• In total there are 21 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 21 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Selective pressures

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Selective pressures

Unread post

DWill wrote:Then is it 'end of discussion,' if it's philosophizing you're admittedly doing?
Far from it. The distinction here between science and philosophy is rather like the distinction between induction and deduction, or evidence and logic. The two have to go together. The meme hypothesis is a deductive explanation of how evolutionary processes are seen in culture. The deductive philosophical assertion is that evolution operates universally to govern the process of change in living systems. Inductively, we can see how technology evolves, for example with cars as I discussed above. But generalising this observation to a universal story is a complex question that rests on logical argument as to why it must be universal.
DWill wrote:There might not be any point in proceeding if that's the case.
Lets not deflect the debate about the operation of evolutionary selective pressures in culture into the related question about whether memes are universal. However, it nonetheless remains a valid threshold question whether there is in fact any real ability of human intelligence to transcend the natural physical constraints of evolution within our cultural choices. Logically the answer must be no, culture cannot transcend nature. Any choices that veer away from the real boundaries set by nature will not be sustainable. And that point of logic illustrates that as a matter of deductive logic, memes must be universal as the process of cultural evolution, because any seemingly non-memetic choices, those that fail to build on precedent to produce durable results through gradual change, will be only small memes that fail.
DWill wrote: Philosophy is nice, but I don't consider it to have any particular claim on me, unlike science, which I don't feel is optional to ignore.
With respect that is an arrogant and groundless statement. Of course philosophy can make binding statements. 1+1=2 is more a statement within philosophy than within science, and is totally binding. Kant showed that such analytical a priori statements are binding, as their truth is contained in the definition of their terms.
DWill wrote: I do believe that Dawkins proposed his new theory so that it could be vetted via the scientific method.
Yes, but the interesting thing about the meme theory is that we can find all sorts of examples of how the law of natural selection operates within culture, but generalising these observations into a universal theory remains elusive. Part of the problem is that the idea of memes subverts any claim about supernatural forces, so it plays directly into the cultural debates over religion and atheism.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Selective pressures

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:
DWill wrote:Then is it 'end of discussion,' if it's philosophizing you're admittedly doing?
Far from it. The distinction here between science and philosophy is rather like the distinction between induction and deduction, or evidence and logic. The two have to go together. The meme hypothesis is a deductive explanation of how evolutionary processes are seen in culture. The deductive philosophical assertion is that evolution operates universally to govern the process of change in living systems. Inductively, we can see how technology evolves, for example with cars as I discussed above. But generalising this observation to a universal story is a complex question that rests on logical argument as to why it must be universal.
Robert, I'm glad to have come to this place in the discussion because it feels much less frustrating. I didn't mean 'end of discussion' in the sense of a question settled, only in the sense that I finally knew that you aren't arguing for equivalence of genetics and memetics, and so I see no need to keep pursuing the same track. I think where your hypothesis in search of a theory is weak is that 'evolution operates' implies that a higher-order entity, governing both the physical constitution of organisms and the phenotypal expression of one species of organism--humans--has been demonstrated to exist. If it has, I don't know about it. If by 'evolution' you mean that both the biology that subsumes all organisms and the culture of one organism that is nested in that biology, demonstrate step-wise change, I see no reason to dispute that. But you know the devil or god will be in the details. There are fundamental differences between how organisms change and how what are essentially products of thought, or culture, change. We should expect to see in the world a diversity of types of change, and we do.
Robert Tulip wrote:
DWill wrote:There might not be any point in proceeding if that's the case.
Lets not deflect the debate about the operation of evolutionary selective pressures in culture into the related question about whether memes are universal. However, it nonetheless remains a valid threshold question whether there is in fact any real ability of human intelligence to transcend the natural physical constraints of evolution within our cultural choices. Logically the answer must be no, culture cannot transcend nature. Any choices that veer away from the real boundaries set by nature will not be sustainable. And that point of logic illustrates that as a matter of deductive logic, memes must be universal as the process of cultural evolution, because any seemingly non-memetic choices, those that fail to build on precedent to produce durable results through gradual change, will be only small memes that fail.
Again, 'evolutionary selective pressures' implies that in the two realms of biology and culture, we see the operation of a specific, uniform principle. You assert this, but it appears that you're saying it must be so, philosophically, not that science itself has had anything to say about it.

