Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 28 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Altruism | Mayr | I 319 Behavior/Genes/Mayr: genes also contribute to the behavior and personality of man. E.g. mathematical gifts, craftsmanship, musicality, clumsiness. >Genes, >Personality, >Personality traits. I 323 Natural selection: if it only rewards self-interest, how could ethics and, for example, altruism develop? >Selection. Huxley was right with his presumption that the self-interest of the individual somehow contradicted the benefit of society. Cf. >Altruism. I 324 Def altruism: (Trivers, 1985)(1): action that benefits another organism at the expense of the actor, with the costs and benefits being defined as reproductive success. Altruism/Comte: Care for the welfare of others. >A. Comte. Altruism/Mayr: is not limited to cases of danger or harm to the altruist. Three things need to be distinguished (already Darwin): Selection/Individual: An individual is the object of selection in three respects: as an individual, as a family member (reproducer), and as member of a social group. The human dilemmas are only to be understood with regard to this triad. I 325 Altruism/Overall Suitability: is found in many animals, especially with parental care and large families. Defense of the offspring by the mother. This behavior is favored by natural selection, since it improves the fitness of the common genotype of the altruist and its beneficiaries. Selection of relatives. Indirectly rather self-serving. Seemingly altruistic. >Altruism. Some authors believe that human ethics replaced altruism directed towards overall suitability. Mayr: I recognize many actions directed toward overall suitability in the behavior of humans: for example mother's love, moral attitude towards strangers. However, only a small part of today's ethics systems. Social animals: possess a remarkable ability to recognize their relatives. I 327 Reciprocal altruism: in solitary animals. Synergy of two non-related animals for mutual benefit. E.g. cleaner wrasse, alliance of two individuals fighting a third. For primates: a kind of consideration: if I help this individual, it will help me. Perhaps a root of human morality. Human/Mayr: all the great achievements of mankind were accomplished by less than one per cent of the total population. Without reward and recognition our society would soon break apart. I 328 Human: The entire history of the hominids is characterized by strong group-selection (already Darwin). I 329 Altruism/Behavior/Mayr: In contrast to individual selection, group selection can reward genuine altruism and other virtues. Ethical behavior is adaptive in humans. >Adaption. Sociality: not all collections of animals are social. E.g. schools of young fish and the huge herds of African ungulates are not. Real altruism: can be extended to non-relatives. For example, baboons. Some hominids must have discovered that larger groups have more chances. I 330 Norms: To be able to apply group norms, the brain had to develop the ability to think. >Norms, >Thinking. Ethics: two conditions for ethical behavior (Simpson, 1969)(2): 1) There are alternatives 2) The alternatives can be assessed 3) The person can decide freely This means that consequences are anticipated and responsibility is assumed. >Responsibility, >Prediction. Ethics/Cause: it is not possible to determine the cause and effect of ethics. >Ethics, >Morals. 1. R. L. Trivers (1985). Social evolution. Menlo Park: Benjamin/Cummings. 2. G. G. Simpson (1969). On the Uniqueness of Man: Biology and Man. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. |
Mayr I Ernst Mayr This is Biology, Cambridge/MA 1997 German Edition: Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998 |
| Baldwin Effect | Norvig | Norvig I 130 Baldwin effect/computer theory/simulation/Russell/Norvig: James Baldwin (1896)(1) proposed (…) that behavior learned during an organism’s lifetime could accelerate the rate of evolution. Unlike Lamarck’s, Baldwin’s theory is entirely consistent with Darwinian evolution because it relies on selection pressures operating on individuals that have found local optima among the set of possible behaviors allowed by their genetic makeup. Computer simulations confirm that the “Baldwin effect” is real, once “ordinary” evolution has created organisms whose internal performance measure correlates with actual fitness. >Search algorithms, >Evolution/Philosophical theories, >Local minima, >Simulated annealing/Norvig. 1. Baldwin, J. M. (1896). A new factor in evolution. American Naturalist, 30, 441–451. Continued on pages 536–553. |
Norvig I Peter Norvig Stuart J. Russell Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach Upper Saddle River, NJ 2010 |
| Baldwin Effect | Russell | Norvig I 130 Baldwin effect/computer theory/simulation/Russell/Norvig: James Baldwin (1896)(1) proposed (…) that behavior learned during an organism’s lifetime could accelerate the rate of evolution. Unlike Lamarck’s, Baldwin’s theory is entirely consistent with Darwinian evolution because it relies on selection pressures operating on individuals that have found local optima among the set of possible behaviors allowed by their genetic makeup. Computer simulations confirm that the “Baldwin effect” is real, once “ordinary” evolution has created organisms whose internal performance measure correlates with actual fitness. >Search algorithms, >Evolution/Philosophical theories, >Local minima, >Simulated annealing/Norvig. 1. Baldwin, J. M. (1896). A new factor in evolution. American Naturalist, 30, 441–451. Continued on pages 536–553. |
Russell I B. Russell/A.N. Whitehead Principia Mathematica Frankfurt 1986 Russell II B. Russell The ABC of Relativity, London 1958, 1969 German Edition: Das ABC der Relativitätstheorie Frankfurt 1989 Russell IV B. Russell The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford 1912 German Edition: Probleme der Philosophie Frankfurt 1967 Russell VI B. Russell "The Philosophy of Logical Atomism", in: B. Russell, Logic and KNowledge, ed. R. Ch. Marsh, London 1956, pp. 200-202 German Edition: Die Philosophie des logischen Atomismus In Eigennamen, U. Wolf (Hg) Frankfurt 1993 Russell VII B. Russell On the Nature of Truth and Falsehood, in: B. Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford 1912 - Dt. "Wahrheit und Falschheit" In Wahrheitstheorien, G. Skirbekk (Hg) Frankfurt 1996 Norvig I Peter Norvig Stuart J. Russell Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach Upper Saddle River, NJ 2010 |
| Behavior | Mayr | I 319 Behavior/Genes/Mayr: genes also contribute to the behavior and personality of man. E.g. mathematical gifts, craftsmanship, musicality, clumsiness. >Genes, >Personality, >Personality traits. I 323 Natural selection: if it only rewards self-interest, how could ethics and, for example, altruism develop? >Selection. Huxley was right with his presumption that the self-interest of the individual somehow contradicted the benefit of society. Cf. >Altruism. I 324 Def altruism: (Trivers, 1985)(1): action that benefits another organism at the expense of the actor, with the costs and benefits being defined as reproductive success. Altruism/Comte: Care for the welfare of others. >A. Comte. Altruism/Mayr: is not limited to cases of danger or harm to the altruist. Three things need to be distinguished (already Darwin): Selection/Individual: An individual is the object of selection in three respects: as an individual, as a family member (reproducer), and as member of a social group. The human dilemmas are only to be understood with regard to this triad. I 325 Altruism/Overall Suitability: is found in many animals, especially with parental care and large families. Defense of the offspring by the mother. This behavior is favored by natural selection, since it improves the fitness of the common genotype of the altruist and its beneficiaries. Selection of relatives. Indirectly rather self-serving. Seemingly altruistic. >Altruism. Some authors believe that human ethics replaced altruism directed towards overall suitability. Mayr: I recognize many actions directed toward overall suitability in the behavior of humans: for example mother's love, moral attitude towards strangers. However, only a small part of today's ethics systems. Social animals: possess a remarkable ability to recognize their relatives. I 327 Reciprocal altruism: in solitary animals. Synergy of two non-related animals for mutual benefit. E.g. cleaner wrasse, alliance of two individuals fighting a third. For primates: a kind of consideration: if I help this individual, it will help me. Perhaps a root of human morality. Human/Mayr: all the great achievements of mankind were accomplished by less than one per cent of the total population. Without reward and recognition our society would soon break apart. I 328 Human: The entire history of the hominids is characterized by strong group-selection (already Darwin). I 329 Altruism/Behavior/Mayr: In contrast to individual selection, group selection can reward genuine altruism and other virtues. Ethical behavior is adaptive in humans. >Adaption. Sociality: not all collections of animals are social. E.g. schools of young fish and the huge herds of African ungulates are not. Real altruism: can be extended to non-relatives. For example, baboons. Some hominids must have discovered that larger groups have more chances. I 330 Norms: To be able to apply group norms, the brain had to develop the ability to think. >Norms, >Thinking. Ethics: two conditions for ethical behavior (Simpson, 1969)(2): 1) There are alternatives 2) The alternatives can be assessed 3) The person can decide freely This means that consequences are anticipated and responsibility is assumed. >Responsibility, >Prediction. Ethics/Cause: it is not possible to determine the cause and effect of ethics. >Ethics, >Morals. 1. R. L. Trivers (1985). Social evolution. Menlo Park: Benjamin/Cummings. 2. G. G. Simpson (1969). On the Uniqueness of Man: Biology and Man. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. |
