> An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest: how nature 
> innovates by Andreas Wagner.
>
> From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, but this 
> power has limits. Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot 
> create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just another 
> way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations- some 
> uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that accelerate life's 
> ability to innovate, its innovability.
>

On 08/22/2017 08:10 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> I have been trying to get somebody to tussle with me over this claim since it 
> was first made. 
> I think it’s nonsense, but I am not sure.
>
> *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric 
> Charles
> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2017 8:11 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> <friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate
> 
>  
> 
> Sorry to pull at a still thread, but I find this claim fascinating.
> "Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create them."
> 
> Would we say the same of artificial selection? I'm pretty sure we 
> would normally claim that artificial selection has lead to all sorts 
> of innovations. Maybe I'm thinking of "innovations" more broadly than 
> is intended?!? Aren't the baring and tail-wagging, multi-colored, 
> short-snouted, cuddly foxes an example of innovation? (For those who 
> don't know, it takes a pretty short number of generations to turn wild 
> foxes into reasonable approximations of domestic dogs, and all you 
> have to do is select against aggression towards humans.)
> 
> I know what the quote is trying to get at, but I'm not sure it holds up in 
> the wider context of things-that-cause biological innovation.

--
gⅼеɳ

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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-13 Thread Marcus Daniels

"To explain why I hate it so much, we can try to think deeply about the nazi 
that killed the antifa yesterday in Charlottesville and Trump's response to it 
(blaming all sides)."

This 
side<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/heather-heyer-charlottesville-victim.html>
 must have been terribly menacing to a man in a > 300 HP car.  Not only do 
words have meaning, but even perceptions.  The memes are unbound or at least 
differently bound.

So any fitness function that involves them cannot be compared.

Marcus

From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of ┣glen┫ 
<geprope...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2017 10:28 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

I absolutely loathe the meme metaphor.  I don't usually agree with Nick's 
distinction between metaphor and analogy.  8^)  But here, I claim the meme 
isn't *anything* like a gene... or more clearly, there is no idea/thought 
construct that is anything like a gene.

To explain why I hate it so much, we can try to think deeply about the nazi 
that killed the antifa yesterday in Charlottesville and Trump's response to it 
(blaming all sides).  To be clear, anyone who continues defending their vote 
for Trump at this point should be held accountable for their idiotic choice.  
But the Trump defender will say something like "Trump's not a racist or a nazi, 
even if some of his followers are."  And, "yes I support Trump.  But I'm not a 
nazi."  Pffft.  It flat out does not matter.  There is no analog for mutation 
or crossover that we can use to map Trump to his nazis.  The gooey milieu that 
flows from someone like Trump, whose life of privilege has severely decoupled 
him from reality, to the nazis, whose fear and hatred has severely decoupled 
them from reality, ... that gooey ball of ill-formed ideology can't be coupled 
to reality.  That's the problem with metaphor, ideology, and fantasy.  To make 
reductive attempts to model such fantasy with analogies to real things (like 
genes) is to conflate fantasy with reality.

To be as clear as I can, ideas can only track back to mechanisms when they sync 
up with reality.  That's why (observational) science is so successful.  There 
are (basically) 2 ways ideas can interact with reality: 1) methodologically and 
2) neural correlates.  If a ball of ideas includes (in its not biological 
evolution) a method for regularly testing itself against reality, then it's 
possible to analogize between that ball of ideas and reality.  Neither Trump, 
nor his nazis include that.  So, the only remaining map we can draw from the 
ideas to reality is any neural correlates we can find.  And until we have 
those, mapping the ideas to genes dooms us to faulty (at best) or delusional 
(at worst) inferences.

Now, everyone I know who uses the words "meme" and "memetics" is relatively 
scientifically literate.  So, memetics *seems* plausible because it's only used 
by relatively clear thinkers about relatively reality-touching balls of ideas.  
But I would bet money that memetics will fail miserably if we try to use it to 
explain or model fantasy-dominated people like Trump and his supporters.

On 08/12/2017 12:10 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> 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 
> malig

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-13 Thread gepr ⛧

Ha! You see? That's not even wrong. 8^) But it's more plausible than asserting 
that my ideas are mutated and crossed over from ... yours ... or Szasz' ... or 
my mom's, for example. 

On August 13, 2017 11:22:21 AM PDT, Frank Wimberly  wrote:
>You are a typical intellectualizing scientist, which isn't a bad thing
>to
>be.
>
>Frank
>
>p.s.  Intellectualization is a defense which is not as debilitating as
>some
>others.
-- 
⛧glen⛧

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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-13 Thread gepr ⛧

Well like I said in response to Frank's suggestion about self psychology, I 
tend towards a Szaszian perspective on talk therapy and psychology. But even 
that constellation of ideas, I think, has more structural truth to it than 
memetics.

Of course my ignorance may be getting in my way here. So I'm relatively open to 
being educated on any of these subjects. But there is a pretty high skeptical 
hurdle that I have to leap over in order for any such education to take root.

On August 13, 2017 9:56:16 AM PDT, Steven A Smith  wrote: 
>Is there an alternate way of thinking/talking about the *apparent* 
>encoding of human/social/cultural artifacts in language units,
>including 
>what appears to be something a lot like "mutation and drift" across
>this 
>space?
>
>Or have I already (re)transgressed?

-- 
⛧glen⛧

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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-13 Thread Steven A Smith


Glen -


I absolutely loathe the meme metaphor.

I do agree that it has been overused and overpopularized.

   I don't usually agree with Nick's distinction between metaphor and analogy.  
8^)  But here, I claim the meme isn't *anything* like a gene... or more 
clearly, there is no idea/thought construct that is anything like a gene.
Is there an alternate way of thinking/talking about the *apparent* 
encoding of human/social/cultural artifacts in language units, including 
what appears to be something a lot like "mutation and drift" across this 
space?


Or have I already (re)transgressed?

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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-13 Thread ┣glen┫

I absolutely loathe the meme metaphor.  I don't usually agree with Nick's 
distinction between metaphor and analogy.  8^)  But here, I claim the meme 
isn't *anything* like a gene... or more clearly, there is no idea/thought 
construct that is anything like a gene.

To explain why I hate it so much, we can try to think deeply about the nazi 
that killed the antifa yesterday in Charlottesville and Trump's response to it 
(blaming all sides).  To be clear, anyone who continues defending their vote 
for Trump at this point should be held accountable for their idiotic choice.  
But the Trump defender will say something like "Trump's not a racist or a nazi, 
even if some of his followers are."  And, "yes I support Trump.  But I'm not a 
nazi."  Pffft.  It flat out does not matter.  There is no analog for mutation 
or crossover that we can use to map Trump to his nazis.  The gooey milieu that 
flows from someone like Trump, whose life of privilege has severely decoupled 
him from reality, to the nazis, whose fear and hatred has severely decoupled 
them from reality, ... that gooey ball of ill-formed ideology can't be coupled 
to reality.  That's the problem with metaphor, ideology, and fantasy.  To make 
reductive attempts to model such fantasy with analogies to real things (like 
genes) is to conflate fantasy with reality.

To be as clear as I can, ideas can only track back to mechanisms when they sync 
up with reality.  That's why (observational) science is so successful.  There 
are (basically) 2 ways ideas can interact with reality: 1) methodologically and 
2) neural correlates.  If a ball of ideas includes (in its not biological 
evolution) a method for regularly testing itself against reality, then it's 
possible to analogize between that ball of ideas and reality.  Neither Trump, 
nor his nazis include that.  So, the only remaining map we can draw from the 
ideas to reality is any neural correlates we can find.  And until we have 
those, mapping the ideas to genes dooms us to faulty (at best) or delusional 
(at worst) inferences.

Now, everyone I know who uses the words "meme" and "memetics" is relatively 
scientifically literate.  So, memetics *seems* plausible because it's only used 
by relatively clear thinkers about relatively reality-touching balls of ideas.  
But I would bet money that memetics will fail miserably if we try to use it to 
explain or model fantasy-dominated people like Trump and his supporters.

On 08/12/2017 12:10 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> 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.

-- 
␦glen?

