From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Thu Jan 18 2001 - 19:39:51 MST
Daniel,
If evolution is entropic, that makes extropians anti-evolution.
Sorry, that doesn't compute. τΏτ
Stay hungry,
--J. R.
3M TA3
Useless hypotheses: consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind,
free will
----- Original Message -----
From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: That (not so) idiot Darwin
> On Wednesday, January 17, 2001 11:14 AM J. R. Molloy jr@shasta.com
wrote:
> > > At first glance, this is somewhat similar to the argument in
_Evolution
> > > as Entropy_.
> >
> > Yes, it has some parallels, I suppose. Anyway, for me to feel
comfortable
> > with this terminology, I'd like to see the term extropy correspond to
> > evolution, and entropy to devolution. That makes more sense to me. The
> > only kind of evolution that I can see as entropic would involve a
change
> > in the meaning of evolution such that it implies a movement toward the
> > heat death of the universe. To me, that connotes the devolution of
> > complexity.
>
> This seems to be more an argument from intuitiveness than anything else.
> That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. Even so, what Brooks and
Wiley
> are getting at is that a lot of biological phenomena including evolution
> (they also treat ontogeny and other phenomena) can be explained as
instances
> of increasing information entropy.
>
> Also, you seem to restrict "evolution" to progress. I would not equate
the
> two. Over time, evolving systems usually become more complex, but this
does
> not necessarily mean each component is all that complex. Think of
parasites
> that lose everything but the ability to latch on to a host, feed, and
> reproduce.
>
> "Devolution" is a term I would hardly use at all because it seems
arbitrary.
> Is the equine line losing toes an example of evolution or devolution?
What
> about birds losing teeth? The cetaceans adapting to an aquatic
environment?
> See what I mean? To me, it's evolution, but then all changes over time
at
> that level are, to me, evolution in action. I might be inclined to
restrict
> "evolution" to stuff that is irreversibly changed. Thus, extinction is
more
> evolutionary than, say, those moths in England changing color. The
former
> is permanent; the latter transitory -- i.e., the color trait is
reversible.
> (Of course, I would not use devolution at all.)
>
> That said, I'm a bit afraid of even doing that since it would bias
> evolutionary theories in favor of ones that use thermodynamics, such as
the
> Brooks-Wiley one or Wicken's. (We haven't gone over Wicken here. I
forget
> the reference right now.)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Daniel Ust
> http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:05:02 MST