Re: 2. Nested Verses Intersecting Sets of Fitness
- From: johnhewitt22@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:36:44 -0400 (EDT)
Hi John,
Again I don't fully understand what you are saying but my main,
immediate concern is to try to grasp the possible relationship between
your perspective on evolution ond my own, which is bioepistemic
evolution.
Bioepistemic evolution is a multilevel selection scheme, though I use
the word rank to avoid the rather arbitrary definitions of levels that
are sometimes used in the scientific literature. There are five ranks
to bioepistemic evolution, running from rank0 to rank4 - in sequence
they are prebiotic evolution and the origin of life, genetic evolution
based on nucleotide base sequence data, darwinian machines, associated
with the brain and sense organs and the origin of sensory knowledge,
social evolution, where the selecting agent deliberately transmits
information to another group member and the origin of social
knowledge, such as language, and selection via agreed codes, which is
evolution as the origin of knowledge validated through those agreed
codes. These various levels are designed so that they necessarily run
in temporal sequence and are differentiated by the type and source of
data input used by the evolving system in question and by the location
and nature of the selective agent involved.
Incidentally, because of its relationship to my own work, I have
thought about this question of nesting but I currently lean to the
view that I do not think the ranks of evolution I describe can be
entirely nested - even though I do think that they can be treated as
being approximately nested for some purposes.
What I want to elicit from you is the relationship between the kind of
rank ordering that I describe in bioepistemic evolution and the
selection scheme implicit in your own nested sets. You seem to be
saying, as do I and several other people, that evolutionary data
processes can be can be arranged into some sort of hierarchy. The
problem I am trying to get clear about is the definition of your
hierarchy and how you apply that to understanding the real world
products of evolution.
I would like to know how many levels of nesting you need for human
evolution and how you define the boundaries around each of your nested
sets. Also, I would like to know how you approach the definition of
the separate elements that exist within each of those sets; it occurs
to me that these elements might include the units of selection, which
you mention; they might also include describing the fundamental data
processes that are applicable to each level, though in the latter case
I would not be comfortable with describing a data process as an
element in a set.
Finally, I would note that your comments about Hamilton did not
identify any specific, biological phenomena that could be interpreted
by your proposal but which were incompatible with the conventional,
competing alternatives.
Sincerely
John Hewitt
JE:-
Hi John H,
I argue that nested sets critically apply to data processes. Just
writing a sentence which makes sense requires at least one nested
set. For example, the sentence "A bottle of wine is in the fridge" nests
the subject "wine" within the predicate "fridge" not the reverse:
The fridge is in a bottle of wine. In the same way the sentence "A
fridge pumps out heat" nests the fridge within a heat pump concept and
not the reverse. The diagnostic of any nested set is that the proposed
set nesting cannot be reversed and the same meaning maintained. A
predicate presents a super set within which a subject remains nested.
When sentences become linked a predicate may become reduced to a
subject, e.g. the fridge concept as it is linked in the two sentences
above. In this case the fridge becomes a nested sub set of a heat pump
super set. This is true for all non reversibly related subjects and
their predicates. If the relationship between subject and predicate
remains reversible then they can only present a tautology, e.g. the
bottle of wine is a fridge OR the fridge is a bottle of wine.
Tautologies are definitions. However, to make any sense they must remain
set nested within a non tautology. In the non tautologous original
sentence, in order to select one bottle of wine you must firstly select
the fridge it is in. IOW the fitness of the bottle of wine remains
nested subset of the fitness of one fridge.
The example I commonly use to demonstrate empirical nested sets are
books of stamps. Like the computer loop example, this example can
separate "additive" from "non additive" (note that these terms are
commonly employed within Neo Darwinism) while also demonstrating the
critical importance of this separation to natural selection. Two books
of stamps containing three stamps per book is not at all the same as
three books of stamps containing two stamps each even if the total
number of stamps remains the same. In order to be able to select one
stamp you must firstly select one book, i.e the stamps are NOT
independently selectable. In Darwinian terms the three smaller books are
fitter presented as a reproductive total than the two larger books
simply because three is larger than two. Note that within mathematics,
2*3 is considered to be same as 3*2 when empirically this may not be the
case. The commutative law of mathematics simply deletes the book
level concentrating on just the stamp level allowing an entirely
reversible type multiplication. If you translate this example into genes
and bodies, then two bodies containing three genes each is not the same
as three bodies containing two genes a piece even if the same number of
genes have been replicated into one population in each case. IOW, gene
centric Neo Darwinism may not be able to differentiate between them when
very clearly, Darwinism demands that it has to be able to. Set nesting
is not used within mathematics or Neo Darwinism allowing gene centric Neo
Darwinistic theories which present _contradictory_ levels of selection.
In
particular, how do you make use of these ideas in interpreting real
observations
If all gene fitnesses remain set nested within one fertile body fitness
then genes cannot be proposed as independently selectable as Hamilton et
al stated that they could be. Almost all of Neo Darwinism remains based
on Hamilton's "inclusive fitness" proposal which allows a fertile body
fitness to be selected to be reduced but only because a proposed
"selfish" gene within it increase in fitness. IOW, fertile organism
reproduction was proposed by Hamilton to be able to be reduced as a
_selectable fitness altruistic act_ using Hamilton's mathematics because
fitness selfishness at a lower gene level obtained a benefit inevitably
=A0 pitting genes against the very bodies they are within. Even if genes
can independently segregate at meiosis this does not allow the Neo
Darwinian inference that somehow, genes have an independent fitness
within nature. =A0The opposing view which is not discussed within Neo
Darwinism is the more simple view that I propose: gene fitnesses remain
critically nested within a single fertile body fitness excluding the the
reverse as a falsification (Hamilton's evolution of altruistic fertile
body is prohibited). The gene centric view is actually poly-centric. It
allows just about anything as a valid unit (level) of selection, i.e.
genes, cells, organs, infertile individuals, fertile individuals, groups
and
meta groups. This became possible only because _nested sets of fitness
remain deleted from Neo Darwinism_. If they are reintroduced
multi-levels are prohibited.
Darwinian nature is not at all interested in maximizing gene
replication, just fertile body reproduction where these events are not
at all equivalent.
and, finally, does your approach lead to observably
different predictions when it is compared with conventional theory?
My nested set of fitnesses proposal only allows a _single unit of
selection_ within an entirely falsifiable mono-centric Darwinian
proposal. However, Neo Darwinism assumes a multi-unit of selection
approach using a mathematically based non falsifiable poly-centric
proposal.
I really can only ask you again, have you assembled your ideas into
one place and made them available in a form that people like me can
read or even cite?
I have asked you this question before but you did not reply; I do
assume that the absence of a reply implies that you have not done so,
which seems a shame.
So far I have not placed my ideas in one place for public view. I
provide parts of my views for criticism within sbe and the discussion
group "critical rationalism". When I consider I have a theory which is
sufficiently complete I will publish it.
Many thanks for your continued interest. Please don't hesitate to ask
hard questions and provide criticism.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
ed...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: The rebellion of the ant slaves
- Next by Date: Paper: Reactive oxygen species as universal constraints in life-history evolution
- Previous by thread: Re: 2. Nested Verses Intersecting Sets of Fitness
- Next by thread: Re: 2. Nested Verses Intersecting Sets of Fitness
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
