The Purposeful Information. On the Difference between Natural and Artificial Life

Gecow, Andrzej

doi:10.5840/du20081811/1217

Cited by 7 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These answers will increase its 'knowledge'. In my view (Gecow 2008(Gecow , 2010 this is 'purposeful information'. "Knowledge" is stored in the form of mechanisms in the object, and in the case of "knowledge about variability" -these mechanisms are devbias4.…”

Section: Simple Abstract Example For Devbias4 Randomness and Blindnessmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…This is also indication of smaller set of useful areas. In my 'Draft of the deductive theory of life' (Gecow 2008(Gecow , 2010) I call such information 'purposeful information'. Purposeful information cannot come from nowhere, natural (in wide meaning) selection is it's the only creator.…”

Section: Limitation While Information Growth Is Not a Developmental Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why is the term 'developmental bias' misleading? (full version)

Gecow¹

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term 'developmental bias' promoted in the Special Issue of ‘Evolution & Development’ was initially defined as the effect in evolution direction creating by correlation of changed developmental parameters. The understanding of the term is in the Special Issue much broader and very poorly defined. Promoting such a broad term related to observation makes difficult to explain specific mechanisms. It is now time for the task of explaining to become more important in biology than just collecting facts. The term requires quick organization and division into many different concepts. I suggest replacing this term with a shorter one (devbias) with an additional tip indicating a specific variant according to the proposed ordering system. Mainly the mechanisms giving variability clearly focused on greater fitness (devbiases4) have been added. Devbias4 was treated in Special Issue as an independent source of adaptation supporting natural selection. Focusing on the time interval of current evolution, where collected devbiases4 indeed supports natural selection, it is usually forgotten to stress that they are also the result of previous natural selection and only mediate the transmission of its effects. This leads to a dangerous message beyond biology that scientific observations have shown that the Darwinian mechanism is not the only source of adaptation. By the way of ordering ‘devbias’ the understanding of ‘randomness’ is discussed to show differences between ‘flat distribution’, ‘variation blind on needs’ and ‘real random variability’ which in Special Issue are typically mixed.

show abstract

Section: Simple Abstract Example For Devbias4 Randomness and Blindnessmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Limitation While Information Growth Is Not a Developmental Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why is the term 'developmental bias' misleading? (full version)

Gecow¹

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The second criterion can be synthetized as follows: something can be defined as "artificial" if it was "planned," whereas the "natural" is the "unplanned" by definition. Whereas the preceding conception is built on an ontological evaluation, here the approach adopted is more ontogenetic (Gecow, 2011). As Baker (2008) puts it, «artifacts are objects intentionally made to serve a given purpose; natural objects come into being without human intervention».…”

Section: The Hayekian Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural or artificial? A reflection on a complex ontology

Cameli

2020

Planning Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

State-of-the-art planning theory considers cities as cyborg entities composed by a “natural” part (human beings and their social structures) and an “artificial” part (buildings, infrastructure and other urban artifacts). We contend that this hybrid conception is indissolubly coupled with the ability to discriminate perfectly between the “natural” and the “artificial”. But is this actually the case? We will provide a critical reflection on this ontological issue pointing out that current urban planning theory as well as the general philosophical reflection is not able to produce a rigorous, consistent epistemic criterion to draw this distinction. Long-standing difficulties in this respect are exponentially amplified by recent developments in artificial intelligence, nanotechnology and biotechnology, and their growing relevance in urban environments of the near future risk making the cyborg conception informing the complexity theory of cities obsolete. We will conclude our reflection identifying a possible path for overcoming this dualism toward a more socio-natural conception internalizing the proteiform character of the concept of “nature” itself as well as its inherent cognitive/political element.

show abstract

“…Such limits on precision are not the result of a mistaken description; however, in different perspectives the limits can be different. For example, an evolving object is considered as the same object during long time, but since it must change if it evolves, 'the same' cannot be exact equality (Gecow 2008(Gecow , 2010. All these circumstances make biological descriptions much more complicated and less precise than in physics, but without radically higher effort put into exactness than the current one, problems connected to Lamarckian dimension are likely to remain unresolved.…”

Section: More Precision Using Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This tendency suggests (ch.5.3) that deductive theory should be the next step follows the EES. I refer here to my "Draft 14 of deductive theory of life" (Gecow 2008(Gecow , 2010 as an example of such direction. It starts from the notion "information", which, when Eva Jablonka has deprived genes (as DNA) of their exclusive right to carry hereditary information, is a best candidate to be a base of new construction.…”

Section: 'Lamarckian Mechanisms' Need More Theoretical Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lamarckian mechanisms as developmental bias and their Darwinian base – descriptive versus explanatory biology (full version)

Gecow¹

2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article points out the main obstacles in the discussion of Lamarckian mechanisms, resulting from overly persisted beliefs, habits and understatement. 'Lamarckian mechanisms' are those that create 'non-random' changes (in the aspect of adaptation), and even 'resulting from instruction', and these changes become evolutionary. To avoid widespread prejudices a permanent stress is needed that Lamarckian mechanisms are an effect of Darwinian mechanisms but this stress is not enough visible. The term 'Lamarckism' has two meanings: proper - that adaptive and inherited changes can be induced by environment, but typically it is understood as irrational believing that evolutionary changes are adaptive without necessity of help of Darwinian mechanisms, in this case it is not coherent with the term 'Lamarckian mechanisms' and has small base in Lamarck's view, it arisen from too shallow interpretation of Lamarck. In the theme 'inheritance of acquired characters' a few steps to evolutionary change is indicated, which typically are omitted in the description. Old such descriptions need rebuilding in a new coherent system of notions but to create such system a theory is necessary. The Lamarckian dimension of evolution protrudes beyond the basics of Modern Synthesis however necessity to change the name of the synthesis to Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is discretionary decision. It would be obligatory, when the Modern Synthesis will be treated as typical theory derived from specified assumptions when its assumptions are extended. The article points to the growing need to pay more attention to the precision of definition, specification of assumptions and abstract inference, as deficiencies in these areas are the main cause of misunderstanding and a brake on progress. Unfortunately, they are not appreciated in biology, and even 'speculations' are considered undesirable.

show abstract

The Purposeful Information. On the Difference between Natural and Artificial Life

Cited by 7 publications

References 2 publications

Why is the term 'developmental bias' misleading? (full version)

Why is the term 'developmental bias' misleading? (full version)

Natural or artificial? A reflection on a complex ontology

Lamarckian mechanisms as developmental bias and their Darwinian base – descriptive versus explanatory biology (full version)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About