Re: [asa] Nudging Evolution

Hi Dave,

"You say you have been using "front-loading" in a way different from its common usage. You should not have been surprised that you were not understood. It would have helped if you had coined a new term."

I started using the term 'front-loaded evolution' back around 2000-2001 and thought I had coined a new term that I introduced into the public arena (google the term and see what comes up). If anyone knows of someone else who has been using this term prior to this time, I would surely appreciate that heads up. And I have always been explaining front-loading pretty much as I explained it in the light of nudging. My book even has a 70 page chapter that systematically lays out the logical case for it.

 "I do not see that "nudge" is helpful toward understanding what goes on."

I think it is incredibly helpful in showing that front-loading is not about determinism.

"There the notion is that things can be arranged so more people will choose one of the alternatives. How do you persuade a gene to want to change one base rather than another? I might throw in some metaphysical notion that a gamma ray that altered a specific gene was aimed by God to do that job. But that is an external power, not a persuasion."

I addressed that issue in this essay:

http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/cytosine-deamination-and-evolution/

This was originally written and posted on my old web page back around 2003-4. An updated version of the argument is in my book.

Of course, this would simply be one part of the answer. The nudging power of cytosine deamination need not be restricted to protein-coding sequence and the nudges themselves need not be restricted to single-base changes. For example, we might ask why would this sequence become a new promoter and not that sequence. I'm going to be having some major time nudgin' fun with this question in the near future as many threads start to come together.

"However, I recall reading some philosophical stuff that included panpsychism, the doctrine that everything is sentient, whether slightly (rocks) or extremely (us), with God trying to persuade things to do it as he wanted, with somewhat limited success. I guess one could then talk of the Nudger, but are genes on this notion sufficiently sentient to choose?"

When it comes to front-loading with a series of nudges initiated by a sentient being, you don't need everything else to be sentient nor would you need continual intervention. A very clever designer would know how to arrange that original "choice architecture" of life so that waves of nudges would proceed outward as a function of time.

Mike

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: dfsiemensjr
  To: nucacids@wowway.com
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 11:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Nudging Evolution

  Mike,
  You say you have been using "front-loading" in a way different from its common usage. You should not have been surprised that you were not understood. It would have helped if you had coined a new term. I do not see that "nudge" is helpful toward understanding what goes on. There the notion is that things can be arranged so more people will choose one of the alternatives. How do you persuade a gene to want to change one base rather than another? I might throw in some metaphysical notion that a gamma ray that altered a specific gene was aimed by God to do that job. But that is an external power, not a persuasion.

  However, I recall reading some philosophical stuff that included panpsychism, the doctrine that everything is sentient, whether slightly (rocks) or extremely (us), with God trying to persuade things to do it as he wanted, with somewhat limited success. I guess one could then talk of the Nudger, but are genes on this notion sufficiently sentient to choose?
  Dave (ASA)

  On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:21:06 -0400 "Nucacids" <nucacids@wowway.com> writes:
    As I have been arguing for the hypothesis of front-loading evolution over the years, not too long ago, it has occurred to me that the term "front-load" has the ability to mislead people into thinking I have argued that evolution is a deterministic process, such that everything we currently see around us was programmed to be as it is as a consequence of the originally front-loaded state. This misperception then causes people to think front-loading is an old, discredited view of evolution. But that is not the case.

    To demonstrate this, I have just run across a design approach that is very, very similar to the approach I talk about and have labeled as "front-loading." It's a social engineering approach that is becoming increasingly popular known as "nudging."

    I outline some of the similarities between nudging human behavior and front-loading evolution here:

    http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/nudge/

    Mike

  ____________________________________________________________
  Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.95/2368 - Release Date: 09/13/09 17:50:00

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 14 15:35:33 2009