From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Mon Oct 18 2004 - 20:29:33 BST
On 16 October 2004 5:44 PM Jim writes to Platt, Mark, Scott...
Hi Platt, Mark, Scott ...
the context of random in terms of evolution means that mutations are
supposed to occur without purpose. This is because they are imagined to
arise through copying errors in cellular replication or through
environmental factors (radiation, chemical mutagens...) hence they occur
without any regard to consequence. Whether there are other causes of
mutation a different matter, but given that such purposeless mutations
*do* occur it is currently considered as sufficient by biologists to
drive the variations required for evolution by natural selection: the
deciding factor is that they are survivable and are advantageous. As I
have said elsewhere, given the tangles that evolution does get into, I
have little reason to believe that there is anything other than an
essentially purposeless, haphazard variation involved. This fits the
dictionary definition of random perfectly.
<snip>
Hi Jim, Platt, Mark, Scott....
I appreciate the depth of your scholarship on the issue of 'random'. But I
have further questions. Is random only a scientific principle? Are
individual scientists falsifying their evidence only exhibiting 'random
mutation acted on by natural selection'?
Can evolution as an inquiry into morals mean 'the random mutation acted on
by natural selection' is different for each level? Is that definition, then,
a dogma covering different levels? E.g., if the organic level is formed of
DQ purpose (I eat) then a purposeless mutation in the organic level is only
immoral, and the individual ceases. A purposeful mutation prepares for the
social level.
Is morality meaningless or only a sense of betterness? Can a child know what
is moral?. IMO 'the random mutation acted on by natural selection' applied
to the level of DQ is a definition or limitation of DQ. How can I know the
random without DQ SQ? Is DQ a useful formulation or should it be abandoned?
Do I identify 'the random mutation acted on by natural selection' to be the
individual? Is there is no basis for a rational morality, only likes and
dislikes?
IMO If I deny evolution into moral levels, I can only know 'the random
mutation acted on by natural selection' for existence. If existence is the
measure of order must I say that women and men have a different existence?
That mind and matter have a different existence? If everything is the same
in terms of existence, are mind and matter hopelessly separated and 'value'
not to be considered? Is 'the random mutation acted on by natural selection'
only a description of an intellectual pattern (unfinished s/o) and changed
by 'the random mutation acted on by natural selection'? Is the moq 'the
random mutation acted on by natural selection'?
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Ledbury" <jim.ledbury@dsl.pipex.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 4:58 PM
Subject: MD Randomness & Evolution
> Hi Platt, Mark, Scott ...
>
>
> the context of random in terms of evolution means that mutations are
> supposed to occur without purpose. This is because they are imagined to
> arise through copying errors in cellular replication or through
> environmental factors (radiation, chemical mutagens...) hence they occur
> without any regard to consequence. Whether there are other causes of
> mutation a different matter, but given that such purposeless mutations
> *do* occur it is currently considered as sufficient by biologists to drive
> the variations required for evolution by natural selection: the deciding
> factor is that they are survivable and are advantageous. As I have said
> elsewhere, given the tangles that evolution does get into, I have little
> reason to believe that there is anything other than an essentially
> purposeless, haphazard variation involved. This fits the dictionary
> definition of random perfectly.
>
>
> Randomness as used as a modelling tool in statistics is a different
> matter. It simply means that we are not interested per se in the causes
> for variations in initial behaviour, we simply assume that there is a
> certain distribution of tendencies and run with it. Whether or not we can
> attribute an underlying cause for the distribution is generally
> immaterial. The turn of a dice or the fall of the balls in the UK lottery
> is assumed to involve sufficient mixing of initial conditions that an even
> distribution of outcomes is an article of faith, although it can be backed
> up (or refuted) by statistical analysis.
>
>
> In physics, randomness is asserted at the quantum level. Some
> interpretations of quantum mechanics state that the outcome of a given
> experiment is actually globally determined. It's just we can never access
> the global information necessary to determine the outcome of a given
> experiment, so we are forced to assume a random albeit weighted outcome.
> Other interpretations say the randomness is intrinsic, so we end up doing
> the same calculations anyway. Here I would add that 'consciousness'
> obviously does have an influence on QM randomness as I end up typing the
> keys I want to (usually).
>
>
> 'Random' number generators used by computers are actually deterministic
> algorithms, frequently involving modulo arithmetic, and are correctly
> termed pseudo-random. They just give a decent distribution for modelling
> say dice throws or card orders in games but not for instance in deriving
> the keys for encryption where decent analysis will uncover the fact that
> the 'random number' generator is not actually that random. There are
> web-sites devoted to providing a better set of random numbers than are
> produced by the bog standard random number generators available to most
> computers (http://www.random.org/). The best description of a random
> distribution is rather subtle and requires that there is no simpler
> description of the distribution than the set of random numbers themselves
> (as opposed to a generating function). This has no bearing on the
> assertion that evolution is random.
>
>
> Randomness in chaos is down to the existence of 'strong mixing' in strange
> attractors. This is similar to random number generators discussed in the
> last paragraph but all it means here is that arbitrarily small differences
> in initial conditions ultimately lead to vastly different end points (the
> so-called butterfly effect). Mathematically this is modelled by
> completely deterministic formulae, but is generally taken to completely
> independent of quantum mechanical randomness (although a different
> formulation of QM could I guess make use of strong mixing) and in any
> case has absolutely no bearing on what is considered to be the random
> nature of mutations as the source of evolution. Even if the world is
> wholly deterministic, the cause of genetic mutation is completely without
> regard to the consequence of the mutations so can safely be presumed to be
> haphazard, purposeless and hence 'random' - unless you want to get into
> universe spanning manipulators of fate, which personally I don't. I don't
> believe in the synchronicity espoused by Jung to explain the utility of
> the I Ching either.
>
> I accept the possibility of purposeful manipulation of the genetic code on
> a cellular level as determined by the cells themselves (neo-Lamarkism): I
> just think it would inevitably be incredibly shortsighted therefore not
> much better than randomness if at all, but given the actual existence of
> random, purposeless, haphazard mutations as opposed to a hypothetical
> puroposeful adjustment, I am comfortable with this as an explanation for
> evolution.
>
> In short, I'll accept the assertion of "random mutation acted on by
> natural selection" as a reasonable working hypothesis, and I don't think
> I'm being dogmatic about it. :-)
>
>
> Regards,
> Jim.
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 18 2004 - 21:42:23 BST