Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA26749 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:17:08 +0100 From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Darwinism/Lamarck -- reply to question 2 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 01:31:16 +1000 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIMEAFCHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <IAKEIILKCOLGKBAA@my-deja.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Scott Chase
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 June 2000 7:36
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: Darwinism/Lamarck -- reply to question 2
>
>
>
> --
>
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:10:35 Chris Lofting wrote:
> >
> (serious snippage for brevity sake)
> >
> >The recent studies of the human immune system, a biochemically dynamic
> >system, lean towards this area of study, the space in-between
> alien objects
> >and the defence network (T-lymphocyte developments etc). The
> immune system
> >is closer to a relational process than a structural process and so more
> >easily interpreted along 'Lamarckian' grounds).
> >
> >
> Is this a passing reference to Ted Steele and his colleagues work
> on possible retroviral shuttling of cDNA (or mRNA?) corresponding
> to re-arranged and hypermutated antibodies in somatically
> selected lymphocytes to the germ-line through Weismann's barrier?
Yup.
> If this notion bears fruit, I still think it is confined to the
> immune system (mainly because of the peculiarity of
> immunogenetics in that the somatic configuration of
> immunoglobulin genes differs from the germ-line configuration due
> to re-arrangement events and hypermutation which generate
> antibody diversity and improved affinity for antigens).
Sure. My argument is re interpretive methods and the 'attraction' of one
perspective or another. In any highly dynamic relational system (especially
in a 'difference-to-difference' context as in the immune system), some of
the interactions, due to their 'immediateness', and so a seemingly
copperative process seemingly allowing for aquisition of characteristics one
generation to the next, favour a perspective that has a teleological
componant; this is often expressed in the form of an analogy (and so a
degree of implication of 'other' connections) rather than simile (just
notice the pattern but not go past that, no implications just 'coincidence')
and can become a metaphor than then, to some, is taken literally.
If we view things from a Darwinian perspective then the change with these
sorts of systems is in energy (very intense) and so a *time* variation;
I would suggest that as a gene/individual/species etc gets more and more
intergrated with the context (or asserts its preferences in competition with
others to take-over the context, assert their own context) there is a
cross-over in behaviour from reactive to proactive. I propose that this
results from an internalisation of the context in the form of a map (an in
local relationships). This map can than speedup development processes
through the increase in feedback due to the ability to predict and so
pre-empt context events. (note I emphasise behavioural/dynamic processes
rather than base structural changes)
The form of the map can be local by marking and then mapping waypoints or or
just points of contact to others, i.e. chemical maps to immediate
environment etc) but these local distinction markings can lead to the
emergence of a non-local map as a result of each local distinction links to
other local distinctions etc; this is a bit like flocking in birds where the
local distinctions-making of a particular, functional in all particulars,
leads to the emergence of synchronised processes at a more general level.
(can also be analogous to neurons synchronisations such that a network works
'as one'). Observation of these sorts of processes can lead to a more
Lamarckian perspective seeming to be 'attractive'; moving to mapping
increases social awarness and so methods of interpretation that are 'social'
in form, more focused on the space-inbetween objects than the objects.
This mapping allows for behavioural activity at the local level that works
like a wave through all/some members of the group/species without 'intent'.
Intent can emerge where the behaviour is 'successful' in part or whole such
that it is intentionally repeated; first time through is 50:50 chance,
feedback after the event ensures repartition.
These dynamic processes are reflected in sociological processes that can be
'observed' at the cell level (consider some of the recent articles at the
cell level with a tie to what is usually considered a social behaviour
'higher' up -- cell altruism in the form of suicide (apoptosis).
Allsop, T.E., and Fazakerley, J.K. (2000)"Altruistic cell suicide and the
specialised case of the virus-infected nervous system" IN Trends in
Neurosciences Vol 23, No 7 [265] pp284-290
Kuan, Chia-Yi., et al (2000)"Mechanisms of the programmed cell death in the
developing brain" IN Trends in Neurosciences Vol 23, No 7[265] pp 291-297
The question is whether there is 'altruism' or else the best method of
description is one that includes altruism and so a SOCIAL conduct, an
implied awareness of 'other' cells rather than a single self-contained cell
'doing its thing' and the interference patterns created are the source of
'meaning'. Add in the local-distinctions-leading-to-waves-and-generals (i.e.
flocking, synchronisations etc) and all of a sudden you DO have a system
that allows for interpetations we call 'Lamarckian'; recall that to get
through a wall you use a wave and the 'wall' is the germ-cell barrier and so
this mode of thinking allows for the 'coming to mind' of such concepts as
germ-cell modifications in 'realtime' since walls can be passed-through and
so acquired characteristics emerge as a 'possible'.
