Clark, list: 1) First - I don't accept the neoDarwinian hypothesis that adaptation and evolution are due to randomness and Natural Selection. I think that adaptation and evolution are actions of Mind; that is, the biological systems adapt to environmental realities - not randomly - but as INFORMED systems. That is, to leave adaptation up to randomness - would effectively mean extinction for the species - since a 'lucky guess' coming along 'just in time' is as specious a hope as my winning the lottery [sigh]. I consider that biological systems as semiosic are informationally networked with their environment and therefore, develop a number of potential responses to environmental stresses. Any one of these potential responses would be functional. The selection of ONE of these potential responses MIGHT be 'random' but again, any one of these potential responses would have been functional.
As has been pointed out by several of us, chance is not the same as randomness. Change/spontaneity is an action of freedom-to-develop; in this case, a freedom to develop a new morphological nature as an INFORMED response to environmental realities. This is NOT a random action but a free action, based on informed knowledge of 'what's going on out there'. A common example is where a bird will develop a harder beak as the seeds in the environment develop harder shells. This is NOT random, which means UNINFORMED and pure 'lottery-win' [though I have my doubts about the randomness of lottery wins...mutter, mutter...] That is, - and this is found in a number of modern biologists - [see Daniel Brooks: Evolution as Entropy] - this view rejects equilibrium between organisms and their environment; rejects randomness as the cause of new morphologies; rejects natural selection as the ultimate cause; rejects optimality theory; rejects independent evolution of each species. By entropy I am referring to the nature of a biological system that 'holds' or binds energy as matter within its morphological nature. So, a particular biological species that changes its capacity to hold onto this matter-and its metabolic transformation, and it might to this for any number of reasons - might release energy/matter to the 'world', which is then rapidly made use of by another biological system. So, we will see an increasing complexity in an ecosystem. A swamp with myriad grasses might see the development of more 'individualistic grasses' which function only in a narrow range of the swamp, BUT, this might lead to a proliferation of more diverse grasses and plants; more diverse insects and birds - some at the periphery of the swamp, some in the mainstream. In each of these new types of organic systems, a new 'habit of existence and continuity' will develop. I don't know if this helps. I suspect that it's not really clarifying your questions. Edwina -- This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's largest alternative telecommunications provider. http://www.primus.ca On Thu 06/04/17 1:45 PM , Clark Goble cl...@lextek.com sent: On Apr 6, 2017, at 6:34 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: - chance does not form habits but only facilitates breaking them - and since chance/Firstness is primordial, then, breaking habits is so to speak, necessary and normal in the universe. Just as habits are primordial; just as differentiation into discrete instantiations is primordial.. Could you clarify this? Are you speaking of biological systems at a starting point where our analysis presumes they already are there? (Say a swamp in the year 2000 as the starting point - there are already habitual behaviors in place) The question I have is that I assume you think new habits can develop. While this isn’t purely random due to selection, surely chance is a major component to developing new habits. John, list - I agree with you that Firstness, in itself, is not entropic - since it also operates within a stable system as vagueness, openness. But Firstness as spontaneity, within that vagueness, can lead as Peirce pointed out to minute changes in the form of the system, which can be accepted within Thirdness and lead to new habits of formation and interaction. I also agree that randomness and spontaneity are not identical - and that Firstness is 'spontaneity'. I’ll hold off for now discussing the distinction between spontaneity, chance and randomness. I do think if we use the terms we need to be clear what we mean by them since they are all ambiguous terms. The problem I have here is what you mean by entropy and change. After all change can happen that doesn’t increase entropy. While change typically increases entropy of the system of course it can reduce the entropy of the subsystem (as is common in evolutionary change). So I’m not quite sure relative to your topic of biological creatures what you mean by entropy. Could you clarify a little? (Sorry as my training just isn’t in biology but physics. I recognize I’m bringing a set of expectations that perhaps don’t apply.) Links: ------ [1] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .