Re: Reactive vs. Anticipatory in adaptation/evolution

[James N Rose <***>]

Judith,

I would prefer being circumspect and -not- link
'optimality' with these ideas.  In the same way that
'improvement' and 'perfection' are not identical,
'adaptation' (random improvement) and 'optimization'
aren't logical equals.

A bomb exploding - doesn't optimize or improve
its -form- - even though it does envolve an
entailed 'achieved-goal';  where an alternative
set-of-circumstances is arrived at.

And, backtracking to pick up your phrase
>"Environments don't adapt to organisms",
I'd suggest that an environment's repertoire
-does- include adaptation (not just adjustment).

Adaptation has only to do with process plateaus -
majoritive consistency of integrated performances.

One of my favorite examples is one I encountered
as a college student studying comparative anatomy.
Very wise professor; there are more typically than not
no -direct- cause and effect events in evolution,
just attained abilities -- from tendencies and combined 
circumstances.

Throw a fish on land and it dies - it doesn't 'evolve'.
Give it lungs; no evolution. Fins that become walking
appendages; no evolution.  Skin that retains moisture;
no evolution. Food gatherings behaviors; no evolution.
But add in with those (neccesary) aspects, a crucial 
-internal whole metabolism restricturing- that includes
kidneys which processes water - fresh water - in a new 
way than saline ocean water; and suddenly there is suffient
integrated systemics to support living in gaseous air
rather than water.

The way I put it in UIU is,  it took a fundamental
change of life's relationship with water to eventually
enable it to have a relationship with fire.  And humans
know just how important fire is (compact appliable energy)
for our success and level of civilly achieved evolution.

--more tonight.  leaving for work.

Jamie   



Judith Rosen wrote:
> 
> Jamie Rose wrote:
> 
>      So..... the important aspect of dynamic entities within
>      dynamic extended environments .. is their ability to
>      encounter and cope with .. options & options spaces.
>      More so than it is for entities to be behaviorally
>      consistent
> 
> Yes, with one nitpick: "Dynamic" entities... I'm not sure 
>how you mean it. My experience of that word is that it can 
>refer to any changing systems, including simple ones. In his
>published work, my father used the phrases; "dynamical systems,"
>"dynamical equations," and "classical dynamics" when describing
>simple systems and the approach of contemporary physics for 
>dealing with them. So, I see a need to clarify a bit. The thing
>is, adaptation is not purely a reactive-- or even interactive--
>behavior. Environments don't adapt to organisms, although 
>environments do interact with organisms, organisms have more 
>ptions: they can react or interact, but they can also adapt to
>environments and they can also actively change the environment
>to suit their own requirements. In either case, the agent of
>change is coming from the organismal side. This is partly why
>the explanation for evolution as developed post-darwin is not 
>explaining the evidence adequately: it's all developed within "a
>reactive paradigm" where all systems are only capable of reacting.
>In order to adapt, either physically or behaviorally, to a
>changing environment, a system would have to be capable of 
>something more than merely reacting to change. Adaptation has 
>to do with optimality and the only systems capable of adaptation 
>are systems with an internally generated value for "optimality"-- 
>anticipatory systems. Organisms.
> 
> Judith
> 
> Web address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com
> BioTheory: An electronic journal of general science based on the Relational (Rosennean) 
> Complexity Paradigm
> On Nov 8, 2005, at 12:36 AM, James N Rose wrote:
> 
>      Judith Rosen wrote:
> 
>           "Negative" and "Positive" are in the eye of the beholder;
>           it's all relational and it's context dependent.
> 
>           [snipped]
> 
>           I think it's all part of the capability that being organized as an
>           anticipatory system can achieve in an interactive, relational universe.
> 
>           Judith
> 
>      So..... the important aspect of dynamic entities within
>      dynamic extended environments .. it their ability to
>      encounter and cope with .. options & options spaces.
> 
>      More so than it is for entities to be behaviorally
>      consistent - or as modern science would prefer it
>      - perfectly 'repetitive' and free of 'alternate
>      performances' (which are define by current science as "errors").
> 
>      How many children have there been born with 6 fingers per hand?
>      chopped off in the delivery room as an anomaly.
> 
>      Can you image the side species of 12 fingered humans ..
>      and how they would play piano or any fingered instrument??! Wow!
> 
>      J2