Showing posts with label mutation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mutation. Show all posts

Monday, March 25, 2013

The hummingbird and the rat



  What’s the point, you ask, sether, what’s the point of all this?  You think you might become a Mormon.  Or a Baha’í.  They’ve got some traction.  They know how the world should be.  You, Brother Jero, you just rabbit on interminably about demons.  And they’re not even proper demons, red hot with anger, butting you up the bum with their pointy horns, lacerating you with their tridents.  They’re loci of irreducible difference.
  There aren’t many laughs in that, Brother Jero.  What’s the point?
  The point is, sethren, we are possessed.  The question we have to ask is, look, we are the most intelligent beings on Earth, possibly in the universe, or at least this universe; how come we are so fucking stupid?  Look at any area of the globe, big or small, land or ocean, and you realise that something about our behaviour stands out, above all other species.  Sheer blind stupidity.  It’s not our only quality I grant you.  We are also amazingly creative and constructive, we have built cities and spaceships, art, music, and society, all miraculous achievements.  It’s not that I’m on about.  It’s the other stuff.
  Take fish.  The oceans are a gift from eternity, powered by the sun, filled with evolved life over three and half billion years, an almost inexhaustible reservoir of protein and beauty.  And we are methodically, self-consciously, turning those oceans into squalid sumps.  Collectively, not very bright.  Collectively, the seven billion of us, we have less perspicuity than a whelk.  Why?  Particularly why if, as is the case, we are so fucking brainy?
  And that is the point, sethren.  We are like that because we are possessed.  Not by evil spirits.  But what we are is not quite what we think we are.  What is in our heads, the “thoughts” and “beliefs” and “philosophies” and “principles” are not wholly us at all.  Nor are they all that interested in our welfare as a species.  If at all.  In fact they are not interested in anything, because they are insentient, mindless, subject to blind evolution, just like the humming bird and the rat.  And us.  But they are not alive, though they evolve like life.  They survive because they are at an instant better suited to a particular niche than their competitors.  Instantaneous survival, that is the sole bridge they have to cross.  Opportunism in the shortest possible term; if successful, reiterated indefinitely, from second to second for minutes, centuries, millennia.  Like a bag, or a knife.  Or what you said at 3.27pm the Tuesday before last, if you were talking at that precise time.
  And when I say they, sethren, what am I referring to?  You’ve got it.  Those demons again.
I’m not saying, sethren, that we as a species have no foresight.  Clearly inestimable foresight is what distinguishes us  from all else.  Capitalism, town planning, space travel.  But these are all evolved too, quasi-infinite alliances and alliances of alliances of demons.  And they evolved through instantaneous opportunism, instantaneous selection, instantaneous survival.  Our huge success in catching fish, from the sprat to the whale, is equally evolved.  And if you read St Richard’s Climbing Mount Improbable, a point he makes most cogently is that evolution, if it takes a wrong turn, can never turn round and go back to the branch where this track was taken in error, and take the more promising way.  No more can a stone roll up a hill.  Evolution can only go on the way it’s going, instantaneous success by instantaneous success or, if success fails for an instant, death.  Death is okay when there are thousands or millions more of the same thing, like whatever it was you said at 3.27pm the Tuesday before last, if you were talking at that precise time..  But if too many die, we’re still talking about demons here and alliances of demons, that means extinction.  And demons rely on things in the world to survive.  Fishing cannot go on without fish.  So, it seems, our fishing will go on blindly, you cannot deny that it looks blind, blind and stupid, until there are no more fish.  Then it will become, instantaneously, extinct.
  Hold on a minute, you might say.  That’s not going to happen.  Other alliances of demons are evolving, as it might be marine conservation areas.
  That is the point too, sethren.  Evolution works for good as well as ill.  But it is hugely complex, and it might help if we understood it a bit more.  What does not work, or very seldom, and often only by very lucky chance, is supposedly superordinate plans.  Look at our present government.  Okay, sether Albert, it is more gracious to refer to “the intellectual deficit issue” rather than the biggest bunch of idiot fuckwits ever gathered together in the Mother of Parliaments, but I grant you the point remains the same.  They think they have a plan.  And I am not one who has time for essences, for Platonic Forms.  But yes, their plan looks like the essence of human stupidity.  A steady progression of instantaneous selection, survival, reiteration of alliances of demons which, when we look at their shape in the world, we might think were better extinct.  But that’s not the way the evolution of culture works.  We may love the whale and Nelson Mandela, but Hitler and the herpes virus were, still are, in evolutionary terms much more successful than lovingkindness for the whole human species.
  That is why it might be a better course for governments to look at what is good in political economy, and encourage it, and look at what is bad, and try to minimise it, rather than to have plans.  But such a course is a long way from where we are at the moment.  To get there it might help us if we understood what we are are and why.  How it is that we can be so intelligent, and so stupid?
  And to understand that, sethren, we have work to do.  Tomorrow, for one day only, we’ll tie up demons.    Then onward.  But for now… Can anyone smell bacon?

