Re: The driving force of evolution

On Aug 9, 3:08 pm, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"J.A. Legris" <jaleg...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1186682204.844467.138520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Aug 9, 12:00 pm, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"J.A. Legris" <jaleg...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1186670220.261424.14290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Aug 9, 9:59 am, "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"J.A. Legris" <jaleg...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1186665318.024728.194450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Aug 9, 3:03 am, forbisga...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 8, 6:46 pm, "J.A. Legris" <jaleg...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The price of the paper is the first valid criticism posted here.

So says you, but it has become clear that you're an idiot. There is
nothing
Earth-shattering in the paper. It is hype. Did I mention that you're
an
idiot?

If you really believe I'm an idiot, then I must be on the right track.
Have you read the paper yet? I suspect it's free for you. You might
email a copy to Wolf.

I did not say that I "think" you're an idiot, or that I "believe" you're
an
idiot. I said that you were an idiot.

Close enough. You're still my favourite negative example of an
effective pedagogue.

I've educated more people than you ever will. You think that because I can't
change the behavior of a blockhead like you my pedagogy is ineffective? You
are truly an idiot.



So anyway, Nei makes an interesting observation, which is that viewing
evolution in retrospect can resemble a teleological stance: here we
have a phenotype, let's see if we can rationalize its descent.

Gould used to make exactly that point, though he did not misuse the term
"rationalize."

The
next step of the slide into teleology is: how can we evolve from
phenotype X to the goal of phenotype Y? This is fine for animal
breeders who control the selection forces, but in the wild such forces
are both unknown and possibly unknowable. In contrast, phenotypes and
genotypes can be observed directly and it is from them that we infer
the forces of selection. Again, mutation has primacy over selection.

Sorry, the last sentence makes no sense. Is Nei an idiot, like you?



The generalization of Nei's conjecture to behaviour is irresistable,[]

I'm breathless.

especially now that I have your attention. As you know, contingencies
of reinforcement can be intentionally manipulated to shape behaviour
quite effectively, but in natural settings, we often have to infer the
contingenices from the behaviours (do you perceive a very ugly analogy
beginning to stir?

What I perceive is what I always have; you don't have a clue how most of
science works - especially the sort of science that is relevant to
understanding behavior and many other biological phenomena. But the problem
here is exacerbated by your lack of perspective on both behavior analysis
and applied behavior analysis.

Something about propositional attitudes? Don't
worry I won't go there).

Good, because that's a worthless pile of mentalistic drivel.

Analogously to neutral mutations, within a
given niche there is a lot of behavioural variability among members of
the population. But every now and then a big change occurs that
becomes a fixture in the culture not because it was selected by
prevailing contingencies (there may have been no intermediate
reinforcers, in any case they are effectively unknowable too) but
because of a fortuitous combination of emitted behaviours that
happened to fit the niche and provided access to some previously
unobtainable reinforcer. So, it is not primarily the selective action
of reinforcement that created the new behaviour, it was the creativity
of blind luck, subsequently reinforced.

We have no reason to say that the variation was uncaused. And since
variability can be controlled in the laboratory, we have good reason to
believe that it has a cause, whether we can show that or not. And even if it
is luck, it is worthless without the contingency that "provid[ed] access to
some previously unobtainable reinforcer." So let's see, then, what we have
here: We have no reason to suspect that the variation is uncaused, and every
reason to suspect that it was not. Even if the variability among the
descriptive and functional operant can be viewed as somewhat random (and I
think that is likely) the new instance of behavior is not, in some sense, a
member of the response class produced when it is reinforced. You, and
probably Nei (weren't there a bunch of knights that used to say that?),
think that you have found something profound by slipping "primarily" in
there. But I can say that the "rogue response" is not even a blip in the
absence of the contingency; it is the contingency that has created the new
response class since, as I said, the original response is not really a
member of that response class since its etiology is different than the
members that occur subsequently.


Nei observes that the variation within a population is largely neutral
- purifying selection has, on average, removed 85% the deleterious
mutations. Furthermore, genes do not operate as independent units,
they interact in complex interdependent ways over many possible
pathways. He suggests that these pathways are robust and resistant to
both deleterious and advantageous mutations because of the redundancy
that comes with complexity. So how do they evolve? Nei hypothesizes
the "major effect mutation", and one way I can see this happening is
by sex - each parent provides a set of proven, robust genes and every
now and then we get a superb combination that would be extremely
unlikely to evolve gradually because there are just too many pot-holes
in the fitness landscape. Neutral variation provides islands of safety
between the holes and genetic crossing-over provides bridges between
islands, which are new and creative opportunities for selection to
operate.

Analogizing behaviourally, is it the contingency that creates the
response class or the other way around?

--
Joe

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The driving force of evolution
    ... idiot. ... have a phenotype, let's see if we can rationalize its descent. ... breeders who control the selection forces, but in the wild such forces ... of reinforcement that created the new behaviour, ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: The driving force of evolution
    ... idiot. ... breeders who control the selection forces, but in the wild such forces ... of reinforcement that created the new behaviour, ... member of the response class produced when it is reinforced. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Homo Sexual
    ... There is much less selection going on, ... or a village idiot? ... a concrete jungle". ... Knock one on the head and compare their IQ. ...
    (misc.fitness.weights)
  • Re: OT John Kerry being chewed out by Don "drugs & fraud" Imus
    ... All you bush bashers.....look at this and tell us why this Idiot ... was your selection for prez.... ... That's like having Pat Robertson and Ted Haggard lambast your morality. ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)