Talk:Evolutionary Synthesis/Future Evolutionary Synthesis

Comments on 29 January draft

Evolution is too useful a paradigm to be left in the hands of biologists.

Give this sentence a more positive phrasing. --AFriedman 01:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I think the word only should have made it into that statement... otherwise I will have to think...--Graeme E. Smith 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

From the perspective of Engineering, it is a blind prototyping system, a search mechanism, an aid to self-organization, and a key to self-programming robots.

To me it seems to be a property of systems rather than a system per se. How is it an aid to self-organization, and how does it relate to self programming robots? --AFriedman 01:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on how you use it. Blind Prototyping using the Evolution algorythm to recombine your prototypes creates a population of prototypes that gradually trends towards meeting the needs of the engineering project. This must be a system of prototyping, since it doesn't end up with a single prototype but a population of them.

Evolution in its most abstract form, (meaning the principle behind the algorythm) is an aid to self-organization because it imposes order on chaotic systems. I think this is because it is a gradient climbing effect. If the gradient is entropy as I suggest, then lower positions on the gradient indicate lower energy states as entropy cools the system. Because of the test, if the gradient climbing results in an even lower position on the gradient, say, if there is an oscillation in the gradient, then the test will fail, and that lower position will not become part of the recorded population. This is why I think there are gaps in the periodic table.

The key sometimes to self programming is to come up with a solution to the question of "What do I do next, when I don't know enough to do anything?

Evolution, through the process of genetic programming, can experiment with a population of answers to that question, and choose the best answers over time, since the computer made the decision, it is not programmed by a human per se.--Graeme E. Smith 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

From the perspective of physics, it is an indication that the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect

how? --AFriedman 01:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The main answer to this, is that there is no place in the second law as currently written for a system to exist that climbs against the entropy gradient.--Graeme E. Smith 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

and a possible connecting link to Complexity theory.

how? --AFriedman 01:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If we understand that the entropy gradient is not linear as it was suggested in the second law of thermodynamics, then we can see how a system like evolution might be able to bridge the gaps between entropy gradient reversals, and create a self-organizing system that builds complexity over time. If we understand as I know you commented in the base discussion that entropy gradients are a local phenomena, then we can see how complexity could depend on the base dimensinoality of space in the local situation, and that systems of differing complexities over time, could combine to form aggregates locally. I don't want to get too deep into this because it borders on my religion.--Graeme E. Smith 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

From the perspective of Neuroscience, it may be the only explanation for non-genetic recombination and self-organization of Neural Networks into sensory maps.

What are neural networks and sensory maps? IMO I think you should explain any highly technical phrasing. Perhaps it is a mechanistic explanation, but what could other explanations be? --AFriedman 01:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I was planning on populating this sub-page with links they should help with definition of the highly technical terms, what I was hoping the base document would do was act as a survey to indicate the breadth of the technical applications associated with evolution.--Graeme E. Smith 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In Computing Science, it is just one more heuristic algorythm, and the key to an Adaptive Macro Language.

What is an adaptive macro language and why is evolution the key? --AFriedman 01:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As you may know from your Computer Science Background, there was a movement in the past to study a programming language called FORTH, which was touted as probably having something to do with the way the brain worked. Forth is a Macro Language, in that it builds a language to do an application by creating macros of its base language and other macros already created. Research on FORTH stopped when it was realized that if you have one forth, you have one forth, there was no cross over, no self-organizing principle that could possibly arrive at a common language because each langauge became too individualized. What I am saying by mentioning evolution as the key to an adaptive Macro Language is that self-organization using an evolution-like process, can converge to a common language in much the same way that populations converge towards a common genome.--Graeme E. Smith 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

At heart, evolution is a very simple system, so simple that it may have an impact at a much earlier stage in our universe than biologists would ever think to look. The Evolution Algorythm has only three parts, and may apply as easily to the formation of elements during the big bounce, as it does to the complex structure of biological genetics. Where the future synthesis of Evolution ends, is not something we can predict today

Although Darwin made some predictions in his later works, that went so far as to connect Evolution to even social development, but didn't actually predict the linkage his theory would turn out to have to Meddelan Genetics, it may turn out that there are literally millions of Evolutionary Mechanisms involved in the development of the Universe, and the current Evolutionary Synthesis, is blind to them, because of its dependence on Biology and Genetics.

Interesting idea that evolution is not restricted to biological systems, and the appearance and evolution of life is only one of many aspects of evolution. --AFriedman 01:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: non-biologists studying evolution, in my experience many evolution papers by non-biologists lack a strong fundamental understanding of evolutionary concepts, as biologists typically have. It's taken me years to try to understand evolution and I still don't understand it as well as I would like. What often happens is that there is collaboration between a biologist and, say, a physicist. If these people in disparate fields can understand each other, more power to them. Some people also have a background in more than one area.

