Name: John Jay Kineman
Email address: jjk@ngdc.noaa.gov
URL of home page:
Postal address: 1101 Bison Dr. Boulder, CO 80302
Phone:(303) 443-7544 (H) / (303) 497-6900 (W)
Affiliations:Nat. Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., USDOC
How did you hear about PCP? Web search
Please take at least one page to describe your work
and how it might relate to PCP:
My undergraduate background was in Physics and Earth Physics at UCLA
(1969). My Masters was in Environmental Biology (1979). I was briefly
involved in a Ph.D. program in the Graduate Group in Ecology at UC
Davis, and later transferred to the Environ., Population, and Organismic
Biology Dept. at U. Colorado at Boulder. I left the degree program to
take a job with NOAA in the National Geophysical Data Center. I now head
a small group called the "Ecosystems Data and Information Group." In my
professional capacity, I attempt to build useful databases to support
global ecosystems research, mostly related to global change. (see web
site at: www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/ecosys.htm)
In 1989 I participated in a Chapman conference on the Gaia Hypothesis
organized by Dr. Steven Schneider in San Diego, CA. I was on the
epistomology panel and argued for a "strong" version of a Gaia
"worldview" that would be fundamental to all life, not just the Earth,
and presumably help explain self-organizing systems. The conference
produced a book titled "Scientists on Gaia" published by MIT Press
(Steven Schneider, editor). I authored Chapter 7, which was titled
"Gaia, hypothesis or worldview?" Putting together that chapter was a
major job spanning 3 years, and in it I attempted to sort out a unified
epistemology as well as a modification to Darwinian theory. I was asked
by MIT press to expand the chapter into a book, and was offered a small
advance to do so, but I have not had the time due to other work. The
article itself drew very little response and the book is now out of
print. I am considering republishing the article and starting work on
the book. The field is so broad and interdisciplinary however, that this
seems like a very daunting task and one I may not have enough time for
while working full time.
My basic idea is that of a true (ontic) complimentarity between form and
function that parallels quantum observer-participancy. This slight
modification to Darwinian mechanism allows for innovation at the
phenotypic level to manifest itself ("register") in future generations
through its effect on modifying selective forces. This idea crosses
traditionally baren ground between ecology and evolution, and also
requires serious treatment of teleology. I took exception to
Ernst Mayer's limitations on teleology in the article and argue that
self-directedness through an internal representation of "function" can
be identical in result to external directedness toward a future state
(the cosmic teleology that is traditionally excluded from evolution). I
completely disagree with S.J. Gould's recent limitations on directedness
for similar reasons (although was a great fan of his punctuated
equilibrium theory).
I also suggest in the paper a connection between evolution of species
and evolution of information. I attempted an explanation of Gould's
punctuated equilibrium model in terms of information "crisis" after T.
Kuhn ideas of scientific revolutions. I also provided a philosophy for
testing worldviews, noting that such testing must operate differently
from the way hypotheses are tested.
I am now intrigued to find that these ideas are being discussed most
seriously in a project that deals with the philosophy of information. It
is also interesting that my more practical job is in the information
sciences and dealing with global systems concepts.
I have been looking for a good forum to discuss ideas and learn more
about them. I do not know how well informed I am, only that the
information I have been able to process has led me to certain
conclusions that I would like to test. The only responses I have
received to my paper to date (3) have been very positive - however it
has failed to stimulate debate. I think the ideas need a broader review,
and perhaps your forum is the place for it. I am a synthetic thinker
more than a linear thinker. The problem with that is I can get a strong
sense of how things might be related, but lack the rigor to demonstrate
the links. Hence, my main contribution probably remains philosophical.
The Principia approach that you are facilitating may be the appropriate
way to combine the needed talents to take it farther.
P.S. If there is interest, I would be willing to post the article
mentioned above for review, since being now out of print at MIT I have
the rights to it again. I would want to reserve the right to submit it,
perhaps in revised form, to a reviewed journal if the opportunity
arises. If you are interested, I could provide it in html form in a few
weeks.