We didn't evolve with the ability to live in the air or the water, but through our culture we have done so. We don't even know precisely the limits that evolution or nature places on our ability to adapt. I don't follow your reasoning all the way, but it seems that now you are distinguishing between something in culture that is meme and something that is non-meme (or seemingly non-meme), something that does not build on precedent. How would the latter case even be possible? But this distinction could be a positive point, in that it begins to distinguish culture change from evolution change. One of those distinctions would be in the area of 'durable results.' What is a durable result vs.what isn't can be very difficult to ascertain, and subject to tremendous bias on the part of the observer. When it comes to building on precedent, it's interesting that this is exactly what often does not happen in the give and take or dialectic of intellectual history.
In connection with the theory of cultural selection, it has often been stated that knowledge is accumulated. It is an incredible paradox that this very theory itself has deviated so much from this principle when viewed as a case in the history of ideas. The theories of social change have followed a dramatic zigzag course, where every new theoretical fad has rejected the previous one totally rather than modifying and improving it; and where the same ideas and principles have been forgotten and reinvented again and again through more than a century. http://www.agner.org/cultsel/chapt2/
RobertTulip wrote:
DWill wrote: Philosophy is nice, but I don't consider it to have any particular claim on me, unlike science, which I don't feel is optional to ignore.
With respect that is an arrogant and groundless statement. Of course philosophy can make binding statements. 1+1=2 is more a statement within philosophy than within science, and is totally binding. Kant showed that such analytical a priori statements are binding, as their truth is contained in the definition of their terms.
I'd be interested to know what others think about this matter. You cite a micro-example that is at odds with the generality of what you've been arguing. On matters of generality, which is at least popularly what most people conceive as the territory of philosophy, philosophy does have the flavor of the optional. It's even essential that we know this, so that we don't come under the sway of a destructive philosophy such as racial supremacy. Please don't try to remove philosophy from the humanities. When it comes to ethics, especially, philosophy isn't meant to be binding in the same way that science is, at least I hope not. If memory serves, you disputed one of Kant's formulations of the categorical imperative, that we should not use people as means to an end, but see them as ends in themselves. You did this in the spirit of philosophy. In a similar manner, Robert, your determinations on the present topic cannot hope to be binding, which doesn't mean at all that you should desist.
[quote="Robert Tulip""]
DWill wrote: I do believe that Dawkins proposed his new theory so that it could be vetted via the scientific method.
Yes, but the interesting thing about the meme theory is that we can find all sorts of examples of how the law of natural selection operates within culture, but generalising these observations into a universal theory remains elusive. Part of the problem is that the idea of memes subverts any claim about supernatural forces, so it plays directly into the cultural debates over religion and atheism.[/quote]
What I see from my survey is the term 'culture selection' being used. This is itself a borrowing from evolution theory, but it seems a lot more appropriate than to use 'natural selection' for culture. I might prefer 'culture creation' or somesuch, but it's in the right direction. The universal theory does remain elusive (though perhaps partly because its utility might be questioned), but I don't think that the agents working on such a theory feel bounded by others' belief in the supernatural.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Selective pressures

Unread post

DWill wrote: 'evolution operates' implies that a higher-order entity, governing both the physical constitution of organisms and the phenotypal expression of one species of organism--humans--has been demonstrated to exist. If it has, I don't know about it.
To say ‘evolution operates’ does not imply that evolution is an entity. Gravity operates as a higher order law of nature but is not an entity. The laws of physics operate but are not entities. Operators in mathematics (+-/x) operate but are not entities. Evolution is not an entity.

