In the most general sense, evolution is any
complex process that has some definable direction. There are three such trends on
the highest ontological level: entropic equalization
in physics, improving quality of reproduction in biology, and increasing predictive
power in cognitive (psycho-social) systems. They are statistically
irreversible within corresponding domain or system, and lower trends also apply
in higher domains. I think these trends can be generalized into a meta-trend, defining
transition or metaevolution from lower- to higher- complexity domains.
Many other observers (such as Ray Kurzweil) also see matter, life, and intelligence as phases in the evolution of the universe. But they use scale and complexity as a measure of progress. That presents a problem: galaxies are bigger than brains and nothing is more complex than random noise. Of course, they mean functional complexity, but neglect to clearly define what that function is.
Many other observers (such as Ray Kurzweil) also see matter, life, and intelligence as phases in the evolution of the universe. But they use scale and complexity as a measure of progress. That presents a problem: galaxies are bigger than brains and nothing is more complex than random noise. Of course, they mean functional complexity, but neglect to clearly define what that function is.
Any system is defined by some relatively conserved
core, such as genotype in biology. Propagation of that core is effective function
of a system, which serves as a relatively fluid or adaptive “phenotype”. To be
more effective, such phenotypes grow and functionally sub-differentiate, while the
core becomes relatively smaller, isolated from environment, and less direct in controlling
the system. Since only the core is ultimately conserved, I propose that
direction in metaevolution is defined by the second trend.
In effect,
environment or ecosystem differentiates into increasingly
deep “conservation food chain”, with growing disparity between the most
conserved cores and the fastest-adapting peripheral systems.
Competition between cores favors more broadly instrumental elements within each. This leads to evolution of more “abstract” cores, that define lesser proportion of their more “bottom-up” phenotypes.
Competition between cores favors more broadly instrumental elements within each. This leads to evolution of more “abstract” cores, that define lesser proportion of their more “bottom-up” phenotypes.
For example, initial conserved cores
in biology were autocatalyzing proteins and RNAs, later displaced by DNA
genes, more flexible and coding for multiple and changing during phylogeny RNAs
& proteins.
Superficially similar to my interpretation are The Major Transitions in Evolution and Meta-Systems Transition Theory. From John Stewart’s (hopelessly utopian) Evolution’s Arrow: “Two attributes that increase as evolution proceeds are the scale of cooperative organization and evolvability through the discovery of effective adaptations“. But pure cooperation is a product of group selection: a notoriously inefficient mechanism. In terms of conserved traits, what’s far more likely is preferential selection of a some common subset, while individual specifics become dispensable.
Superficially similar to my interpretation are The Major Transitions in Evolution and Meta-Systems Transition Theory. From John Stewart’s (hopelessly utopian) Evolution’s Arrow: “Two attributes that increase as evolution proceeds are the scale of cooperative organization and evolvability through the discovery of effective adaptations“. But pure cooperation is a product of group selection: a notoriously inefficient mechanism. In terms of conserved traits, what’s far more likely is preferential selection of a some common subset, while individual specifics become dispensable.
Hence, I focus on the evolution of increasingly refined/
abstracted conserved traits, though they do depend on correspondingly complex
phenotypes. The later however is a cost, while
core propagation is a benefit (net result) of this
trend. These propositions are mostly tautological, but so are the
concepts of thermodynamics, survival of the fittest, and
algorithmic complexity theory, not to mention all of math.
My core types are conceptual and the transition between phases is gradual, with
expanding overlaps:
Entropy growth: equalization and stabilization of matter and energy distribution across space-time for all interacting entities. Maximized fitness here is equality of distribution or continuous recurrence.
Biological evolution: restoration and reproduction of genomes by selective acquisition of their constituents. The fitness here is discontinuous recurrence: mediated by differentiated phenotype.
Cognitive exploration: recognition and projection of correspondence between inputs and predictions. The fitness is hierarchically projected match between environment and a model: cognitive phenotype.
Living organisms metabolize matter and energy to propagate their pattern (information), while cognitive systems “metabolize” patterns: learn and forget information, to increase their predictive power.
>Overall, the value drift “selects” for increasingly general instrumental motives, -
>they simply last longer, being conditioned by correspondingly broad range of associated prior values.
Also, more general instruments could allow doing more with less efforts in less time - generalization can be optimization.
>Childish impulsiveness is substantially displaced by adolescent egocentrism,
>which in turn is displaced by increasingly broad socialization.
Then sometimes it's followed by selective de-socialization/cha
for subjects who has reached to understanding of the reasons for their prior socialization, because it's conditioned as well.
>This development of broader "self" is initiated by specific inherited motives: somatosensory feedback,
>imitation & respect for authority, the patterns of human beauty, sexual drives, parental instincts, the need for
>social support & status, empathy or altruism.
I'd question that respect of authority is inherited motive, authority just can punish you or you're afraid it can/will; and you believe it's more capable and more dangerous than you, you respect it because of this and because you believe that others believe that it is, and they may punish you as well.
Respect of authority can be derived very simply: the only "animate object" for a new born mind are mother, father etc. They are dynamic and harder to predict, unlike environment; they change "randomly" sometimes, they are there when needs are satisfied and they are missing when needs are not satisfied (or are there where mind is punished), they are older, bigger, have money and decide instead of you etc. This can be badly conditioned. Further church (where it has this access to people), school, police, army, government etc. make people respect authority by displaying their "authority" == force and superiority.
I think also that empathy, altruism, the need of social support are not inherited as well, they are product of the environment and availability of competing agents around. I guess all of those are initiated the same/similar way as respect of authority and have common source. Also they are a form of optimization/maximiz
...
However in a world with only one person who doesn't know that other intelligent beings have existed or could have existed, there couldn't be altruism or social support at all. If one is capable and secure enough to be "untouchable" in a normal world with billions of agents needing social support, he also may escape from the social support urge, I guess you know an example
I guess patterns of human (physical) beauty and general visual beauty (graphics design etc.) are implicitly inherited, they are rediscovered and shared by many because of our common cognitive algorithm.