Re: Fundamental theorems, dilemmas, fitness, and information.


> Your posting raises some interesting questions, but it is not
> really responsive to what I wrote. I was referring to genetic
> information transmitted "vertically" from parent to offspring;
> information which presumably has a long "shelf-life". You are
> discussing information transmitted "horizontally" within a
> herd; information whose relevance is quite "perishable".
>
> The two kinds of information don't have much in common.

I respect having the distinction pointed out and must confess
that the entire idea of horizontal information is vague to me,
so far.

It may even be vague to those who are doing the good and
necessary work of theorizing about it, in prospect of coming up
with some testable guesses about how it works.

Interestingly a newbie raised the issue of what might be
establishable (via controlled empirical testing) as, to use her
term of choice, "vestigial." Like you (I flatter myself in saying
this) such a question can immediately expand my imagination
into new actors (factors... whatever...) on an issue.

And in this instance, a factor for consideration is what might be
termed "genetic internalization of information."

Let me explain that an organism in responding to a stimulus can
do so in a knee-jerk sense. Let that, just for purposes of organizing
a speculatory scenario be thought of as a "phase one" or "direct"
or non-specific reaction -- that is, a reaction which would be
no different if the stimulus were of a different variety (heat only,
as opposed to electrical only as opposed to physical contact only...
etc.)

Now let us consider what we witness in nature, by way of many
examples of organisms which respond in another way (and I do
NOT find the term 'adaptation' intuitive for me to make sense of
it, due to the insinuation of the term that the organism exerts any
"will to adapt," but rather that mutations can be favorable in a
particular organism's direct offspring, at a particular time, in a
particular symphony of other impacting mutations, in a particular
milieu, and as playing a role within an entire cast of characters
perpetuating themselves in the same niche concurrently. Let the
mutation be, for example, a mere increase in the number of axons
made privy to the particular stimulus. Or, let it be some other
incremental mutation, such as one that distinguishes however
slightly between one stimulus variety and another as, say, between
whether the stimulus is too hot or too cold, rather than just a
non-specific difference of temperature in either direction. Now
the (imaginary sample) organism is, say, slightly more capable of
moving away from excessive heat, but not away from just warmth,
or not away from cold food. If you follow the conceptualization
(as I am confident you do) you see that our organism now has, in
a very vague sense, internalized something about a condition in
its environment. At this phase (which we might call phase two)
it could be argued that what has occurred does not really qualify
as an internalization of anything. But let us examine phase three.

In phase three a new mutation (or a long string of miniscule ones,
incrementally) may have yielded almost imperceptible survival
advantages, with respect to the one kind of stimulus (which would
be a somewhat consistent one over time, in the milieu of the train
of progeny). At this stage (three) the sensory detection mechanism
has begun to take on some earmarks of an organic system of its
own -- a system which, although part of a discrete organism is, in
a functional sense at least, capable of evolving as a unit. And let
that unit be one for which more and more mutations and errors
(note that I did not say "trials" and errors, due to my reluctance
toward use of terms that carry any more than necessary insinuation
of any will to adapt... but are purely "retroactively opportunistic."

As you can see... at this point in the process... be the sensory unit
as yet definable as a primordial organ (or even a pre-primordial
pre-organ), such as might become an eye, in a million years or so of
microevolutionary interstitial passive and post-temporal opportunistic
coincidences... it becomes increasingly possible -- over mega
generations following -- to say that some "internalization of the
information" into a vestigial sensory system unit which can become
definable as an organelle or a full-fledged organ.

Thus, over time, an organ in reproducing can be said to "internalize"
a response and to effectively "use" that information, although "use"
is another word that suggests willful response, where I envision the
response to be passive.

Whether there should be any phase four, or beyond, all I have sought
to communicate here is the concept of "internalization of information
and response."

Calling the phase three phenomenon nothing more than phase three,
let us advance the clock in our imaginations by millions of years and
pretend we are looking at a human eye. (Keep in mind that it was not
the ONLY sensory system unit whereby information about the
environment was gradually internalized and independently selected
for -- and responses filtered by successes and failures of mutations.
But let's just focus on this one.

In this conceptual sense, much information and changes to comply
with it, has been internalized... and, along the way, the milieu, as well,
has evolved. That is... the first incremental step that may have been
nothing more than a doubling of a single axon, may have occurred in
a creature that lived in water. Later the milieu (including many other
characteristics of the sequential organ reproductions) has changed
overall. What is now the eye could have gone on while the evolving
line became amphibian, became hairy, became less hairy, grew longer,
got filtered in accordance with changes in available food sources,
went through changes successful in higher oxygen in its environment,
then lower oxygen, then went through underground lifestyle, then
went back into the water... (Not trying to reproduce what happened
but what was within the realm of things that could have occurred.)

Through it all, our imaginary creature can have evolved passively,
and yet, in a very clear and actual sense, may be said to have learned,
and to have processed "intelligently" the information it learned. And
it may be said -- with complete accuracy that the imaginary creature
not only learned but, also, internalized physiologically what it learned,
thus making some of the learning product "vestigial" in successive
generations.

One who is capable of such conceptualizations hesitates to run them
by any who are incapable of grasping them, so it is invigorating to
have opportunity to communicate them to someone who, in turn,
is capable not only of grasping the connections between the dots but,
also, of taking those connections into account (like a baton that is
passed along from one runner to another) and running with it in his
own mind.

If I have failed to connect the dots in a way that grows legs and walks
on its own in your imagination, then I have failed to convey it.

If it works for you, then you will see that the concept has a way of
giving life to a process -- a process of passive internalization of
information and conversion of consequent response into physiological
or vestigial systemic organ development.

That is a mouthful, I know. But it is intended to communicate a
concept and not to obfuscate nor, much less, to try to impress.

You can see how -- although it does not address the genetic mechanisms
whereby the gradual result would be achieved, it is a vertical view, and
not a horizontal one.

Is it not? Or, have I missed the boat once more?


g

..



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 50 years later, Marvin Minsky still doesnt get it
    ... I ascribe intelligence to the organism that can create ... The behaviorist notion of "response class" is IMO a starting point ... tactic put in the same bag rats and humans. ... If there were no novel responses, ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • easter at all Elizas coffee
    ... For Casper the trail's domestic, in response to me it's precious, whereas ... responding in connection with stingy, throughout well-known, ... in relation to the organism because of the suburb. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: 50 years later, Marvin Minsky still doesnt get it
    ... most of them apparently turn out to be better at solving the problems presented to them than humans are. ... the behavior of the organism, but how this behavior was produced. ... After all, these cameras do show two aspects of intelligent behaviour: a) they accept a wide range of inputs, which vary along several dimensions; and b), their own behaviour is produced in response to these inputs. ... The notion of a response class subsumes the fact of novelty: an organism capable of conditioning to a response class will respond to novel stimuli, ie stimuli that have not been encountered before, but that are "sufficiently like" the prototype of the response class. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: A Touch of Thermo
    ... A few weeks ago I reread Ilya Nemenman's "Fluctuation Dissipation Theorem ... One of Nemenman's main points is that the transient response of an organism ... the structure of the learning algorithm implicit in response profiles. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Bickham, _Scene and Structure_
    ... >that could be witnessed if the transaction were on the stage. ... > - Response must also be external in the same way. ... > - For every stimulus, ... >The rule being that you present the internalization to the reader...when ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)