Evolution does govern both phenotype and genotype. Phenotype is defined as “the observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences.” Human phenotypic characteristics include culture and the physical influence we have on our planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype# ... _variation says
phenotypic variation is a fundamental prerequisite for evolution by natural selection. It is the living organism as a whole that contributes (or not) to the next generation, so natural selection affects the genetic structure of a population indirectly via the contribution of phenotypes. The idea of the phenotype has been generalized by Richard Dawkins in The Extended Phenotype to mean all the effects a gene has on the outside world that may influence its chances of being replicated. These can be effects on the organism in which the gene resides, the environment, or other organisms.
Anthropogenic climate change is a big part of our global phenotype. Greenhouse gas emissions present a prime threat to human future, risking global destabilisation, conflict and collapse.

Phenotypes evolve because living systems are incremental and adaptive. Each step in an incremental process is a small change from the previous step.

Homeostasis, the tendency of systems to stay within stable boundaries, means that without external pressure for change a system will usually be evolutionarily stable. But when the homeostatic context changes, we see what we call selective pressure, causing the system to evolve to a new stability. A big change in the context punctuates the equilibrium of steady evolution towards higher complexity by disrupting the set of available niches.

Rising temperature is a selective pressure in the human extended phenotype. When there is a steady phenotypic change, as seen in global warming, selective pressure is placed on all evolving structures within the phenotype.

The incremental nature of evolution applies to genes and memes. A meme, as a phenotypic effect seen in culture, evolves in a step by step linear path. For example musical styles have a memetic evolution, with gradual steady linear change.

A memetic or genetic revolution can be caused by steady directional selective pressure on a system, and by sudden external influence. All the big eras of our planet, Precambrian, Cambrian, Permian, etc, are characterised and separated by changes in environmental selective pressures.
DWill wrote: If by 'evolution' you mean that both the biology that subsumes all organisms and the culture of one organism that is nested in that biology, demonstrate step-wise change, I see no reason to dispute that. But you know the devil or god will be in the details.
Recognising that culture is nested within biology refines the set theory of the relation between culture and nature. All culture is natural and biological but not all nature or biology is cultural.

Evolution is more than step-wise change, it recognises that mutation is random, but successful mutation involves cumulative adaptation in response to selective pressures. Evolution therefore operates on a defined path, responding to natural selective pressures that can to a fair extent be quantified. When new selective pressures are induced, as is happening with global warming, evolutionary change can be rapid, as seen in poleward migration.
DWill wrote: There are fundamental differences between how organisms change and how what are essentially products of thought, or culture, change. We should expect to see in the world a diversity of types of change, and we do.
All change in living systems is evolutionary. There are no ‘types of change’ that conflict with the law of evolution. There are fundamental similarities in how genes and memes evolve. Homeostasis is one similarity, incremental change is another, and cumulative adaptation is another. You will not find examples of cultural change that conflict with these laws of nature. When homeostasis breaks down, as is happening now with global anthropogenic climate change, evolution is pushed across tipping points into new chaotic patterns.
DWill wrote: 'evolutionary selective pressures' implies that in the two realms of biology and culture, we see the operation of a specific, uniform principle. You assert this, but it appears that you're saying it must be so, philosophically, not that science itself has had anything to say about it.
Memes are a purely scientific theory, observing that culture obeys the law of evolution. People are free to be creative, but culture is nested in the set of biology. All memetic evolution of human culture obeys the genetic law of natural evolution by cumulative adaptation, because natural homeostasis will rein in any trends that approach the boundaries of the physically possible.

Memes change faster than genes, and can have cyclic structures, but they have the same increasing complexity as genes when occurring within a stable environment, as all available niches aregradually explored by the systematic chaos of mutation.

