3 ms·

Is selection here not a byproduct of chance?

by SisypheanLife 8y ago

lisper 8y ago
No. The root of all selection is selection for reproductive fitness. That is decidedly non-random.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mannykannot 8y ago
  There is no selection for reproductive fitness until there is a replicator. Once a random process has stumbled upon a replicator, selection for reproductive fitness is inevitable, so long as some of the replicator's descendants survive. Reproductive fitness, therefore, is a feature of sufficiently large, complex and long-running random processes, not something additional that is imposed from outside. This is what Dennett called "Darwin's dangerous idea".
  - lisper 8y ago
    No. The "dangerous idea" is that design might not require a designer. As for the first replicator, we simply do not yet know how (or even when) that came about, though random chance does seem likely. So I guess if you add enough layers of "built the machine that..." then you do end up with pure randomness (probably). But I would conjecture that there's a lot less "informational distance" between the cosmos and the first replicator than there is between the first replicator and Adam Yedidia.
    - mannykannot 8y ago
      It might not be what Dennett meant, but I don't think issues of informational distance refute the claim that we can expect selection for reproductive fitness to be a feature in any random process that gives rise to replicators. After the appearance of the replicator, the random process continues to operate under the same rules (laws of physics) as before.
      - lisper 8y ago
        Oh, I certainly agree with that.
      - a1369209993 8y ago
        After the appearance (and sufficent success) of the replicator, it stops being a random process. Edit: or at least not a completely/primarily random process.
dfee 8y ago
Etymological arguments for either position. Regardless, I wouldn’t claim the distinction exists, and would find it hard to justify that it’s VERY important.
- stan_rogers 8y ago
  It's the difference between draw poker and a fresh hand every time.
nmg 8y ago
If I aim a gun and pull the trigger, the results are not the byproduct of chance, excepting that in some sense everything is. This was consciously aiming a gun at an explicitly-named remote target, ricocheting the bullet off an unprecedentedly-reasonable number of explicitly-chosen elements, and hitting the target. Don't let semantics muddy the water about this achievement
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
I think the selection is a byproduct of the underlying laws, thought one must rely on chance until a system complicated enough to engage in selection emerges. Now, are those underlying laws reliant upon chance? This requires understanding beyond that of the current universe, so maybe.

Is selection here not a byproduct of chance?

lisper 8y ago

No. The root of all selection is selection for reproductive fitness. That is decidedly non-random.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mannykannot 8y ago
There is no selection for reproductive fitness until there is a replicator. Once a random process has stumbled upon a replicator, selection for reproductive fitness is inevitable, so long as some of the replicator's descendants survive. Reproductive fitness, therefore, is a feature of sufficiently large, complex and long-running random processes, not something additional that is imposed from outside. This is what Dennett called "Darwin's dangerous idea".
- lisper 8y ago
  No. The "dangerous idea" is that design might not require a designer. As for the first replicator, we simply do not yet know how (or even when) that came about, though random chance does seem likely. So I guess if you add enough layers of "built the machine that..." then you do end up with pure randomness (probably). But I would conjecture that there's a lot less "informational distance" between the cosmos and the first replicator than there is between the first replicator and Adam Yedidia.
  - mannykannot 8y ago
    It might not be what Dennett meant, but I don't think issues of informational distance refute the claim that we can expect selection for reproductive fitness to be a feature in any random process that gives rise to replicators. After the appearance of the replicator, the random process continues to operate under the same rules (laws of physics) as before.
    - lisper 8y ago
      Oh, I certainly agree with that.
    - a1369209993 8y ago
      After the appearance (and sufficent success) of the replicator, it stops being a random process. Edit: or at least not a completely/primarily random process.

dfee 8y ago

Etymological arguments for either position. Regardless, I wouldn’t claim the distinction exists, and would find it hard to justify that it’s VERY important.

stan_rogers 8y ago
It's the difference between draw poker and a fresh hand every time.

nmg 8y ago

If I aim a gun and pull the trigger, the results are not the byproduct of chance, excepting that in some sense everything is. This was consciously aiming a gun at an explicitly-named remote target, ricocheting the bullet off an unprecedentedly-reasonable number of explicitly-chosen elements, and hitting the target. Don't let semantics muddy the water about this achievement

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago

I think the selection is a byproduct of the underlying laws, thought one must rely on chance until a system complicated enough to engage in selection emerges. Now, are those underlying laws reliant upon chance? This requires understanding beyond that of the current universe, so maybe.