Friday, March 15, 2013

Editorial intervention




  Brother Jero can't handle this, so I'll have to have a go.
  The previous post has a link to a Royal Society paper, an elegant and I’m sure mathematically rigorous demonstration that the evolution of human culture in the area of colour is affected by cognitive bias: that is, “human colour perception is an effective encoding of the physical structure of our environment [21,22], and […] the systems of colour terms observed across human societies are good solutions to the problem of partitioning the space of colours given the properties of this perceptual system.”
  This paper is well worth reading — and as so often chapeau on a huge scale to the Royal Society for making this kind of thing available to all. However I think it might also be a Trojan Horse that carts a big unexamined assumption through the main gates of the analysis of the variation, reiteration, selection model of cultural evolution.
  When writing fiction we are advised, if we want to get some unlikely given such as time travel into the story, to announce it as a fact right at the beginning, so that it’s out of the way.
  The authors follow this advice:
  “Cultural evolution involves two kinds of forces: those that affect who we choose to interact with, and those that affect what is transmitted through the interaction. These two kinds of forces have effects that are formally analogous to the effects of selection and mutation in biological evolution, and both contribute to the outcome of cultural evolution.”
  Now it is very likely that these two kinds of forces have effects that are formally analogous to the effects of selection and mutation in biological evolution, and both contribute to the outcome of cultural evolution.  That is a very different thing from saying that it is only the effects of who we choose to interact with that are analogous to selection, and that it is all the effects of what is transmitted through the interaction which are analogous to the effects of mutation.
  I choose to interact with the authors of the paper.  I then select parts of “what is transmitted”, in order to reiterate them (reiteration being analogous to biological reproduction).  Thus selection is an effect of who I choose to listen to (but I can’t really call that selection in any Darwinian sense) and, more accurately, of “what is transmitted”.  Various factors, my ability to understand, my memory, will affect this selection. The fact that I select for retransmission in this blog bits of “what is transmitted” in order to question and reject them is I think significant, because it demonstrates that what evolves is not what I would choose to evolve, that cultural evolution goes on independent of the intentions of the human agent.
  Likewise, what is transmitted, in the sense that it starts off in one neural substrate and ends up in another, is not by any means always analogous to mutation.
  “Do you want the light on or off?”
  “Off.”
  The word off is, I suggest, as near totally unmutated as you can get.
  Off can then be selected; I turn the light off.  This selection reinforces its utility, and thus it probable further iteration in the metaverse.
  What in culture constitutes variation and what selection is complex, and I suggest not yet rigorously defined.  And I can see the temptation to simplify it to make a good fit for mathematical models.  In fact I think the function of this simplification may be spurious in this excellent paper, and not conducive to a detailed analysis of what in human culture mutates, and what is the process of selection.