We can expect the memetic structure of the human phenotype to change rapidly under the selective pressure of global warming. Only those memes suited to a hotter world will adapt and survive. This means that obsolete memes, such as denial of science, will go extinct or become less powerful.
DWill wrote: We didn't evolve with the ability to live in the air or the water, but through our culture we have done so. We don't even know precisely the limits that evolution or nature places on our ability to adapt. I don't follow your reasoning all the way, but it seems that now you are distinguishing between something in culture that is meme and something that is non-meme (or seemingly non-meme), something that does not build on precedent. How would the latter case even be possible?
Those cultural abilities to fly and float are memetic, as seen in the evolution of technology. I don’t think there is anything in culture that is not memetic. Evolution is all-encompassing.
DWill wrote:But this distinction [between meme and non-meme] could be a positive point, in that it begins to distinguish culture change from evolution change. One of those distinctions would be in the area of 'durable results.' What is a durable result vs.what isn't can be very difficult to ascertain, and subject to tremendous bias on the part of the observer.
A durable meme, such as an idea that has been around for thousands of years, has proved its adaptability, and can expect to be robust against selective pressure. Christianity is an example. But when the environment changes to something different from the environment in which the meme evolved, the meme must adapt or fail.
DWill wrote: When it comes to building on precedent, it's interesting that this is exactly what often does not happen in the give and take or dialectic of intellectual history.
With intellectual history, I quite like Hegel’s theory of dialectical change, with a thesis giving rise to its antithesis, and the emerging polarity then being combined in a new synthesis. This model of the history of ideas is entirely evolutionary, showing how ideas evolve as natural memes. Conflicting memes can be locked in Red Queen arms races.
DWill wrote:
every new theoretical fad has rejected the previous one totally rather than modifying and improving it http://www.agner.org/cultsel/chapt2/
That is a big exaggeration. Fads go in cycles, and respond to selective pressures. When the economy or technology or society changes, it enables a new set of fads. These may seem original, but they have a causality, always nesting within a memetic evolution of ideas, including the return of the repressed. And in fact, theoretical fads do not always reject their predecessors.

Leaving aside the pejorative and ephemeral idea of fad, theory evolves step-wise, with each new theorist learning from existing theory. Often differences from current views are highlighted in debate because they are at the edge of chaos, the most interesting area of uncertainty where new things emerge. But this focus on difference can fail to see the areas of identity between new and old theories. Even Darwin built upon and modified existing thought about evolution.
DWill wrote:
RobertTulip wrote: philosophy can make binding statements. 1+1=2 is more a statement within philosophy than within science, and is totally binding. Kant showed that such analytical a priori statements are binding, as their truth is contained in the definition of their terms.
I'd be interested to know what others think about this matter. You cite a micro-example that is at odds with the generality of what you've been arguing. On matters of generality, which is at least popularly what most people conceive as the territory of philosophy, philosophy does have the flavor of the optional.

I don’t see how the universality of mathematical truth is at odds with anything I have said. Mathematics is absolutely not optional. The rise of the optional as an attitude towards philosophy is associated with broad cultural trends, notably the acceptance of cultural relativism and multiculturalism. These are widely seen as ethically positive because of their respect for diversity. But relativism produces its own antithesis, in an interest in shared identity and truth. Science in its pure form is not culturally bound but universal. Relativism expresses the social view that philosophy is inherently incapable of finding universal truths that bridge differences between cultures.
DWill wrote: It's even essential that we know [that philosophies are optional], so that we don't come under the sway of a destructive philosophy such as racial supremacy.
Your premise does not imply your conclusion. I don’t think that racial supremacy is a starter within any potential respectable philosophy. My own view is that the least powerful cultures are often the most important. But there is much room for argument about the worth of different cultures.

