Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 06:56pm PT
|
Lately, I've been leaning toward software concepts as accounting for the lion’s-share of the fundamental principles for life.
It doesn't take much. With a few simple rules John Horton Conway produced a universe. The potential of The Game of Life and its software implementations are used as analogue to our physical universe in the book by William Poundstone, The Recursive Universe. It is surprising what can grow out of such a seemingly simple seed.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 12, 2016 - 06:59pm PT
|
Some time back the distinction between awareness and consciousness was noted, but that's gone by the wayside.
-
This conversation - save for a few holdouts - derives entirely from mechanical physical processes, and since awareness itself is not an external object (though some, amazingly, claim it is, sans evidence), it is useless in the pursuit of mind-independent "reality."
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 09:03pm PT
|
eeyonkee, a lot of those amazing patterns (a) that are basic / fundamental, (b) that occur again and again again across various domains (c) that you're posting about.. are just those patterns that are commonly studied in our various (scientific) disciplines, are they not?
A few examples from hundreds just for context...
(1) from physics... fusion (as a pattern), orbits (as a pattern), spherical formations (as a pattern)
(2) From chemistry... formation of atoms (C, N, Ne; each a pattern), formation of molecules (diamond, graphite; as patterns)
(3) From biology... phospholipid membrane (as a pattern); simple amino acid formation (as a pattern)
and on up, in ever higher systems of common components.
Or did you have something else in mind?
....
There is a book, 19th century pretty sure, Dawkins would bring it up, indeed I have it in my personal library somewhere, maybe you know it already and can remind me... it's quite extensive, it's all about physical design and form... and recurrent patterns... across nature. It's on the tip of my tongue, it should come to me. Perhaps it describes sort of what you have in mind re basic patterns (even pre-bioevolutionary) in nature?
Presently, William Paley is running interference in my mind.
...
Ha, ain't google and amazon just grand?! Found them... author and book... it's a classic. I studied in 95 I think it was inspired by Dawkins...
On Growth and Form, by Darcy Thompson
https://www.amazon.com/Growth-Form-Complete-Revised/dp/0486671356/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468383200&sr=1-1&keywords=darcy+thompson
Wiki actually has a page... Patterns in nature... where I was reminded of Thompson and his book. Actually it's quite extensive and impressive... I'll have to give it more time later...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature
So I don't know if some of this - these impressive recurring patterns in nature at a very basic level - is some of what you're musing about?
In the case of such subjects as the growth of eggs, skeletons, and crystals, Thompson cited mathematical authority: these were matters of "economy and transformation," and they could be explained by laws governing surface tension and the like. (He doubtless would have enjoyed the study of fractals, which came after his time.) In On Growth and Form, he examines such matters as the curve of frequency or bell curve (which explains variations in height among 10-year-old schoolboys, the florets of a daisy, the distribution of darts on a cork board, the thickness of stripes along a zebra's flanks, the shape of mountain ranges and sand dunes) and spirals (which turn up everywhere in nature you look: in the curve of a seashell, the swirl of water boiling in a saucepan, the sweep of faraway nebulae, the twist of a strand of DNA, the turns of the labyrinth in which the legendary Minotaur lived out its days). The result is an astonishingly varied book that repays skimming and close reading alike. English biologist Sir Peter Medawar called Thompson's tome "beyond comparison the finest work of literature in all the annals of science that have been recorded in the English tongue."
Scottish biologist D'Arcy Thompson pioneered the study of growth patterns in both plants and animals, showing that simple equations could explain spiral growth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Arcy_Wentworth_Thompson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Growth_and_Form
So Basil... it's rules, mechanistic rules, all the way down.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 11:16pm PT
|
But we do know how evolution has shaped ethical systems,
please inform us
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 11:41pm PT
|
Thanks sycorax, im still reading that one
Well: while was fashioning
This creature of cleaving wing,
The Immanent Will that stirs and urges everything
VII
i like IV and V too.
he's got a great statue II!
