"Tim Tyler"  wrote in message
news:c8aldg$18ta$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> Perplexed in Peoria  wrote or quoted:
> > "Guy Hoelzer"  wrote in message
> > > in article c8114q$2bc6$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, Perplexed in Peoria at
> > > jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net wrote on 5/13/04 4:42 PM:
>
> [self-organized systems]
>
> > > > Is this variation heritable?
> > >
> > > Well, let me first answer this question in general terms.  If these
systems
> > > don't have mechanisms for reproducing themselves then the traditional
> > > meaning of heritability would not apply.  However, it is not clear to
me
> > > that the essence of heritability is lost in such systems.
> >
> > ***********Emphasis added (jm)
> > > I would argue
> > > that persistence of form and function, and conservation of momentum,
> > > effectively represent the essence of heritability from one moment to
the
> > > next in dynamical systems lacking reproduction.
> > *********** [...]
>
> > I suspect that I may be in disagreement with you on the emphasized
> > part, or else you have merely expressed yourself incompletely.
> >
> > First, I agree with you that some systems (notably biological species,
> > ecosystems, and perhaps some self-organizing systems) exhibit a
> > feature very similar to heredity, even though they don't reproduce
> > in the usual sense.  The systems in question are long-lived and are
> > potentially immortal.  They exhibit autopoiesis and growth.
> > They may fission, but the essence of this "heredity" is not
> > persistence through a fission, but rather persistence from moment
> > to moment during the "life" of the system.  Or rather
(here begins
> > the disagreement), that is PART of the essence.
>
> The term "heritability" implies the existence of generations.
>
> However the existence of distinct generations should not be taken for
> granted in biology: there could - in principle - be an ecosystem that
> evolved - and yet consited entirely of a single large organsm that
> maintained its structural integrity - and never died or reproduced.
>
> So the implication of "generations" in the term
"heredity" is
> a fundamental mistake.
>
> Strip out that implication and what is left?
>
> Persistence of information over time is what remains.
>
> IMO, it is such persistence that is fundamental in biological forms -
> not the mal-defined term "heritability".
>
> > Mere persistence of form and function is not enough.  There has
> > to be a kind of "memory" of past states and past contingencies.
> > It is not enough that past states be similar to present states.  You
> > need to have past states being _causal_ of present states.
>
> The inertia of a moving particle *is* causal of future states.
>
> The pattern of rivers that develops on a landscape *is* causal
> of the same pattern in the future.
>
> Which way a vortex turns and where it is located *is* similarly
> causal as far as the future state of the system goes.
>
> > Simple SO systems don't have this property of heredity,
> > though more complicated ones might.
>
> A moving particle seems to have this property to me.
>
> The universe remembers its own state from moment to
> moment.  Information storage is basic and fundamental -
> though the degree of persistence over time can vary.
>
> Living systems preserve information with great fidelity
> over large spans of time.  Most other dynamical systems
> are less effective at preserving information.  If you
> are trying to preserve information an important step
> is making lots of backup copies of it - and only living
> systems have really mastered that trick.
>
> "Autopoiesis" and "growth" are definitely not
needed, though -
> since a simple moving particle exhibits the phenomenon.
>
> I.e. I agree with Guy - and disagree with Jim.
> -- 
We seem to be in agreement that there is some concept -
call it "heredity", "persistence", or
"memory" - that is important
for "complex systems" in the same sense that heredity is
important for neoDarwinism.

I think that we can also agree that there are two concepts that
might be considered for this role - a broad concept and a
more narrow one.

The broad concept that you favor includes the momentum of
a particle; the speed, location, and sense of rotation of a vortex;
the position and momentum of a billiard ball; and the pattern
of river beds.

The narrow concept that I favor would include the sense of
rotation of a vertex; the location of billiard balls that have
fallen into a pocket; and perhaps some aspects of a pattern
of a river bed (maybe the count of the number of meanders).
But it would exclude your other examples.

My concept requires that the information be digital rather than
analog, and (this is admittedly somewhat vague) that it be
Weismannian rather than Lamarckian.

Which concept is more useful - yours or mine or both?  Which,
if either, deserves to inherit the term "heredity"?  Not worth
arguing over at this point - neither of us has much more than
intuitions to go on.
---
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 5/17/04 10:32:17 PM