another evolutionary flake...

[kid-charlemagne]

This person really got up my nose, and i don't like suffering alone.
So anyone want to take a stab?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eokEB5KHqpQ

[Roma]

I had a hard time following her logic, or whatever that was.

Is she trying to say that the human brain is pre-programmed to cause the evolution of everything ? I'm sorry, that can't be right, I want to watch it again to understand her theory better but my brain won't let me, maybe I'm evolving.

[Soapy Sam]

Gosh!
She discovered that science has a cultural context.
Who would have suspected?
I have rarely heard anyone take quite so long to say so little of any value.

As for her constant repetition of the notion of the "Tragedy of the Commons", yes indeedy, the more fishermen there are, the faster fish go extinct. Does this have implications for government policy? Assuredly.

Does it say anything at all about Darwinism? No.

[Holler Hoojer]

I can't tell whether she's doing a terrible job of trying to explain emergent behavior or trying to resurrect Lamarckism? Did we taxpayers fund her appearance at Ames?

[Wowbagger]

I have only listened to about half the video, so far. I am willing to give her some benefit of doubt. I think her general ideas are fine. She does a lousy job communicating them, though.

I do NOT think she is an I.D. proponent, but without addressing the science behind her ideas better, she is in danger of sounding like one.

[Perpetual Student]

I heard a garbled maze of history, sociology, Darwin and ID to promote a pseudo-scientific theory of life actively participating in evolution with an analogy to right brain left brain hand waving. It was as clear as mud and as compelling as flat earth theory.

[Wowbagger]

a pseudo-scientific theory of life actively participating in evolution Why wouldn't it? I agree her message was garbled, and badly put.

But, why can't a life form actively influence the directions of its own evolution?

[LarianLeQuella]

Good question Wowbanger, although wouldn't that be genetic engineering, and not evolution? Slight distinction perhaps, but I think an important one.

[Perpetual Student]

Why wouldn't it? I agree her message was garbled, and badly put.

But, why can't a life form actively influence the directions of its own evolution?

She is not referring to man, who already has and will certainly continue to influence evolution.
I know of no evidence of life as a "pattern recognizer" actively participated in evolution over the last several hundreds of millions of years. I have no doubt life interacted with and influenced the environment along the way, but it did so in a passive way (like filling the atmosphere with oxygen), not in some "pattern recognizing" partnership -- whatever that is supposed to mean. The implication is that life directed its own evolution through pattern recognition. Then we have the left brain/right brain analogy stuff to cap off an incoherent pseudo-scientific magic show.

[Wowbagger]

I have watched the whole thing now. It is fascinating how she weaves together so many legitimate and superfluous ideas together, into such a mess! It will take some effort to unravel her spaghetti. But, I still suspect she could, overall, be on some sort-of almost-right track, or something. Although she could still be a flake, I have seen much worse.

I wonder if she ever read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. I think much of her point could be summed up by saying something like this: Even when we model something (a life form or a gene, for example) as fundamentally 'selfish', altruism is still likely to emerge from it, simply because it is often in selfish interest to keep a support group of others around. (See books on game theory for mathematical specifics.) Hence, her analogy with competitive fisherman, the stuff about "Wealth of Nations", and the warnings not to take "survival of the fittest" so literally. I think most evolutionary scholars will agree with that. (But, probably not most I.D. advocates, who are more interested with mapping all aspects of life with the workings of a Designer, than they are at understanding life.)

What the lady does not seem to get is that the science of Evolution, itself, does not make any distinction between "active" and "passive". They are generally useless terms in the raw science, and only become important in our anthropomorphic models. And, even in those cases, semantics tends to distort their meanings beyond usefulness. But, I will give it a try.

Good question Wowbanger, although wouldn't that be genetic engineering, and not evolution? Slight distinction perhaps, but I think an important one. Life forms do tend to change their own fitness landscape over time, therefore, it is not such a stretch to say they actively participate in their own evolution. Although, it might not necessarily be a conscious one.

I could be differing from what the lady in the video was trying to say (it was so garbled, I can not quite tell, yet). But, there are more ways for life forms to actively participate in their own evolution, than you might assume.

She is not referring to man, who already has and will certainly continue to influence evolution. See above.

I know of no evidence of life as a "pattern recognizer" actively participated in evolution over the last several hundreds of millions of years. Survival requires pattern recognition: Animals that can see, hear and/or smell, have to separate food from toxins and predators as best they can. At a lower level, cell membranes have evolved to let certain things in, and keep other things out.

We humans are actively trying to map a continuous universe into a digital, discontinuous model, so we can find patterns, and discern trends, to help us survive. Since our pattern-recognition systems are often over-powered, we are prone to identify false positives, but that is a different story.

No other life forms match patterns with the same level of active awareness as humans (presumably), but they all do this to some limited degree or other.

Then we have the left brain/right brain analogy stuff to cap off an incoherent pseudo-scientific magic show. Yeah, that stuff did not help her arguments. But, it did not seem to be an important aspect of what she was saying, anyway.



A transcript of her statements would help me unravel the spaghetti, but I have no time to write one on my own. If anyone knows where I can find one, I would appreciate it!

[Perpetual Student]

What does it mean for a plant to "recognize" a pattern? Does a potato plant "recognize" anything? If she means something other than the common usage of "recognize" then she should state her new definition or use a more appropriate word. The use of the concept of "recognition" in:

At a lower level, cell membranes have evolved to let certain things in, and keep other things out.

is used metaphorically, which is fine, as long as we all understand that real "recognition" is something that a conscious creature does.

Anyway,

"What the lady does not seem to get is that the science of Evolution, itself, does not make any distinction between "active" and "passive". They are generally useless terms in the raw science, and only become important in our anthropomorphic models. And, even in those cases, semantics tends to distort their meanings beyond usefulness."

is well said.

In general, defending her comments because higher animals actually do "recognize" things:

We humans are actively trying to map a continuous universe into a digital, discontinuous model, so we can find patterns, and discern trends, to help us survive. Since our pattern-recognition systems are often over-powered, we are prone to identify false positives, but that is a different story.

No other life forms match patterns with the same level of active awareness as humans (presumably), but they all do this to some limited degree or other.

is besides the point. She referred to evolution in general, which would include, the very first reproducing and metabolizing molecules, single cell life and oak trees participating in evolution through "pattern recognition," which is both a bogus and a useless concept. Metaphorically, a lock recognizes a key -- but I thinks she means more than that.
Anyway, I don't think we have much of a disagreement here.