Nicholas Thompson wrote: > Quoting phil, Actually, I think you quoted me. Phil was arguing more for sensitivity being the important factor.
> Glen wrote: >> _seemed_ like that entity somehow predicted the change. But this >> isn't an effective tactic. Complex systems are unpredictable (by >> definition) in the concrete." > > but that is the way Darwinian evolution works, no? Not really. I'm talking about unitary entities, not the amorphous blob of the entirety of life involved in Darwinian evolution. Individuals within an evolutionary system don't use pre-adaptation as a tactic for surviving change. That's my point. There are a number of related claims. For example, "pre-adaptation" is a label we apply to past situations. So, not only can it not be a tactic used by an entity to survive upcoming change, it doesn't really exist at all except as a pattern we perceive when looking at the evolutionary process as it proceeds. A single individual _might_ use commitment to one particular model as a tactic for survival, though. And that commitment is real. So, my argument in this thread has been that either multi-modeling or agility is _required_ to survive unanticipated potentially catastrophic change, thereby denying that commitment to one particular model is an _effective_ tactic. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. -- E.O. Wilson ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