Mayr I Ernst Mayr This is Biology, Cambridge/MA 1997 German Edition: Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998 |
| Costs | Behavioral Ecology | Corr I 278 Costs/behavior/behavioral ecology/personality/behavioral syndromes/Gosling: It is possible that the cost-benefit trade-offs vary from year to year or from niche to niche such that different suites (e.g., high aggression vs. low aggression) are adaptive at different times or locales. In a series of long-term studies of personality in a natural population of a passerine bird species (Parus major) one research group has generated compelling evidence for the idea that different personalities are adaptive under different conditions (Dingemanse, Both, Drent and Tinbergen 2004(1); Drent, van Oers and van Noordwijk 2003(2); Groothuis and Carere 2005(3)). >Personality/psychological theories, >Niches/evolutionary psychology. 1. Dingemanse, N. J., Both, C., Drent, P. J. and Tinbergen, J. M. 2004. Fitness consequences of avian personalities in a fluctuating environment, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B – Biological Sciences 271: 847–52 2. Drent, P. J., Van Oers, K. and Van Noordwijk, A. J. 2003. Realized heritability of personalities in the great tit (Parus major), Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences Series B 270: 45–51 3. Groothuis, T. G. G. and Carere, C. 2005. Avian personalities: characterization and epigenesis, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 29: 137–50 Samuel D. Gosling and B. Austin Harley, “Animal models of personality and cross-species comparisons”, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Darwinism | Huxley | Danto III 197 Darwinism/NietzscheVsDarwinism/Nietzsche/DantoVsNietzsche/Danto: all too often Nietzsche falls into the stupidest misconceptions of Darwinism by equating survival with excellence. >F. Nietzsche, >Evolution. Nietzsche overlooks what Th. H. Huxley has already noticed: Evolution/Darwinism/Huxley, Th. H.: the slightest change in the chemical composition of our atmosphere is enough to ensure that perhaps only a few lichens survive and thus become the masters of the world. >Fitness, >Survival, >Selection, >Initial conditions, >Life. |
HuxleyA I Aldous Huxley Science, Liberty and Peace London 1946 HuxleyTh I Thomas Henry Huxley Lectures On Evolution Whitefish, MT 2010 Danto I A. C. Danto Connections to the World - The Basic Concepts of Philosophy, New York 1989 German Edition: Wege zur Welt München 1999 Danto III Arthur C. Danto Nietzsche as Philosopher: An Original Study, New York 1965 German Edition: Nietzsche als Philosoph München 1998 Danto VII A. C. Danto The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art (Columbia Classics in Philosophy) New York 2005 |
| Evolution | Mayr | I 43 Evolution/Mayr: Unit of evolution is the population (or species) and not the gene or the individual. (MayrVsDawkins). >Species, >Genes, >R. Dawkins, >Genes/Dawkins, >Evolution/Dawkins. Def Integron/Mayr: An integron is a system created by integration of subordinate units on a higher level. Integrons evolve by natural selection. They are adapted systems at each level because they contribute to the fitness (suitability) of an individual. >Selection. I 183 Evolution/Mayr: Species is the decisive entity of evolution. I 230 Evolution/Progress/Mayr: Cohesion: an expression of the fact that the system of development has become very narrow. Evolution: proceeds very slowly in large, member-rich species, and very quickly in small peripheral isolated groups. >Speciation, >punctuated equilibrium/Eldredge/Gould. A start-up population with few individuals and therefore little hidden genetic variation can more easily assume a different genotype. Macroevolution: is most strongly determined by the geographical factor (isolation). I 234 Evolution/Mayr: the concepts: 1) Rapid evolution: (transmutationism): type jump. Even after Darwin some researchers (including his friend Huxley) could not accept the concept of natural selection and developed saltationist theories. 2) Transformational evolution (transformationism) gradual change of the ice to the organism. Ignored by Darwin. I 235 3) Variation Evolution (Darwin) I 235 Darwin (early): adaptation modification. Vs: can never explain the enormous variety of organic life, because it does not allow for an increase in the number of species. I 236 Darwin/Mayr: The Origin of Species: 5 Main Theories 1) Organisms are constantly evolving over time (evolution as such). 2) Different species of organisms are derived from a common ancestor. 3) Species multiply over time (speciation) 4) Evolution takes the form of gradual change. (GradualismVsSaltationism). >Gradualism, >Saltationism. 5) The evolutionary mechanism consists in the competition among numerous unique individuals for limited resources that leads to differences in survival and reproduction (natural selection). I 234 Evolution/Mayr: the concepts: 1) Rapid evolution: (transmutationism): type jump. Even after Darwin some researchers (including his friend Huxley) could not accept the concept of natural selection and developed saltationist theories. 2) Transformational evolution (transformationism) gradual change of the ice to the organism. Ignored by Darwin. I 235 3) Variation Evolution (Darwin) I 235 Darwin (early): adaptation modification. Vs: can never explain the enormous variety of organic life, because it does not allow for an increase in the number of species. I 236 Darwin/Mayr: The Origin of Species: 5 Main Theories 1) Organisms are constantly evolving over time (evolution as such). 2) Different species of organisms are derived from a common ancestor. 3) Species multiply over time (speciation) 4) Evolution takes the form of gradual change. (GradualismVsSaltationism). 5) The evolutionary mechanism consists in the competition among numerous unique individuals for limited resources that leads to differences in survival and reproduction (natural selection). >Selection. I 377 Evolution of life: a chemical process involving autocatalysis and a directing factor. Prebiotic selection. Cf. >St. Kauffman. I 237 Pasteur: proofed the impossibility of life in oxygen-rich atmosphere! In 1953, Stanley Miller grew amino acids, urea and other organic molecules in a glass flask by discharging electricity into a mixture of methane, ammonium, hydrogen, and water vapor. I 238 Proteins, nucleic acids: the organisms must form these larger molecules themselves. Amino acids, pyrimidines, puridine do not need to formed by the organisms themselves. I 239 Molecular biology: discovered that the genetic code is the same for bacteria, which do not have nuclei, as in protists, fungi, animals and plants. I 240 Missing link: Archaeopteryx: half bird half reptile. Not necessarily direct ancestor. Speciation: a) dichopatric: a previously connected area is divided by a new barrier: mountain range, inlets, interruption of vegetation. b) peripatrically: new start-up population emerges outside of the original distribution area. c) sympatric speciation: new species due to ecological specialization within the area of distribution. Darwin's theory of gradualism. >Gradualism. I 243 VsGardualism: cannot explain the emergence of completely new organs. Problem: How can a rudimentary wing be enlarged by natural selection before it is suitable for flying? I 244 Darwin: two possible solutions: a) Intensification of the function: E.g. eyes, e.g. the development of the anterior limbs of moles, whales, bats. b) Functional change: E.g. Antennae of daphia (water flea): additional function of the swimming paddle, which is enlarged and modified under selection pressure. E.g. Gould: Feathers probably first for temperature control before any animal could fly. Function/Biology: Functional differences are also related to behavioral patterns, e.g. feather cleaning. Competing theories on evolutionary change I 247 Salationism: Huxley later Bateson, de Vries, (Mendelists). The saltationist emergence of new species only occurs poyploidy and some other forms of chromosomal restructuring (very rare) during sexual reproduction. Teleological theories: assume that nature has a principle: Osbron's arsitogenesis, Chardin's omega principle. Should lead to perfection. >Teilhard de Chardin. Lamarck's Theories: Changes go back to use and non-use, environmental conditions. Until the 1930s! I 248 Def "soft inheritance" (acquired characteristics). Was refuted by genetics. Def "hard inheritance" (so-called "central dogma"): the information contained in the proteins (the phenotype) cannot be passed on to the nucleic acids (the genotype)! (Insight of molecular biology). I 256 Macroevolution: after saltationism, soft heredity and autogenesis, had been refuted with evolution, macroevolution had to be explained more and more as a phenomenon on the level of the population, i.e. as a phenomenon directly attributable to events and processes during microevolution. (Speciation: faster in isolation). (>Gould, Eldredge, 1971(1): "punctuated equilibrium", punctualism.) I 281 New: we know today that the cycles of herbivores elicit those of the predators and not vice versa! Coevolution: E.g. the Yucca moth destroys the plant's ovules by its larvae, but pollens the flowers. 1. N. Eldredge, S. J. Gould: Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: T. Schopf (Ed), Models in Paleobiology, 82-115, San Francisco, (1972). |
Mayr I Ernst Mayr This is Biology, Cambridge/MA 1997 German Edition: Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998 |
| Evolution | Pinker | I 21 Wheel/Evolution/Pinker: wheel works only together with street - this was created by evolution because landscape did not arise through evolution. Legs are better for the natural world. >Inventions/Discoveries. Problem: software is more complicated. >Software. I 37 Evolution/Pinker: Humans do not have to have the same objectives as the evolution - (to propagate genes). >Goals, >Genes. I 61 Evolution/Genes/Gould: Problem: The own body does not survive - Dawkins: but the quality of the selected bodies. Ultimately only the genes themselves. Dawkins: People do not spread genes but genes are selfish. - But selfish genes do not create selfish people, like a blueprint does not produce a blue house. >Dawkins, >Body. I 637 Evolution/Tooby/Cosmides: the selection favors characteristics that increase the average fitness - the loss of genes by death is compensated by the survivors. >Tooby/Cosmides. |
Pi I St. Pinker How the Mind Works, New York 1997 German Edition: Wie das Denken im Kopf entsteht München 1998 |
| Evolution | Vollmer | I 51 Evolutionary Epistemology/Vollmer: in the evolution of science, there are no "mutations" because there is no "offspring" in scientific theories. Evolutionary epistemology is only useful insofar as subjective knowledge structures are inherited. >Success, >Pragmatism, >Proofs, >Provability. I 75 The evolutionary epistemology does not have the concept of truth of pragmatism - it is not proven by success. Success/Vollmer: only proves that the hypothesis was not entirely wrong. >Hypotheses. I 217 VsEvolution theory/VsDarwinismus. Circular. VollmerVsVs: it is wrong that "Fitness" can be defined without recourse to "surviving". >Survival, >Fitness. I 260 Fitness is not determined by the survival of the individual, but by reproductive success, more food, more habitat, more partners, more offspring, etc. I 264 Entropy/Evolution/life/Vollmer: contrary to popular belief it is not always a measure of disorder. >Entropy. Under special conditions (low total energy and existence of lasting interactions or inclusion by external forces) the increase in entropy even includes an increase of order and structure - thus the second law does not contradict the origin of living things. >Life, >Energy, >Order. I 279 Adaptation/selection/VsEvolutionary Epistemology is no falsification - the original eye is not falsyfied by the eye of the eagle - proper mapping does not matter - transferring the selection theory on cognitive skills can only succeed if there is objective truth and if knowledge is more useful than error (Simmel, 1895) - VollmerVsVs: this is not an argument VsEvolution - no matter who is adapting to whom - Co-adaption. I 298 Evolution/success/Vollmer: the accuracy of knowledge cannot be inferred from evolutionary success - otherwise naturalistic fallacy - confusion of facts with norms. >Naturalistic fallacy, >Norms, >Facts. --- II 190 Evolution/time direction/Vollmer: due to cosmic expansion there are no two moments of evolution identical - (> time arrow). |
Vollmer I G. Vollmer Was können wir wissen? Bd. I Die Natur der Erkenntnis. Beiträge zur Evolutionären Erkenntnistheorie Stuttgart 1988 Vollmer II G. Vollmer Was können wir wissen? Bd II Die Erkenntnis der Natur. Beiträge zur modernen Naturphilosophie Stuttgart 1988 |
| Evolutionary Psychology | Buss | Corr II 171 Evolutionary Psychology/EP/Buss/Figueredo: (…) we may envision a mass of people escaping a burning building by different exits: main exits, emergency exits, windows and service doors. Personality is similar. Just as everyone has to escape the burning building in the analogy, so there is the evolutionary imperative to reproduce before death; and just as there are many exits, one can foster successful reproduction by being gregarious and charming as with the social extravert, dogged II 172 and persevering like the exceedingly conscientious, or ingratiating and affiliative like the highly agreeable. Thus, different personality styles and strategies have evolved in competition with one another for the same goal of survival and reproduction, but with different ways and means of adaptation. II 173 [Buss] insists that evolution forges the ‘physiological, anatomical and psychological mechanisms’ that inform choice, inclination, aversion and attraction. II 175 (…) the new science of EP correctly represented emitted behaviours as the product of the interactions between evolved psychological mechanisms and specific stimulus inputs from the environment to which they were finely tuned. II 179 Survival/Reproduction: (…) Buss outlined eight exigencies of survival and reproduction in any adaptive landscape populated by concentrations of conspecifics: (1) successful intrasexual competition, (2) mate selection, (3) successful conception, (4) mate retention, (5) reciprocal dyadic alliance formation, (6) coalition-building and maintenance, (7) parental care and socialization and (8) extra-parental kin investment. There follows a continuation of Buss’s claim that EP is an able arbiter of theory in its ability to impose a biologically informed kind of Occam’s razor upon theoretical claims within personality psychology. II 180 A common misconception regarding the evolution of personality, critiqued by Buss (2011)(1), is that selection acts as a homogenizing force leading to single point of optimality in the phenotype distribution. In contrast, evolutionary theory predicts that the location of this point will vary depending upon the type of selective pressures active, in accordance to the relationship between a trait and its fitness. II 182 The alternative explanations summarized by Buss (1991)(2) for the origins of partially heritable personality characteristics and the retention of individual differences remain as possibilities, but the list of alternatives has been expanded [in a volume edited by Buss and Hawley (2011)(3)]. For example, it has been argued as possible that selective sweeps within the past several thousand years (…) are behind the large variation among humans. Gene flow due to accelerated migration of individuals among human populations is also a contender hypothesis. Balancing selection, whereby multiple phenotypes are adaptive in a complementary way, each in a specific subset of the species niches, has remained as a focus of discussion. >Evolution, >Selection, >Adaptation, >Niches, >Species, >Genes, >Heritability. 1. Buss, D. (2011). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (4th ed.). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. 2. Buss, D. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 459–491. 3. Buss, D. M., & Hawley, P. H. (2011). The evolution of personality and individual differences. New York: Oxford University Press. Figueredo, Aurelio J.; Fernandes, Heitor B. F.; Peñaherrera-Aguirre, Mateo and Hertler, Steven C.: “The Evolution of Personality Revisiting Buss (1991)”, In: Philip J. Corr (Ed.) 2018. Personality and Individual Differences. Revisiting the classical studies. Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne: Sage, pp. 171-190. |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Fitness Landscape | |||
| Fitness Landscape | Norvig | Norvig I 155 Fitness landscape/Norvig/Russell: Work by Sewall Wright (1931)(1) on the concept of a fitness landscape was an important precursor to the development of genetic algorithms. >Optimization, >Genetic algorithms, >Local minima, >Search algorithms. In the 1950s, several statisticians, including Box (1957)(2) and Friedman (1959)(3), used evolutionary techniques for optimization problems, but it wasn’t until Rechenberg (1965)(4) introduced evolution strategies to solve optimization problems for airfoils that the approach gained popularity. 1. Wright, S. (1931). Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics, 16, 97–159. 2. Box, G. E. P. (1957). Evolutionary operation: A method of increasing industrial productivity. Applied Statistics, 6, 81–101. 3. Friedman, G. J. (1959). Digital simulation of an evolutionary process. General Systems Yearbook, 4, 171–184. 4. Rechenberg, I. (1965). Cybernetic solution path of an experimental problem. Library translation 1122, Royal Aircraft Establishment |
