This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Bacteria with Culture?
I've been reading the marvelous book, Hierarchy in the Forest, by Christopher Boehm, where on page 224, he refers to humans, and to variations in their phenotypes, as "dealing with a species that, through morality, can radically manipulate its own behavior." (Having inferred elsewhere that morality represents a system of cultural values shared more by humans than by their ancestral primates.)
" . the bacteria had evolved to stop activating their maltose genes at the taste of lactose. Whatever we have learned to trust as viable strategies. when changing circumstances should have otherwise required changing strategies . whatever reliably increases odds for survival is seen or felt on some level as right. Life's basic strategy is one of "moral" choice making.) And coincidentally. and therefor moral." "After several months.sciencedaily. Simply put." "--.implying that bacteria have naturally 'learned' to get ready for a serving of maltose after a lactose appetizer. only turning them on when maltose was actually available. Morality in effect invented us. (Often ironically hardening the concept to represent the essentially immoral. prudent. whatever it will turn out to be? Because we humans didn't invent morality.htm Excerpts: "Their findings show that these microorganisms' genetic networks are hard-wired to 'foresee' what comes next in the sequence of events and begin responding to the new state of affairs before its onset." "Further analysis showed that this anticipation and early response is an evolutionary adaptation that increases the organism's chances of survival. I've just found this related article. whether cultural or instinctive.com/releases/ 2009/06/090617131400. at: http://www. Scientists Show Bacteria Can 'Learn' And Plan Ahead. have become the foundation of our human morality.But isn't that another way to describe how all us animals use intelligence to adapt our strategic "phenotypes" to new situations? And how organisms purposively (using their versions of "intelligence") drive their own evolutionary adaptations or how they affect the odds of the selective process.or reversing the labels when referring to the identical strategies of a predator or successful competitor.
htm) .kcl. formed expectations and reacted or declined to react accordingly.So. And with no ritualistic ceremony to stand on in the bargain.uk/ip/davidpapineau/Staff/Papineau/ OnlinePapers/SocLearnBald.ac. They remembered results of trials and errors and "calculated" diminished probabilities. but a purposeful effort can serve more than one purpose. Check this article by one of our better philosophers: http://www. (It wasn't intended that this should be a demonstration of the Baldwin effect. using the term "evolved" means they passed on to successor bacteria elements of a strategy that they had learned from experience. and enabled the replication of those revised strategies. in my view.
ihmc. http://cmex. These are purposive expectations.us/VikingCD/Puzzle/ Evolife. Excerpted from comments about The Origin and Evolution of Life on NASA's Planetary Biology Program website.htm: . Their goal(s) would initially be to acquire and restore energy . Right? Musings to put on the record as mine. the interaction of which is causative in forming a strategy or strategies. The strategies that develop from the mix of purpose.It's My Copy. from no-one else's muse that I know of: Life: A self-sustaining chemical reaction (or energy system) with predictive expectations.because the impetus to attain that goal is thus purposive. as well as in adjusting all of these. and whether for my good or my bad. expectations and environment can account as well for abilities of organisms to have divergent traits and be amenable to natural selection. as expectations are changed through trial and error experience.
we get something like this: Life: A self-sustaining chemical reaction (or energy system) with strategic parameters and predictive expectations. And tell me that red crest isn't a strategic component of that little moocher on the upper right. (Proviso: This was not intended as a semantic retooling of the autopoiesis or "auto (self)-creation" concept .) .does not a strategy require information as a determinant for action as well as information being the determinant of strategy? And then can we not."Interactions between various substances and energy yielded the autocatalytic systems capable of passing information from one generation to the next. although supportive.self-sustaining strategic entities. The forms shape their strategies and strategies in turn shape their forms. Putting it (in my view) succinctly: Life forms are strategic constructs." So is a life form also to be defined as an entity that needs or has a strategy for the survival of its species? Is not this "information" a component of strategy . add to our definition as follows: Life forms .which. The accidental juxtapositions with time and place shape their differences. Their forms and constituent elements are all a part of that strategy. The implication being that evolution involves a selection for successful strategies as much as for anything else. or with the underlying strategic intelligence dynamic that I will be proposing. and the thread of life began. So if added to the initial definition here. for fairly obvious reasons that I intend to expand on at a later date. is not in my view similarly concerned with the reciprocity of strategic processes.
