Evolution, Reorganization, Ed Ford's stuff

[Avery Andrews 950807]

A sequence of thoughts on evolution, reorganization, and Ed Ford's
stuff.

Suppose we start with replicators. It seems a reasonable guess that
all replicators require rather specific (local, micro-) environmental
conditions in order to replicate: no replicator will work equally
well on top of a rock in Datj Va;;eu and at the bottom of an oceanic
trench. So replicators that can maintain local conditions suitable for
their replication will have an edge over those that can't, or are less
good at it. This, we assume, means the replicators will tend to develop
control systems.

  Sidebar: the perceptual variables and corresponding CEV's controlled by
  the replicators are not necessarily the same as the Ecological Variables
  on which replication actually depends. A wasp might need a nest that
  will remain in a fixed position (so it can fly back to it after flying
  away to get building materials, food supplies for the eggs/larvae,
  etc.). The wasp can't *control* the position of the nest because (a)
  it has to go other places (b) isn't strong enough to hold it in place
  against wind, etc. But what the wasp can do is control for a perception
  to the effect that the nest is attached to such-and-such-a-kind-of-surface
  in such-and-such-a-way. Then, thanks to the principles studied in materials
  science, the theory of adhesion, etc., the nest will indeed tend to stay
  put. End Sidebar.

Genetic Evolution (Darwinian selection in populations of replicators) is
a very powerful method for developing effective control systems (that
(a) manage to control their perceptual variables, and (b) thereby stabilize
the environmental variables favorable for replication), basically
because large numbers of variants can be tried out simultaneously, and only a
fraction need to survive.

One of the strategies that GE comes up with is `societies' of control
systems (in one organism, or across organisms) that can tune and
adapt their structure, e.g. learn. (Even bees can learn to recognize
new shapes, I'm told). But learning/reorganization, at least within
single organisms, is a much more problematic affair then Genetic
Evolution: the organism can only try a few possibilities, one after
the other, must survive all the experiments, and find an adequate
solution in a timely manner. So what you'd expect to find is not
some general, nonspecific reorganizing capacity, analogous to random
mutation, crossing-over, etc. om GE, but a variety of special-purpose
mechanisms, optimized to work well under specific conditions (the native
environment of the organism). (This is Chomsky's basic point about
learning.)

So what Ed Ford's recent postings suggest to me is that the human
learning/reorganizing system is not very well adapted to finding good
solutions in the rather beaurocratized environment created by modern
societies. A signficant fraction of kids seem to fail to find any
viable solution to the environment found in schools (and, having mucked
up there, get tossed into environments for which they are even less
well endowed to find a solution). What the program does is subtly
change the environment so that their intrinsic reference levels (such as
to be with their friends) tend to lead them towards good solutions
rather than bad ones, and perhaps the emphasis on thinking and planning
helps them to succeed in developing these capacities in certain
directions which are not perhaps required in the native human environment
(obviously, humans living the original lifestyle had to think and plan,
or we wouldn't be able too, but they might have utilized this capacity
in different ways than those that are advantageous in modern societies;
therefore we are not well-adapted to find good ways to think about
how we actually live).

And, evidently, even the teachers and administrators, who have found somewhat
viable solutions to their environment, seem not to have found optimal
ones! One more thing I gotta find out more about! b.t.w., prioritized
reference levels sound exactly like constraint ranking in Optimality
Theory, an emerging (perhaps explosively developing would be more
accurate) approach to linguistic theory.

Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au

<[Bill Leach 950806.22:44 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]

[Avery Andrews 950807]

Yike! You cover a lot of philosophical ground in a rather short posting!

... Then, thanks to the principles studied in materials science, the
theory of adhesion, etc., the nest will indeed tend to stay put.

I am happy to know that materials science is so useful to wasps. I
really worried about that since it is quite fortunate that the bumble bee
did NOT attend aeronautics classes - just imagine what might have
happened if he had learned that he could not fly!

One of the strategies that GE comes up with is `societies' of control
systems (in one organism, or across organisms) that can tune and
adapt their structure, e.g. learn. (Even bees can learn to ...

Before Tom jumps in there (if he can jump in there), I am having a bit of
trouble with this one. Talking about 'societies' learning bothers me a
great deal. GE is not a 'learning' activity except to those that are
outside observers. As I see it, learning is an individual activity,
groups don't learn... at best they are only arbitrary sets of individuals
that have learned and at worst they are arbtrary sets of individuals that
are clueless concerning the "learning" experience (they were individually
just controlling perceptions and are otherwise unaware that anything
unique occurred).