Jared Diamond has a very sophisticated way of analysing cultural difference. In The World Until Yesterday, Diamond points out that there are many things about primitive life that we are well rid of, and also many things that we can usefully learn from. Diamond’s negative observations should not be considered optional just because of a distaste for attention to cultural difference. Many features of primitive life, such as bad health, risk, violence, poverty and superstition, are bad. But equally, primitive life often has more social capital than modern life. Where Diamond’s analysis is sound it should be accepted, for example on what traditional and modern cultures can learn from each other.
DWill wrote: Please don't try to remove philosophy from the humanities.
Philosophy is the home of human freedom. We are free to think what we like, and that engages philosophy with all the humanities.

In terms of the questions here on how philosophy and science contribute to understanding how selective pressures operate on cultural evolution, we are talking about the philosophy of science, by exploring the possibility of a science of culture. It doesn’t remove philosophy from the humanities to say that the science of cultural evolution requires a philosophical framework. Whether culture can be studied scientifically is a contestable philosophical proposition.
DWill wrote: When it comes to ethics, especially, philosophy isn't meant to be binding in the same way that science is, at least I hope not.
Kant held that duty is binding. This was part of his rejection of the utilitarian view of ethics as non-binding.
DWill wrote: If memory serves, you disputed one of Kant's formulations of the categorical imperative, that we should not use people as means to an end, but see them as ends in themselves.
I was simply pointing out that we do in fact routinely use people as means to our ends, for example we use a plumber as a means to fix a tap.
DWill wrote: You did this in the spirit of philosophy. In a similar manner, Robert, your determinations on the present topic cannot hope to be binding, which doesn't mean at all that you should desist.
The question of what is binding in philosophy opens up the problem of whether systematic understanding is possible. If we start with science, and accept that confirmed scientific statements cannot be sanely rejected, and see a similar necessary status for true mathematical statements, we then come to the problem that statements in ethics lack similar consensus. I find it a very interesting question whether ethics can have necessary truths as found in physics and logic. Kant’s analysis of duty is one way to explore this question. Duty requires a legitimate authority to which consent is binding, and is seen in institutional obligations. But generalising beyond institutions to broader duties is another matter. I believe we have a duty to our planet to sustain human life. That flows through into ethical requirements for action to stabilise the global climate.
DWill wrote: the term 'culture selection' … seems a lot more appropriate than to use 'natural selection' for culture. I might prefer 'culture creation' or somesuch, but it's in the right direction.
There is only as much selection in culture as nature allows. The sets of society and culture and economy are entirely within the set of nature, as shown in this Venn Diagram.
Nature Economy Society Culture Set Diagram.jpg
Nature Economy Society Culture Set Diagram.jpg (112.52 KiB) Viewed 3419 times
Ecology determines parameters of culture as a freely evolving set within natural boundaries. Natural selection works very slowly, mostly over decadal and longer units of time, whereas culture appears to change very fast. However, where cultural formations are incompatible with nature they do not prosper for long.
DWill wrote:The universal theory does remain elusive (though perhaps partly because its utility might be questioned), but I don't think that the agents working on such a theory feel bounded by others' belief in the supernatural.
No, the supernatural does not make sense. Part of the problem with supernatural theories is that they are unscientific. But universal scientific theory grounded in evolution can recognise that supernatural traditions have adaptive traits.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Selective pressures

Unread post

Dwill wrote:I'd be interested to know what others think about this matter. You cite a micro-example that is at odds with the generality of what you've been arguing. On matters of generality, which is at least popularly what most people conceive as the territory of philosophy, philosophy does have the flavor of the optional.
Philosophy is everywhere, even within science. From hypothesizing about what direction to take an experiment to mathematically and logically analyzing results.

The sentences you use in your post are philosophical; they can be reduced to logical arguments and either supported or rejected, if someone challenges them. Wisdoms you abide by in everyday life are philosophical. The behaviors that have been passed down by your parents, and enforced by the government, are philosophical.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Selective pressures

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:To say ‘evolution operates’ does not imply that evolution is an entity. Gravity operates as a higher order law of nature but is not an entity. The laws of physics operate but are not entities. Operators in mathematics (+-/x) operate but are not entities. Evolution is not an entity.

