Re: Evolution-inLimited model?

[John M <***>]

Judith, I will try to reflect on your text as long as
I can (truncate the rest)so look below
John

--- Judith Rosen <***> wrote:

> Hi John M.
> 
> There's a lot to talk about here. Your post
> addresses many different 
> aspects of numerous different subjects. The
> following are just my 
> preliminary thoughts about a few of them.

I was waiting for more than a few (don't believe it: I
was plain procrastinating to reply in kind).
> 
> > JM: "Speaking about "us" and our (open to
> >evolution)> DNA<: brings up the thought that -"we"-
> > are also models cut and limited by program - 
> >potentials of our DNA - not
> > free to 'nature as a total'. That makes us really
> >a 'species' and cuts our evolution to 'within' the
> > species' boundaries. We do not grow gears and
> > wings to
> > fly. Or gills. Or magnetic resonance receptors...
> 
> There are at least two big issues here. The first is
> whether our DNA is 
> a limit or simply a component in a series of
> relational interactions 
> which, all together, make us a species.

I think you misunderstood my 'model': it was referring
to the ways science formulates: is not what we "are". 
I still remember the ridiculous position that only ~4%
of our genetic DNA stuff is relevant - the rest is
garbage. I always represented the need to know more
and that DNA-functions only "build organs" the
activity of which is part of a complexity so far
undiscovered (eg. the neuronal (mental?)
connectivities and other functional balances in the
body).
>
> With all the talk lately about 
> mitochondria and chloroplast DNA (and all the other
> organelles which 
> may have independent DNA) it seems to me that we
> cannot wallow in the 
> human chauvinism about our "genome" or believe that
> it's all we need to 
> understand why and how we are the way we are. To my
> knowledge, the 
> human genome mapping effort is concentrating
> entirely on nuclear DNA.  
> What's more; RR felt quite strongly that DNA is, in
> and of itself, not 
> the full story-- even if we add the organelle DNA
> into the "human" 
> genome. In fact, the whole concept of "genetic blue
> print" is a mechanistic viewpoint. The DNA are
simply > the material parts; tangible 
> aspects of a larger, interactive, story.

It feels good to be in agreement with RR. Especially
since this is not my field and it was his.
> 
> The second issue raised in the above paragraph is
> one of human identity 
> as a species. This is a real "toughie"-- human
> beings have been arguing 
> about this particular subject amongst ourselves
> since the dawn of our 
> species' ability to perceive and argue at the same
> time. My view is 
> that the human mind is what defines us as human.

(I suppose you have a good definition of it....)
>
> It's not just our 
> "living-organism-ness"-- shoot even a slime mold has
> that. It's not 
> just intelligence-- plenty of other species are
> intelligent. 

(Are we using the same definition of it?) 
> But, out of all the living creatures who have ever 
> lived on this Earth, in the 
> fossil record up to now, only humanity has the
> abstract creative 
> ability to generate innovative new ideas and
> thoughts which we then 
> transform/manufacture into material reality.

On another list someone wrote about his dog in playing
ball with, he through obloquly on the wall, so it
bounced back in an angle -failing the dog's presumed
aiming. After a while the dog watched his hadn an ran
exactly in the 'new' different direction. What woulod
you call this: intelligence or creative abstraction ?
>
> Evidence of human artistic 
> and intellectual  activity is everywhere. It's even
> visible from space, 
> and has been for millennia. We create art-forms and
> modes of play for 
> each of our senses and capabilities, including our
> imaginations. 

Have you ever discussed such topics with an animal?
>
> Because of this capability, we really do, in
> essence, "grow gears and 
> gills and sprout wings". Someone once said to me
> that human beings are 
> actually beginning to direct our own evolution, and
> I think this is the 
> truth. We are directing it with our minds, for good
> or ill (probably 
> both).  So our bodily evolution is being influenced
> by our intellectual 
> capacities even more, it could be argued, than by
> our entire genetic complement.