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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-12 Thread Nick Thompson

Mendel discovered  cross-overs. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Grant Holland
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 1:03 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>; 
┣glen┫ <geprope...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

Glen,

Actually, I think you are probably right about crossovers! I can see how 
innovation can be attributed to them too. Thanks for pointing that out, Glen. 
(Had crossovers been discovered in '72 when Monod wrote his book?)

But that is because crossovers, too, like mutations, are stochastic. Chance 
strikes again! That really is my larger point.

Moreover, crossover and mutation events do not seem to be causally related. I 
suspect that one is not caused by the other. Their relationship is also 
non-deterministic. In fact, one could probably use the functional named 
conditional entropy (from information theory) to calculate the degree of 
uncertainty around their chance relationship. (Or the functional mutual 
information to measure their degree of determinism.) YES, chance and 
determinism come in degrees. That's what stochastic entropy is all about. It 
measures that degree. It measures where on a scale of chance-vs-determinism a 
particular situation (probability space) resides.

Cheers, and thx for the insight.

G.

 

On 8/12/17 9:49 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:

This paragraph (for whatever reason) makes progress toward my counter-argument 
AGAINST both Monod-via-Grant and Wagner-via-Jenny.  While it may be true that 
mutation is necessary for innovation, it's insufficient to claim that 
innovation comes only through mutation.  Imagine two point mutations on 
different genes, in different individuals, neither of which (for now) produce a 
phenotype change (ala "neutral networks").  Then those individuals go on to 
reproduce for a few generations, passing along their respective mutations, 
never seeing a phenotypic change in their lineages.  But them the two lineages 
mingle to produce an offspring with both mutations, where the 2 mutations 
together produce a phenotypic change.
 
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?
 
 
On 08/11/2017 09:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of the code. 
  A "mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said genetic sequence (a 
changed protein, a modified level of production of an unmodified protein or set 
of same, etc.) and ultimately in the mature phenotype (if the precursors to 
this are viable enough for a mature specimen to arrive?) and beyond that the 
larger social unit (herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or suffer from the 
behaviour of the individual experiencing the mutation. Add individuals with a 
mutation in their bone-production that causes extremely large cross-section 
bones and thick crania into the Vikings and you get (what has been hypothesized 
to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a blind rage when their blood pressure 
rises in response to threat.  As long as they are pointing *toward* the enemy 
when that happens, it is (maybe) highly functional for the group to have you 
around?

 
 

 


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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-12 Thread Marcus Daniels

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.)

===

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-12 Thread Steven A Smith

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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-12 Thread Steven A Smith

On 8/12/17 9:49 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:

This paragraph (for whatever reason) makes progress toward my counter-argument AGAINST
both Monod-via-Grant and Wagner-via-Jenny. While it may be true that mutation is
necessary for innovation, it's insufficient to claim that innovation comes only through
mutation. Imagine two point mutations on different genes, in different individuals,
neither of which (for now) produce a phenotype change (ala "neutral networks").
Then those individuals go on to reproduce for a few generations, passing along their
respective mutations, never seeing a phenotypic change in their lineages. But them the
two lineages mingle to produce an offspring with both mutations, where the 2 mutations
together produce a phenotypic change.

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?
Hmmm... I THINK what you are describing is a LATENT expression of a
mutation? The fact that the mutation in each genome was "neutral" until
it mixed or encountered the other, doesn't deny the mutation(s) nor does
it negate the idea that it's expression and (recursive propogation
through natural selection) preserved the innovation implied by the
convolved pair of mutations?

I think a similar, higher frequency example might include a single
mutation which when mixed with some genomes is "neutral" or benign but
when mixed with a particularly different one has selective (positive or
negative) value? There may be something in there in the whole
Malaria/SickleCell duality for example? Or maybe I'm mixing apples and
pears.

- Steve

On 08/11/2017 09:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of the code. A
"mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said genetic sequence (a changed
protein, a modified level of production of an unmodified protein or set of same, etc.) and
ultimately in the mature phenotype (if the precursors to this are viable enough for a mature
specimen to arrive?) and beyond that the larger social unit (herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or
suffer from the behaviour of the individual experiencing the mutation. Add individuals with a
mutation in their bone-production that causes extremely large cross-section bones and thick crania
into the Vikings and you get (what has been hypothesized to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a
blind rage when their blood pressure rises in response to threat. As long as they are pointing
*toward* the enemy when that happens, it is (maybe) highly functional for the group to have you
around?

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-12 Thread Grant Holland

Glen,

Actually, I think you are probably right about crossovers! I can see how
innovation can be attributed to them too. Thanks for pointing that out,
Glen. (Had crossovers been discovered in '72 when Monod wrote his book?)

But that is because crossovers, too, like mutations, are stochastic.
Chance strikes again! That really is my larger point.

Moreover, crossover and mutation events do not seem to be causally
related. I suspect that one is not /caused by /the other. Their
/relationship/ is also non-deterministic. In fact, one could probably
use the functional named /conditional entropy /(from information theory)
to calculate the /degree of uncertainty///around their chance
relationship. (Or the functional /mutual information/ to measure their
degree of determinism.) YES, chance and determinism come in degrees.
That's what stochastic entropy is all about. It measures that degree. It
measures where on a scale of chance-vs-determinism a particular
situation (probability space) resides.

Cheers, and thx for the insight.

On 8/12/17 9:49 AM, ┣glen┫ wrote:

On 08/11/2017 09:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-12 Thread Marcus Daniels

Glen writes:

"I find it difficult to believe the "space" operated on by evolution is 
entirely convex or even connected."

I've never tried this approach, but it seems plausible.  The link may be 
pay-walled, but the gist is to evolve fancier operators using masking of the 
genome.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13369-015-1869-5

From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of ┣glen┫ 
<geprope...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 10:14:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

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.)

--
␦glen?

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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-12 Thread ┣glen┫

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.)

-- 
␦glen?

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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-12 Thread Marcus Daniels

Glen writes:

"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.)

Marcus

From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of ┣glen┫ 
<geprope...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 9:49:41 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

This paragraph (for whatever reason) makes progress toward my counter-argument 
AGAINST both Monod-via-Grant and Wagner-via-Jenny.  While it may be true that 
mutation is necessary for innovation, it's insufficient to claim that 
innovation comes only through mutation.  Imagine two point mutations on 
different genes, in different individuals, neither of which (for now) produce a 
phenotype change (ala "neutral networks").  Then those individuals go on to 
reproduce for a few generations, passing along their respective mutations, 
never seeing a phenotypic change in their lineages.  But them the two lineages 
mingle to produce an offspring with both mutations, where the 2 mutations 
together produce a phenotypic change.

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?

On 08/11/2017 09:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of the 
> code.   A "mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said genetic 
> sequence (a changed protein, a modified level of production of an unmodified 
> protein or set of same, etc.) and ultimately in the mature phenotype (if the 
> precursors to this are viable enough for a mature specimen to arrive?) and 
> beyond that the larger social unit (herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or 
> suffer from the behaviour of the individual experiencing the mutation. Add 
> individuals with a mutation in their bone-production that causes extremely 
> large cross-section bones and thick crania into the Vikings and you get (what 
> has been hypothesized to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a blind rage 
> when their blood pressure rises in response to threat.  As long as they are 
> pointing *toward* the enemy when that happens, it is (maybe) highly 
> functional for the group to have you around?

--
␦glen?

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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-12 Thread ┣glen┫

This paragraph (for whatever reason) makes progress toward my counter-argument 
AGAINST both Monod-via-Grant and Wagner-via-Jenny.  While it may be true that 
mutation is necessary for innovation, it's insufficient to claim that 
innovation comes only through mutation.  Imagine two point mutations on 
different genes, in different individuals, neither of which (for now) produce a 
phenotype change (ala "neutral networks").  Then those individuals go on to 
reproduce for a few generations, passing along their respective mutations, 
never seeing a phenotypic change in their lineages.  But them the two lineages 
mingle to produce an offspring with both mutations, where the 2 mutations 
together produce a phenotypic change.

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?