. it seems we have in these parasite behaviors some of the best examples available of strategic forms matching up with other such strategic structures. all manipulating each other and themselves in the process. until it was recently demonstrated that "these creatures changed shape and function dramatically as they changed living environments. Unlike animals we are familiar with. where reviews have his descriptions of how adaptive parasites are. Once considered similar to other predators. it's now evident they have developed the talent of making "prey" come to them.And then there's Carl Zimmer's book on parasites. It was first thought these changes were representative of different species. some gaining an advantage (or so it would appear) but nevertheless with all strategies and their material entities evolving ." In short.and clear evidence that intelligence is the driving force of evolution. Parasite Rex : Inside the Bizarre World of Nature's Most Dangerous Creatures. as strategies are nothing if not intelligent. most parasites have greatly varied body forms as they go through the phases of their lives.
the designations of selfishness and altruism as traits that have a separate genetic origin . as that's why we call the process "strategy" to begin with. We thus fail to see that the so-called traits may in fact represent different levels of strategic abstractions devoted to the attainment of the same overall goal.as if there is a gene for one that is somehow separate from the gene for the other. Plus each strategy will also have some elements of the direct and indirect approaches. The abstractions used may also reflect different assessments of short versus long term necessities and/or perceivable and thus expected consequences from use of the respective strategies. just as some have differences in the range or levels of abstract conceptualization in general. The differences may just as well be in the heritable range of their strategic options. .Moron Strategies? We seem to have arbitrarily labeled certain opposing behavioral strategies as separate traits under the assumption that the behaviors are in themselves satisfying rather than (or perhaps because of) being means to a satisfactory end that the supposedly divergent traits can have in common. Except that it seems more likely that any perceived differences between the way individuals seem to express these "traits" are due to differences in the way they perceive the problems to be solved rather than in more discrete differences in their genetic tool kits. Example in point. Because the ultimate goal to be attained by "altruistic" behavior can often be the same as one that a different entity has learned to seek out through a more direct or "selfish" process.
(Predictive becoming redundant in that context. And when its source inevitably waned. such as this latest thought: It seems necessary that in defining what we mean by "life" we recognize that all life forms need to have some learning capacity to predict and expect future events.) Prompting what some will see as the greatest of all heretic suppositions: Is it possible that the universe itself is no less than a collection of infinitely short term strategic operations all acting with the most immediate of purposes that form an infinite tapestry of unintended and unpredictable longer to longest term consequences? .First Cause or First Strategy? Question prompted by musings on strategy. It's not likely that the first such forms didn't learn by happy accident that the first acceptance of energy was something that bore repeating. had to have "learned" that effort had become needed to search out more or receive it from a different source. So shouldn't we now use a definition more as follows: Life: A self-sustaining chemical reaction (or energy system) with strategic parameters and learned expectations. The initial forms had to learn to seek out energy.
Roy Niles. 8-14-2009 . first option. and then decided why not just store them here in the interim and see what that action does for my creative process.which may in reality be inexhaustible?). or to the universe ?? The universe seems to be a vast questioning organism. first problem. but yet deterministically random with an unpredictable progression of incremental inevitabilities. Think a constrained randomness. that resulted in incremental advances in the nature of new questions structuring the strategic functions as they multiply. think strategic geometry. or in the universe. "Cause and effect" could just as well be the metaphorical first question.. not deterministic. Whatever potential the universe has had for the application of natural law. Meaning of the universe. etc. first strategic choice. strategies developed in a trial and error series. first strategic decision leading to next question. Nature of universe not predetermined. with what we have had to label "energy" as both their material and their "fuel" (hence the hypothesized entropy of the available supply? . Rather than string theory. Or not.I made some notes as a guide to what I hoped to add later. in an exponentially expanding omni-dimensional pattern of a trial and error progression throughout all of time's metaphorical existence.laws that concurrently gave these strategies their operational parameters. that law would have developed in concert with the strategies that found them controlling .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.