Just a few thoughts.--AFriedman 01:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that understanding of Evolution is a hard thing, in a culture that almost worships the second law of thermodynamics in its original manifestation. Some have said that people who have a mixed domination such as people who are ambidextrous or ambisinestral have an edge in understanding it, because evolution requires that you recognize the rules, and also recognize that they may not always apply, and this means you have to both hold the rules, in your mind, and analyze the exceptions at the same time. In Biology evolution is the rule, now, although some people notably those who are attracted to calvinism, find it more difficult to accept, but in Physics evolution flies in the face of the accepted rules, and so often only those who are open to fringe science are also open to the potential of the evolution concept to be applied outside the biological realm. In my case I am a generalist, in that I generalize across the rules of many disciplines looking for a more basic set of rules. In fact I note a distinct trend for you to demand that I become more specific in my statements, and support them more strongly in the base text. I would rather populate the statements with links that support them and leave them more general, because in my mind, the general case is the more accurate reflection of reality.--Graeme E. Smith 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I don't claim to know everything about Biology and Computer Science, and I certainly don't know about FORTH. Interesting.
   

It is a mid-level language and not usually taught except to programmers that might want to debug at the assembly langauge level.

1. My understanding of entropy is that the existence of biological systems does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics. Biological systems are open systems, i.e. they exchange energy with their surroundings. An increase in order in a biological system is more than counterbalanced by an increase in entropy in its surroundings. I don't know very much about physics, but so far you haven't explained why you have a problem with conventional thermodynamics in a way that is clear to me.
   

Believe me, it's not MY problem with thermodynamics the problem lies in the minds of the scientists working in Quantum Gravity, who because of recent research have information that the normal state of the Universe is not an equilibrium, and that therefore putting that limitation on the law, means that it doesn't apply to most situations. Evolution is merely an illustration of a place where it doesn't really properly apply. Your open system exception means that the second law, is not properly a law at all. It is when you apply evolution outside biology that you begin to see that in fact, evolution does not require an open system, it is biology that does.

1. Re: your text, I think you misunderstand my criticisms. I like to see writing that takes people through the background information for the statements you make, so others can follow your arguments better. IMO any statement you make should be be well supported by clearly written arguments and appropriate, reputable references. Please, by all means, put as many good links as possible into the sections you write, but I don't think it's realistic to expect the reader to filter through them in search of the salient points. Better to put those points into the article in addition to providing the links.
   

How big of an article do you want? I am willing to take some time to break the ideas up into a tree of articles, but each one of these applications deserves at least a page on its own. Frankly I am not sure I can afford the connection time, I just upgraded to highspeed light, and I have a 10 gig limit on Downloads that might include page content in the web browser.I won't know for sure until I get past this next months bill and see if they complain about my usage.

--Graeme E. Smith 01:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't have an answer to that question. You seem to have a lot of ideas and basically, my answer is as big an article as you would like. I understand if your time and money are limited, though. By the way, I saw you've made some very good changes on the Artificial Consciousness page. --AFriedman 21:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

1. By the way, do you have any peer reviewed publications in any academic field? --AFriedman 23:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You do tend to cut right to the essence of a problem.

The short answer is NO, it is only recently that I have been interested in publishing in peer reviewed journals, and it is also true that because I have no Formal Accreditation in any academic field getting permission to publish in peer reviewed journals may be problematic. For instance ASSC seems to have put a limit on their publications that requires a degree in a related field. (My health broke when I tried to take an apprenticeship in Heavy Duty Mechanics, it broke again when I tried to take Computer Science and I lost my Faculty, And it broke a third time when I tried to take a Computer Engineering Technologist diploma.) In short as I have said calling me academic is .... academic.

Frankly I have been unemployable for almost a decade and am getting a little long in the tooth to consider getting a degree. On the other hand, my health is still questionable, so I would undoubtedly fail if I tried. On the positive side, I have written a series of books, and if I can ever afford to edit them into a publishable format, I might have actually at some future date the right to claim authorship on them. Right now I am still trying to find someone who can read and critique them. No one locally seems to want to claim the position, and I do not have access to the academic symposiums and seminars that would let me find someone in my own field that has the background to get past my limitations in writing quality before I do manage to edit them. I am very definitely an Amateur Scientist and a freelance intellectual but nothing more. By the way, I did look at the link you suggested, and I might qualify as an associate in the Freelance academics group if they didn't want a publication list.--Graeme E. Smith 01:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your health.

I wonder if you could/would be willing to convert your work (or some of it) into computer Files and upload them here? I am not qualified to read and critique your work but if it is online, you might be able to find someone who knows more. Wikipedia also has people who are working on "projects" about various subjects, who are more likely to be experts in those fields. There might even be a Wikipedia Project Artificial Consciousness.--AFriedman 21:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

They keep saying in the literature about wiki to be bold, so when I didn't get an answer from Greg Maxwell about whether it would be a good idea, I just started building a Portal you can access it at GreySmith Institute I've been thinking about this, and I think the answer might not be in expanding the page here, so much as in creating some courseware, and linking to it, instead of this page. Since non-genetic Darwinism has a role in Artificial Consciousness it might despite its research nature be a course that would be of value to the Institute as well as WikiVersity as a whole.

Once I can figure out how to implement a Forum and a repository, I will be putting out a request for content, and a call for papers, and putting a few of my preliminary papers into the repository at the institute. One of the ideas is that when I go to publish my papers, having an institute on WikiVersity as my affiliation will either be a good thing or bad thing, so taking the chance, is just increasing the odds slightly that my work might pass through the BS filters at the journals.

OK. --AFriedman 23:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)