On 08/11/2017 09:05 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of the 
> code.   A "mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said genetic 
> sequence (a changed protein, a modified level of production of an unmodified 
> protein or set of same, etc.) and ultimately in the mature phenotype (if the 
> precursors to this are viable enough for a mature specimen to arrive?) and 
> beyond that the larger social unit (herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or 
> suffer from the behaviour of the individual experiencing the mutation. Add 
> individuals with a mutation in their bone-production that causes extremely 
> large cross-section bones and thick crania into the Vikings and you get (what 
> has been hypothesized to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a blind rage 
> when their blood pressure rises in response to threat.  As long as they are 
> pointing *toward* the enemy when that happens, it is (maybe) highly 
> functional for the group to have you around?

-- 
␦glen?

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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-12 Thread Steven A Smith


Nick -


Thanks for allowing me to sling irresponsible  insults at you with 
impunity.  It has been VERY helpful to my recovery.  You might 
consider opening a clinic.


One of my favorite authors, Chuck Palahnuik, wrote a protaganist who 
visits his mother in a dementia/alzheimer's ward every day where the 
other women there constantly mistake him for some male in their life who 
wronged them early in their lives.  At first he argued with them and 
tried to convince them that he wasn't "THAT funny uncle", etc. 
Eventually he discovered it was easier for him to just give over to them 
and accept whatever identity they "needed" him to have and then began to 
embrace the roles they caste him into, acknowledging whatever perceived 
harm his character had leveled on them and then apologizing for that 
action profusely.   It was cathartic for them and he realized he  was 
making their day.  Of course, he had to repeat it every visit "groundhog 
day" style.   Palahnuik (who wrote Fight Club also) writes fascinatingly 
obtuse characters.


I considered calling “quantum randomness” “notional”, but I wasn’t 
sure WTF I meant by that.  There’s a dimension here I am groping to 
express.  Quantum randomness and natural selection and gene are way 
out on that dimension as things we believe in the concreteness of, yet 
they are far from our concrete experience.  We experience them as 
foundations of our thought, yet we never see them.  I guess the best I 
can say at this point is that something about that makes me uneasy.


I share your uneasiness, but mine may penetrate deeper (shallower?) into 
the less esoteric models.   I mentioned my own strong intuitive 
preference for a "flat earth" and "earth-centric" celestial system, even 
if my *intellect* believes it could recognize the anomalies those models 
exhibit and resolve "the facts" more better with the "new and improved" 
models.


I want to push back on “evolution just is”.  Evolution is a way, and 
not other ways.  Evolution is more directly presented to experience 
than is natural selection.  Natural selection is the very abstract 
idea that resolves problems and paradoxes raised in Darwin’s 
imagination by his “experience” of evolution.   Just as “gene” is a 
“pseudo-concrete” idea  that resolves paradoxes and problems raised in 
Mendel’s pea-patch.


I have to agree with this.   I don't mean to say "I know without any 
doubt that evolution just is" but rather, "if evolution IS, then it JUST 
is", rather perhaps than "it's nature needs/affords to be belabored".   
Maybe a more fundamental article of faith than "natural selection" or 
"gene" or "metabolic pathway" are.   I'm not sure evolution is directly 
observable, but the artifacts we find CAN perceive directly seem more 
directly mapped to it as a model than for example, "natural 
selection"?   I suspect for another group of "true believers", THEIR 
fundamental models (e.g. omnipotent patriarchal 
creator/punisher/forgiver/mystery-maker) are just as fundamental?  
"God/Goddess just is"?


I too am awaiting Dave’s summary.  I have ordered the book from the 
library.  I wish I were there to take Dave’s course.


I imagine you to return to SFe in September each year, do I have my 
calendar wrong?


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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-12 Thread Nick Thompson

Steve, 

 

Thanks for allowing me to sling irresponsible  insults at you with impunity.
It has been VERY helpful to my recovery.  You might consider opening a
clinic.  

 

I considered calling "quantum randomness" "notional", but I wasn't sure WTF
I meant by that.  There's a dimension here I am groping to express.  Quantum
randomness and natural selection and gene are way out on that dimension as
things we believe in the concreteness of, yet they are far from our concrete
experience.  We experience them as foundations of our thought, yet we never
see them.  I guess the best I can say at this point is that something about
that makes me uneasy.  

 

I want to push back on "evolution just is".  Evolution is a way, and not
other ways.  Evolution is more directly presented to experience than is
natural selection.  Natural selection is the very abstract idea that
resolves problems and paradoxes raised in Darwin's imagination by his
"experience" of evolution.   Just as "gene" is a "pseudo-concrete" idea
that resolves paradoxes and problems raised in Mendel's pea-patch.  

 

I too am awaiting Dave's summary.  I have ordered the book from the library.
I wish I were there to take Dave's course. I am hoping that it will the
beginning of a great new career for him and he will decide to stay in Santa
fe.  

 

Nick 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 12:05 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

Nick -

... continued 

 What is presented to the world by the epigenetic system is not mutations
but "hypotheses" about ways to live.  And presumably epigenetic systems are
shaped by natural selection to produce  more or less plausible hypotheses.

And what is the "hypothesis generator" in epigenetics?  Is it stochastic or
deterministic? (and what examples of epigenetics are you thinking of?)  Is
"plausable" the term you want, or is it more "utilitarian"?

[NST==>What exactly do we imagine a "mutation" to be .nothing more or less
than a change in one or more letters of the code, or the surprising change
in the morphology or behavior of the creature that results?  The epigenetic
system has to "make" something of the code change.  There are gene editing
mechanisms and error correction mechanisms, and switches, on and off.  Drop
one letter of the code and the organism cannot make melanin;  but a lot of
work has to be done to turn that mishap into a "white bear."   <==nst] 

Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of the
code.   A "mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said genetic
sequence (a changed protein, a modified level of production of an unmodified
protein or set of same, etc.) and ultimately in the mature phenotype (if the
precursors to this are viable enough for a mature specimen to arrive?) and
beyond that the larger social unit (herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or
suffer from the behaviour of the individual experiencing the mutation.   Add
individuals with a mutation in their bone-production that causes extremely
large cross-section bones and thick crania into the Vikings and you get
(what has been hypothesized to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a blind
rage when their blood pressure rises in response to threat.  As long as they
are pointing *toward* the enemy when that happens, it is (maybe) highly
functional for the group to have you around?   





  The randomness is largely notional.

I do think that "random" is a very loosey-goosey concept (like so many we
call out on this list), but whether the variation is produced by random
processes, pseudo-random processes, or merely processes with appropriately
broad distribution functions, 

the point is that the variation is not correlated with the selection process
in any significant way.  I think THAT is what *I* mean by random.  



[NST==>did you complete that thought? I am eager to know where you were
going with that sentence.<==nst] 

 

 I'm acknowledging that "random" is at least relative in most cases.  If we
go down to the quantum level, it takes on a more meaningful meaning but I
would claim one that requires much more sophisticated discussion to
penetrate.  I would claim that this is the kind of "random" that Penrose
postulates is necessary for (and explains) consciousness.  




   I still think you guys are more captured by your model of evolution than
by the actual facts of it. 

I think we (collectively) are guilty of this all of the time, though in the
spirit of "all models are wrong,

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-11 Thread Steven A Smith


Nick -

... continued


 What is presented to the world by the epigenetic system is not
mutations but “hypotheses” about ways to live.  And presumably
epigenetic systems are shaped by natural selection to produce 
more or less plausible hypotheses.


And what is the "hypothesis generator" in epigenetics?  Is it 
stochastic or deterministic? (and what examples of epigenetics are you 
thinking of?)  Is "plausable" the term you want, or is it more 
"utilitarian"?


