Re: Life without evolution/evolution without life?

[James N Rose <***>]

Thanks, Howard, I had a sense that would be your take.
It's very in line with the standard dichotomy-thinking
that has sought for a long time to qualify 'life' as the
special-state, somehow unique and aloof from the vast
in-animate universe.

I don't at all disagree with your 4-conditions, but do
potentially differ on where those conditions exist, and
in what forms.  My alternative view would probably come
in condition 1.  I open identification of this apparatus
to more than 'directly duplicable systems' and allow them
to be systems which contain qualia or structural 'similars'.

To be more specific: I assign 'memory' capacity to those
direct aspects of intrinsic structure .. such as charge,
such as mass, electronvoltage, etc.

Employing this larger generalized definition enables me
to identify darwinian type events and responses in this
"pre"animate realm .. and begin to map natural segues from
this region to the more recognizable 'animate realm'.

After all there is no possible TOE or general theory of
performances and behaviors unless one identifies early on
those qualities and behavior groups applicable to any and
all tiers of organization and existence.

To use such a term as 'evolution' for living systems is
as correct and natural as using it for the astronomical
'main sequence' of steller state-progressions.  The only
application that I personally tend to draw the line at
is the 'evolution' of aircraft or other mechanical systems.
The equipment/systems aren't "evolving" in the darwinian
sense -- what is 'evolving' in those situations are the
memes and mental models of possible-artifact configurations.

I don't know if RR ever attempted a pervasive re-pondering of
"evolution" around his tenure as President of the General Systems
Society, but it would have been nice.  Since from all I've read
in commentary about his conceptual achievements  he didn't, I can
only be thankful that he left a little bit of next-creative room
for those of us who follow in the path of the general systems pioneers.

Jamie Rose




Howard Pattee wrote:
>
> James,
>
> I think the minimum conditions for a Darwinian process require 1) units with heritable 
> memory, 2) noise (mutation), 3) a population of memory controlled (or memory 
> influenced) units, 4) ecological test of units (competition, selection).
>
> The only example I can think of that is not living is a computer programmed with the 
> above conditions, but there may be others. Many such badly-named ?genetic algorithm? 
> programs exist.
>
> Howard,
>
> > Howard,
> >
> > Do you see any way to coordinate Darwinian processes
> > with non-living events and systems?
> >
> > James
> > 03/20/04
> >
> >
> > Howard Pattee wrote:
> >
> > > Life did not suddenly ?exist? but arose gradually from non-living
> > > organizations of matter. There were several billion years of
> > > pre-Darwinian types of evolution that is the subject of much study today.
> > >
> >