Re: Nature magazine article- On niches and neutralities

[John Kineman <***>]

First a clarification of my statement, then an attempted answer to your
question.

I did not mean that I believe such explanations - I do not. I meant that
the dominant current view (which I would like to show is incomplete) is
that such behaviors should be explainable in a purely mechanistic way,
where all programs are reactive and constructed on prior causes. I don't
think that works, but in plants I have difficulty arguing for something
more involved because the functional aspect is not as obvious as it is
with animals acting through various mental models that construct
pictures of the future.

So, I am looking to concepts of time to invoke a means by which simple
organisms can "imagine" the future. The skeptic of course says that the
mental models are as you described as well, nothing more than
accumulated possibilities from past experience from which one chooses -
but that begs the question of the semantics of that choice - if random
then we are still within the traditional view (mechanistic paradigm). I
think the choice is non-random, but that's where I would lack evidence
regarding plants. Regarding people, I think there are convincing
arguments as to why it must be non-random. To introduce such a biasing
factor that is not a result of past observable states, I think one must
ultimately mess with space-time models and propose either hidden
dimensions or alternate worlds, all of which are possible and being
discussed for other reasons.

John M wrote:

> JJK:
> Just for consideration before going public to an anticipatorily oppositional
> adience.
> (J quoting JJK in the last sentence):
>
>
> > > ...all the seasonal behaviors associated with
> > > plants in temperate zones can be explained with current mechanistic
> > > paradigms.< <
> I muse about the wording.
> "current" meaning by all means "now existing" (nothing more here)
> "mechanistic" may refer to all kinds of movements (changes) expressable
>    or observable as such or in their consequences.
> "paradigms" I frawn: it has too many unfitting meanings to safely being used
>    in such a vague topic. (Unless one identifies exactly).
> "can be explained" - maybe :could be explained, we just cannot?
> All circumstances requiring 'anticipation' have been "experienced" by the
> organisms a zillion +1 times, some variants getting damaged, some not. The
> "not" types proliferated better and multiplied, took over the niche and for
> a
> later observer provided the conclusion of an anticipation.
>
> Similarly in animals (think of conscious ones with memory) the zillion times
> experienced factors - sunken into the abyss of unconscious levels - come up
> by triggers we do not observe (maybe not even know/think about) and the
> organism switches to the reaction upon such memory. "Anticipated".
> Like a basebal pitcher adjusts his hit before the ball leaves the throwing
> hand.
> A mental FTL phenomenon. Based on earlier experience/memory.
> (I think I second Howard's question)
>
> John M
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Kineman" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 5:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Nature magazine article- On niches and neutralities
>
>
>
>
> > SNIP
> > Judith Rosen wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > John K was referring to the paper on Anticipatory Systems we are
> > > "co-writing" for his ISSS conference in July. We both agree on the
> fuction
>
>
> > > issue, the difference of opinion is in how to illustrate anticipatory
> > > behavior in organisms in a way that cannot be interpreted mechanistically
> as
>
>
> > > well. In other words: irrefutable proof. My contention is that the
> behavior
>
>
> > > exhibited by plants in temperate climate zones, at the autumnal change,
> is
>
>
> > > proof. John K. believes that all the seasonal behaviors associated with
> > > plants in temperate zones can be explained with current mechanistic
> > > paradigms.
> > >
> > > Judith
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Dan Fiscus wrote:
> > > > On a "something completely different" topic (and Juidth I
> > > > don't remember that Monty Python episode...) I do not totally
> > > > get John's last point about solving evolutionary problems
> > > > functionally vs (what you may be saying) a case by case or
> > > > piecemeal (or mechanistic?) type of evolution. Can you say
> > > > more on this? It sounds interesting...
> > --
> > © 2004 John J. Kineman
> > all rights reserved

--
© 2004 John J. Kineman
all rights reserved