Norvig I Peter Norvig Stuart J. Russell Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach Upper Saddle River, NJ 2010 |
| Fitness Landscape | Russell | Norvig I 155 Fitness landscape/Norvig/Russell: Work by Sewall Wright (1931)(1) on the concept of a fitness landscape was an important precursor to the development of genetic algorithms. >Optimization, >Genetic algorithms, >Local minima, >Search algorithms. In the 1950s, several statisticians, including Box (1957)(2) and Friedman (1959)(3), used evolutionary techniques for optimization problems, but it wasn’t until Rechenberg (1965)(4) introduced evolution strategies to solve optimization problems for airfoils that the approach gained popularity. 1. Wright, S. (1931). Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics, 16, 97–159. 2. Box, G. E. P. (1957). Evolutionary operation: A method of increasing industrial productivity. Applied Statistics, 6, 81–101. 3. Friedman, G. J. (1959). Digital simulation of an evolutionary process. General Systems Yearbook, 4, 171–184. 4. Rechenberg, I. (1965). Cybernetic solution path of an experimental problem. Library translation 1122, Royal Aircraft Establishment |
Russell I B. Russell/A.N. Whitehead Principia Mathematica Frankfurt 1986 Russell II B. Russell The ABC of Relativity, London 1958, 1969 German Edition: Das ABC der Relativitätstheorie Frankfurt 1989 Russell IV B. Russell The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford 1912 German Edition: Probleme der Philosophie Frankfurt 1967 Russell VI B. Russell "The Philosophy of Logical Atomism", in: B. Russell, Logic and KNowledge, ed. R. Ch. Marsh, London 1956, pp. 200-202 German Edition: Die Philosophie des logischen Atomismus In Eigennamen, U. Wolf (Hg) Frankfurt 1993 Russell VII B. Russell On the Nature of Truth and Falsehood, in: B. Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford 1912 - Dt. "Wahrheit und Falschheit" In Wahrheitstheorien, G. Skirbekk (Hg) Frankfurt 1996 Norvig I Peter Norvig Stuart J. Russell Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach Upper Saddle River, NJ 2010 |
| Functional Explanation | Bigelow | I 323 Definition Functional Explanation/Function/Bigelow/Pargetter: with a functional explanation we describe existing patterns by reference to future events or states. It is possible that these may never occur. >Induction. Why: we explain, e.g. why we have teeth by pointing out their function. Problem: to explain the function of causally inactive patterns or elements. I 324 Problem: because the future conditions may not even arise, we do not describe any real properties. Properties/Bigelow/Pargetter: properties of a system are derived from its causal history, not from its function! Therefore, they do not depend on the function of the system! >Properties, >Function. Backward causation/Bigelow/Pargetter: is simply excluded with this. Function/Explanation/Bigelow/Pargetter: therefore, the function of a system is correspondingly redundant. The function can of course be mentioned, but description is more than mentioning possible effects. >Evolution, >Darwinism. Functional Explanation/Science/Bigelow/Pargetter: there are three approaches that we consider to be generally correct. They all have in common that functions have no significant explanatory power. I 325 E.g. Evolution/Bigelow/Pargetter: the theories of functional explanation do not allow to explain evolution by saying that a pattern has formed because it fulfils a certain function. Functional Explanation/Bigelow/Pargetter: Thesis: our theory will be a realistic one. I 332 Functional Explanation/function/Bigelow/Pargetter: thesis: we want a theory that is forward oriented. Functions can and should be explained by reference to future events and states. Analogous to the explanation of dispositions. Analog: our explanation has an analog: the explanation of the evolution-theoretical concept of survival (fitness). (Lit. Pargetter 1987)(1). VsDarwinism/VsDarwin/Bigelow/Pargetter: frequent objection: the "survival of the able" is an empty tautology. >Survival. BigelowVsVs: the objection is based on the assumption that fitness could only be determined retrospectively. He also assumes that the fact that some individuals survive is exactly what constitutes efficiency. (circular). BigelowVsAetiologic theory: is based on the same misunderstanding. It then claims that also the property of having a function is a retrospective property constituted by the history of survival. Thus, the concept of function is deprived of its explanatory potential. I 333 Circularity/Bigelow/Pargetter: this objection is often erroneously raised VsDarwinism. Fitness/solution/Bigelow/Pargetter: however, it is not defined retrospectively, but is analogous to a disposition. Subjunction/subjunctive/conditional/fitness/Bigelow/Pargetter: Fitness is a subjunctive property: it determines what would happen if these or that circumstances were to occur. >Subjunction. This subjunctive property supervenes on the morphological character of the individual or species. There is no circularity. >Supervenience, >Circularity. Biological function/Bigelow/Pargetter: the same applies to them as to fitness. They are two sides of the same coin. Fitness/Bigelow/Pargetter: means looking forward. 1. Pargetter, R. (1987). Fitness. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 68. pp.44-56. |
Big I J. Bigelow, R. Pargetter Science and Necessity Cambridge 1990 |
| Learning | Kauffman | I 303 Definition Learning curve/learning/Kauffman: "experience curves": along technological trajectories. The general improvement rate decreases with the level of total industrial investment! (Potency Act). >Technology, >Progress. Reason: when a "mature" technology is in the phase of declining yields (saturation, competition), it is more difficult to raise capital for innovation. The improvement curve flattens out as in biological evolution (fitness landscape). >Fitness Landscape, >Evolution, >Economy. |
Kau II Stuart Kauffman At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity New York 1995 Kauffman I St. Kauffman At Home in the Universe, New York 1995 German Edition: Der Öltropfen im Wasser. Chaos, Komplexität, Selbstorganisation in Natur und Gesellschaft München 1998 |
| Learning | Pinker | I 226 Learning/evolution/Pinker: Learning leads to the evolution of innate skills, but not to the fact that all abilities are innate - innate/(s): everything that has been brought about by evolution is innate - (otherwise Adaptionism)). >Evolution, >Innateness, >Adaption. I 226 ~ Baldwin effect/Pinker: starts from the assumption that learning draws evolution in the direction that it looks like Lamarckian Evolution. >Lamarckism. The ability to learn will change the problem of evolution - instead of blindly searching for the needle in a haystack, it tells you when you get close. Cf. >Fitness landsape. I 229 Learning/Pinker: not associative - young migratory birds memorize the night sky including rotation.- Animals calculate calories burned when hunting in the area.> >Association, >Animal. |
Pi I St. Pinker How the Mind Works, New York 1997 German Edition: Wie das Denken im Kopf entsteht München 1998 |
| Local Minimum | Anderson | Brockman I 147 Local minimum problem/local maximum/fitness landscape/Chris Anderson: The limits of gradient descent constitute the so-called local-minima problem (or local-maxima problem, if you’re doing a gradient ascent). >Fitness landscape. (>Local minimum). Solution/Anderson: (…) you either need a mental model (i.e., a map) of the topology, so you know where to ascend to get out of the valley, or you need to switch between gradient descent and random walks so you can bounce your way out of the region. >Robots/Anderson, >Artificial intelligence/Anderson, >Universe/Anderson, >Fitness landscape. Anderson, Chris “Gradient Descent” in: Brockman, John (ed.) 2019. Twenty-Five Ways of Looking at AI. New York: Penguin Press. |
Ander I Chris Anderson The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More New York 2006 Brockman I John Brockman Possible Minds: Twenty-Five Ways of Looking at AI New York 2019 |
