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



> It is important to realize that the entity which "processes information
> intelligently" and which "learns" is not the individual creature.
> It is the species of creatures.

Definitely. Well taken. When I say, "the elephant" in referring to its
specie, some would take that to mean just one elephant. Thank you.

> In fact, this kind of "learning", this "internalization", takes
> place even if the individual organisms have no sensory capabilities.

Yes. My point exactly. In a perfect world we would have another
word to distinguish between physiological "learning" and congnitive.
Just for now, how about clearning and plearning? (:>). The distinction
becomes important.

> The SPECIES can "sense" that the environment is cold and getting
> colder even if the individual ORGANISMS that constitute the species
> are clueless regarding temperature.

This strikes me as an abstraction with no useful purpose or connection to
me, so if it is not I would appreciate explanation as to how and why.
>
> Keeping clear in your mind the distinction between what the SPECIES
> does and what an ORGANISM does ... well, it is crucial, IMO.

Understood. Yes, I do get the important distinction.

> Species evolve, organisms do not.

This, for me, is wrong. I'm not saying YOU are wrong. I am just saying
it totally contradicts for ME what does make sense to me. Hopefully
you are the kind of thinker who does not take that as a personal insult.
I like your thinking just as it is, and am willing to be persuaded. What
makes absolute sense to me I have written at another string. And I will
get off this one, if that is your wish... and just make my own string on
the issue. No offense intended. But I cannot learn what, for me, refutes
what I see when I look at certain facts.

>Species ADAPT, though they do so by placing ADAPTATIONS into
the individual organisms.

This statement is totally distortive to me. I can see no way that a specie
does anything to an individual. It may be a useful metaphor, if there is
no clearer one possible for describing the dynamic. In my own string I
am trying to do precisely that. If you read that I would welcome your
input based on the YN filter concept.

> some chance of confusion here, because, using a second meaning of
> "adapt", individual organisms also are said to "adapt" - changing
> within their own lifetimes. But most people have no trouble with
> the fact that "adapt" is used in two senses - you can almost always
> tell from context which sense is intended).

Perhaps I could say that you were a fool, and most people would
understand that I meant I do not concur with you on something. You
and I might know I respect you and esteem your ideas highly. But I
do not call you a fool. Instead I try to articulate the issue unambiguously
for any and all -- even though it takes more words.
>
> If I have completely missed the point of your posting, well, sorry
> about that. Try again, if you wish. Maybe it will be clearer if
> you make it shorter.

I feel you are quite intelligent and quite reasonable. What I am up
against in my own mind, is an intense desire for getting some things
crystal clear that are NOT clear in ANY source I have read. And I do
believe I am intelligent enough, and objective enough, and reasonable
enough to know when I see people arguing over issues that may not
be real issues at all but are SEMANTICALLY. And the semantical conflicts
often come from linguistic artifacts that are rooted in what were
older misconceptions. Just as in having a computer program with a lot
of bugs, one can do WORK AROUNDS. Just as you and I could work
around an understanding that I might call you a fool every time I disagree
with you on anything... knowing merely admire, appreciate and yet
disagree and we could work AROUND that. But is it not better that I
solve the bug, by saying I respectfully disagree?

g


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fundamental theorems, dilemmas, fitness, and information.
    ... >>> colder even if the individual ORGANISMS that constitute the species ... > and react to that perception becomes captured in the genome. ... evidence that has been reconstructed from the past. ... > my point about the species being able to learn, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Fundamental theorems, dilemmas, fitness, and information.
    ... >>> It is the species of creatures. ... > and who have limited themselves to, a strictly evolution theoretical point ... > learning by populations is reflected in the ... >>> place even if the individual organisms have no sensory capabilities. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Fundamental theorems, dilemmas, fitness, and information.
    ... >> colder even if the individual ORGANISMS that constitute the species ... This is a standard idea. ... and react to that perception becomes captured in the genome. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: How Can Evolution Change the Number of Chromosomes?
    ... related to the number of chromosomal rearrangements, with mules being ... so reduced that the possibility of fertility is rare enough that a mule ... What is, or isn't a species ... One can argue that the real things are individual organisms, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Global warming
    ... the time span of "right now" I will attempt to agree or disagree. ... responsible for the elimination of DDT from the environment. ... I'm not one to get suckered by "cute" species. ... I must disagree with anyone who will not concede that we humans are ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)