<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Glen -<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a6439074-a793-887e-c962-ff75a6f32b88@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">"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.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>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" (<i>Psychology: </i><span class="one-click-content
css-1e3ziqc e1q3nk1v4"><i><span class="one-click"
data-term="the" data-linkid="nn1ov4">the </span></i><i> </i><i><span
class="one-click" data-term="performance"
data-linkid="nn1ov4"> performance </span></i><i> of an </i><i><span
class="one-click" data-term="act" data-linkid="nn1ov4"> act
</span></i><i> or </i><i><span class="one-click"
data-term="actions" data-linkid="nn1ov4"> actions </span></i><i>
</i><i><span class="one-click" data-term="without"
data-linkid="nn1ov4"> without </span></i><i> </i><i><span
class="one-click" data-term="the" data-linkid="nn1ov4"> the
</span></i><i> </i><i><span class="one-click"
data-term="performers" data-linkid="nn1ov4"> performer's </span></i><i>
</i><i><span class="one-click" data-term="awareness"
data-linkid="nn1ov4"> awareness </span></i><i> or </i><i><span
class="one-click" data-term="conscious" data-linkid="nn1ov4">
conscious </span></i><i> </i><span class="one-click"
data-term="volition" data-linkid="nn1ov4"><i> volition.</i>)</span></span><span
class="one-click-content css-1e3ziqc e1q3nk1v4"><span
class="one-click" data-term="stimulation" data-linkid="nn1ov4"></span></span></p>
<section class="css-171jvig e1hk9ate0">
<div class="css-1o58fj8 e1hk9ate4">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. <br>
</div>
<div class="css-1o58fj8 e1hk9ate4"><br>
</div>
<div class="css-1o58fj8 e1hk9ate4">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. <br>
</div>
<div class="css-1o58fj8 e1hk9ate4"><br>
</div>
<div class="css-1o58fj8 e1hk9ate4">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?<br>
</div>
<div class="css-1o58fj8 e1hk9ate4"><br>
</div>
<div class="css-1o58fj8 e1hk9ate4">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?</div>
<div class="css-1o58fj8 e1hk9ate4"><br>
</div>
<div class="css-1o58fj8 e1hk9ate4">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.</div>
<div class="css-1o58fj8 e1hk9ate4"><br>
</div>
<div class="css-1o58fj8 e1hk9ate4">- Steve<br>
</div>
<div class="css-1o58fj8 e1hk9ate4"><br>
</div>
<div class="css-1o58fj8 e1hk9ate4"><br>
</div>
<div class="css-1o58fj8 e1hk9ate4"><br>
</div>
</section>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a6439074-a793-887e-c962-ff75a6f32b88@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>