| Norms | Economic Theories | Parisi I 167 Norms/Economic theories/Wangenheim: Social norms and their evolution have been widely discussed in economics. The argument on stability of norms in evolutionary settings starts by rather simple situations with only two alternative behaviors, of which one becomes a social norm (see for example the overview articles by Ostrom, 2000(1), and Elster 1989(2) as well as the seminal book by Ullman-Margalit, 1977)(3). It has been extended in particular in relation to experimental game theory in which the obvious existence of norms had to be explained (Fehr and Schmidt, 1999(4); Fehr and Fischbacher, 2004(5); Bolton and Ockenfels, 2000(6)). Indirect evolution: The indirect evolutionary approach (Güth and Yaari, 1992(7); Güth, 1995(8); Güth and Ockenfels, 2000(9)), which separates preferences from fitness but lets preferences evolve according to the fitness of the actions they induce for rational agents, suggests itself for modeling the evolution of norms, if they are interpreted as preferences deviating from material pay-offs. Dekel et al. (2007)(10) offer very general results on the stability of norms in such settings with various degrees of information on the preferences of other individuals. Parisi I 168 Influence of law on norms: Parisi and Wangenheim (2006)(11) show in an interactive opinion formation model with an ordered set of possible social norms that law may not only trigger the evolution of social norms in the same direction as the law goes but also Parisi I 169 in the reverse direction. This may occur particularly when legal change is too far from social norms and thus triggers hidden or open opposition. They also show that legal strategies like front-loading the enforcement of legal rules may avoid such countervailing effect - possibly only at high costs, though. Carbonara et al. (2008a(12), 2008b(13)) study such strategies against countervailing effects of social norms on legislation in more detail. Carbonara et al. (2012)(14) elaborate on the double function of law - incentives and expression of a majority's opinions affecting internalization of norms - and dwell on their interplay. 1. Ostrom, E. (2000). "Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms." Journal of Economic Perspectives 14: 137-158. 2. Elster, J. (1989). "Social Norms and Economic Theory." Journal of Economic Perspectives 3: 99-117. 3. Ullman-Margalit, E. (1977). The Emergence of Norms. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 4. Fehr, E. and K. M. Schmidt (1999). "A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation." Quarterly Journal of Economics 114: 817-868. 5. Fehr, E. and U. Fischbacher (2004). "Social Norms and Human Cooperation." Trends in cognitive Sciences 8: 185-190. 6. Bolton, G. E. and A. Ockenfels (2000). "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition." American Economic Review 90: 166-193. 7. Güth, W. and M. Yaari (1992). "An Evolutionary Approach to Explain Reciprocal Behavior in a Simple Strategic Game," in U. Witt, ed., Explaining Process and Change - Approaches to Evolutionary Economics, 23-34. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 8. Güth, W. (1995). "An Evolutionary Approach to Explaining Cooperative Behavior by Reciprocal Incentives." International Journal of Game Theory 24:323-344. 9. Güth, W. and A. Ockenfels (2000). "Evolutionary Norm Enforcement." Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 156: 33 5-347. 10. Dekel, E., J. C. Ely, and O. Yilankaya (2007). "Evolution of Preferences." Review of Economic studies 74:685-704. 11. Parisi, F. and G. v. Wangenheim (2006). "Legislation and Countervailing Effects from Social Norms," in C. Schubert and G. v. Wangenheim, eds., Evolution and Design of Institutions, 25-55. London: Routledge. 12. Carbonara, Emanuela, Francesco Parisi, and Georg von Wangenheim (2008a). "Lawmakers as Norm Entrepreneurs." Review of Law and Economics 4:779-799. 13. Carbonara, E., F. Parisi, and G. von Wangenheim (2008b). "Legal Innovation and the Compliance Paradox." Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 9: 837-860. 14. Carbonara, E., F. Parisi, and G. v. Wangenheim (2012). "Unjust Laws and Illegal Norms." International Review of Law and Economics 32: 285-299. Wangenheim, Georg von. „Evolutionary Law and Economics.” In: Parisi, Francesco (ed) (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics. Vol 1: Methodology and Concepts. NY: Oxford University Press |
Parisi I Francesco Parisi (Ed) The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics: Volume 1: Methodology and Concepts New York 2017 |
| Objectivity | Dennett | I 266 Objectivity / Dennett: e.g. "optimum" for Eigen is not only defined in a solid way, but can also be assigned with experimental measurements. E.g. >fitness landscapes. The algorithms here are not invented subjectively. |
Dennett I D. Dennett Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, New York 1995 German Edition: Darwins gefährliches Erbe Hamburg 1997 Dennett II D. Dennett Kinds of Minds, New York 1996 German Edition: Spielarten des Geistes Gütersloh 1999 Dennett III Daniel Dennett "COG: Steps towards consciousness in robots" In Bewusstein, Thomas Metzinger Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 1996 Dennett IV Daniel Dennett "Animal Consciousness. What Matters and Why?", in: D. C. Dennett, Brainchildren. Essays on Designing Minds, Cambridge/MA 1998, pp. 337-350 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005 |
| Propensities | Bigelow | I 333 Functional Explanation/Forward-looking theory/function/Bigelow/Pargetter: 1. Aetiological theory/Bigelow/Pargetter: I 334 For example, suppose that a pattern usually has a certain effect and is the result of natural selection. Then the aetiological theory says, that it is now a function of this pattern. >Function, >Cause, >Effect, >Causality, >Causal explanation, >Functional explanation, >Functional analysis, >Selection. In the past, there must have been a relevant effect in a sufficient number of cases. >Relevance. N.B.: the corresponding situations are not randomly chosen situations, but situations where the effect was appropriate. In these situations, it contributes to survival. Propensity/Survival/Bigelow/Pargetter: although probability laws allow for a long series of coincidences, this is very unlikely. Normally, there will be a propensity towards the survival of the individual. Function/Bigelow/Pargetter: if there are only a few coincidences, we certainly do not speak of function. >Coincidence. I 335 Etiological theory/Bigelow/Pargetter: we interpret it in a way so it attributes the function for the whole time, even before it contributed to survival! At that time, it contributed to a propensity. Environment: this too must be relativized for the environment. If this suddenly changes, there may be ambiguities of adaptation. >Adaptation, >Environment, >Niches. I 336 Function/Bigelow/Pargetter: Functions can be described as components of an organism in descending hierarchy of complexity. For example, body parts, but also cells have functions. >Complexity, >Parts. Propensity theory/Bigelow/Pargetter: according to it, the functions are therefore relational properties. >Properties. And they are dispositional. >Dispositions. This is true even if the individual does not survive or is never in his normal environment. >Individuals, >Natural kinds. I 337 Explanation/Bigelow/Pargetter: the functions interpreted (like that as propensities) explain survival by causal information, as a why-explanation. >Explanation, >Causal explanation, >Functional explanation, >Why questions. Propensity Theory/Artefacts/Bigelow/Pargetter: can it be applied to artifacts as well as to biological patterns? It can be part of an overarching theory, but with artifacts there is again the problem of looking back (see above). >Artifacts. Solution/Bigelow/Pargetter: Thesis: we propose a theory of propensity for selection as a forward-looking theory for biological patterns and artifacts. >Selection. I 338 This means that all functions, be they biological or artifacts, have something in common. Function/fitness/causal explanation/propensity theory/Bigelow/Pargetter: it is possible that an organism may not survive, even though it has developed a survival function. But if it survives, it is because of this function. VsPropensity theory/Bigelow/Pargetter: For example, a structure does not serve any purpose at all, suppose its environment changes, and suddenly its functions serve survival. Then our theory of propensity would have to say that the structure has a function lately. For example, suppose one could say that heart tones have the function of alerting doctors. But only in this century, that seems wrong. Aetiological theory: says that heart tones have no such function because they are not designed for it. Bigelow/Pargetter: nevertheless the reason why we want to deny heart tones a function is not that they have no evolutionary history of the desired kind... I 339 ...but because the heart tones have an inevitable connection with the function of blood pumping. >Functional analysis. The heartbeat does nott produce any propensity for survival. This corresponds to examples of functions that existed in the past, but have now lost their function: VsPropensity Theory/Bigelow/Pargetter: this assumes that the pattern has no function. Aetiological theory: assumes that it has a function, no matter what it was used for and what it was designed for. Propensity Theory/Bigelow/Pargetter: generally gives better explanations. We can say that this function used to exist in the past, but unfortunately it became harmful to the individual. I 340 Explanation/Bigelow/Pargetter: a propensity can play an explanatory causal role, while the fact that something has a historical origin does not matter. This shows us that the propensity theory has such strong advantages that it seems to be justified to argue away counterexamples. Paul GriffithsVsPropensity Theory/Bigelow/Pargetter: just because fitness is forward-looking, functions should be retrospective. And we can even give up the term "function" in favour of "fitness". BigelowVsVs: Function and fitness can play independent roles. Fitness: Property of an organism Function: functions specify the properties that together contribute to fitness. And here we can also ask why they are doing this. Information/Bigelow/Pargetter: an attribution of fitness breaks apart into the attribution of many functions. Thus, functions are more informative in one respect, and less informative in another than fitness. a) they do not tell us about the level of fitness, but b) each one tells us not only what characteristics contribute, but also why. I 341 Artifact/Fitness/Bigelow/Pargetter: artifacts are not about fitness, so function cannot be made superfluous by them. Therefore, fitness cannot be redundant in it. But instead, necessity can be redundant analogously. Propensity Theory/Solution/Bigelow/Pargetter: provides a uniform concept of function that also applies to artifacts. |
