TO: Glenn
FROM: Rog
Hi Glenn,
ROG:
I recall the reading the drunk on the sidewalk analogy (I think in the
argument's for and against evolutionary direction in an earlier book by
Wright called the Moral Animal????) In general I agree with Gould in it.
There is no inherent direction to evolution, but the limiting boundary (of no
complexity and organization) combined with its very randomness, leads
statistically to the likelihood that some things are sure to get more
complex. Given enough time, the drunk is bound to cross the street without
any intent to do so.
GLENN:
First Peck claims that life is a miracle because evolution itself should
not occur given that it runs counter to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
(that the universe is running down and self-organizing mechanisms should
be impossible because of that). The reason that thinking is flawed,
Gould points out, is that Earth is not a closed system but is constantly
being bathed in energy by the sun. So as long as the sun is shining,
planet Earth can buck entropy. (Pirsig doesn't think it's the sun,
because if you leave a chemistry professor out in the sun too long it
will turn him into a decayed blob of chemicals.)
ROG:
The difference of course is explained in complexity theory via dissipative
structures. These are naturally occurring structures formed in flows of
energy and material that form out of complex mixtures of positive and
negative feedback. A whirlpool is a dissipative structure, as are catalytic
loops made of self-catalyzing chemicals that form easily in shallow pools and
that evolve the ability to reproduce and repair themselves. Dissipative
structures can (as there name implies) dissipate entropy. Complexity theory
was fairly young, and unfocused when Pirsig wrote Lila, and I can excuse his
ignorance.
GLENN: (quoting Peck)
Peck: "Inside the pyramid I have placed an arrow to symbolize this
thrusting evolutionary force, the 'SOMETHING' that has so successfully
and consistently defied 'natural law' over millions upon millions of
generations and that must itself represent natural law as yet
UNDEFINED." [caps Glenn's]
ROG:
I believe the undefined law is simply a result of self amplifying feedback
loops as identified over the past 30 years or so in complexity and chaos
theory. This science has yet to be integrated well with evolutionary theory,
but it will soon imo. (Read Robert Wesson's *Beyond Natural Selection*)
GLENN:
To students of the MOQ, this "undefined something" should sound eerily
familiar. It's what Pirsig calls Dynamic Quality. Pirsig, like Peck,
believes that laws of nature need to be violated or circumvented
for life to express itself. Only in this way can atoms form chemistry
professors and birds fly into the sky. In typical bizarro fashion,
Pirsig proposes that we measure the degree of evolution of an organism
by the degree to which it disobeys the law of gravity. (Presumably we
could only measure things this way after Newton, since he created the
law of gravity and gravity itself.) Therefore birds are more evolved
than chimps or slugs. I'm sure he thinks the Indian's reverence for
birds also gives this idea credibility.
ROG:
That is the problem with using DQ as a way to quit asking questions.
Sometimes we stop asking too soon. The God = DQ group certainly have my
respect (and there are a lot more of them than will admit it), but I humbly
refuse to follow. (Interestingly, I think Wright uses a similar argument to
Pinker to not dismiss higher level questions just due to the potential of
infinite egress)
GLENN:
Clearly, Gould's is a simplified explanation and it has come under
attack from Robert Wright, who wrote a book called Nonzero (2000).
Wright's thesis is that evolution is driven by non-zero sum games, in
which symbiosis between organisms in nature, and people and institutions
in society, wins out over a dog-eat-dog world of zero-sum games with
only winners and losers, and this is responsible for getting the world
to where it is today. On the issue of directionality, Wright and Gould
agree that new genes are generated randomly, but Wright believes
the odds of that gene surviving are greater if it results in a more
complex organism, whereas Gould believes there is no preference for
complexity. Wright says that Gould ignores mechanisms that propel
evolution toward complexity, such as "arms races" amongst organisms.
See www.nonzero.org/newyorker.htm
ROG:
As stated yesterday, I think they are both right. Evolution is indeed
random, and arms races (which are a destructive form of self amplifying
feedback loops) do indeed lead to complexity. The point is simply that
increased complexity is not necessarily of higher evolutionary quality. Nor
is it necessarily of lower quality. If Gould is right it still leads to
Wright's conclusion that complexity and order are inevitable. Eventually the
drunk is gonna cross the road. Eventually, there will be some complex
structures or organizations that are stronger and better adapted than their
less complex counterparts. In biology, the beneficial thing is that the
complex and simple due not have to be in competition. They can both
flourish. In addition, they can form symbiotic relations or an ecosystem.
GLENN:
Wright doesn't claim any need for a mystical force to drive evolution
toward greater complexity, but in an email exchange between Wright and
Steven Pinker about Nonzero, Pinker suggests that it could be read
that way, depending on how much you read into the meaning of goal-
orientedness.
slate.msn.com/code/BookClub/BookClub.asp?Show=2/1/00&idMessage=4515&idBio=143
It's a very interesting topic. I wonder how much Roger's book is going
to end up sounding like Wright's Nonzero?
ROG:
I don't quite follow either Pirsig or Wright to the goal orientedness
conclusion. (Though in Pirsig's defense, an undefineable goal isn't much of a
goal). I do agree with both though that more complexity and organization and
versatility and dynamicness are inevitable..at least statistically. This is
kinda like the inverse of the second law (which is also a statistical law,
not a teleological law).
To be specific, when two patterns mutually benefit from interaction (in SOM
terms), the patterns can tend to repeat that interaction. If so, you get a
self amplifying feedback loop that leads to explosive growth in that pattern
of interaction until eventually counteracted by other forces or entropy
itself. The positive sum feedback loop of particle attraction makes the
infinitessimally weak force of gravity (temporarily) overcome electromagnetic
entropic effects that are 10 to the 43rd power stronger, forming galaxies and
stars. Planets form from the self amplifying gravitational effects of random
particle collisions, life forms from the self amplifying effects of catalytic
loops, society (partly) from the win/win interactions of individuals, science
from the feedback between ideas, etc.
To be honest, Wright's Non Zero was the catalyst that allowed me to see this
pattern. I have almost no argument with him on the social level. Societies
DO interact and therefore do both compete and cooperate with each other. I
am pretty much convinced that increased complexity and higher forms of
organization and higher levels of moral interaction do tend to occur, and
when they do occur they either compete with less organized cultures or they
disseminate their good ideas. (By the way, isolated societies such as ancient
Tanzania do not necessarily advance -- in fact archeologists show they lost
complexity over time). In the discussion with Pinker, Pinker pretty much
agreed too. I am with Pinker though that this is not DESTINED in normal use
of the word.
The social level is only one level of my book though. I also explore these
concepts in the inorganic level, the biological, the intellectual and of
course the ethical. Also, partially through insights supplied by Pirsig, I
am able to see patterns that escape Wright and that may appear alien to more
"SOMish" views.
Thanks for the great discussion and awesome link. As you can see I both
value Pirsig and question him and his conclusions.
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:21 BST