Re: Life without evolution/evolution without life?

[John Kineman <***>]

Howard, et al.,

Interesting quotes and indeed an intriguing change in his point of view. It
is consistent with a comment I made some while back that I think RR began
his investigation thinking it would be wholly contained in the biological
world, but then, on developing the modeling relation and its ramifications,
realizing that it had broader implications outside biology. Hence there
seems to be other evidence of a shift from claiming that the theory applies
to biology alone, which by all measures would be subject to evolution, vs
later suggesting that it could be more general than physics, which then
would mean it must be the producer of evolution. I wouldn't consider it
unusual or improper for a scientist to start out somewhat conservatively
with a theory and then later find that it has more general applications; if
it was a good idea in the first place.

JK

At 12:44 PM 3/23/04 -0500, you wrote:
> 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