Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA21912 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 7 Jul 2000 04:03:37 +0100 Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 13:01:32 +1000 From: John Wilkins <wilkins@wehi.EDU.AU> Subject: RE: Jung and Haeckel and a response to JW. To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk In-Reply-To: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIOECMCHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: <MailDrop1.2d7j-PPC.1000707130132@mac463.wehi.edu.au> X-Authenticated: <wilkins@wehiz.wehi.edu.au> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 05:47:15 +1000 ddiamond@ozemail.com.au (Chris
Lofting) wrote:
<I wrote>
>> > The two
>> >theoretical views are not a matter of semantic or dichotomous
>> >definition; they are two quite different models of how biology
>occurs,
>
>In response to the above from John Wilkins, in *expression* these
>models are seen as different and that seems to be where you are IMHO
>'stuck'. When you look BEHIND the expressions we find common ground, a
>SAMENESS, in that their perspectives are like windows onto a
development
>process. YOU CANNOT ESCAPE YOUR BIOLOGY! You can try and deny it, claim
>that mind is 'free' of brain and has nothing to do with neurology (get
>drunk sometime...), but the principles of evolution with its emphasis
on
>SAMENESS and DIFFERENCE affect us at all levels and as we have
developed
>we lose sight of the sameness and focus on the differences -- that is
>what differentiation does -- but over time we 'return' to the beginning
>in the form of RE-intergration and that is where we discover the
>sameness BEHIND differences and in particular the use of metaphors to
>particularise our neurology's favouring of processing objects and
>relationships.
>
>From a developmental perspective (using the template distinctions)
>Darwin moves from a reactive bind to bound to bond to blend and at that
>point the development becomes PROACTIVE but follows the same pattern
>except that the main emphasis from an observer's point of view is in
the
>spaces INBETWEEN species and that is what Lamarck saw and so led to the
>belief in acquired characteristics; structural changes in one
>generation.
I still can't parse this, so I have no idea what you are saying. But if
you are telling us that Darwinism and Lamarckism have some deep
identity, I must disagree entirely. The fundamental point of Darwinian
evolution is that variations that are random with respect to the
selective gradients in play are sorted out through generations by
selection. The fundamental point of (one of three types of) Lamarckism
is that variants arise non-randomly relative to the fitness functions
that are or are about to come into play. Gary Cziko aptly (forgive the
pun) summarised the difference as Selection versus Instruction.
The other two variants of Lamarckism are soft-inheritance (the passing
on of adaptations within a generation to later generations), which also
falls under Instruction and progressive or directional evolution.
>
>> >and they are not in the sort of opposition that textbooks often
>suggest.
>
>damn right, and if you read *carefully* the emails I made that point
(my
>original email re Darwin/Lamarck was about the use of OR in one of the
>articles you mentioned about to be published where I emphasised that
>there is cooperative emphasis that emerges in dichotomisations that
most
>seem to have not reached yet).
But there *are* dichotomies to be found. Darwinism is not necessarily
progressivist, Lamarckism is. Darwinism is not consonant with directed
variation (but it is with biassed variation). Soft-inheritance is the
least important aspect of Lamarckism, but it, too, is not consonant with
certain characterisations of modern theory that go by the name of
"neo-Darwinism" or "ultra-Darwinism" (both of which, in my view, are
faux classifications). It is just that it is not contradictory to
classical Darwinism.
>
>>It is possible to be a Lamarckian Darwinian, if the relevant
definitions
>>are clear enough (for example, Darwin accepted both the inheritance of
>>acquired characters and the effects of use and disuse on the
propensity
>>of a trait to be inherited).
>
>Again, my point "if relevant definitions are clear enough" IOW if they
>are described in the lexicon of Darwin rather than Lamarck; we seek to
>maintain the purity of our perspectives since our perspectives are,
from
>a neurological position, OBJECTS, self-contained, encapsulated, and so
>we will use properties of the underlying patterns which for objects
>includes the favouring of purity, of 'them' vs 'us'. This is denial and
>is VERY useful in that we use it in Physics to 'ignore' wind
resistance!
>However, it has its 'down' side where everything is seen as in a single
>context and since there is in fact a hierarchy present in the neurology
>so perspectives can become 'warped'.
The problem with the "lexicon of Lamarckism" is that it obscures the
processes really going on. We all have this naive view of culture and
biology, and to say that a population of either kind evolves because it
"wants" to is to present a non-explanation and think that we understand
the situation. Yes, there may be some translation manual that gets us
from Lamarckian terms to Darwinian ones, but very often there is no way
to get from Darwin to Lamarck. A large amount of the debate over modern
Darwinian views based on game theory rests merely on the use of
anthropomorphic language like "strategy", "selfish/altruist" and so on.
It may be useful for pop science, but it obscures the actual causes.
What, for example, is the "strategist" in evolution? In my reply to Nick
Rose in Journal of Memetics
<http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit/1999/vol3/wilkins_j2.html> I argue
that the only strategists are evolutionary biologists, echoing Ghiselin.
Organisms may only have strategies if they have the requisite cognitive
apparatus. Yet, many people seem to think that there is something almost
mystical about strategies, as if explaining an evolutionary event in
terms of them is the final word. It isn't - we need to understand the
causal mechanisms that we are subsuming under the strategy.
It is too fraught with misunderstanding to say that Lamarckian and
Darwinian explanations are equivalent. For a start, Lamarckism is not an
explanation.
>
>Our ideas take on the SAME characteristics as our typing of
>personalities; ideas have personality simply because we use the SAME
>methods of analysis!
>
>DO you understand any of the above? if not, in what way *specifically*
>do you find problems -- list them please as this is useful in proving
me
>wrong. :-)
I have the same trouble reading you as I do semiotics - after struggling
through much of the language (much of which is idiosyncratic and
non-standard) I either find falsehood or truisms. Hence I suspect that
your language is not doing you any favours, as I am sure there is more
to your ideas than this. I think it was Einstein who once said that any
idea you cannot express in simple language and less than 100 words is
one you don't understand yourself. By that measure, I do not understand
anything I say. Learn from my example.
--John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research Melbourne, Australia <mailto:wilkins@WEHI.EDU.AU> <http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html> Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
=============================================================== 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 Jul 07 2000 - 04:04:20 BST