Big I J. Bigelow, R. Pargetter Science and Necessity Cambridge 1990 |
| Property Dualism | Chalmers | I 125 Property Dualism/Consciousness/Chalmers: from the lack of a logical supervenience of consciousness from the physical follows that conscious experiences imply the properties of an individual that are not implied by the physical properties of that individual. It is not about a separate "substance". >Supervenience, >Consciousness/Chalmers, >Consciousness. Consciousness is a feature, a property of the world, beyond the physical facts. Property Dualism: there is a weaker kind of property dualism, according to which biological fitness is not implied by physical facts. Such a property dualism would be compatible with materialism. Vgl. >Materialism. This variety is not to be confused with our present one. Consciousness/Chalmers: consciousness can result, according to our variety, from property dualism of physical properties without being implied by them. Cf. >Emergence, >Emergence/Chalmers. I 126 This view is completely naturalistic and compatible with our scientific knowledge. I 128 Definition Naturalistic Dualism/Chalmers: I call my variety of dualism naturalistic dualism, according to which properties of the phenomenal consciousness supervene on physical facts in a still to be determined manner, although not logically. >Dualism/Chalmers. What could happen in the future would be what happened with Maxwell's equations: known laws could be extended as far as their scope of application is concerned. There could be a psychophysical theory, as there is an electromagnetic theory. Cf. >Laws of nature, >Explanation, >Causal explanation. This dualism is naturalistic because it proceeds from the validity of all known laws. It is closer to materialism than many other forms of dualism by negating any transcendental elements. >Naturalism. I 129 My dualism, by the way, can still turn out as a kind of monism if it should be shown that the phenomenal and the physical are two aspects of an overlapping kind, as it turned out to be the case with matter and energy. >Monism. I have a certain sympathy for this view. But this could not be a materialistic ((s) eliminative) monism. >Elimination, >Reduction, >Reductionism. |
Cha I D. Chalmers The Conscious Mind Oxford New York 1996 Cha II D. Chalmers Constructing the World Oxford 2014 |
| Representation | Shaver | Corr I 238 Representations/attachment theory/Shaver/Mikulincer: as compared with other mental representations, (a) working models (see >Terminology/Bowlby) also contain or express a person’s wishes, fears, conflicts and psychological defences; (b, a related point) working models seem to have a powerful affective component and tend to be shaped by emotion-regulation processes; (c) working models tend to be constructed in relational terms and to organize representations of the social self, interaction partners and social interactions; and (d) attachment working models are broad, rich and complex structures which can include tandem or opposite representations of the same social experiences at episodic, semantic and procedural levels of encoding (Shaver, Collins and Clark 1996)(1). >Working models, >Attachment theory. 1. Shaver, P. R., Collins, N. L. and Clark, C. L. 1996. Attachment styles and internal working models of self and relationship partners, in G. J. O. Fletcher and J. Fitness (eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: a social psychological approach, pp. 25–61. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Phillip R. Shaver and Mario Mikulincer, “Attachment theory: I. Motivational, individual-differences and structural aspects”, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Selection | Kauffman | Dennett I 550 Scientific camp: KauffmanVsSpencer: Stuart Kauffman: Order is created despite (environmental) selection. >H. Spencer, >Order/Kauffman. Kauffman I 46 Order/Biology/Kauffman: Order in the biosphere cannot be traced back to selection and self-organization at the same time! >Selection, >Self-organization. Life/Kauffman: life exists at the edge of chaos, possibly near some kind of phase transition. >Life/Kauffman. Kauffman I 229 Fitness landscape/Kauffman:"adaptive landscape". (see also Dennett: fitness landscape.) Thesis: Life is an adventure in the high mountains of the fitness landscape. Order/Kauffman: Thesis: also possible without selection. Today we need a new theoretical framework model. >Order/Kauffman. Kauffman I 233 Selection/Kauffman: it is not proven that the selection can also successfully accumulate the minor improvements. Smaller catastrophes can also accumulate in a population. (>Error catastrophe). Kauffman I 234 Evolution/Kauffman: Example of computer programs that are to perform an operation. Serial programs are extremely sensitive and accumulate errors. It takes more time than the age of the universe to find the "optimal program" among 10300. So the evolution of our lives must have been different. >Evolution, >Evolution/Kauffman. Kauffman I 238 Evolution/Optimization/Kauffman: Solution: perhaps evolution could first design a redundant program or organism and then compress it? Kauffman I 240 Kauffman: I guess this does not work. The gradual approach to the minimum length program is only useful if the program found at each level helps to find the program that is 1 shorter by the next level. Kauffman I 246 Evolution/Darwin/Selection/Kauffman: if the children of both parents are similar, the characteristics must not merge, otherwise the genetic variation would disappear after a few generations and the selection would no longer have an object. Solution: Mendelian inheritance: both forms appear again in the grandchildren. Question: Assuming that a gene in a population would have two alleles, can the selection increase the frequency of one allele? Yes! However, it depends on the structure of the fitness landscape. Kauffman I 248 Selection/Kauffman: our models of fitness landscapes show the limits of natural selection. (Local maximum represent end stations.) Kauffman I 253 Evolution/Kauffman: requires fitness landscapes that are not random. Probably favourable landscapes are created by self-organization. >Models/Kauffman. |
Kau II Stuart Kauffman At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity New York 1995 Kauffman I St. Kauffman At Home in the Universe, New York 1995 German Edition: Der Öltropfen im Wasser. Chaos, Komplexität, Selbstorganisation in Natur und Gesellschaft München 1998 Dennett I D. Dennett Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, New York 1995 German Edition: Darwins gefährliches Erbe Hamburg 1997 Dennett II D. Dennett Kinds of Minds, New York 1996 German Edition: Spielarten des Geistes Gütersloh 1999 Dennett III Daniel Dennett "COG: Steps towards consciousness in robots" In Bewusstein, Thomas Metzinger Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 1996 Dennett IV Daniel Dennett "Animal Consciousness. What Matters and Why?", in: D. C. Dennett, Brainchildren. Essays on Designing Minds, Cambridge/MA 1998, pp. 337-350 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005 |
| Selection | Kropotkin | Brocker I 28 Selection/GouldVsKropotkin/Kropotkin/Gould: Kropotkin did not realize that natural selection refers to benefits for the individual being, no matter how it fights. The struggle for existence can lead to cooperation instead of competition, but according to the Darwinian explanation, mutual help must benefit the individual organism.(1) >Darwinism, >Evolution, >Fitness. Gould pro Kropotkin: However, Kropotkin has also recognized that selection in favour of mutual help benefits each individual in his own fight for personal success. In this Gould saw an insight of the original Darwinian thinking that is still important today. GouldVsKropotkin: Kropotkin projects his anarchistic desires into nature.(2) >Anarchism/Kropotkin, >Anarchism. 1.Gould 1994, p. 389f. 2. Ibid. p. 387. |
Kropot I Peter Kropotkin Gegenseitige Hilfe in der Tier- und Menschenwelt Frankfurt/Berlin/Wien 1975 Brocker I Manfred Brocker Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
