Re: anticipation

[John Kineman <***>]

Yes, the issue is how to argue the source of current anticipatory
"programs" in plants. I am much more comfortable talking about animals,
because not only do they have the hardcoded anticipatory behaviors
(female changes related with childbirth being perhaps an obvious
example) but they have also preserved the functionally abstract
abilities in the form of mental ability. My argument is generally that
its obvioius in the case of mental activity, its strongly indicated and
a major challenge in physics, hence it is most likely present in
systems  between these extremes, and it is thus most parsimonious to
assume some level of functional determination and then devise
experiements to test for it. Since it  would sharpen evolution and
explain how Darwin's gradualism can survive temporarily non-adaptive
intermediate stages (as Baldwin argued), it resolves a problem
(perceived by some) in the current theory. But most deny there is a
problem and we don't have good evidence collected to test that in most
domains.

JJK

mihai nadin wrote:

> Judith wrote:
>
> > We both (she meant Judith and JohnK) agree on the function
> > issue, the difference of opinion is in how to illustrate anticipatory
> > behavior in organisms in a way that cannot be interpreted
> > mechanistically as
> > well.
>
>
> Rosen does not exclude the reactive component. His diagrams describing
> the relation between the physical and the living make it clear that
> the physical is always there, but there is also something else...And
> this something else is what we observe as anticipation.
>
> If you allow me:
> >John K. believes that all the seasonal behaviors associated with
> >plants in temperate zones can be explained with current mechanistic
> >paradigms.
> This is where the problem is: if indeed, and I doubt it,
> >seasonal behaviors associated with plants in temperate zones can be
> explained >with current mechanistic paradigms.
> then there is no reason to present a paper. Exactly because Rosen
> makes it clear that the pro-active component, i.e. anticipation, makes
> the difference between the physical and the living such a paper is
> important. The nature of the anticipatory processes is important here
> and I suspect that Judith and JohnK have something to say about this.

--
© 2004 John J. Kineman
all rights reserved