RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics
Robin Faichney (r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk)
Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:41:59 +0100
> From: Tadeusz Niwinski[SMTP:tad@teta.ai]
>
> Robin wrote:
> >I wrote:
> >> >> What other important prerequisites do we need for evolution to
> >> occur?
> >> >>
> >> >Replication with *variation*!!!!! :-)
> >>
> >> Yes, mutation is also very important in the process of evolution.
> >>
> >It's a prerequisite, so inconsistency is as important as consistency!
> >
> >:-)
>
> Now I understand the first smiley. :-) Mutation is not inconsistency!
> The
> rules of nature still apply in mutation.
>
So who said inconsistency breaks any rules? This
depends on what level we're looking at. Evolution
depends on imperfect replication, which
*on*that*level* is inconsistency, by definition. Sure,
look at lower levels, like the chemistry, and no "rules
of nature" are broken. But if you confined yourself
to such low levels, you'd never be able to understand
any higher level phenomena. Such as memetics,
for instance. Or even evolution, for that matter. If
all you mean by consistency is that everything obeys
the "laws" of physics, then that tells us nothing about
any subject other than physics. On your definition,
absolutely everything is consistent, just as on DMcF's
definition of rationality, absolutely everything is
rational. But what applies to everything, tells us
nothing.
> If we look at genetic algorithms
> the difference is obvious. As I wrote before, when creating a sorting
> program one has to be consistent in what the selection criteria are,
> but
> when generating mutations of the program one wants to be as random as
> possible.
>
Consistently random, I suppose! :-)
Robin