"Guy Hoelzer"  wrote in message
news:c85hgd$2gad$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> 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:
> > With your help, I now understand the sense in which self-organized
> > systems are said to be adaptive.  However, is there variation - are some
> > SO systems better or differently adapted than others?
>
> Sure.
>
> > 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.
***********

> For systems that do have mechanisms of reproduction, I would fully expect
> "this variation" to be heritable.

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.

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 scars of the past have to be able to constrain the ability
of the present system to adapt to the present environment.
Otherwise you don't have "heredity", IMO.

Simple SO systems don't have this property of heredity,
though more complicated ones might.  Species clearly do
have the property, though their memory is realized in the
genetics of the members.  Ecosystems have heritable
memory, which is realized primarily in the enumeration of
extant and extinct species.

Furthermore, I don't think that "form and function" are the
things to look at here.  Both of these can change due to small
perturbations in the environment, without necessarily preserving
a record in the "genes" of the system.  The key question is
whether the original form and function are restored when the
original environment is restored.  If not, then a "mutation" has
occurred.

The appearance of similar form and function in a "population"
of systems in identical environments is not evidence of heredity.
The appearance of variants in such a population IS evidence,
though persistence must still be demonstrated.
---
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 5/15/04 10:35:37 PM