*/[NST==>What exactly do we imagine a “mutation” to be …nothing more 
or less than a change in one or more letters of the code, or the 
surprising change in the morphology or behavior of the creature that 
results?  The epigenetic system has to “make” something of the code 
change. There are gene editing mechanisms and error correction 
mechanisms, and switches, on and off.  Drop one letter of the code and 
the organism cannot make melanin;  but a lot of work has to be done to 
turn that mishap into a “white bear.”   <==nst] /*


Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of 
the code.   A "mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said 
genetic sequence (a changed protein, a modified level of production of 
an unmodified protein or set of same, etc.) and ultimately in the mature 
phenotype (if the precursors to this are viable enough for a mature 
specimen to arrive?) and beyond that the larger social unit 
(herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or suffer from the behaviour of the 
individual experiencing the mutation. Add individuals with a mutation in 
their bone-production that causes extremely large cross-section bones 
and thick crania into the Vikings and you get (what has been 
hypothesized to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a blind rage when 
their blood pressure rises in response to threat.  As long as they are 
pointing *toward* the enemy when that happens, it is (maybe) highly 
functional for the group to have you around?




*//*

  The randomness is largely notional.

I do think that "random" is a very loosey-goosey concept (like so many 
we call out on this list), but whether the variation is produced by 
random processes, pseudo-random processes, or merely processes with 
appropriately broad distribution functions,


the point is that the variation is not correlated with the selection 
process in any significant way.  I think THAT is what *I* mean by random.


*/[NST==>did you complete that thought? I am eager to know where you 
were going with that sentence.<==nst] /*



 I'm acknowledging that "random" is at least relative in most cases.  
If we go down to the quantum level, it takes on a more meaningful 
meaning but I would claim one that requires much more sophisticated 
discussion to penetrate.  I would claim that this is the kind of 
"random" that Penrose postulates is necessary for (and explains) 
consciousness.



   I still think you guys are more captured by your model of
evolution than by the actual facts of it.

I think we (collectively) are guilty of this all of the time, though 
in the spirit of "all models are wrong, some are useful" I'm not even 
sure I know what a "model-free" fact might be?


*/[NST==>Oh, no, Steve.  WAY too broad a brush.  The problem is that 
you in danger of using the same model to explicate your understanding 
of the phenomenon of evolution as you later use to explain how 
evolution came about. <==nst] /*


BTW, I think you are conflating my words with those of the larger 
group.   I don't think I've ever tried to even suggest "how evolution 
came about", because that description doesn't even make sense to me... 
evolution "just is" .


I'm looking forward to Dave West's condensed summary of "Arrival of the 
Fittest".


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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-11 Thread Prof David West

Jenny mentioned Arrival of the Fittest. I will condense a set of
notes that I am sending Jenny about the book and will post the
condensed version to the list. I think it could resolve a lot of this
'random' issue.
davew



On Fri, Aug 11, 2017, at 12:18 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Steve,


>  


> Thanks for staying with me on this. 


>  


> To be honest, I have never encountered anybody who believed that
> natural selection alone is capable of producing evolution, unless it
> was somebody who includes some variation-generating mechanism within
> the notion of natural selection.  I have encountered people who think
> that natural selection is not NECESSARY to evolution, attributing most
> change to random walks of various sorts.   I have never understood
> those folks, but they have had their day.>  


> The heresy I am trying to expunge is that in which evolution is
> understood as “a delta-q in the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium”, which
> amounts to saying, natural selects whatever nature selects and
> whatever nature selects is evolution.  Darwin would have been baffled
> by such a formulation.>  


> Nick


>  


> Nicholas S. Thompson


> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology


> Clark University


> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/


>  


> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Steven
> A Smith *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2017 1:56 PM *To:* The Friday
> Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> *Subject:*
> Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate>  


> Nick -


>> I am very glad to note that you are recovering and your scrappiness
>> is properly returning!>> **[NST==>The best cardio rehab is for you-guys to 
>> keep annoying me.
>> Thanks for that. <==nst]**> You might check with your cardiologist on this 
>> one, I'm not sure a
> rise in BP is the same as exercise-stimulated increased heart rate,
> but in any case, I'm glad we can be of service!>> 
>> What’s powerful about it? 

>> Nothing more than it is such a succinct statement negating the
>> popular fallacious apprehension of the mechanism of evolution,
>> suggesting that there is a causal link between "selection" and
>> "innovation"...   the innovation step is in the mutation, but as the
>> quote states clearly, said *innovation* is *preserved* (selected for)
>> by the natural selection mechanism.>> **[NST==>Wait a minute!  What is the 
>> misapprehension of which you
>> speak?   Can you put it explicitly. **> The misapprehension of which I speak 
>> is that natural selection *alone*
> gives rise to innovation.  Without mutation, all that is achieved by
> natural selection is a reduction of diversity in the
> genotype/phenotype toward some "optimum" for the selection criteria,
> or more likely a "wandering" around geno/pheno space as the selection
> pressures "wander".   I believe that this is the mechanism behind what
> is known as "island dwarfism".   There is no *innovation*, merely
> selection for a feature within the phenotypic distribution (body size)
> already in the population.
>
> I was NOT suggesting that YOU hold this misapprehension, just chiming
> in on the point made by Jenny with her original quote.>> **And, when you say 
> that mutations are “random”, what precisely do
>> you mean.**> I don't know that *I* have said that mutations are "random".
>> I
> agree that "random" is notional.  But I think of a signal as being
> "random" if the receiver has no model to correlate it's structure.   A
> highly organized but encrypted message is "random" if you don't have
> the key to decode it.   Cosmic radiation knocking holes in your genome
> is "random" for all practical purposes, even if it is highly
> correlated with solar and magnetosphere activity.>> **  Unpredictable?  
> Clearly false.  We know quite a lot, I think,
>> about where DNA is vulnerable, and where mutations are likely to
>> occur. **> A "random" selection can still have a statistical distribution.   
>> When
> rolling pairs of dice, there is only one way to get a value of 2,
> (both dies == 1), 2 ways to get a value of 3 (1,2 and 2,1) and 3 ways
> to get a value of 4 (1,3 and 3,1 and 2,2), etc.   this distribution is
> defined by simple combinatorics, but any given sample is still
> "random".   Referencing above, in principle every specific set of dice
> are less than perfect and every dice-thrower might have some
> "handedness" which *might* lend a tiny bias to the distribution (e.g.
> LOADED dic

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-11 Thread Nick Thompson

Steve, 

 

Thanks for staying with me on this.  

 

To be honest, I have never encountered anybody who believed that natural
selection alone is capable of producing evolution, unless it was somebody
who includes some variation-generating mechanism within the notion of
natural selection.  I have encountered people who think that natural
selection is not NECESSARY to evolution, attributing most change to random
walks of various sorts.   I have never understood those folks, but they have
had their day.  

 

The heresy I am trying to expunge is that in which evolution is understood
as "a delta-q in the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium", which amounts to saying,
natural selects whatever nature selects and whatever nature selects is
evolution.  Darwin would have been baffled by such a formulation. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 1:56 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

Nick -



I am very glad to note that you are recovering and your scrappiness is
properly returning!

[NST==>The best cardio rehab is for you-guys to keep annoying me.  Thanks
for that. <==nst] 

You might check with your cardiologist on this one, I'm not sure a rise in
BP is the same as exercise-stimulated increased heart rate, but in any case,
I'm glad we can be of service!




What's powerful about it?  

Nothing more than it is such a succinct statement negating the popular
fallacious apprehension of the mechanism of evolution, suggesting that there
is a causal link between "selection" and "innovation"...   the innovation
step is in the mutation, but as the quote states clearly, said *innovation*
is *preserved* (selected for) by the natural selection mechanism.  

[NST==>Wait a minute!  What is the misapprehension of which you speak?   Can
you put it explicitly.  

The misapprehension of which I speak is that natural selection *alone* gives
rise to innovation.  Without mutation, all that is achieved by natural
selection is a reduction of diversity in the genotype/phenotype toward some
"optimum" for the selection criteria, or more likely a "wandering" around
geno/pheno space as the selection pressures "wander".   I believe that this
is the mechanism behind what is known as "island dwarfism".   There is no
*innovation*, merely selection for a feature within the phenotypic
distribution (body size) already in the population.

I was NOT suggesting that YOU hold this misapprehension, just chiming in on
the point made by Jenny with her original quote.



And, when you say that mutations are "random", what precisely do you mean.

I don't know that *I* have said that mutations are "random".I agree that
"random" is notional.  But I think of a signal as being "random" if the
receiver has no model to correlate it's structure.   A highly organized but
encrypted message is "random" if you don't have the key to decode it.
Cosmic radiation knocking holes in your genome is "random" for all practical
purposes, even if it is highly correlated with solar and magnetosphere
activity.   



