[FRIAM] random v stochastic v indeterminate

[Steven A Smith]

Nick -

... continued
>
>      What is presented to the world by the epigenetic system is not
>     mutations but “hypotheses” about ways to live.  And presumably
>     epigenetic systems are shaped by natural selection to produce 
>     more or less plausible hypotheses.
>
> And what is the "hypothesis generator" in epigenetics?  Is it 
> stochastic or deterministic? (and what examples of epigenetics are you 
> thinking of?)  Is "plausable" the term you want, or is it more 
> "utilitarian"?
>
> */[NST==>What exactly do we imagine a “mutation” to be …nothing more 
> or less than a change in one or more letters of the code, or the 
> surprising change in the morphology or behavior of the creature that 
> results?  The epigenetic system has to “make” something of the code 
> change. There are gene editing mechanisms and error correction 
> mechanisms, and switches, on and off.  Drop one letter of the code and 
> the organism cannot make melanin;  but a lot of work has to be done to 
> turn that mishap into a “white bear.”   <==nst] /*
>
Yes, a "mutation" to the genome is a change in one or more letters of 
the code.   A "mutation" in the metabolic processes implied by said 
genetic sequence (a changed protein, a modified level of production of 
an unmodified protein or set of same, etc.) and ultimately in the mature 
phenotype (if the precursors to this are viable enough for a mature 
specimen to arrive?) and beyond that the larger social unit 
(herd/pack/tribe) that might benefit or suffer from the behaviour of the 
individual experiencing the mutation. Add individuals with a mutation in 
their bone-production that causes extremely large cross-section bones 
and thick crania into the Vikings and you get (what has been 
hypothesized to be) Berserker warriors who drop into a blind rage when 
their blood pressure rises in response to threat.  As long as they are 
pointing *toward* the enemy when that happens, it is (maybe) highly 
functional for the group to have you around?


> *//*
>
>       The randomness is largely notional.
>
> I do think that "random" is a very loosey-goosey concept (like so many 
> we call out on this list), but whether the variation is produced by 
> random processes, pseudo-random processes, or merely processes with 
> appropriately broad distribution functions,
>
the point is that the variation is not correlated with the selection 
process in any significant way.  I think THAT is what *I* mean by random.
>
> */[NST==>did you complete that thought? I am eager to know where you 
> were going with that sentence.<==nst] /*
>
>
  I'm acknowledging that "random" is at least relative in most cases.  
If we go down to the quantum level, it takes on a more meaningful 
meaning but I would claim one that requires much more sophisticated 
discussion to penetrate.  I would claim that this is the kind of 
"random" that Penrose postulates is necessary for (and explains) 
consciousness.

>        I still think you guys are more captured by your model of
>     evolution than by the actual facts of it.
>
> I think we (collectively) are guilty of this all of the time, though 
> in the spirit of "all models are wrong, some are useful" I'm not even 
> sure I know what a "model-free" fact might be?
>
> */[NST==>Oh, no, Steve.  WAY too broad a brush.  The problem is that 
> you in danger of using the same model to explicate your understanding 
> of the phenomenon of evolution as you later use to explain how 
> evolution came about. <==nst] /*
>
BTW, I think you are conflating my words with those of the larger 
group.   I don't think I've ever tried to even suggest "how evolution 
came about", because that description doesn't even make sense to me... 
evolution "just is" .

I'm looking forward to Dave West's condensed summary of "Arrival of the 
Fittest".

- Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170811/a1c6bd4f/attachment.html>