Subject
"Arthur Glass" re VNA
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Glass" <goliard@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: VNA replies to Robert Weldon replies to VNAs Mimicry
.
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (96
lines) ------------------
> It may be my ignorance of mathematics, biophysics or both, but how can
> 'topology in design spce' be a "mechanism' ? First of all, the use the
word
> 'mechanism' about a natural process is to use the word metaphorically. A
> mechanism is, literally, something like a pulley and chain, that is, a
> man-made system.
>
> "Topology in design space' sounds curiously like a Platonic or
Aristotelean
> 'form' than anything else.---Arthur glass
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: D. Barton Johnson <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 2:57 PM
> Subject: Fw: VNA replies to Robert Weldon replies to VNAs Mimicry
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Weldon" <robertw@cm-labs.com>
> > To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > >
> > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (49
> > lines) ------------------
> > > > VNA: Scientists have recently discovered that there are other
> mechanisms
> > > > besides natural selection that influence evolution
> > > > VNA: Re: Dennet, pop philosophy tends to be
> > > > at least ten years behind the best work being done in the sciences.
> > >
> > > I think there is confusion between the idea of mechanism and natural
> > > selection. There are many mechanisms that influence rate of mutation.
> > There
> > > is a topology in design space that will influence how likely
particular
> > > mutations are to arise. And then there are very interesting questions
of
> > > complexity and self-organization that magnify the degree to which a
> > > phenotype will change, given a variation in a genotype.
> > >
> > > As Walter Fontana has put it, there is a question of the "arrival of
the
> > > fittest" that is as interesting as the "survival of the fittest."
> > >
> > > But these things fit into the neo-darwinian synthesis. Evolution
occurs
> > when
> > > you have replicators, variation and selection. The evolution that
arises
> > > will be shaped by history, the nature of the replicators concerned,
and
> > the
> > > manner in which selection is applied.
> > >
> > > I think the continuing hoopla about these questions comes from two
> places.
> > > First, statements made by researchers like Kaufmann and Gould, who
> promote
> > > their own ideas as more revolutionary than they actually are. It is
hard
> > for
> > > a generalist to evaluate such claims. Cutting-edge research is not
> usually
> > > available outside of scholarly and specialist papers.To make ideas
> "claire
> > > et distincte" requires the philosophical work of understanding what is
> > being
> > > said beneath the jargon. For an example of clarification, earlier in
> this
> > > thread, the idea of "non-utilitarian mimicry" was examined and found
to
> be
> > > at least complicated, if meaningful at all. This is the line of useful
> > work
> > > that Daniel Dennet has done around questions of adaption and
selection.
> In
> > > particular, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, the discussion on Kaufmann
> doesn't
> > > dismiss Kaufmann's work, but clarifies and relates this work to
standard
> > > darwinism.
> > >
> > > The second source of hoopla is the idea that science, or the
philosophy
> of
> > > science, or the "way that science is done" has somehow changed
radically
> > in
> > > the last couple of decades. I don't want to stir up the culture wars,
> but
> > if
> > > there has been a revolution, it will soon be obvious to all.
Meanwhile,
> > one
> > > can be excused for taking the conservative approach and getting on
with
> > > ones' work.
> > >
> > > Finally, and on forum topic, wouldn't you agree that Vladimir Nabokov,
> > that
> > > serious amateur in so many fields, provides the example that should
make
> > us
> > > all hesitate from discounting ideas that do not come from the
> > credentialed?
> > > Sometimes even from people who have "pop" inclinations?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
From: "Arthur Glass" <goliard@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: VNA replies to Robert Weldon replies to VNAs Mimicry
.
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (96
lines) ------------------
> It may be my ignorance of mathematics, biophysics or both, but how can
> 'topology in design spce' be a "mechanism' ? First of all, the use the
word
> 'mechanism' about a natural process is to use the word metaphorically. A
> mechanism is, literally, something like a pulley and chain, that is, a
> man-made system.
>
> "Topology in design space' sounds curiously like a Platonic or
Aristotelean
> 'form' than anything else.---Arthur glass
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: D. Barton Johnson <chtodel@cox.net>
> To: <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 2:57 PM
> Subject: Fw: VNA replies to Robert Weldon replies to VNAs Mimicry
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Weldon" <robertw@cm-labs.com>
> > To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
> > >
> > > ----------------- Message requiring your approval (49
> > lines) ------------------
> > > > VNA: Scientists have recently discovered that there are other
> mechanisms
> > > > besides natural selection that influence evolution
> > > > VNA: Re: Dennet, pop philosophy tends to be
> > > > at least ten years behind the best work being done in the sciences.
> > >
> > > I think there is confusion between the idea of mechanism and natural
> > > selection. There are many mechanisms that influence rate of mutation.
> > There
> > > is a topology in design space that will influence how likely
particular
> > > mutations are to arise. And then there are very interesting questions
of
> > > complexity and self-organization that magnify the degree to which a
> > > phenotype will change, given a variation in a genotype.
> > >
> > > As Walter Fontana has put it, there is a question of the "arrival of
the
> > > fittest" that is as interesting as the "survival of the fittest."
> > >
> > > But these things fit into the neo-darwinian synthesis. Evolution
occurs
> > when
> > > you have replicators, variation and selection. The evolution that
arises
> > > will be shaped by history, the nature of the replicators concerned,
and
> > the
> > > manner in which selection is applied.
> > >
> > > I think the continuing hoopla about these questions comes from two
> places.
> > > First, statements made by researchers like Kaufmann and Gould, who
> promote
> > > their own ideas as more revolutionary than they actually are. It is
hard
> > for
> > > a generalist to evaluate such claims. Cutting-edge research is not
> usually
> > > available outside of scholarly and specialist papers.To make ideas
> "claire
> > > et distincte" requires the philosophical work of understanding what is
> > being
> > > said beneath the jargon. For an example of clarification, earlier in
> this
> > > thread, the idea of "non-utilitarian mimicry" was examined and found
to
> be
> > > at least complicated, if meaningful at all. This is the line of useful
> > work
> > > that Daniel Dennet has done around questions of adaption and
selection.
> In
> > > particular, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, the discussion on Kaufmann
> doesn't
> > > dismiss Kaufmann's work, but clarifies and relates this work to
standard
> > > darwinism.
> > >
> > > The second source of hoopla is the idea that science, or the
philosophy
> of
> > > science, or the "way that science is done" has somehow changed
radically
> > in
> > > the last couple of decades. I don't want to stir up the culture wars,
> but
> > if
> > > there has been a revolution, it will soon be obvious to all.
Meanwhile,
> > one
> > > can be excused for taking the conservative approach and getting on
with
> > > ones' work.
> > >
> > > Finally, and on forum topic, wouldn't you agree that Vladimir Nabokov,
> > that
> > > serious amateur in so many fields, provides the example that should
make
> > us
> > > all hesitate from discounting ideas that do not come from the
> > credentialed?
> > > Sometimes even from people who have "pop" inclinations?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>