  Unpredictable?  Clearly false.  We know quite a lot, I think, about where
DNA is vulnerable, and where mutations are likely to occur.  

A "random" selection can still have a statistical distribution.   When
rolling pairs of dice, there is only one way to get a value of 2, (both dies
== 1), 2 ways to get a value of 3 (1,2 and 2,1) and 3 ways to get a value of
4 (1,3 and 3,1 and 2,2), etc.   this distribution is defined by simple
combinatorics, but any given sample is still "random".   Referencing above,
in principle every specific set of dice are less than perfect and every
dice-thrower might have some "handedness" which *might* lend a tiny bias to
the distribution (e.g. LOADED dice).   The resulting sequences are still
random, just biased in an unexpected way.   Flipping a coin is the same
(unless it is two-headed of course!).

I don't think that the DNA (or intermediate RNA?) is more vulnerable in some
regions (or among some sequences) than others to say, "cosmic radiation" but
I will accept that perhaps when the many potential causes of mutation and
the various mechanism for detection/repair are taken into account, some
parts of the sequence are more susceptible to "effective" mutation?   And of
course, at the phenotypic level, what is "effective" is what the natural
selection component is all about.

I will pause beating this horse for a moment but will try to respond to the
remainder of your response separately (perhaps even completi

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-11 Thread Steven A Smith


Nick -


I am very glad to note that you are recovering and your scrappiness is 
properly returning!


*/[NST==>The best cardio rehab is for you-guys to keep annoying me. 
Thanks for that. <==nst] /*


You might check with your cardiologist on this one, I'm not sure a rise 
in BP is the same as exercise-stimulated increased heart rate, but in 
any case, I'm glad we can be of service!


*//*


What’s powerful about it?

Nothing more than it is such a succinct statement negating the popular 
fallacious apprehension of the mechanism of evolution, suggesting that 
there is a causal link between "selection" and "innovation"...   the 
innovation step is in the mutation, but as the quote states clearly, 
said *innovation* is *preserved* (selected for) by the natural 
selection mechanism.


*/[NST==>Wait a minute!  What is the misapprehension of which you 
speak?   Can you put it explicitly. /*


The misapprehension of which I speak is that natural selection *alone* 
gives rise to innovation.  Without mutation, all that is achieved by 
natural selection is a reduction of diversity in the genotype/phenotype 
toward some "optimum" for the selection criteria, or more likely a 
"wandering" around geno/pheno space as the selection pressures 
"wander".   I believe that this is the mechanism behind what is known as 
"island dwarfism".   There is no *innovation*, merely selection for a 
feature within the phenotypic distribution (body size) already in the 
population.


I was NOT suggesting that YOU hold this misapprehension, just chiming in 
on the point made by Jenny with her original quote.


*/And, when you say that mutations are “random”, what precisely do you 
mean./*


I don't know that *I* have said that mutations are "random".I agree 
that "random" is notional.  But I think of a signal as being "random" if 
the receiver has no model to correlate it's structure. A highly 
organized but encrypted message is "random" if you don't have the key to 
decode it.   Cosmic radiation knocking holes in your genome is "random" 
for all practical purposes, even if it is highly correlated with solar 
and magnetosphere activity.


*/Unpredictable?  Clearly false.  We know quite a lot, I think, about 
where DNA is vulnerable, and where mutations are likely to occur. /*


A "random" selection can still have a statistical distribution. When 
rolling pairs of dice, there is only one way to get a value of 2, (both 
dies == 1), 2 ways to get a value of 3 (1,2 and 2,1) and 3 ways to get a 
value of 4 (1,3 and 3,1 and 2,2), etc.   this distribution is defined by 
simple combinatorics, but any given sample is still "random".   
Referencing above, in principle every specific set of dice are less than 
perfect and every dice-thrower might have some "handedness" which 
*might* lend a tiny bias to the distribution (e.g. LOADED dice).   The 
resulting sequences are still random, just biased in an unexpected 
way.   Flipping a coin is the same (unless it is two-headed of course!).


I don't think that the DNA (or intermediate RNA?) is more vulnerable in 
some regions (or among some sequences) than others to say, "cosmic 
radiation" but I will accept that perhaps when the many potential causes 
of mutation and the various mechanism for detection/repair are taken 
into account, some parts of the sequence are more susceptible to 
"effective" mutation?   And of course, at the phenotypic level, what is 
"effective" is what the natural selection component is all about.


I will pause beating this horse for a moment but will try to respond to 
the remainder of your response separately (perhaps even completing the 
thought you thought I failed to complete?)


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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-10 Thread Nick Thompson

Steve, 

 

Please see "larding" below.  Thank you, as always, for your generosity of
spirit. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 11:01 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

Nick -

I am very glad to note that you are recovering and your scrappiness is
properly returning!

[NST==>The best cardio rehab is for you-guys to keep annoying me.  Thanks
for that. <==nst] 





What's powerful about it?  

Nothing more than it is such a succinct statement negating the popular
fallacious apprehension of the mechanism of evolution, suggesting that there
is a causal link between "selection" and "innovation"...   the innovation
step is in the mutation, but as the quote states clearly, said *innovation*
is *preserved* (selected for) by the natural selection mechanism.  

[NST==>Wait a minute!  What is the misapprehension of which you speak?   Can
you put it explicitly.  And, when you say that mutations are "random", what
precisely do you mean.  Unpredictable?  Clearly false.  We know quite a lot,
I think, about where DNA is vulnerable, and where mutations are likely to
occur.  <==nst] 

 I think I held this misapprehension for the longest time, in the same way I
*still* think of the Sun orbiting around the earth when I have plenty of
reason to believe it is the other way around.



 What is presented to the world by the epigenetic system is not mutations
but "hypotheses" about ways to live.  And presumably epigenetic systems are
shaped by natural selection to produce  more or less plausible hypotheses.

And what is the "hypothesis generator" in epigenetics?  Is it stochastic or
deterministic? (and what examples of epigenetics are you thinking of?)  Is
"plausable" the term you want, or is it more "utilitarian"?

[NST==>What exactly do we imagine a "mutation" to be .nothing more or less
than a change in one or more letters of the code, or the surprising change
in the morphology or behavior of the creature that results?  The epigenetic
system has to "make" something of the code change.  There are gene editing
mechanisms and error correction mechanisms, and switches, on and off.  Drop
one letter of the code and the organism cannot make melanin;  but a lot of
work has to be done to turn that mishap into a "white bear."   <==nst] 





  The randomness is largely notional.

I do think that "random" is a very loosey-goosey concept (like so many we
call out on this list), but whether the variation is produced by random
processes, pseudo-random processes, or merely processes with appropriately
broad distribution functions, 

[NST==>did you complete that thought? I am eager to know where you were
going with that sentence.<==nst] 





   I still think you guys are more captured by your model of evolution than
by the actual facts of it. 

I think we (collectively) are guilty of this all of the time, though in the
spirit of "all models are wrong, some are useful" I'm not even sure I know
what a "model-free" fact might be?  

[NST==>Oh, no, Steve.  WAY too broad a brush.  The problem is that you in
danger of using the same model to explicate your understanding of the
phenomenon of evolution as you later use to explain how evolution came
about.  <==nst] 

 Facts (to me) imply measurements (qualitative, quantitative) which imply a
object of said measurement which in turn implies a model.   There was a
time, I believe when people felt they held "facts" about "the viscosity of
the aether" and the "density of phlogiston".   When those models were
superseded, those "facts" took on entirely new implications and meaning.   

- Steve



 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jenny Quillien
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 12:21 PM
To: friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

Totally agree. 

Maybe a few of us can read the Wagener book (apparently he  shows up at the
Santa Fe institute from time to time as an external something or other) and
see what we can do with the ideas.  I'll be in Amsterdam but can follow
e-mail threads to skype.   Jenny

 

On 8/9/2017 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Jenny -

What a powerful

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread Steven A Smith


Nick -

I am very glad to note that you are recovering and your scrappiness is 
properly returning!