| Species | Kauffman | I 310 Species/Evolution/Kauffman: it is estimated that between 99% and 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are extinct again. >Extinction, >Evolution, >Survival. Today: probably between 10 and 100 million species. Probably between 10 and 100 billion species have emerged and disappeared in the course of time. I 310/311 Fitness landscape/Co-evolution/Kauffman: changes when the environment changes. Predator-prey-cycles. Both have a fitness landscape, but the two are combined! >Co-evolution. Co-evolution/Kauffman: changes not only the organisms (predator/prey) but also their interrelationship! This changes not only the respective fitness landscape, but also the elasticity of their relationships. >Fitness landscape, >Fitness. Thus, the process of co-evolution itself is subject to evolution. >Levels/order, >Description Levels. Selection/Kauffman: starts at the level of the individual. The mystery is that the emergent order of communities reflects this selection of individuals. >Selection, >Individuals. I 312 Predator-prey-cycle/Kauffman: either long-term transition to a steady state (parallel) or long-term shifted sinusoidal fluctuations, then "boundary cycle". I 315 Evolution/Communities/Kauffman: Question: How do biocoenoses form? We do not know it. >Life, >Life/Kauffman. When you fence an area (ecotope) the composition of the species always changes. After removing the fence, however, the original composition is not restored! "Community fitness landscape": after the change, the community climbs another summit. At a summit, a community cannot accept new species. Saturation limit. >Coincidence. I 320 Problem: it does not make sense to talk about community fitness right from the start! The success of immigration does not depend directly on whether it increases the fitness of the community! >Niches. Now, however, the simulations behave as if community fitness existed. In the model (not in reality) we see here an emergent phenomenon. Extinction events/extinction/Kauffman: the extinction of species occurs according to the pattern of avalanches in sand heaps, many small, few large avalanches, unpredictable, potency law. N.B.: the decision on how the interrelationship between species is formed, who is predator and who is prey, is based on a random distribution. I 320 Mitochondria/Kauffman: have penetrated the cells at some point and started the complicated interaction mechanism that has been stable for about one billion years. Highly complex problem. >Complexity. Def Mutualism: Mitochondria keep up the stable population by the speed of their divisions, the cell enjoys the energetic fruits of these efforts. I 322 "Red Queen Effect"/Kauffman: (Alice): "You must run as fast as you can to stay in the same place". I 323 Co-evolution/Niche/Kauffman: the goods and services in a community (economic network) exist only because they are useful as an intermediate or final product. These are the niches created by other goods and services. Niche/Kauffman: each species lives in a niche created by other species (>benefit for others). >Niches. |
Kau II Stuart Kauffman At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity New York 1995 Kauffman I St. Kauffman At Home in the Universe, New York 1995 German Edition: Der Öltropfen im Wasser. Chaos, Komplexität, Selbstorganisation in Natur und Gesellschaft München 1998 |
| Terminology | Dawkins | I 27 Def Altruistic/Dawkins: An organism behaves altruistically when it increases the welfare of another at its expense. I 28 Def Well-Being/Dawkins: Well-being is defined as survival chances even if the effect on the actual outlook is so small that it can seem negligible. Egoism/Altruism/Dawkins: oriented on actual behavior, not on intentions. No psychology of motives! I 32 Altruism/Dawkins: Altruism is often falsely attributed: when living creatures actually behave in a way that benefits the "well-being of the species" or "well-being of the group". I 126 Def ESS/Dawkins: an evolutionarilly stable strategy is one that - if the majority of a population adopts it - cannot be overruled by any alternative strategy. ((S) Not defined.) I 447 Narrower Def ESS: a strategy that performs well against copies of itself. It will often encounter copies of itself, since a successful strategy is predominant in a population. I 227 Fitness/Dawkins: The expression should not be used, because it falsely emanates from the individual! Instead, the selfish gene is the only entity that matters! Genes in children are selected because of their ability to override parents, genes in the parents' body vice versa. I 377 Def Extended phenotype/Dawkins: phenotypic effects of a gene are all the effects of a gene on the body in which it sits. But it also affects "the world"! E.g. beavers' dams, birds' nests, shell of the quiver flies (movable cement houses). In difference to the eye as a "miracle of nature", we do not have to attribute these achievements to processes that occur within the mothers' interior. They are achievements of the creating individual. (Usually called "instinct"). I 386 Def haplodiploid: unfertilized eggs develop into males. I.e., e.g., male bark beetles have no father (as is the case with bees and ants). But in the case of the bark beetles something must penetrate the eggs. This task is performed by bacteria. (Parasites). |
Da I R. Dawkins The Selfish Gene, Oxford 1976 German Edition: Das egoistische Gen, Hamburg 1996 Da II M. St. Dawkins Through Our Eyes Only? The Search for Animal Consciousness, Oxford/New York/Heidelberg 1993 German Edition: Die Entdeckung des tierischen Bewusstseins Hamburg 1993 |
| Terminology | Mayr | I 45 Def genotype: nucleic acids, (total number of genes) Def phenotype: proteins, lipids, macromolecules, (total of characteristics, environmentally dependent). I 43 Def Integron/Mayr: An integron is a system created by integration of subordinate units on a higher level. Integrons evolve by natural selection. They are adapted systems at each level because they contribute to the fitness (suitability) of an individual. I 205 Def Parthenogenesis: Asexuality: in some organisms, individuals develop themselves from the eggs, fertilization is not necessary. E.g. Aphids, plankton crustaceans: here sexual and asexual generations alternate. I 324 Def Altruism: (Trivers, 1985)(1): action that benefits another organism at the expense of the actor, with the costs and benefits being defined as reproductive success. I 175 Def Class/Biology/Mayr: Grouping of entities that are similar and related to each other. Classification: two important functions: a) recovery of information. b) comparative research. Information storage. I 177 Def "Variety": (Linné, even Darwin): Deviations that are slightly smaller than those of a new species. ("typological" or "essential concept of species"). ("Common essence" ("Nature")). I 178 Def Twin species: (discovered only recently: spatially separated, but equally developed, discovered in almost all animal species), forces a new criterion for the delineatation of species: reproductive isolation of populations. I 179 Def Species/Mayr: device for protecting balanced, harmonic genotypes. "Biological concept of species" seeks biological reasons for the existence of species. Maybe there are other properties by chance. I 183 Def Species Taxa: special populations or population groups corresponding to the species definition. They are entities. I 373 Def Similarity: certain characteristics must occur together with other characteristics from which they are logically independent. I 49 Def knowledge/Mayr: facts and their interpretation. I 279 Def r-selection: strongly fluctuating, often catastrophically exposed population size, weak intraspecific competition, very fertile. K-Selection: constant population size, strong competition, stable life expectancy. I 41 Def Reductionism/Mayr: Reductionism considers the problem of explanation fundamentally as solved as soon as the reduction to the smallest components is completed. I 186 Def Feature/Biology/Mayr: a distinguishing feature or attribute. Is arbitrarily chosen by the taxonomists. Often led to very strange "unnatural" groups. At the end of the 18th century, attempts were made to replace the Linné system with a more natural one. I 211 Def Preformation: Eggs produce individuals of the same species. Therefore it was concluded that egg or sperm is already a miniature of the future organism. I 212 Def Epigenesis: Development during the life history of the individual, in contrast to ontogeny and phylogeny. I 219 Def Induction/Biology/Mayr: Influence of already existing tissues on the development of other tissues. By proteins. It is important for almost all organisms. I 349 Def Life/Mayr: Activities of self-developed systems, controlled by a genetic program. Def Life/Rensch(2): Living beings are hierarchically ordered, open systems, predominantly organic compounds, which normally appear as circumscribed, cell-structured individuals of temporally limited constancy. Def Life/Sattler 1986(3): an open system that replicates and regulates itself, shows individuality, and subsists on energy from the environment. MayrVs: all contain superfluous and do not go into the genetic program, which is perhaps the most important. More description than definition. 1. R. L. Trivers (1985). Social evolution. Menlo Park: Benjamin/Cummings. 2. B. Rensch (1968). Biophilosophie. Stuttgart: G. Fischer. S. 54. 3. R. Sattler (1986). Biophilosophy. Berlin: Springer. S. 228. |
