Re: anticipation

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

JohnK,

You raise some good concerns and some interesting possibilities. Nicely
stated. You've got me pondering.....

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John
> Kineman
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 1:54 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: anticipation
>
>
> Tim,
> Thanks a lot. This fits pretty much with my picture of it as well but I
> needed confirmation that this was how us "Rosen followers" (as I
> objected to being characterized) are thinking. The difficulty I was
> pondering (apologies for not revealing the full context - it was
> intentionial to elicit an unbiased response) is how we can distinguish
> experimentally between the two explanations, as they pretty much yield
> the same observed result without detailed experiments which have not
> been done. Hence, the argument in favor of the functional view has to
> cite some evidence elsewhere - either in higher organisms or at the
> molecular level, or on the basis of pure reason (never a strong case)
> for the importance of functions, then having established their presence,
> the argument about seasonal adaptation in plants can be made to the
> effect of proposing a more efficient process to the same end, rather
> than a different end. But to merely assert that the functional view is
> the case in this isolated instance itself, would be unsupported by
> evidence. It is only the preponderance of evidence for functional
> involvement that tells us it should be there, and then to perhaps write
> a different evolutionary story - does that make sense?
>
> My speculation beyond this is to then ask if any different result from
> the existence of a functional specification (irrespective of its
> associated mechanisms) can be detected. Can we, for example, show that
> evolution acting on functions is more efficient than evolution acting
> reactively (essentially on only the realized structures)? I can imagine
> - have been imagining - making this argument regarding plants. While, as
> you say, the results may be equally explainable from the reactionary
> paradigm, my guess is that the number of "dumb luck" successes would be
> very low. The selective theory presumes all these occurr and essentially
> get weeded out by selection. Is there any way to calculate how much
> biomass would thus be weeded out and what percentage of that would be
> expected to have had "dumb luck" and then result in the organisms we
> see? My guess is it would be such a large disparity as to be tantamount
> to a claim that an extremely rare mutation has swept the entire
> population at lightning speed - something that is not likely to have
> happened. In other words, less luck would prevail simply because of the
> numbers and the fact, now widely accepted, that optimization through
> competition is not nearly as ubuiquitous or intense as once believed.
> In other words, I'm thinking there could be real experimental evidence
> produced to show that adding a functionally abstract ability, however
> small, in organisms, including those without ganglia, will allow them to
> reinforce functional paths that do indeed constitute "solutions to
> problems." By the very tenants of selection theory, a very small
> capacity in this regard, well below anything we would associate with
> developed thinking abilities, as in the human case, would nevertheless
> have an amplified effect in optimizing the evolutionary pathways and
> bringing such good solutions to the fore. The experiement would be
> difficult, however, as it would involve somehow quantifying all the
> losers as well as the winners. It would have to be a very controled
> experiment with a rapidly evolving species, or a computer simulation
> that merely shows the greater efficience involved in adding a
> non-reactionary abstract functionality.
>