What’s powerful about it?

Nothing more than it is such a succinct statement negating the popular 
fallacious apprehension of the mechanism of evolution, suggesting that 
there is a causal link between "selection" and "innovation"...   the 
innovation step is in the mutation, but as the quote states clearly, 
said *innovation* is *preserved* (selected for) by the natural selection 
mechanism.   I think I held this misapprehension for the longest time, 
in the same way I *still* think of the Sun orbiting around the earth 
when I have plenty of reason to believe it is the other way around.


What is presented to the world by the epigenetic system is not 
mutations but “hypotheses” about ways to live.  And presumably 
epigenetic systems are shaped by natural selection to produce  more or 
less plausible hypotheses.


And what is the "hypothesis generator" in epigenetics?  Is it stochastic 
or deterministic? (and what examples of epigenetics are you thinking 
of?)  Is "plausable" the term you want, or is it more "utilitarian"?


  The randomness is largely notional.

I do think that "random" is a very loosey-goosey concept (like so many 
we call out on this list), but whether the variation is produced by 
random processes, pseudo-random processes, or merely processes with 
appropriately broad distribution functions,


   I still think you guys are more captured by your model of evolution 
than by the actual facts of it.


I think we (collectively) are guilty of this all of the time, though in 
the spirit of "all models are wrong, some are useful" I'm not even sure 
I know what a "model-free" fact might be?   Facts (to me) imply 
measurements (qualitative, quantitative) which imply a object of said 
measurement which in turn implies a model.   There was a time, I believe 
when people felt they held "facts" about "the viscosity of the aether" 
and the "density of phlogiston".   When those models were superseded, 
those "facts" took on entirely new implications and meaning.


- Steve


Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/>


*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Jenny 
Quillien

*Sent:* Wednesday, August 09, 2017 12:21 PM
*To:* friam@redfish.com
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

Totally agree.

Maybe a few of us can read the Wagener book (apparently he shows up at 
the Santa Fe institute from time to time as an external something or 
other) and see what we can do with the ideas.  I'll be in Amsterdam 
but can follow  e-mail threads to skype.   Jenny


On 8/9/2017 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Jenny -

What a powerful quote:

/Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot
create them./

In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free
Markets and Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of
said Free Markets may well be restricted to the "innovation phase"
of development.  Once something becomes a (relative) commodity, it
seems it might be counter-productive to continue the illusion of
competitive development.  At best it is wasteful and even harmful,
and at worst it leads to an elevation of "innovation" to marketing
and salesmanship. This is why we have so many near-identical
products on the market being pushed on us through the hype of
greed and fear when the "generic" or "store brand" version is
equal or (even) superior (certainly in price, but also possibly in
quality... lacking the colorants and odorants and other
embellishments required to differentiate one product from the other?).

- Steve

On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:

An excellent foray into such a topic is /Arrival of the
Fittest: how nature innovates/ by Andreas Wagner.

From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond
dispute, but this power has limits. Natural selection can
/preserve/ innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling
the change that creates them random is just another way of
admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations-
some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that
accelerate life's ability to innovate, its innovability.

Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a
discussion about how it is relevant to 'evolution' in
software. It is certainly relevant to Nick's e-mail.

Jenny Quillien

On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Hi everybody,

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread Marcus Daniels

Some of us tend to care more about applied power more than the explanatory 
power.   Also as Frank suggested there are practical limits to the size of 
genomes that can be simulated.  I could imagine epigenetic / regulatory analogs 
being beneficial though.

Marcus

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 9, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Nick Thompson 
<nickthomp...@earthlink.net<mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>> wrote:

Steve,

What’s powerful about it?

What is presented to the world by the epigenetic system is not mutations but 
“hypotheses” about ways to live.  And presumably epigenetic systems are shaped 
by natural selection to produce  more or less plausible hypotheses.  The 
randomness is largely notional.   I still think you guys are more captured by 
your model of evolution than by the actual facts of it.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jenny Quillien
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 12:21 PM
To: friam@redfish.com<mailto:friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate


Totally agree.

Maybe a few of us can read the Wagener book (apparently he  shows up at the 
Santa Fe institute from time to time as an external something or other) and see 
what we can do with the ideas.  I'll be in Amsterdam but can follow  e-mail 
threads to skype.   Jenny

On 8/9/2017 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Jenny -

What a powerful quote:

Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot create them.
In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free Markets and 
Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of said Free Markets may well 
be restricted to the "innovation phase" of development.  Once something becomes 
a (relative) commodity, it seems it might be counter-productive to continue the 
illusion of competitive development.  At best it is wasteful and even harmful, 
and at worst it leads to an elevation of "innovation" to marketing and 
salesmanship.  This is why we have so many near-identical products on the 
market being pushed on us through the hype of greed and fear when the "generic" 
or "store brand" version is equal or (even) superior (certainly in price, but 
also possibly in quality... lacking the colorants and odorants and other 
embellishments required to differentiate one product from the other?).

- Steve
On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:

An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest: how nature 
innovates by Andreas Wagner.

From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, but this 
power has limits. Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot 
create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just another 
way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations- some 
uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that accelerate life's ability 
to innovate, its innovability.

Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about how it is 
relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly relevant to Nick's e-mail.

Jenny Quillien

On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
Hi everybody,

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog.

I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose value was 
determined by two factors, a random factor AND it’s last value.  So the next 
step in a random walk is “random” but the current value (it’s present position 
on a surface, say) is “the result of a stochastic process.”  From your 
responses, and from a short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can’t tell if I am 
correct or not.

Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that you 
confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this “evolution” of 
which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume you are speaking 
of the messy biological process of which we are all a result: --  The 
alteration of the design of taxa over time.   Hard to see any way in which that 
actual process is evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the theory that 
EXPLAINS evolution to find anything that corresponds to the vernacular notion 
of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all over the place in 
the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In other words, the 
randomness of evolution is a creation of your imaginations concerning the 
phenomenon, not an essential feature of the phenomenon, itself.

So what kind of “evolution” are you guys talking about?

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself up, here.

nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread Nick Thompson

Steve, 

 

What's powerful about it?  

 

What is presented to the world by the epigenetic system is not mutations but
"hypotheses" about ways to live.  And presumably epigenetic systems are
shaped by natural selection to produce  more or less plausible hypotheses.
The randomness is largely notional.   I still think you guys are more
captured by your model of evolution than by the actual facts of it. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

 <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/>
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jenny Quillien
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 12:21 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

 

Totally agree. 

Maybe a few of us can read the Wagener book (apparently he  shows up at the
Santa Fe institute from time to time as an external something or other) and
see what we can do with the ideas.  I'll be in Amsterdam but can follow
e-mail threads to skype.   Jenny

 

On 8/9/2017 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:

Jenny -

What a powerful quote:

Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it cannot create them.

In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free Markets and
Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of said Free Markets may
well be restricted to the "innovation phase" of development.  Once something
becomes a (relative) commodity, it seems it might be counter-productive to
continue the illusion of competitive development.  At best it is wasteful
and even harmful, and at worst it leads to an elevation of "innovation" to
marketing and salesmanship.  This is why we have so many near-identical
products on the market being pushed on us through the hype of greed and fear
when the "generic" or "store brand" version is equal or (even) superior
(certainly in price, but also possibly in quality... lacking the colorants
and odorants and other embellishments required to differentiate one product
from the other?).

- Steve

On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:

An excellent foray into such a topic is Arrival of the Fittest: how nature
innovates by Andreas Wagner.

>From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, but
this power has limits. Natural selection can preserve innovations, but it
cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just
another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations-
some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that accelerate life's
ability to innovate, its innovability. 

Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about how it
is relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly relevant to Nick's
e-mail.

Jenny Quillien

 

On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Hi everybody, 

 

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog. 

 

I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours. 

 

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose value
was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it's last value.  So the
next step in a random walk is "random" but the current value (it's present
position on a surface, say) is "the result of a stochastic process."  From
your responses, and from a short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can't tell if
I am correct or not.  

