Re: nature as analogy

[Jack Park <***>]

John,

My 0.0012 EUROs: I like the closing sentence, but it's not at all
clear to me that a much more accurate mechanism is at work when a
runner jumps a ravine, or that nature is necessarily efficent in
transfering information. I say that while carrying the same
assumptions many have that evolutionary pressure would drive
biological systems to be as efficient as possible; indeed who would
have thunk to place a sewage disposal system in the same location as a
playground? Right? But, what about the spread of cytokines when under,
say, viral attack? Is that necessarily efficient? Accidentally
efficient? Efficient at all? What means efficient? On the surface, it
seems efficient given that it works, but consider this (numbers I
learnt when chasing a Leukemia germ): when you come under attack,
there is a process whereby your lymphatic system responds by dumping a
massive dose of white cells into the blood stream. A CBC done on
someone who just discovered an infection might show 20 to 30 thousand
whites per dl; way more than the usual 4 to 5 thousand. Is that
efficient? It would seem to be so to the extent that it often works.
What means efficient?

I'm out of EUROs now.
Cheers and happy new year!
Jack

On 12/27/05, John <***> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm drafting a paper for a conference and I want to say something about
> the way information is used in nature without getting too into it, since
> the paper is ultimately about information system design.
>
> Here's a paragraph I wrote. What I would like to know from my esteemed
> colleagues, is if the statements here are supported well enough in the
> literature for me to just say this and move on, or am I being wierd
> again by suggesting that nature operates on mimicry and analogy??? If
> someone would like to contribute a seminal reference I would appreciate
> it. I'm not sure RR addresses this directly in his mimicry paper - its
> been a while since I read that, but I'm betting it should be referenced.
>
> Title: Information as Communication
>
> The human body functions on the transfer of information between critical
> components. It does this seamlessly and efficiently. Information storage
> is a part of its use and all indications are that natural biological
> information is relational and analogical, not quantitative or
> analytical. This can be imagined in an example of a runner. On reaching
> a ravine the runner quickly leaps across and lands accurately on the
> other bank, continuing to run without missing a stride. If asked later
> to look at the ravine and estimate its width, he may guess within a foot
> or two. Clearly, a much more accurate process was available to the
> runner naturally in the moment of need. It seems unlikely that a more
> accurate quantitative capability would exist out of reach of the
> conscious mind. It is more likely that the actions are determined
> mimetically, by analogy to past experience, and that this is a faster
> and more accurate process for anticipation in complex systems.
>
>
> Thanks for your comments,
> John Kineman
>