John,
wrt statement #2
IF our ancestors are contained within "us" AND "live" (on) in us, THEN
all the information "we" have is in our ancestors too. {Life as an
information / communication problem}
Of course "we" can be more than the sum of our parents. The
information is already out there in the wild/cloud, "we" are just
downloading it onto our genetic hard drives at an increasingly faster
biological rate.
To clarify with an example.
In the early 1980's I coded boot sector computer virii. These code
strings would "infect" by attaching themselves to the"end" of a "copy"
of another executable program (which may have already been infected by
code strings by some other hacker - and not only at the "end" but
perhaps also inserted in the "middle"). The actual application
software (say "pacman.exe") would continue to run until the competing
information strings being "injected / infected" clashed and caused it
to "die".
Similarly, a child is the genetic sum of its parents (and through them
the ancestors) and information strings (via culture / television /
parent et.al ) which attach itself to the child's "memory" ("memes").
Sorry, if I'm somewhat vague/unclear - buts its not easy reconciling
"religion" and "science".
Sarbajit
On 3/17/12, John Kennison <jkenni...@clarku.edu> wrote:
>
> Sarbajit,
> Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking of genes as hereditary units but
> I guess they can also refer to any chemical strings of a certain type. How
> about statement (2)? Can't we be more than the sum of our ancestors?
> --John
> ________________________________________
> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of
> Sarbajit Roy [sroy...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 2:22 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?
>
> Lets take those points 1 by 1
>
> 1) "Information is transmitted genetically".
>
> a) Instead of information being transmitted as am electronic series
> (string) of "0"s and "1"s" (ie. base 2 encoding), its transmitted as a
> chemical series (string) of base 4 proteins, both series being
> "readable".
>
> b) The statement does not imply that information cannot be transmitted
> by books or converstaions or culture or upbringing etc.
>
> c) The 19th century reference is probaby with reference to experiments
> by Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose, who did some work on what would be termed
> nowadays as "memory RNA" (involving plants and not planaria soup).
>
> d) Data such as "blue eyes" are transmitted (imperfectly) genetically
> onto copies using GCTA, just as I suppose a colour photocopier does
> using CMYK.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 3/16/12, John Kennison <jkenni...@clarku.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes, sometimes scientific theories resemble religions and vice-versa and
>> sometimes the debate on how genes evolve looks a bit like a battle between
>> competing religions.
>>
>> I would disagree with principles (1) and (2): As for (1) I sometimes find
>> that knowledge is transmitted via books or conversations or even lectures
>> but none of these transmissions seem to be genetic. As for (2) we are not
>> the sum of our ancestors because we are affected by our upbringing, our
>> culture, our education etc. (I don't see how statement (2) could have
>> been
>> "proven" in the nineteenth century.)
>>
>> As for (3) and (4), I'm not certain what they mean. Can someone explain
>> them
>> to me?
>>
>> --John
>> ________________________________________
>> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of
>> Sarbajit Roy [sroy...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:09 AM
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?
>>
>> W.r.t to your pointwise comments to John's points.
>> This to me seems a clear case of reinventing the wheel.
>> It also seems that the inventors do not know that the wheel has been
>> invented.
>>
>> Referring to at least 5,000 years of evolved human history
>> http://brahmo.org/brahmoism-genetics-memetics.html
>> There is at least 1 religion (yes "religion" and not "science") which
>> holds as follows:
>>
>> "# 1) Information / knowledge is transmitted genetically (this was
>> experimentaly proveable in 19th century and is trivial to prove today)
>> # 2) That we are the sum of our ancestors
>> # 3) That we contain all our ancestors in our genes and our bodies and
>> within us
>> # 4) Godhood of father."
>>
>> What is curious is that this "belief" (or variations) seems to span
>> many leading cultures separated by time and distance, and is used as a
>> device to propagate an "idea" or "belief" .
>>
>> I apologise for not being able to state the proposition in the formal
>> manner/practice of Judeo-Christian Western "civilisation"
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> On 3/16/12, Nicholas Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> Hi, everybody,
>>>
>>> Am I the only person that the FRIAM server mucks with the head of?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyway, the following was sent in response to John Kennison's interesting
>>> set of questions concerning my gripes about the E. O. Wilson interview.
>>> Yet, John never got it and it does not, so far as I can see, appear in
>>> the
>>> FRIAM archive.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, here it is again, in case anyone else missed it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net]
>>>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:23 AM
>>>
>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>>>
>>> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] FW: See this?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for writing, John.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You missed the most important objection. Genes are not the object of
>>> greed.
>>> They are not analogous to coins, in reverse. With a nickel, it makes a
>>> difference whether it came from your pocket or mine. With genes, it only
>>> makes a difference which coin is in the pocket, not who put it there.
>>> Genes
>>> are all about type, not token.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Comments on your specific points below:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> JK: I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I
>>> am
>>> not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible
>>> reasons:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [NST ==>] Greed is a behavior pattern. An individual genes just makes a
>>> protein or tells another gene when to make a protein. Gene's can't vary
>>> their behavior in telic ways.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> JK:(2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a
>>> competition between genes thus overlooking the competition between
>>> groups.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [NST ==>] Well, as I suggested above, you are missing Wilson and Trivers
>>> focus on the INDIVIDUAL. To take the greed metaphor seriously, remember
>>> that gold is not greedy; it's people who are greedy for gold. Genetic
>>> greed (I think) is the idea that people are eager to give away "their"
>>> genes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing
>>> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [NST ==>] I will agree with that position so long as you record my
>>> skepticism about how resemblance between parents and offspring comes
>>> about.