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 11:43pm PT
|
Like a worker bee.
MH+2 or MH2+1
which do you like better?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2016 - 11:45pm PT
|
reading R.A. Fisher one takes away a much greater appreciation of the role of genetic variation in evolution, quite different from the effects of mutation.
The rate of increase in fitness of any organism at any time is equal to its genetic variance in fitness at that time.
Genetic variance is a consequence of the DNA, and the "particles" of genetic information (in addition to its stability as Schrodinger conjectured). Genetic mutation depends on environmental factors. While Darwin and others of his time focused on mutations, the implications of Mendel's theory of inheritance (as rigorously described by Fisher) point to the genetic variance as the essential element in natural selection.
Fisher derives the "rate of progress of a species in fitness to survive" based on the genetic variance, and the assumption of random mating.
While the statistics is rather elementary (but probably not for participants in this thread), Fisher points out that it "...puts us in a position to judge of the validity of the objection which has been made, that the principle of Natural Selection depends on a succession of favourable chances. The objection is more in the nature of an innuendo than of a criticism, for it depends for its force upon the ambiguity of the word chance, in its popular uses. The income derived from a Casino by its proprietor may, in one sense, be said to depend upon a succession of favourable chances, although the phrase contains a suggestion of improbability more appropriate to the hopes of the patrons of his establishment. It is easy without any very profound logical analysis to perceive the difference between a succession of favourable deviations from the laws of chance, and on the other hand, the continuous and cumulative action of these laws. It is on the latter that the principle of Natural Selection relies."
The house always wins... even though everyone is playing a "game of chance." This is an important insight which puts to rest the popular idea of "random evolution."
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2016 - 09:38am PT
|
The house always wins... even though everyone is playing a "game of chance." This is an important insight which puts to rest the popular idea of "random evolution."
Inherent in this is the implication the house has an agenda. If we are to accept a shaded chance or a directed randomness then let's meet the director. What is the source of such direction? Certainly not chance in the traditional sense as "the house always wins."
But we do know how evolution has shaped ethical systems,
please inform us
Sure. Humans are social beings like a variety of other species and are inclined to social interaction. However, that social interaction has been mediated by reason and the intellect driving reason to the extent that some deny, through their ethical systems, the notion of evolutionary success. You might make the argument such folks still stand within the evolutionary process but I would say they have stepped aside from success within that process precisely because they have reasoned its faults. When a gnostic finds the flesh nothing more than a prison for "consciousness" read the soul, that gnostic is stepping away by choice from the opportunity for evolutionary success. Is that not removing yourself from the agenda of evolution?
The social structure of bees is genetically determined: a drone is a drone not because it has been exposed to the Gospel of St. Thomas, but because its genes have determined such.
What you're ignoring here is the power of the human intellect to override what is determined by nature. And isn't that what makes us humans so great.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2016 - 10:26am PT
|
Indeed, what is the house?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2016 - 11:08am PT
|
Is that not removing yourself from the agenda of evolution?
No, that's simply aiding and abetting selection by removing yourself from the pool. Can you sure, but there's no way to remove yourself and whatever is unique about you from the equation regardless of opinions on 'agenda'. Just another form of Darwin at work and slower than suicide, but the same net effect from an evolutionary perspective.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2016 - 11:17am PT
|
No, that's simply aiding and abetting selection by removing yourself from the pool. Can you sure, but there's no way to remove yourself and whatever is unique about you from the equation regardless of opinions on 'agenda'. Just another form of Darwin at work and slower than suicide, but the same net effect from an evolutionary perspective.
