Re: Life without evolution/evolution without life?

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Howard,

Yes, we do have a difference of interpretation. :)

The context of your quote from LI 255 is in the context of these initial
sentences in the paragraph:
"Nor can we answer the question "why is an organism alive?" with the answer
"Because its ancestors were alive."  Pedigrees, lineages, genealogies, and
the like, are quite irrelevant to the the basic question. Yet they are the
very stuff of evolution."

So, Rosen's remarks on evolution and its lack of presence in LI are because
evolution is irrelevant to the specific question "why is an organism
alive?". Likewise, in AS, the discussion around adaptation, selection and
evolution does not bear on the question "why is an organism alive?"; but
rather, the role of predictive models in the processes of adaptation and
selection.

Thus, to me, the difference in emphasis on evolution between the two books
reflects not a change in attitude toward the concepts of adaptation and
evolution, but rather that the topic was relevant to the central theme of AS
and not relevant to the central theme of LI.

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Howard
> Pattee
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 12:45 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Life without evolution/evolution without life?
>
>
> Tim,
>
> I think we only have a small problem of interpretation.
>
> Tim:I don't see any inconsistency at all between Rosen's remarks
> on evolution in Life Itself and his stance in Anticipatory System.
>
> Howard: No one has suggested inconsistency. I do find a
> significant change in Bob?s view of the importance of adaptation
> and evolution. In AS there is an entire chapter on Adaptation,
> Natural Selection and Evolution that Bob begins by saying: ?This
> [adaptation] is an idea utterly basic to the biological realm,
> and which is becoming increasingly important in the understanding
> of the properties and control of social systems and human sciences.?
>
> In LI Bob says, [evolution] may very well be more a property of a
> particular realization of life, rather than life itself. Thus it
> is that the word ?evolution? has hardly been mentioned in the
> preceding pages.? Also, in LI the word ?adaptation? is not even
> in the index.
>
> I think most readers would find a significant change in attitude
> from an ?idea utterly basic to the biological realm? to and an
> idea ?hardly mentioned.?
>
> The rest of your post I think is standard evolutionary theory
> based on a genetic memory and natural selection that I agree with
> completely.
>
> Howard