Get into quantum mechanics and you get into potential 'gene correlations'
where closely linked genes (or parts of) 'spontaneously' mutate but not due
to 'radiation' etc but due to the change in one gene's 'twin' or ' cousin'
inside the individual but the other side of the germ-cell barrier. This DOES
get into aquired characteristics etc and even gets into 'tunnelling' of
information 'snippets'. The only block on the dynamics of this is the
drop-off rate of the probability of the affect occuring, 1/2^n where n is
the correlation (0 = self or identical twin, 1 = siblings, 2 = parents etc
etc) This gets into 'way out' concepts of spontaneous 'mutations' within a
species in one generation where the sum of the correlations = 2.
(1+1/2+1/4+1/8..... correlations to other gene pool members. This gets into
'purity' etc and there are studies into this sort of 'communciation' based
on using identical twins, clones etc, note that the emphsis is on LOCAL
influences, individuals, that can propagate 'down' and 'across' the family
tree; waves).
All of this has nothing necessarily 'true' in it, but the concepts are
properties of the METHOD of analysis where focus shifts from BEHIND to
BETWEEN which is the area of dynamic processes. This perspective, more
linked to Lamarck than Darwin, is a perspective that 'belongs' to relational
thinking where we focus on the space-inbetween objects.
People will find 'resonance' with some of these ideas since their thinking
'fits', they are biased to that form of thinking just as Darwin was more
'object' and 'in/behind' the species and Lamarck was more 'relationships'
and 'in-between' the species. (note that it seems to be the space inbetween
that is the source of most transformations).
I'd also
> be quite tempted to stress the Darwinian aspects of the somatic
> selection itself (BTW wasn't it Wilhelm Roux who had some sort of
> intraselection notion toward the turn of the last century?).
not aware -- a ref?
> Dawkins happens to cover Steele's earlier ideas in _The Extended
> Phenotype_, but I have no idea whether Dawkins has looked at any
> of the more recent work. I've put this interesting topic on the
> backburner, but hopefully I can return to it sometime and tease
> out some threads which intrigued me before. Aside from Steele's
> ideas in themselves there are molecular evolutionary topics which
> stem from retrotransposons and processed pseudogenes. It's
> possible that the retrovectors are about as close to a Darwinian
> gemmule as anyone will ever see (that is of course given that
> Steele's theses are fruitful).
>
> Of course maybe the gene feedback angle is at least
> neo-Lamarckian in itself taking us back also to Piaget and his
> views on phenocopies for possible comparison/contrast which I'm
> WAY too rusty to attempt any time soon :-( (Joe?) Nonetheless,
> from a memetics (or a history of ideas perspective) there are
> some possibly interesting areas for pursuit.
Oh yes. For example My brief analysis of the genesis of Peirce's, Freud's
ideas etc brings-out the underlying biases determined by the
neurology/psychology and 'fit' the same patterns we see expressed in
Darwin's and Lamarck's modes of thinking.
I am not so much interested in the expressions as in their structure and HOW
we could come up with these formats as well as come up with formats such as
Astrology, Tarot etc etc
This has led to the 'discovery' of a common ground in form of the seemingly
invariant method we use to process all information and establish meaning;
species-wide with local differences. The idea is to understand the method
more; flesh it out and so detect samenesses and differences. From that it
allows us to 'refine' our models; add some depth, seperate chaff from wheat
:-)
Along not too
> dissimilar lines, a recent read of Ernst Haeckel's _The Riddle of
> the Universe_ and _The History of Creation_ got me kinda stoked
> on the theory of perigenesis and the supposed units of
> plastidules Haeckel envisoned and drew comparisons and contrasts
> to Darwin's ideas of pangenesis/gemmules. This ties into the
> whole organic memory analogy. Just 'cuz ideas have belly-flopped
> doesn't mean they aren't interesting from an historical
> perspective. BTW, noticing your discussion of Jung, are you aware
> of Haeckel's influence on him?
No I wasnt, any particular refs or just the above?
OK, I've rambled enough :-)
>
> BTW, Is meitosis a spelling of mitosis which I'm not familiar with?
>
yes -- phonetic form :-) (slightly aussie-accented of course)
best,
Chris.
===============================================================
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 : Tue Jun 27 2000 - 16:18:00 BST