 

Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that you
confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this "evolution" of
which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume you are
speaking of the messy biological process of which we are all a result: --
The alteration of the design of taxa over time.   Hard to see any way in
which that actual process is evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the
theory that EXPLAINS evolution to find anything that corresponds to the
vernacular notion of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all
over the place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In
other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your imaginations
concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of the phenomenon,
itself. 

 

So what kind of "evolution" are you guys talking about?

 

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself up,
here. 

 

nick  

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> 

 







FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfi

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread Nick Thompson

Thanks, Glen, 

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 11:48 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

Maybe you're looking for the term "Markovian"?  
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MarkovProcess.html

On 08/09/2017 07:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose 
> value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it's last 
> value.  So the next step in a random walk is "random" but the current 
> value (it's present position on a surface, say) is "the result of a 
> stochastic process."  From your responses, and from a short rummage in 
> Wikipedia, I still can't tell if I am correct or not.

--
☣ glen

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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread glen ☣


I think Wagner and Monod agree, actually.  If I extrapolate what Jenny said 
Wagner said, *mutation's* randomness is a statement of ignorance, presumably 
about where innovation comes from in biological evolution.  So, both Monod and 
Wagner would say innovation comes from mutation.

On 08/09/2017 10:22 AM, Grant Holland wrote:
> According to Jacques Monod, chance mutations are the /only /form of 
> innovation in living systems.
> 
> On p. 112 of  his book "Chance and Necessity" he says "...since they [chance 
> mutations] constitute the /only/ possible source of modifications in the 
> genetic text,...it necessarily follows that chance /alone/ is at the source 
> of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. [Emphasis is his.]


> On 8/9/17 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>>
>> Jenny -
>>
>> What a powerful quote:
>>
>> /Natural selection can //preserve//innovations, but it cannot
>> create them./


>> On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:
>>>
>>> An excellent foray into such a topic is /Arrival of the Fittest: how nature 
>>> innovates/ by Andreas Wagner.
>>>
>>> From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, but 
>>> this power has limits. Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, but it 
>>> cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them random is just 
>>> another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's any innovations- 
>>> some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles that accelerate life's 
>>> ability to innovate, its innovability.


-- 
☣ glen


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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread Grant Holland


Steve,

According to Jacques Monod, chance mutations are the /only /form of 
innovation in living systems.


On p. 112 of  his book "Chance and Necessity" he says "...since they 
[chance mutations] constitute the /only/ possible source of 
modifications in the genetic text,...it necessarily follows that chance 
/alone/ is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the 
biosphere. [Emphasis is his.]


Geneticist Monod was a winner of the 1965 Nobel Prize in Medicine or 
Physiology.


Grant


On 8/9/17 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:


Jenny -

What a powerful quote:

/Natural selection can //preserve//innovations, but it cannot
create them./

In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free Markets 
and Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of said Free 
Markets may well be restricted to the "innovation phase" of 
development.  Once something becomes a (relative) commodity, it seems 
it might be counter-productive to continue the illusion of competitive 
development.  At best it is wasteful and even harmful, and at worst it 
leads to an elevation of "innovation" to marketing and salesmanship.  
This is why we have so many near-identical products on the market 
being pushed on us through the hype of greed and fear when the 
"generic" or "store brand" version is equal or (even) superior 
(certainly in price, but also possibly in quality... lacking the 
colorants and odorants and other embellishments required to 
differentiate one product from the other?).


- Steve

On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:


An excellent foray into such a topic is /Arrival of the Fittest: how 
nature innovates/ by Andreas Wagner.


From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, 
but this power has limits. Natural selection can /preserve/ 
innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling the change that 
creates them random is just another way of admitting our ignorance 
about it. Nature's any innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for 
natural principles that accelerate life's ability to innovate, its 
innovability.


Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about 
how it is relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly 
relevant to Nick's e-mail.


Jenny Quillien


On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Hi everybody,

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical 
fog.


I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one 
whose value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it’s 
last value.  So the next step in a random walk is “random” but the 
current value (it’s present position on a surface, say) is “the 
result of a stochastic process.”  From your responses, and from a 
short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can’t tell if I am correct or not.


Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is 
that you confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this 
“evolution” of which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I 
will assume you are speaking of the messy biological process of 
which we are all a result: -- */The alteration of the design of taxa 
over time/*.   Hard to see any way in which that actual process is 
evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the theory that EXPLAINS 
evolution to find anything that corresponds to the vernacular notion 
of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all over the 
place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In 
other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your 
imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of 
the phenomenon, itself.


So what kind of “evolution” are you guys talking about?

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself 
up, here.


nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 






FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://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 unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread Frank Wimberly

The random + current thing sounds like a Markov process.  If the next value
is independent of the current value then it's random.  If it depends on the
current value and no previous values it's Markov of order 1.  If it depends
only on the current value and the one before and none before that, order
2.  Etc.  Or something like that.  I'm rusty.

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Aug 9, 2017 8:48 AM, "Nick Thompson"  wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog.
>
>
>
> I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.
>
>
>
> First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose
> value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it’s last value.
> So the next step in a random walk is “random” but the current value (it’s
> present position on a surface, say) is “the result of a stochastic
> process.”  From your responses, and from a short rummage in Wikipedia, I
> still can’t tell if I am correct or not.
>
>
>
> Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that you
> confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this “evolution” of
> which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume you are
> speaking of the messy biological process of which we are all a result: --  
> *The
> alteration of the design of taxa over time*.   Hard to see any way in
> which that actual process is evidently random.  We have to dig deep into
> the theory that EXPLAINS evolution to find anything that corresponds to the
> vernacular notion of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability
> all over the place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are
> predictable.  In other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of
> your imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of
> the phenomenon, itself.
>
>
>
> So what kind of “evolution” are you guys talking about?
>
>
>
> Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself up,
> here.
>
>
>
> nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> 
> 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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread Jenny Quillien


Totally agree.

Maybe a few of us can read the Wagener book (apparently he  shows up at 
the Santa Fe institute from time to time as an external something or 
other) and see what we can do with the ideas.  I'll be in Amsterdam but 
can follow  e-mail threads to skype.   Jenny



On 8/9/2017 10:01 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:


Jenny -

What a powerful quote:

/Natural selection can //preserve//innovations, but it cannot
create them./

In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free Markets 
and Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of said Free 
Markets may well be restricted to the "innovation phase" of 
development.  Once something becomes a (relative) commodity, it seems 
it might be counter-productive to continue the illusion of competitive 
development.  At best it is wasteful and even harmful, and at worst it 
leads to an elevation of "innovation" to marketing and salesmanship.  
This is why we have so many near-identical products on the market 
being pushed on us through the hype of greed and fear when the 
"generic" or "store brand" version is equal or (even) superior 
(certainly in price, but also possibly in quality... lacking the 
colorants and odorants and other embellishments required to 
differentiate one product from the other?).


- Steve

On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:


An excellent foray into such a topic is /Arrival of the Fittest: how 
nature innovates/ by Andreas Wagner.


From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, 
but this power has limits. Natural selection can /preserve/ 
innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling the change that 
creates them random is just another way of admitting our ignorance 
about it. Nature's any innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for 
natural principles that accelerate life's ability to innovate, its 
innovability.


Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about 
how it is relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly 
relevant to Nick's e-mail.


Jenny Quillien


On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Hi everybody,

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical 
fog.


I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one 
whose value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it’s 
last value.  So the next step in a random walk is “random” but the 
current value (it’s present position on a surface, say) is “the 
result of a stochastic process.”  From your responses, and from a 
short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can’t tell if I am correct or not.


Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is 
that you confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this 
“evolution” of which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I 
will assume you are speaking of the messy biological process of 
which we are all a result: -- */The alteration of the design of taxa 
over time/*.   Hard to see any way in which that actual process is 
evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the theory that EXPLAINS 
evolution to find anything that corresponds to the vernacular notion 
of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all over the 
place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In 
other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your 
imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of 
the phenomenon, itself.


So what kind of “evolution” are you guys talking about?

