Re: James Mark Baldwin: "A New Factor in Evolution"

r norman wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:03:37 +1000, John Wilkins <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> <snip discussion relating this mathematics to the Baldwin effect>
>
>>Let's say it takes time T1 and >resources R1 ....
>> ... It takes time T2 and resources R2 ...
>>
>>If (T1+R1)>>(T2+R2) then ...
>
>
> This is the problem with philosophers trying to get all quantitative.
> It has the appearance of precision argument but none of the trappings.
> For example, you can't add T1 to R1 unless both are expressed in the
> same units of measurement. Therefore your mathematical expression --
> and your entire argument -- does not make sense.

It's not meant to be a mathematical expression, just a conceptual one - no
quantativity implied. I am ignorant of the notational conventions, of course.
Replace it with

If (T1,R1) >> (T2, R2)

[point made in email by Tom Marlowe, a Real Mathematician...]
>
> <snip discussion of humans inverting the Baldwin effect, replacing
> genetically determined behavior with learned and culturally acquired>
>
>>The problem with using the human case is that it is in effect begging the
>>question. Most species are not cultural, and the cost of having a
>>culture-ready brain is nontrivial. So far as I can tell, only some passerine
>>birds, cetaceans, primates and a few others are cultural. It *is* true that
>>culture can more quickley evolve, but then you also have the costs of error
>>correction and transmission time per individual lifetime. For example, if all
>>humans had to have PhDs in order to reproduce, I bet the species would go
>>extinct pretty rapidly...
>
>
> Exactly. That is why humans are so successful. For whatever
> evolutionary reason, we have paid the enormous infrastructure cost of
> evolving a culture-ready brain capable of enormous feats of learning
> and memory. And it has paid off enormously in producing a species
> capable of debating its own existence on talk origins (among other
> benefits).

What is the fitness benefit to that, I wonder?
>
> And if humans had to have PhDs in order to reproduce, then our
> graduate schools would necessarily have to expand enormously. Just
> think of the job opportunities!
>
It might make the supervisor-candidate relationship clearer, of course...

--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: James Mark Baldwin: "A New Factor in Evolution"
    ... <snip discussion relating this mathematics to the Baldwin effect> ... <snip discussion of humans inverting the Baldwin effect, ... >humans had to have PhDs in order to reproduce, I bet the species would go ... evolving a culture-ready brain capable of enormous feats of learning ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Baldwin Effect: What is it trying to say?
    ... > William Morse wrote: ... >> lactose in adult humans in several different populations of humans in ... >> suddenly made the ability to digest lactose as an adult a significant ... With the Baldwin effect, while we can guess when it is involved it may be ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: physics without math, a reality?
    ... tsk, tsk, tsk. ... Suppose you have a generation of humans, ... around them, from nature, or what ever you like to call it. ... that ultimately led to that particular mathematics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Platonism
    ... Mathematics is not identical with reality. ... The universe existed before humans evolved and conceptualized ... it is a human invention, mathematics, which represents a reality needing ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Platonism
    ... Mathematics is not identical with reality. ... The universe existed before humans evolved and conceptualized ... it is a human invention, mathematics, which represents a reality needing ...
    (sci.math)
Loading