... solution in a timely manner. So what you'd expect to find is not
some general, nonspecific reorganizing capacity, analogous to random
mutation, crossing-over, etc. om GE, but a variety of special-purpose
mechanisms, optimized to work well under specific conditions (the native
environment of the organism). (This is Chomsky's basic point about
learning.)

Maybe that is what you would expect. I still think that 'adaptation' or
'learning' through reorganization is psuedo-random process. Of course
this could turn out to be "hogwash" but I think that the process starts
slowly in a localized area, that is an area in the physical regions of
the brain where the control system error exists. If the error persists,
then more of the control system associated with the error is included
and/or the intensity of the alterations increases. If the error
continues to persist then unrelated regions will reorganize. These
reorganizations could just as well be disasterous to the organism as
useful.

I also think that most control systems may involve thousands if not more
individual control loops and that reorganization causes what could be
though of as imperceptible changes initially. That is reorganization is
probably not "dramatic" usually.

So what Ed Ford's recent postings suggest to me is that the human
learning/reorganizing system is not very well adapted to finding good
solutions in the rather beaurocratized environment created by modern
societies. ...

How about; Control systems in conflict tend to have problems regardless
of source or reason? I don't think that "laying the blame" on "modern
societies" makes any sense.

Control systems try to control their perceptions in their environment and
have always done so no matter what environment or what point in the
history of the control systems one chooses to look at.

THE significant point of understanding control theory and that it applies
to all living systems is that one then recognizes that when one is
attempting to control ones own perceptions, if another control system is
involved there is potential for conflict. The choices don't change but
the understanding of the potential consequences of the choices does. One
can still choose to attempt to overwhelm a conflicting control system.
OTOH, one can decide that overwhelming another control system is a choice
that should be made only when failing to do so would mean loss of control
of perceptions of the very highest priority.

... What the program does is subtly change the environment so that
their intrinsic reference levels (such as to be with their friends) tend
to lead them towards good solutions rather than bad ones, ...

While I agree with this as I understand you, you are being very loose
with the terms "good and bad". It is, I think, terribly important to
recognize that these terms are being used from the point of view of TPTB
(The Powers That Be)! I am not arguing that such is wrong since I
believe that some measure of "order" and "restraint" is "good for
'society' in general" and thus good for individuals. This is of course
the same statement made in defense of socialism and can not (as far as I
know) be defined in sufficient detail to produce a workable principle.

... and perhaps the emphasis on thinking and planning helps them to
succeed in developing these capacities in certain directions which are
not perhaps required in the native human environment ...

Excuse me, but what is the "native" or if you prefer "natural" human
environment if not the one we are presently experiencing? I think that I
know you better than this but you statement almost sounds like Gia
worshipers.

... (obviously, humans living the original lifestyle had to think and
plan, or we wouldn't be able too, ...

Avery, I went back to the top of your message to be sure that I really
was reading something that you wrote. IF we really evolved from the
primordial soup then this statement is absurd (not to mention being
inconsistent with your earlier comments on GE).

... but they might have utilized this capacity in different ways than
those that are advantageous in modern societies; therefore we are not
well-adapted to find good ways to think about how we actually live).

This reminds me of the people that talk about how the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution of the United States are "out of date"
and that the Constitution should be scrapped and completely rewritten.

I personally don't argue to the effect that I believe that either of
those documents were perfect but I do argue that they were written based
upon the authors' best understanding of human nature as opposed to any
consideration for technology.

The failure of the majority of people to recognize that ALL people are
control systems and what that implies is the source of MOST of the
problems in the world today. I say most because I still believe that
basically the majority of people have good intentions toward others and
it is their failure to understand "human nature" that results in the
majority of strife. There are and doubtless will always be those that
will willing seek any "pleasure" big or small without regard to how many
or how "badly" others are harmed. If this last 'group' is not a small
minority then humanity is temporary at best anyway.

As an aside, I have hardly attempted an exhaustive effort, nor am I sure
that I will but I note with interest that the text in the Bible that is
attributed to Christ that I have looked at "is good PCT" if one assumes
that his teachings included as a goal living peaceably with others. This
of course encompasses approximately 2000 years of human history even if
the behaviour of "the believers" seems to have fallen a bit short of this
goal now and then.

-bill