Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA00925 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 12 May 2000 18:52:39 +0100 Message-ID: <391BFF3F.B313EEF7@mediaone.net> Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 13:55:27 +0100 From: Chuck Palson <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa? References: <391AB0E6.77967B03@mediaone.net> <00051119501509.00619@faichney> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Robin -
This is heavy stuff, and I have to think about it. My first take on it is that to take
it to its logical conclusion would be a mistake because it would prevent efforts at
science. The result should be, as usual, a compomise. But I want to think about it a
lot before I say anything for sure. It's an interesting response.
Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2000, Chuck Palson wrote:
> >Robin Faichney wrote:
> >
> >It seems plausible to me that certain events might be so
> >rare -- or even unique during a very long time period, that the possibility of
> >lining up two or three of these at exactly the right time would be extremely
> >unlikely and therefore improbable. If you get either a large complex system or
> >even a few smaller interacting complex systems, it seems to me that you could get
> >some chance events like that.
>
> You don't need *any* complex systems to get rare and even unique events. In
> fact, if they're analysed sufficiently closely, including context, because that
> determines effects, *every* event is unique. As soon as you start talking
> about repeating events, you are selecting them as similar in some ways even
> though they're dissimilar in others, and therefore bringing in subjective
> criteria. There's nothing wrong with that -- in fact, it is absolutely
> unavoidable -- as long as you recognise that's what you're doing. But to talk
> of objective probability is to ignore such factors, and therefore is
> necessarily invalid. In nature, there are no "chance events". That phrase has
> meaning only where there is the possibility of something having been intended,
> ie in human affairs. Outside of that context, its only use is to signal a
> failure of understanding.
>
> >Take the fact that the earth is in a line in the solar system which is virtually
> >unique in that it does not get many large meteors as do other planets in the
> >system (Venus, or is it Jupiter, sucks them in with their gravity field before
> >they get here) is an accident allowed the billions of years necessary for the
> >development of complex life. Every other planet with roughly our conditions
> >couldn't support complex life because meteor showers would stop the development
> >too early.
> >
> >Now it seems to me that you could say that THEORETICALLY we should someday be able
> >to understand why the earth is in that particular position if we find out enough
> >about the history of the universe. But couldn't one say that for all practical
> >purposes, we can treat it as an improbable event?
>
> Name one purpose outside of human affairs, for which it would be practical to
> do that.
>
> >Or what of the fact that a special echnoniche is needed to start a species, and it
> >gets started, but it gets wiped out by another developing predator species before
> >it gets a chance to grow in population size. How many chances can a species get to
> >develop? How many threats is it under in the area it got a chance to start?
> >Intuitively I would say that we could use the word improbable. What do you think?
>
> Sure, it's intuitive. But in strictly objective terms, it's wrong. Why do you
> want to say human evolution is improbable? The only reason I can imagine is to
> give special value to it -- exporting the concept of rarity value from the field
> of economics, in which it is perfectly valid, into natural science, in which it
> is perfectly invalid. What happens, happens, and what doesn't, doesn't. Get
> over it! :-)
>
> --
> Robin Faichney
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 12 2000 - 18:52:58 BST