>>> Given the webby nature of genetic transmission, it's hard for me to see
>>> how
>>> it happens. I am inclined to think of the gene as a construction of
>>> evolution, as much as the basis for it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not
>>> operate to benefit the group".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [NST ==>] Well, that statement is patently false. Groups have evolved.
>>> The
>>> author confuses natural selection with evolution. And I do agree that
>>> natural selection does operate to benefit the group." [corrected in the
>>> current version - sorry.]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [NST ==>]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hard to disagree with an equation. Full stop.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [NST ==>] Well, I prefer Evolutionary Psychology, which is more inclined
>>> to
>>> take history and development into account. But I am on board with using
>>> evolutionary history as a way to understand human behavior.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On
>>> Behalf
>>> Of John Kennison
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:51 AM
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Nick,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I am
>>> not
>>> clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible reasons:
>>>
>>> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy.
>>>
>>> (2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a
>>> competition
>>> between genes thus overlooking the competition between groups.
>>>
>>> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing
>>> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones.
>>>
>>> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not
>>> operate to benefit the group".
>>>
>>> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation.
>>>
>>> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks.
>>>
>>> Am I on the right track with any of these reasons?
>>>
>>> --John
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>>
>>> From: <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> friam-boun...@redfish.com
>>> [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
>>> [nickthomp...@earthlink.net]
>>>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:08 PM
>>>
>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am in a rain engulfed open plan, bay-side, house with 5 other adults
>>> and
>>> two kids, and many competitors for the one copy of the new Yorker, and
>>> for
>>> the space to rethink what I wrote. So it may be some time before I can
>>> get
>>> you a proper response. In the meantime, here is an improper one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My explicit beef was with the interviewer, not with Wilson. It is
>>> certainly
>>> news to Wilson that, having believed something dumb for decades, he now
>>> comes, in old age, to the obvious truth. But why is it news to us?!
>>> The
>>> news, it seems to me, that there were a few people who stood up to the
>>> deluge of Reagen-biology that saturated the field, and it is to THOSE
>>> people, not Wilson, that we should look for insight.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not sure there IS redemption for an academic who has killed off many
>>> good ideas (and presumably graduate students) to make a towering academic
>>> career, and then sees the truth in his dotage. At least, he has to do
>>> more
>>> than just change he mind. He has to make restitution: hasto pay back
>>> his
>>> royalties and recompense damages to those whom he has injured. And
>>> probably all the other items in the 12 step list, as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Worse than the belated discovery of the truth, is the belated discovery
>>> of
>>> foolishness. Perhaps the most dramatic instance of this was Donald
>>> Griffin, who after a career of tough minded neurophys, woke one day as a
>>> mentalist.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh was that ugly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> friam-boun...@redfish.com
>>> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]>
>>> [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
>>>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:58 PM
>>>
>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But, Nick, later in the article it says, ".even as Wilson campaigned for
>>> sociobiology, he began to grow dismayed with the scientific framework
>>> that
>>> made it possible. 'I noticed that the foundations of inclusive fitness
>>> were
>>> crumbling,' Wilson says. 'The reasoning that had convinced me it was
>>> correct no longer held.' For instance, after pursuing Hamilton's
>>> haplodipoidy hypothesis, scientists discovered that many of the most
>>> cooperative insect species, such as termites and ambrosia beetles,
>>> weren't
>>> actually haplodiploid. Furthermore, tens of thousands of species that
>>> did
>>> manifest haplodiploidy never evolved eusociality-although these insects
>>> were
>>> closely related, they didn't share food or serve the queen.[Wilson]
>>> concluded that inclusive fitness was no longer a tenable concept."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Didn't he redeem himself by your lights?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Frank C. Wimberly
>>>
>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
>>>
>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <mailto:wimber...@gmail.com%3cmailto:wimber...@gmail.com>
>>> wimber...@gmail.com<mailto:wimber...@gmail.com>
>>> <mailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu%3cmailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu>
>>> wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu<mailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu>
>>>
>>> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:
>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com%3cmailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>
>>> friam-boun...@redfish.com<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>
>>> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]>
>>> [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]<
>>> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]>
>>> mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
>>>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:10 AM
>>>
>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Owen, etc.,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning how
>>> to
>>> access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can do is send
>>> you
>>> a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it
>>> now,
>>> I am in danger of experiencing "irk-guilt", but here it is, anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the individual
>>> thing that goes on in interviews.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist ."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <mailto:[cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0]>
>>> [cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:
>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com%3cmailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>
>>> friam-boun...@redfish.com<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>
>>> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]>
>>> [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]<
>>> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]>
>>> mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
>>>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:57 AM
>>>
>>> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Frank C. Wimberly
>>>
>>> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz
>>>
>>> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <mailto:wimber...@gmail.com%3cmailto:wimber...@gmail.com>
>>> wimber...@gmail.com<mailto:wimber...@gmail.com>
>>> <mailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu%3cmailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu>
>>> wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu<mailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu>
>>>
>>> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:
>>> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com%3cmailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>
>>> friam-boun...@redfish.com<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>
>>> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]>
>>> [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]<
>>> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]>
>>> mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
>>>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:10 AM
>>>
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient?
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson <
>>> <mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net%3cmailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
>>> nickthomp...@earthlink.net<mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Robert, 'n all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked me,
>>> courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer>
>>> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>>
>>> 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> http://www.friam.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>>
>>> 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> http://www.friam.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> 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
>>
>> ============================================================
>> 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
>>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>
============================================================
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