I raised eyebrows at an evolution-conference (~1998-9?
Drew Univ. Madison NJ)when I said that in the 'fitness
to survive' the human species (society) evolved
"MONEY" which (eg. by buying a Lamborghini) gets to
the boy a better breeding partner girl. Margaret
Mead's daughter (also prof in the field) replied:
"surprizing idea, but I could not argue against it
..." - 
Animnals create art, eg. chimps entertain with 'funny'
individually created jumps and it also "gets the
girl".
Beavers exercise artistic (and technically useful)
designs in estuaries and coastlines. Male birds build
nests with colored ornamentation to catch the female. 
(I don't want to mention the lyrics of fish: Christian
Morgenstern wrote a poem "Fisches Nachtgesang"* using
half circles and hyphens in formal verses imitating
the mouth-movement of fish - well that was ChM's
joking).
> 
> Artificial Intelligence is our label for a concept
> we have in our 
> minds. It's intended to refer to our attempts at
> recreation of certain 
> aspects of our intellectual capability, insofar as
> we perceive them 
> whilst we are both observer and observed. We are
> attempting to 
> transmute the capability of "intelligence" into a
> disembodied form. AI 
> is supposed to repesent essentially a functional
> capacity of ours, 
> recreated using entirely different means. Will we
> succeed? If we do, 
> what have we achieved? Intelligence changes
> according to definition but 
> I doubt anyone would say that this alone defines
> humanity or "human 
> life". There is far more to human conscious
> awareness than intelligence.
> 
> All of that begs the question, though: Have we
> succeeded in 
> artificially re-creating our own intelligence in a
> machine? In my 
> opinion; no. Not even close. We have created a more
> interactive form of 
> a reference library, with a few other labor-saving
> devices thrown into 
> the mix at the same time. But computers are rated as
> "stupid" on my 
> intelligence meter. Talk about linear! Sheesh! My
> dog has better 
> problem solving abilities than my computer. The way
> I see it; computers 
> are empty of intelligence but full of knowledge--
> human knowledge. The 
> only trouble is that all human knowledge, detached
> from  its contextual 
> meaning, is just a pile of empty meaningless data.
> Electronic zeros and 
> ones... You can't even compost that.

I think you simplified 'knowledge' to the (denied) AI
stuff. We 'use' dimensions (mental, emotional, goa; -
oriented, anticipatory (!!!) etc.,) without clues so
far for digitalization. The "Implications (validity?)
of a legal argument" or "the joy of listening to
music" 
"laugh at a good joke" "raising adrenalin level (male)
by a pretty girl" (or vice versa) are in domains of
knowledge which fortunately so far are not
computerized
> 
> The internet, however, is something else again. It's
> a 
> social/intellectual complex system of a completely
> unique nature. I've 
> been fascinated with the development of it, and
> privileged to be around 
> to observe and participate from close to the
> beginning of it (certainly 
> as a widespread phenomena, anyway). The internet
> represents human 
> mental interaction on a species-wide scale...
> disembodied from any 
> material aspects. It's completely different from the
> "hive mentality" 
> that insects like bees and ants manifest (where
> there are behaviors and 
> capabilities seen in a hive which are not present in
> the behavior of individuals).

I like the hint to define 'hive-behavior' so far it
was not clear to me. However: 
1. We don't know how information spreads and even
rules in insects the ways of a 'collective
consciousness' may exceed our physical physiological
measurement domains. (We don't even know our own
ways). 
2. Internet spreads and acts by ways which are NOT
present in the human individuals (Who is a telephone -
line or a Windows?) Show the internet to a higly
educated person of the 19th c., would he differentiate
it from the 'hive-behavior' as you defined it? 
>....
It seems I got to the end of your post. Happy Birthday
(belatedly) to your daughter 
>....
> Cheers, everyone; 
> enjoy the day.
> 
> Judith

John
---*: Translation: "The Night Song of Fish"
> 
> 
> Web address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com
> BioTheory: An electronic journal of general science
> based on the 
> Relational (Rosennean) Complexity Paradigm
> On Sep 10, 2005, at 11:50 AM, John M wrote:
> 
=== message truncated ===