Evolution does govern both phenotype and genotype. Phenotype is defined as “the observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences.” Human phenotypic characteristics include culture and the physical influence we have on our planet.
Okay, 'entity' was the wrong word. But replace it with the word 'law' and you have your own problems. You have them if you
mean that there is a natural law, evolution, that has been 'proven' by theory to cover all phenomena of change. You've already said that your assertion is from the side of philosophy, though, so it would seem that you'd have to concede that natural law isn't an appropriate term.

A definition of natural law that I like, by the way, is from Stuart Kauffman via Murray Gell-Mann:"a compact description beforehand of the regularities of a process." If I can continue for a moment with this digression, the point that Kaufman gets to is that "The evolution of the universe, biosphere, the human economy, human culture, and human action is profoundly creative...The upshot is that we do not know beforehand what [Darwinian] adaptations may arise in the evolution of the biosphere. Nor do we know beforehand many of the economic evolutions that will arise...The wonderful diversity of life out your window evolved in ways that largely could not be foretold. So, too, has human economy in the past fifty thousand years, as well as human culture and law. They are not only emergent but radically unpredictable. We cannot even prestate the possibilities that may arise, let alone the probabilities of their occurrence...These phenomena, then, appear to be partially beyond natural law itself...We live in a world whose unfoldings we often cannot prevision, prestate, or predict--a world of explosive creativity on all sides. This is a central part of the new scientific worldview."

I didn't intend to quote so extensively from Kauffman's book, Reinventing the Sacred, just kept going. It's my thought that this view contrasts is some essential way with your view, which seems to me to place all of culture in a Darwinian straitjacket. Your view seems not to take into account the real nature of culture as an emergent phenomenon, but to be overly intellectualized as well as restricted. If I am being unfair or presumptuous, I apologize, but I offer Kauffman's thinking in place of my own less cogent attempts to describe the essential difference between our two worldviews.

I suggest that this is a good platform to try out for now, and that it might be an approachable one for anyone else who hasn't had the time to follow all the turnings of this interesting (to me, anyway) exchange we've been having.
Last edited by DWill on Sat Mar 09, 2013 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Selective pressures

Unread post

DWill quotes Kauffman: “We live in a world whose unfoldings we often cannot prevision, prestate, or predict--a world of explosive creativity on all sides. This is a central part of the new scientific worldview."

I dispute any suggestion that somehow evolution is not deterministic. Even if we cannot see the inner logic of evolution, that doesn’t mean it does not exist. Kauffman extends the radical indeterminism of human freedom into an almost a-causal vision of creativity as radically unpredictable in principle, without a guiding inner material logic. This philosophical separation of spirit and matter is wrong, conceding too much to obsolete religious myths.

We cannot be God, since we lack the omniscience required to predict the future. But Kauffman extends this humility too far, implying that science lacks all predictive power. In fact, science is all about prediction. With evolution, science observes the selective pressures operating on an ecosystem and predicts its future.

It happens all the time. An elephant herd requires an amount of land with specified quality in order to breed. Absent these conditions, the elephant will not breed, to a high degree of probability. Intense rapid selective pressures such as farming, poaching and climate change change the way elephants have lived for millions of years with observable and predicable results. If we manipulate the selective pressures operating on an organism, we often know what will happen. This is the science of ecology, habitat and interdependence, and indeed of psychology seen in lab rats.

One interesting material predictive model for evolution of life is the helium-beryllium-carbon process in stars. Bear with my lay explanation. Hydrogen is constantly fusing in stars to make Helium 4. The helium atoms fuse at a predictable rate to make Beryllium 8, but this is unstable, and almost always it collapses in a fraction of a second back to helium. However, in that fraction of a second, if another helium atom bangs into the unstable beryllium, it forms the stable atom carbon 12. That cosmic alchemy is the source of all life on earth.

