[FRIAM] Few of you ...

[Steven A Smith]

Glen -
> "Automism" is a funky word.  But if it means something like knee-jerk reaction, then I get it.  The important question you ask evaluates negative, though.  No, nothing "is what it is however it comes to be."  This is an instance of the logical abstraction layer I've been mentioning (that has no traction, apparently).  To violently slice a thing out of its context and then assume that thing has some existence, reality, effect, etc. separate from its history, is just plain wrong.  At the very least, the speed with which the "automism" was programmed in, the extent to which it's tethered/bound to things outside it, and the speed with which it could be deprogrammed are all violated by the slicing out.

I haven't stayed on top of the thread(s) closely of late to know
precisely what you refer regarding logical abstraction layers, but in
this context, I'll bite quite happily.  

I don't know if "Automism" is a reserved term in Nick's Lexicon, it
seems to be.   I'm also wondering Nick, if you might have meant
"Automatism" (/Psychology: //the ////performance //of an //act //or
//actions ////without ////the ////performer's ////awareness //or
//conscious ////volition./)

That said, I think the point of your (Glen) abstraction layers is the
kind of abstraction scaffolding that happens with every bit of
exaptation?   A structure (or autonomic process/behavior) emerges as a
response (adaptation) to some particular evolutionary pressure/condition
which in turn becomes highly useful in solving a challenge unrelated to
the original?   The *robustness* of the structure/process that made it
useful/useable in the first place is a key to it's fitness in the second
(exapted) case.

Two (possibly disproven/lame) examples: A proto-sea-mammal develops a
thick layer of blubber to  obtain neutral bouyancy, but ends up being
able to expand territory to more northerly seas due to the insulative
effects.    A proto-herd-dog develops an obsessive behaviour of trailing
it's human closely to avoid missing any opportunity to scavenge
foodscraps but then  is much more prepared to be imprinted on keeping
close track a herd of livestock. 

The classic example in biology might be the self-organization of 
phospholipids into bilayer sheets, vesicles, micelles and supermicelle
structures.   If protolife researchers (e.g. Packard and Rasmussen) use
some more directed technique for building a vesicle for drug-delivery,
will it not nevertheless function enough like an "empty" vesicle created
by statistical self-organization?

I *think* this is roughly what Nick is referring to about with "it is
what it is"... this qualitative chunking, this level of abstraction
being robust enough to be useful, not "just" a trick of semantics?  I'll
try to respond to your "Premature Ontologizing" separately, but they are
entertwined?

I know I'm flailing a bit here... but I'm trying to find some traction
on at least your (Glen) and Nick's terminology to either connect it or
co-align it or reject it as appropriate.

- Steve



> So, one of our cats died on Wednesday.  She went in for exploratory surgery to investigate a mass that was preventing food from moving from her stomach to her intestines.  It was a pyloric adenoma the surgeon saw no good way to fix.  So we killed her.  The important question is: To what extent did we destroy any happiness, good will, comfort, etc. by putting her through a 2 week process of changing her diet, forcing barium down her throat, poking her for blood draws, etc?  She was a super happy cat for ~5 years.  But her life ended in terror and pain (despite the relatively humane way we did things compared to what it could have been).
>
> If, paraphrasing, she is what she is however she came to be, then she was a terrified and suffering animal and the 5 preceding years were entirely washed away by the 2 week ending.
>
> On 1/16/19 5:06 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
>> As a good friend, I would like to gently chide you for the implicit assumption that a the assignment of any behavioral automism to a particular physiological cause makes it more plausible as an automism.  It is what it is however it comes to be, isn't it?   Could it not have been imprinted in the few minutes after the puppies first opened their eyes and later transferred from Mom to owner as part of a normal developmental process?  Either way, it now is a behavioral automism, and like all behavior is the result of a physiological machine operating in a physical environment.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20190118/97739976/attachment.html>