This is just spin on the reality someone through an intellectual process has determined the ethical failure of life processes (evolution). If evolution is truly mindless how on earth can it have a perspective. Seems you anthropomorphize perspective or maybe you agree with the post above regarding a house always winning.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2016 - 11:40am PT
|
'evolutionary perspective' does not mean evolution has a perspective. It means looking at the topic in the context of evolution.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2016 - 12:20pm PT
|
Unfortunately I never had the opportunity to read/study R.A. Fisher. But I have known the name a long time now because Dawkins referenced him, also quoted him, extensively in his early popular works (eg, Selfish Gene, Blind Watchmaker; probably Extended Phenotype as well). Fisher was apparently a major influence in Dawkins evolutionary science and philosophy.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2016 - 12:22pm PT
|
evolutionary perspective' does not mean evolution has a perspective. It means looking at the topic in the context of evolution.
It's really so simple: if one comes to the conclusion through an intellectual process that life processes are ethically in error and chooses to refrain from participating in the selective process that would continue his genetic line that person has in effect made a moral decision against that evolutionary process. That decision is not based on some failure of the evolutionary viability of the individual but rather on those intellectual processes that demand the perception of a higher allegiance. You may see this as just another aspect of an inescapable evolutionary process, but, again, that ignores the power and independence of human reason.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2016 - 02:23pm PT
|
You may see this as just another aspect of an inescapable evolutionary process, but, again, that ignores the power and independence of human reason.
From the perspective of an individual, yes.
But evolution has to do with multitudes of individuals and long times.
Where do you think human conceptions of morality will be a million years from now?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2016 - 04:04pm PT
|
Been meaning to get back to you, HFCS. No, I actually meant true software principles. You can easily look up these software design patterns, of course. They are really about the creation and life history of (software) objects, including how those objects interact with other objects. Seems to me, you can substitute the word object with organism and now you're in the biological realm. Just contemplate the names.
Adapter,
Command,
Composite,
Decorator,
Façade,
Iterator,
Interpreter,
Observer
To me it's all about how the architecture for life has been set up. For one, small changes on the code side can result in big changes (phenotypic changes) on the real world side. Hey, I think that I just hit on one of these things that I am looking for!
Composite is one that I use all of the time in my programming and I think that it is relevant to life. Decorator means taking an existing object (organism) and giving it new properties or behavior -- another "workflow" pattern that life clearly had to have mastered. I'll have more to say about this later. Got work to do.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2016 - 04:20pm PT
|
Our design patterns originated with actual architects and mostly Charles-Édouard Jeanneret-Gris (ala Le Corbusier) who was attempting to return more contact with nature to urban experience. His effort in actual buildings were interesting; his efforts at 'urban planning' definitely met with mixed reviews.
[ OT: But then I once inherited a payment server whose design employed every design pattern known to man along with TDD (test-driven development) and BDD (behavior-driven development). This was done by one of the smarter humans on the planet. The result? A disaster that no one but very senior people could understand and the combination of TDD and design patterns ended up with insane levels of abstraction and debugging sessions where you had to 'step into' 38 levels of code and by the time you got to the bottom there was always an anonymous method. But then by the time you got to it, it didn't matter because you'd already forgotten why you were down that rathole to begin with. ]
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2016 - 04:25pm PT
|
An interesting side fact? I would be interested most of all on hearing from you about these conjectures. You have both programming and scientific experience in genetics, after all. You may be the only one on this thread.
Here's an example. The Composite pattern. You make a new object by taking potentially multiple existing objects and combining them in some way. Once the new object is made, it can be used in making even newer objects. From the perspective of the object-builder, the newly-created object is treated exactly like the original source objects. That kind of thing.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2016 - 04:32pm PT
|
Thanks eeyonkee for the reply. Among my biggest regrets is not having more time in my year to immerse myself in computer science and the latest software development (tools, methods, etc). I feel I've been missing out on the excitement. Maybe in my next life.
EDIT
Healyje, I think eeyonkee is asking for your input, as I don't have any modern programming experience or insight.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2016 - 04:45pm PT
|
Maybe in my next life.
In your next life you'll return as a genetically modified Muslim .......
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!