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself 
up, here.


nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 






FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://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 unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://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



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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread Steven A Smith


Jenny -

What a powerful quote:

   /Natural selection can //preserve//innovations, but it cannot create
   them./

In my own maunderings about the (continued?) relevance of Free Markets 
and Capitalism, it has occurred to me that the value of said Free 
Markets may well be restricted to the "innovation phase" of 
development.  Once something becomes a (relative) commodity, it seems it 
might be counter-productive to continue the illusion of competitive 
development.  At best it is wasteful and even harmful, and at worst it 
leads to an elevation of "innovation" to marketing and salesmanship.  
This is why we have so many near-identical products on the market being 
pushed on us through the hype of greed and fear when the "generic" or 
"store brand" version is equal or (even) superior (certainly in price, 
but also possibly in quality... lacking the colorants and odorants and 
other embellishments required to differentiate one product from the other?).


- Steve

On 8/9/17 8:56 AM, Jenny Quillien wrote:


An excellent foray into such a topic is /Arrival of the Fittest: how 
nature innovates/ by Andreas Wagner.


From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, 
but this power has limits. Natural selection can /preserve/ 
innovations, but it cannot create them. And calling the change that 
creates them random is just another way of admitting our ignorance 
about it. Nature's any innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for 
natural principles that accelerate life's ability to innovate, its 
innovability.


Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about 
how it is relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly 
relevant to Nick's e-mail.


Jenny Quillien


On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Hi everybody,

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog.

I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose 
value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it’s last 
value.  So the next step in a random walk is “random” but the current 
value (it’s present position on a surface, say) is “the result of a 
stochastic process.”  From your responses, and from a short rummage 
in Wikipedia, I still can’t tell if I am correct or not.


Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is 
that you confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this 
“evolution” of which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will 
assume you are speaking of the messy biological process of which we 
are all a result: -- */The alteration of the design of taxa over 
time/*.   Hard to see any way in which that actual process is 
evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the theory that EXPLAINS 
evolution to find anything that corresponds to the vernacular notion 
of randomness. There is constraint and predictability all over the 
place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In 
other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your 
imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of 
the phenomenon, itself.


So what kind of “evolution” are you guys talking about?

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit. I am trying to wake myself 
up, here.


nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 






FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://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



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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread Grant Holland


Nick,

Re: your queston about stochastic processes

Yes, your specific description "AND its last value" is what most uses of 
"stochastic process" imply. But, technically all that is required to be 
a "stochastic process" is that each next step in the process is 
unpredictable, whether or not the outcome of one step influences the 
outcome of the next. An example of this is the process of flipping a 
coin several times in a row. Generally, we assume that the outcomes of 
two adjacent flips are stochastically (or statistically) independent, 
and that there is no influence between the steps. So, the steps of an 
independent stochastic process are not dependent on their previous steps.


On the other hand, selecting dinner tonight probably depends on what you 
had last night, because you would get bored with posole too many nights 
in a row. And maybe your memory goes back more than just one night, and 
your selection of dinner tonite is affected by what you had for 2 or 
more nites before. If your memory goes back only one night, then your 
"dinner selection process" is a kind of stochastic process called a 
"Markov process". Markov processes limit their "memory" to just one 
step. (That keeps the math simpler.)


In any event, stochastic processes whose steps depend on the outcomes of 
previous steps are "less random" than those that don't, because the 
earlier steps "give you extra information" that help you narrow down the 
options and to better predict the future steps - some more than others.  
So, LEARNING can occur inside of these dependent stochastic processes.


In fact, the mathematics of information theory is all about taking 
advantage of these dependent (or "conditional") stochastic processes to 
hopefully predict the outcomes of future steps. The whole thing is based 
on conditional probability. Info theory uses formulas with names such as 
joint entropy, conditional entropy, mutual information and entropy rate. 
These formulas can measure /how much /stochastic dependency is at work 
in a particular process - i.e how predictable it is. Entropy rate in 
particular works with conditional stochastic processes and tries to use 
that "extra information" provided by stochastic dependencies to predict 
future outcomes.


Re: your "evolution" question... I have been speaking of biological 
evolution.


HTH

Grant


On 8/9/17 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Hi everybody,

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog.

I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose 
value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it’s last 
value.  So the next step in a random walk is “random” but the current 
value (it’s present position on a surface, say) is “the result of a 
stochastic process.”  From your responses, and from a short rummage in 
Wikipedia, I still can’t tell if I am correct or not.


Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that 
you confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this 
“evolution” of which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will 
assume you are speaking of the messy biological process of which we 
are all a result: -- */The alteration of the design of taxa over 
time/*.   Hard to see any way in which that actual process is 
evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the theory that EXPLAINS 
evolution to find anything that corresponds to the vernacular notion 
of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all over the 
place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In 
other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your 
imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of 
the phenomenon, itself.


So what kind of “evolution” are you guys talking about?

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself 
up, here.


nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 






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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread glen ☣

Maybe you're looking for the term "Markovian"?  
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MarkovProcess.html

On 08/09/2017 07:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose value
> was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it's last value.  So the
> next step in a random walk is "random" but the current value (it's present
> position on a surface, say) is "the result of a stochastic process."  From
> your responses, and from a short rummage in Wikipedia, I still can't tell if
> I am correct or not.  

-- 
☣ glen

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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread Jenny Quillien

An excellent foray into such a topic is /Arrival of the Fittest: how 
nature innovates/ by Andreas Wagner.


From the Preface:  the power of natural selection is beyond dispute, 
but this power has limits. Natural selection can /preserve/ innovations, 
but it cannot create them. And calling the change that creates them 
random is just another way of admitting our ignorance about it. Nature's 
any innovations- some uncannily perfect - call for natural principles 
that accelerate life's ability to innovate, its innovability.


Dave West turned me onto the book and has promised a discussion about 
how it is relevant to 'evolution' in software. It is certainly relevant 
to Nick's e-mail.


Jenny Quillien


On 8/9/2017 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:


Hi everybody,

Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog.

I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.

First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose 
value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it’s last 
value.  So the next step in a random walk is “random” but the current 
value (it’s present position on a surface, say) is “the result of a 
stochastic process.”  From your responses, and from a short rummage in 
Wikipedia, I still can’t tell if I am correct or not.


Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that 
you confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this 
“evolution” of which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will 
assume you are speaking of the messy biological process of which we 
are all a result: -- */The alteration of the design of taxa over 
time/*.   Hard to see any way in which that actual process is 
evidently random.  We have to dig deep into the theory that EXPLAINS 
evolution to find anything that corresponds to the vernacular notion 
of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability all over the 
place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are predictable.  In 
other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of your 
imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of 
the phenomenon, itself.


So what kind of “evolution” are you guys talking about?

Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself 
up, here.


nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 






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

Re: [FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

2017-08-09 Thread Gillian Densmore

Ah, good to see you nick.
How fairs you?

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your patience as I emerge (hopefully) from post-surgical fog.
>
>
>
> I figured I best start my own thread rather than gum up yours.
>
>
>
> First.  I had always supposed that a stochastic process was one whose
> value was determined by two factors, a random factor AND it’s last value.
> So the next step in a random walk is “random” but the current value (it’s
> present position on a surface, say) is “the result of a stochastic
> process.”  From your responses, and from a short rummage in Wikipedia, I
> still can’t tell if I am correct or not.
>
>
>
> Now remember, you guys, my standard critique of your discourse is that you
> confuse your models with the facts of nature.  What is this “evolution” of
> which you speak?  Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume you are
> speaking of the messy biological process of which we are all a result: --  
> *The
> alteration of the design of taxa over time*.   Hard to see any way in
> which that actual process is evidently random.  We have to dig deep into
> the theory that EXPLAINS evolution to find anything that corresponds to the
> vernacular notion of randomness.  There is constraint and predictability
> all over the place in the evolution I know.  Even mutations are
> predictable.  In other words, the randomness of evolution is a creation of
> your imaginations concerning the phenomenon, not an essential feature of
> the phenomenon, itself.
>
>
>
> So what kind of “evolution” are you guys talking about?
>
>
>
> Yes, and forgive me for trolling, a bit.  I am trying to wake myself up,
> here.
>
>
>
> nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> 
> 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

40 matches

Mail list logo