The point is that atoms are swishing about randomly in stars, but stars are so big and old that there is a predictable slow rate at which hydrogen turns into carbon, pushing through the tiny window of opportunity provided by beryllium. In similar fashion life on earth obeys the random ordered chaos of nature. But our chaotic world also has these tiny windows of opportunity, chinks of potential, through which an existing order can occasionally squeeze to enter a new higher order of stable complexity, rather like carbon 12 evolving from helium.

We can speak of predicted evolution of stars along the main sequence, with a causal process similar in principle to the evolution of genes and memes. Once a higher order is achieved, it generally maintains that increased complexity until it is destroyed by catastrophe.

My concern with an author like Kauffman, although I have not read his book Reinventing the Sacred, is that too often ‘sacred’ is used to mean there is something basically wrong with the scientific world view, whereas I would rather say that ideas of the sacred should be viewed as an extension of science into the realm of value, using science as a base, and entirely respecting science as far as it goes. Kauffman wrongly elides from the fact that our predictive capacity is limited to the inference that nature is not universally causal.

I prefer to assume the pitiless logic of material causation, and then see how we can explore metaphysical ideas such as love, grace and beauty within a wholly natural framework, conceding nothing to supernaturalism. Nature is sacred.

Selective pressures are remorseless material forces, changing the evolving system with a steady trend. Science is able to identify and measure primary selective trends operating on ecosystems, such as anthropogenic global warming that is sending our planetary climate haywire and causing the sixth extinction.
Last edited by Robert Tulip on Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Selective pressures

Unread post

Kauffman is scientifically cautious: “We live in a world whose unfoldings we often cannot prevision, prestate, or predict--a world of explosive creativity on all sides. This is a central part of the new scientific worldview." He also is anything but down on science; indeterminance is part of new scientific worldview. He gives full credit to a science that, through discovery of reductive laws, made possible incredible leaps of progress. But as we get to the outer margins, where we become interested in certain questions that seem ultimate, science hasn't been able to help that much; physicists are backing away from theories of everything and realizing that emergence and complexity require a different set of tools.

The part of this that I find most striking, and thought you might, too, is the similar indeterminance in physical evolution and cultural evolution. We can't predict much when it comes to the forms we may see evolving. Using retrospection on what already has occurred is invalid. Would you say that a single animal on earth can be shown to be inevitable or determined, or that a single part of culture can be shown to be so? We seem forced to accept radical unpredictability at the level of creation of physical and cultural forms. It is this aspect of unpredictable creation that Kauffman draws on for his idea of the sacred and of God. I'm not signed on to that part of the idea, though I think it's nice. I don't agree that Kauffman entails any “philosophical separation of spirit and matter" or that he calls upon " obsolete religious myths." Spirit itself here would seem to be obsolete, though.
Last edited by DWill on Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Selective pressures

Unread post

We are not talking about 'outer margins' or 'theories of everything'. With selective pressures we are talking about large observable causal factors that are readily predictable if we examine them objectively. So Kauffman's ideas about God and the sacred and indeterminacy do not really affect how a changing environment affects evolution.

Going back to another macroeconomic example, a selective pressure is like a nudge, as when changing central bank interest rates aims to affect inflation and employment and growth. The small change in interest rate is a selective pressure, meaning people will on aggregate tend to respond slightly differently to prevailing incentives, in ways that have large cumulative effects.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Selective pressures

Unread post

When it comes to where evolution is going, we can use science to construct templates, generate scenarios and models, which may have some predictive value or at least enable us to observe more accurately what's happening, but we don't know what's coming next. All the possibilities cannot be, as Kauffman said, prestated. So evolution, whether of culture or of life forms, operates partly outside of natural law. Kauffman thinks we can find common ground in this non-reducible creativity for an idea of God.

He often says, in regard to the emergent flow of our lives, that we live our lives forward. I like that.

I got off of the selective pressures thread, and don't think I have anything more to say about it.
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”