Guy Hoelzer  wrote 

> > Guy Hoelzer  wrote
> > 
> >>> Is chance an entity?
> >> 
> >> No.  I think it refers to cascades of causation that are not
included in our
> >> simplified models of the way systems work.  In some cases our
models exclude
> >> most cascades of causation that are manifested in nature, and we might
> >> attribute a large role to chance in those cases.  Of course,
we also might
> >> falsely attribute many instances to the sorts of causal
pathways that are
> >> included in our models, because we so often seek to attribute
causality with
> >> our models.
> >> 
> >>> Is randomness an entity?
> >> 
> >> No.  It is the absence of pattern.  In practice, this should
be recognized
> >> as the absence of detectable pattern, which is influenced by
statistical
> >> power (which is both model and sample dependent).
> > 
> > I don't think you want to marry the phrase "cascade of causation"
> > to randomness in that you would, I think, also want to employ
> > this phrase to describe algorithms and chance/randomness is the
> > antithesis of an algorithm.
> 
> This point is the crux of our real or apparent disagreements below.

Are you suggesting that chance/randomness is an algorithm?

> Ironically, I included this statement because I was trying to anticipate an
> objection you might raise with regard to the notion that
"random" events
> have no mechanical causation.  Of course, they do.  My point here was that
> what we attribute to chance

What are you attributing to chance?  Causation?  How is this possible
if, as you indicated above, chance is not an entity and, as we
established up thread, only entities can produce causation?

 are events that we cannot predict with our
> simple models of how things work, including the model represented by our
> general understanding of things.
> 
> I would actually like to push this perspective further.  Dynamical systems
> adapt to the predictable features of the environment, which depend on the
> relationship between the temporal scales of system change and environmental
> perturbations.  Environmental factors that change or perturb the system at
> temporal scales much greater or smaller than the perceptive range of the
> system have little effect on the evolution of systemic structure; therefore,
> they cannot be included in the "algorithm" (to use your
word) that describes
> system function.  When these factors do perturb the system, they are truly
> random from the system's point of view, even though they are in fact the
> result of event cascades.

The issue here is what's the cause?  Be specific?  Is the cause not
the actions of lifeforms as they act and interact in their
environment?  It's nonsense to suggest that since we employ
probability to predict it that therefore it's appropriate to assume
the spiritualistic notion that chance is the cause of the phenomena
genetic drift.  The cause of genetic drift is the same thing that
causes natural selection: the actions of lifeforms as they act and
interact in their environment?

> 
> >>> Is drift an entity?
> >> 
> >> No, but here is where Jim and I have very divergent opinions.
> > 
> > I don't think we do have divergent opinions:
> 
> Good to know.



> 
> >> I think it is
> >> appropriate to attribute causality to processes as well as entities
> > 
> > I absolutely agree that processes are causal (more specifically
> > they are comprised of an algorithm of causes).  (In fact, as
> > I've always maintained, It's always been clear to me that the
> > phenomena that has been labelled "genetic drift" is really part
> > of the Process [Algorithm] of natural selection.)
> > 
> >> , and I consider drift to be a real process.
> > 
> > I consider it observed phenomenon (not a process but the
> > observed results of a process), not inconsistent with NS
> > in any way.
> 
> Fluctuating allele frequencies constitute the observation.  Genetic drift is
> the process causing those fluctuations, IMHO.

This is even more nebulous.  Is genetic drift an entity?  Force. 
Process.

> 
> I agree that drift is not inconsistent with NS.  I see them as separate
> processes that act simultaneously on populations.  

What acts?

Sometimes the effect of
> one largely overwhelms the effect of the other.

What is the cause of this effect?

> 
> >> I similarly consider natural selection
> >> to be a real process, and I am comfortable attributing
causality to natural
> >> selection.
> > 
> > Okay.  The algorithm of natural selection is a cause.  I'm
> > completely comfortable with this.
> > (But the big question here is whether or not you
> > object to my supposition that the cause of the phenomena of
> > genetic drift is the same as that that causes the
> > observations that we traditionally attribute to natural
> > selection.)
> 
> I do.  I can imagine the proposition that evolution is a single process, and
> that it might be misleading to arbitrarily cull out the sub-processes of
> drift and selection.  However, I cannot imagine arguing that drift is no
> different from what has been called natural selection since Darwin and
> Wallace.

You're not being honest with yourself.  There is no conflict with
Darwin or Wallace.  (I know what you think you see.  It's an illusion.
 Reason it out.)


> 
> [snip a bunch of agreement]
> 
> > Am I right to assume then, from what you've written
> > herein, that you now are in full agreement with my supposition
> > that the phenomena that has been labelled "genetic drift" is
> > really just part of the process of natural selection.  More to
> > the point, "genetic drift" is an observation of part of the
> > process of NS (a subprocedure or category thereof) and not a
> > causal process separate from NS.
> 
> Nope.  We still differ on this point.  Let me try to explain the difference
> I see from a novel perspective.  Natural selection is a process that depends
> fundamentally on the influence of an entity's (usually taken to be the
> Darwinian unit of the organism) qualities on its manifested fitness.  I
> would be happy here to define fitness as reproductive rate.  Drift is a
> process that is fundamentally independent of the qualities of organisms.

No it isn't Guy.  The spiritualistic notion of drift which you've
mistakenly included in your model is dictating your thoughts.

> 
> >> I am sure that we would agree that all such things are human
> >> conceptual constructs and not natural phenomena.
> > 
> > I disagree.  
> 
> You might have lost the thread of my argument at this point.  I was
> referring to "things" for which we have labels that are
neither entities or
> processes.  Do you still disagree?

You've got me confused now.  You keep introducing spiritualistic
concepts into the discussion.

> 
> Guy
---
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 3/14/03 12:40:26 PM