[FRIAM] FW: Heritability and generative entrenchment

[James Steiner]

Another thought:

I think its important not to get locked into the view of basins of
attraction as a two dimensional construct. When there are mutiple
dimentions of change, a change in one dimension may alter the
landscape of other dimensions. In other words, any local minimum in
one direction may be coincident with a flat zone of equally viable
possibilities in another dimension of change, but drifing through that
other dimension of change alters the shape of the original landscape,
possibly changing what was a basin to a slope or peak. So "escaping"
from any one basin of attraction is really not so much of a problem,
if there are other dimensions of change still moving.

For a simple example, suppose an organism has optimized the "number of
limbs"--any mutation that changed that number would be a less viable
creature. But the "length of limbs" is still changing--minor changes
in length having little effect for this number of legs, there is no
basin, but a plateau of equally viable possibilites, with some peaks
around the edges, where limbs that are too long or too short lead to
unviable options. But, suppose that as the legs get shorter, the
usefullness of having more of them increases, so as the legs get
shorter, what was a basin in the "number of legs" landcape becomes a
point on a slope toward "more legs". Now mutations leading to more
legs are more likely to be viable. So, the organism escapes the basin,
not by a radical jump from one state to another, but by gradually
changing the shape of the landscape surrounding the basin until it
isn't a basin any more.

As the number of interrelated dimensions of change increases, so does
the variability of the landscape of any particular dimension.

So, in a system, like the DNA code that produces an organism, that has
millions of dimensions, I should think the viability landscape is a
very, very, fluid thing, indeed, and all without any "annealing" at
all.

If you add in the idea from my prior post that at this point in time
DNA may have evolved some ways of protecting its own integrity, so
reducing the scope and impact of "everyday" mutations, we create a
model where the overall multi-dimensional lanscape of change is for
the most part like a flat meadow, where the effects of most everyday
mutations are viable, punctuated with narrow spikes of unviability,
with wild, treacherous formations along the edges, where radical
random mutaion (like that caused by radiation, for example) for the
most part ruins everything, but can sometimes create something that
works.

I should also read more--I expect I'm not saying anything new, as it
seems so simple and obvious to me, and perhaps I am missing something.

Thanks,

~~James
________________
www.turtlezero.com