"Guy Hoelzer"  wrote in message
news:cee997$1t5f$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> Hi Jim,
>
> in article ceciia$1bqh$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, Perplexed in
Peoria at
> jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net wrote on 7/29/04 9:24 PM:
>
> > "Guy Hoelzer"  wrote in message
> > news:cebk1a$10tu$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> >> in article ceb6ck$s4t$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, Infinity
Squared at
> >> infinitysquared{at}gmail.com wrote on 7/29/04 8:50 AM:
> >>
> >>> I note that another viewpoint has appeared in the
recent
> >>> biological literature.
> >>>
> >>> This is work by Allan Orr, where he has treated the
number of
> >>> phenotypic characters that describe an organism as a
measure
> >>> of its intrinsic complxity.
> >>>
> >>> This work follows on from RA Fisher's "geometrical"
model,
> >>> where he computed the proportion of beneficial
mutations
> >>> of organisms with a number of phenotypic characters.
> >>>
> >>> A question that remains open is how many independent
characters
> >>> are needed to describe an organism.
> >>
> >> I disagree with this last sentence.  What we choose to
call "characters",
> >> like "traits", are hopelessly entangled with our views
and interpretations.
> >> Parsing the bits of an organism in an information
theoretic sense, as
> >> suggested here, is relatively objective, but such
methods are also only
> >> loosely tied to the functional subdivision of the
organism.  This approach
> >> also ignores the essential functional hierarchy of
parts that constitute the
> >> organism.  I am not arguing that there is nothing to
gain from taking this
> >> approach at this early stage of trying to get a
quantitative handle on
> >> something like organismal complexity, but we should
recognize its
> >> substantial flaws and limitations and keep an eye on
where all this should
> >> eventually lead.  Ultimately, we must aim to quantify
the complexity of the
> >> organisms functional design.  The rest is just a
meaningless distraction
> >> (IMHO).
> >
> > Hmmm.  You seem to be suggesting that it is important to
> > distinguish functional complexity from structural
complexity.
> > And claiming that it is the functional complexity
measure that is
> > the significant one.
>
> I recognize that from an evolutionary or dynamical
perspective, functional
> and structural complexities are part and parcel of the
same phenomenon.  My
> concern about the application of a complexity measure like
Orr's is that we
> can be easily misled by arbitrary or biased ASSUMPTIONS
about the scales and
> numbers of parts that actually constitute the organism.
For example, I
> would argue that my liver is ONE of my parts, but it too
is certainly
> composed of many parts (cells).  IMHO it is essential to
look only one level
> down in the hierarchical organization of matter to find
the elementary parts
> of a system, but this is a highly subjective thing to do,
at least at the
> moment.  I get particularly worried about the influence of
subjectivity in
> complexity measures when I see someone like Alan Orr rely
on the concept of
> "phenotypic characters", because there are no objective or
justified
> guidelines for determining what is or is not a phenotypic
character.  Is
> having hair one character, or is each hair a character?
Given the effects
> of such decisions on the number of characters and kinds of
characters on an
> estimate of complexity, I see such claims of
quantification as resting on an
> unstable sea of qualitative assumptions.
>
> > That may be, but it suggests a conjecture:  Any apparent
structural
> > complexity which does not support functional complexity,
can be
> > found (on detailed study) to not really be very complex
after all,
> > in Kolmogorov's sense.  Such pointless apparent
structural complexity
> > probably has a very simple causal explanation.  As an
example, I
> > might point to human fingerprints or to the leopard's
spots.
>
> I understand your view, but we may disagree here.  My view
is that patterns
> like fingerprints and leopard spots are actually generated
by
> thermodynamically functional processes that burn out early
in development,
> leaving the frozen patterns behind to degrade.  This
process is very similar
> to crystallization.  I think that you could see the
function/structure
> relation as the pattern is being produced, but the fact
that the pattern
> remains long after the function has dissipated can lead to
the illusion that
> the pattern was never related to a function.  I am taking
a thermodynamic
> view here, and I am not treating function in the Darwinian
sense; although
> leopard spots add to organismal crypticity and
fingerprints are important
> for grip and sensitivity.
>
> It is not unusual for complex dynamical systems to "spin
off" frozen
> patterns, some of which may no longer play a role in the
function of the
> creative system.  Human artwork is often like this.
Perhaps a better
> example is "doodling," which functions to facilitate brain
processes in the
> creation of patterns, but which are usually discarded as
having no function
> afterwards.
>
> You may be correct that considering these frozen, no
longer
> dynamically-integrated (i.e., no longer structurally
interactive, with
> two-way feedback) phenotypic characters should not be part
of an estimate of
> current complexity.  If you bleached the fur of a leopard
would you consider
> it less complex?  Is an albino leopard less complex than
one with spots?  I
> think they would be equally complex from a purely
functional point of view.
>
> > It suggests a second conjecture as well:  Functional
complexity
> > resists compression.  Functional complexity never has a
simple
> > causal explanation (at least in terms of efficient
causality).
>
> Excellent point.  I searched for a couple of years to find
a word that
> articulates this aspect of functional complexity.  The
word that finally
> satisfied my search was "renitent."  Dictionary.com offers
2 definitions:
>
>     1.      Resistant to physical pressure; not pliant.
>     2.      Reluctant to yield or be swayed; recalcitrant.
>
> When I explored the meaning of the word, I found its
meaning to be a bit
> richer than this.  A trampoline is renitent because the
harder you push on
> it the harder it pushes back.
>
> > I don't know whether these conjectures are true, but
they seem
> > plausible to me.
>
> I'm glad to hear it.  This subject is of great interest to
me.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Guy

I'm not very clear on what is meant by "simple" in ">>
.....Functional complexity never has a simple causal
>> explanation (at least in terms of efficient causality).,"
and I have no idea what "efficient" causality is, but I
agree that, to this non-bio pro, it certainly would seem
correct that, "Functional complexity resists compression"
in practice-- but is it so in principle?

Again, while a non-pro here, doesn't the functional
complexity ultimately arise wholly from the genome, and the
evolutionary refinement of organism sub-systems,
one-upon-another, historically and as "frozen in" to the
time sequential development of the individual organism from
birth. While understanding the historical evolution of these
systems may be hard, all functionality is simply programmed
into the timed sequences of development inherent in the
genome...thus, simple in principle once the genome is
entirely functionally decoded. Would not the number of such
timed sequences and related processes be relateable to
complexity then--in theory?

Maybe I'm just semantically muddled here. I do thank you for
the word "renitent" though; it sounds like one that can be
very useful in future!  :)          ...tonyC
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 8/1/04 6:10:21 AM