Mayr I Ernst Mayr This is Biology, Cambridge/MA 1997 German Edition: Das ist Biologie Heidelberg 1998 |
| Universe | Anderson | Brockman I 145 Universe/artificial intelligence/Chris Anderson: We live in a world of countless gradients, from light and heat to gravity and chemical trails (chemtrails!). Water flows along a gravity gradient downhill, and your body lives on chemical solutions flowing across cell membranes from high concentration to low. Brockman I 146 clients to form molecules. Our own urges, such as hunger and sleepiness, are driven by electrochemical gradients in our bodies. And our brain’s functions, the electrical signals moving along ion channels in the synapses between our neurons, are simply atoms and electrons flowing “downhill” along yet more electrical and chemical gradients. As I sit here typing, I’m actually seeking equilibrium states in an n-dimensional topology of gradients. Brockman I 147 Problem: However, this is too simplistic. The limits of gradient descent constitute the so-called local-minima problem (or local-maxima problem, if you’re doing a gradient ascent). >Fitness landscape/Kauffman. (>Local minimum). Solution/Anderson: (…) you either need a mental model (i.e., a map) of the topology, so you know where to ascend to get out of the valley, or you need to switch between gradient descent and random walks so you can bounce your way out of the region. Anderson, Chris “Gradient Descent” in: Brockman, John (ed.) 2019. Twenty-Five Ways of Looking at AI. New York: Penguin Press. |
Ander I Chris Anderson The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More New York 2006 Brockman I John Brockman Possible Minds: Twenty-Five Ways of Looking at AI New York 2019 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Darwin, Ch. | Kauffman Vs Darwin, Ch. | Dennett I 309 KauffmanVsDarwin: a definition of the early development and thus of Baer s laws do not represent a specific mechanism Rather the definition of early development reflects the fact that the number of ways in which living things can be improved, shrunk faster than the number of paths in the later development. KauffmanVsDarwin: according to his theory, the evolution takes place only by the gradual accumulation of advantageous variants. Kauffman I 27 KauffmanVs: according to that the first multicellular organisms would have evolved apart! That was obviously not the case: one of the most puzzling features of the Cambrian explosion is that the taxonomic system was filled from top to bottom. Selection / Kauffman: there is a second boundary of the selection: it not only fails in random landscapes. I 278 KauffmanVsDarwin: the selection may also fail in uniform fitness landscapes, the "heartland" of Darwinism: it can trigger an error catastrophe. E.g. a bacterial species with initially identical individuals can be scattered from a local peak, down, simply because the mutation rate is too high! |
Kau II Stuart Kauffman At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity New York 1995 Kauffman I St. Kauffman At Home in the Universe, New York 1995 German Edition: Der Öltropfen im Wasser. Chaos, Komplexität, Selbstorganisation in Natur und Gesellschaft München 1998 Dennett I D. Dennett Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, New York 1995 German Edition: Darwins gefährliches Erbe Hamburg 1997 Dennett II D. Dennett Kinds of Minds, New York 1996 German Edition: Spielarten des Geistes Gütersloh 1999 Dennett III Daniel Dennett "COG: Steps towards consciousness in robots" In Bewusstein, Thomas Metzinger Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 1996 Dennett IV Daniel Dennett "Animal Consciousness. What Matters and Why?", in: D. C. Dennett, Brainchildren. Essays on Designing Minds, Cambridge/MA 1998, pp. 337-350 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005 |
| Darwin, Ch. | Verschiedene Vs Darwin, Ch. | Gould II 101 CuvierVsEvolution: he concluded from his principle of interaction that evolution had to be excluded. II 136 VavilovVsDarwin: variation does not take place in all directions, but arranged in classes of chemistry and crystallography, which are analogous. Vavilov has underemphasized the creative role of the environment. II 328 The opponents of Darwin always bring the same litany: Darwin must have been wrong - the order cannot arise by chance (e.g. KoestlerVsDarwin). Pinker I 403 Mortimer AdlerVsDarwinism: (Philosopher) 1940: Evolution could not have taken place, because there was also no three-and-a-half-sided triangle. Darwin: It is quite possible that intermediate forms have occurred in the past. Natural Species/Darwin: is not an ideal type, but a population. Vollmer I 260 Selection/Vollmer: there is no serious argument that the selection principle is circular. VsDarwinism/Tautology: the argument against Darwinism that it is tautological is misguided: "Survival of the survivor": VollmerVsVs: Fitness is not determined by the survival of the individual, but by reproductive success, more food, more living space, more partners, more offspring, etc. |
Gould I Stephen Jay Gould The Panda’s Thumb. More Reflections in Natural History, New York 1980 German Edition: Der Daumen des Panda Frankfurt 2009 Gould II Stephen Jay Gould Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes. Further Reflections in Natural History, New York 1983 German Edition: Wie das Zebra zu seinen Streifen kommt Frankfurt 1991 Gould III Stephen Jay Gould Full House. The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin, New York 1996 German Edition: Illusion Fortschritt Frankfurt 2004 Gould IV Stephen Jay Gould The Flamingo’s Smile. Reflections in Natural History, New York 1985 German Edition: Das Lächeln des Flamingos Basel 1989 Pi I St. Pinker How the Mind Works, New York 1997 German Edition: Wie das Denken im Kopf entsteht München 1998 Vollmer I G. Vollmer Was können wir wissen? Bd. I Die Natur der Erkenntnis. Beiträge zur Evolutionären Erkenntnistheorie Stuttgart 1988 Vollmer II G. Vollmer Was können wir wissen? Bd II Die Erkenntnis der Natur. Beiträge zur modernen Naturphilosophie Stuttgart 1988 |
| Darwin, Ch. | Bigelow Vs Darwin, Ch. | I 332 VsDarwinism/VsDarwin/Bigelow/Pargetter: common objection: the "survival of the fittest" is an empty tautology. BigelowVsVs: the objection assumes that fitness could only be determined retrospectively. It also assumes that the fact that some individuals survive is precisely what constitutes the fitness. (circular). BigelowVsAetiological theory: based on the same misunderstanding. It then claims that even the property of having a function is a retrospective property that is constituted by the story of survival. Thus the concept of function is robbed of its explanatory potential. I 333 Circularity/Bigelow/Pargetter: This objection is often raised falsely VsDarwinism. Fitness/Solution/Bigelow/Pargetter: but not retrospectively defined, but it is analogous to a disposition. |
Big I J. Bigelow, R. Pargetter Science and Necessity Cambridge 1990 |
| Propensity Theory | Bigelow Vs Propensity Theory | I 338 Function/Fitness/Causal explanation/Propensity theory/Bigelow/Pargetter: it may be that an organism does not survive, although it has developed a function for survival. But if it survives, it is because of this function. VsPropensity theory/Bigelow/Pargetter: E.g. a structure serves absolutely no purpose. Suppose its environment changes, and suddenly its funcitons serve the purpose of survival. Then our propensity theory would have to say that the structure has acquired a function recently. E.g. Assuming one could say that heart sounds have the function to alert doctors. But only in this century, that seems wrong. Etiologic theory says that heart sounds have no such function, because they were not developed for that. I 339 VsPropensity theory/Bigelow/Pargetter: it assumes that the pattern has no function. Etiologic theory: assumes that it has a function, no matter what it was needed for and what it was developed for. I 340 Paul GriffithsVsPropensity theory/Bigelow/Pargetter: precisely because fitness is forward looking, functions should be backward looking. And the term "function" can be given up completely for the sake of "Fitness". BigelowVsVs: function and fitness can play independent roles. Fitness: property of an organism. Function: functions specify the characteristics that contribute to fitness together. And here we can also ask why they do that. |
Big I J. Bigelow, R. Pargetter Science and Necessity Cambridge 1990 |
| |||
The author or concept searched is found in the following theses of the more related field of specialization.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evolution | Kauffman, St. | I 238 Evolution / Optimization: / Kauffman solution: perhaps evolution could first design a redundant program or organism and then compress? I 240 Kauffman: Thesis: I suspect it cannot. The successive approximation to the minimum-length program is in fact only be useful if the program found at each level helps locate the shorter program at the next level. (> Fitness landscape). |
|
| |||