Re: Evolution increases the computational ability of organisms.

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

On Sep 21, 5:53 pm, dkomo <dkomo...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Arkalen wrote:

On Sep 21, 5:22 am, dkomo <dkomo...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

r norman wrote:

<snip top for brevity>

There is a lot of argument here over misreadings.

1. I agree that there is a natural tendency of evolutionary systems
(i.e. complex adaptive systems capable of some form of evolution) to
exhibit instances of ever greater complexity with time. That is, the
most complex outliers will fall farther and farther out on the fringe.
2. This tendency for the extremum to grow with time can be considered
a "natural law" or "universal principle".

3. This is no way implies that there is a "directed evolution"
towards complexity. It in no way implies that all or most or the mean
or the median will increase in complexity. It only implies that there
will arise some individuals of greater and greater complexity.

4. In the same natural course of things, those more complex (and
eventually more intelligent) individuals will exert a greater and
greater influence over the entire system and appear to be far more
significant in the scheme of things than might be otherwise expected.

5. In the same natural course of things, those most complex and
intelligent individuals will acquire self-awareness and then believe
themselves to be the be-all and the end-all of all creation, the
purpose for which the entire universe was created so that all
evolution was an inexorable move to produce ..... ME!

This is a plausible hypothesis, but there's nothing new in it. It's SOS
(same old ***). The old paradigm. It's classical, hard core, and
strictly by the book. It's the received view.

I wouldn't call it the "received view". A received view is something
people think intuitively, and I suspect more people intuitively see
teleology in evolution than don't.

I ran across the term "received view" in Sterelny's and Griffith's _Sex
and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology_. In fact they
title Chapter 2 of their book as "The Received View of Evolution", and
go on to list the current dominant ideas about evolution, as well as
challenges to those ideas.

I love the term and have been using it for quite some time. I use it to
refer to the dominant set of theories, interpretations and unspoken
philosophical assumptions in evolutionary theory. The term has a
certain irreverence about it. It uses the word "view", as in outlook,
or, to me, model or set of models, emphasizing that the current models
in evolution are relative outlooks upon the living world, and not to be
clung to with too much reverence, such as what I see in this newsgroup.
It also uses the word "received", pointing out that these models are
passed on from the older generation of biologists to the younger via
classroom teaching and textbooks.

In short, "received view" is a great term IMHO. The following
definition brings in the idea of a contrasting view to the dominant one.
It's a defintion which is appropos to the discussion in this thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_view

'A "received view" refers to any worldview that is taken for granted or
that is assumed to be true without further criticism by the part of the
"receiver" - until he or she manages to "unhide" it, e.g. by getting to
know another contrasting worldview.'


If we take the notion that evolution implies progress and that humans
are at the pinnacle of this progressive journey (towards us...unlike
apes or Geico cavemen we evolved) as the populist view that dominates
or has dominated, that would to me be the "received view" and measures
of progress (or singular direction) like "computational complexity"
merely reinforce a preconception.

The Gouldian view is the one that challenges the reader to shed their
preconceptions (everything from inherent progressivism and the
adaptionism that goes hand in hand).

And amongst the more scientifically oriented crowd, such as the ev
psych / memetics folks around the water cooler the focus is on
adaptionism. That is the "received view" amongst that ilk.

To me this complexity focusing is merely a conceptual atavism to a
simplistic view of evolution.

So yes, I like the idea of "received view" as I just turned it back on
you.


Turnabout is fair play, eh? The trouble is that what you are arguing for is in fact the "received view" in evolutionary biology: that progress is an anthropomorphic illusion, that growth in complexity is a diffusion process, that life's history is highly contingent and accidental, and that the great majority of traits of organisms are due to natural selection (adaptionism or, more appropriately, panadaptionism).

Harshman would heartily endorse these views, and r.norman would, I believe, join in support. Hell, throw in the other experts here too, as I can't think of a one that wouldn't go along, including Wilkins.

What you tried to call the received view is more appropriately called the "populist view", which, <sarcasm> as we know, isn't worth a ***. </sarcasm>


--dkomo@xxxxxxxx

.