> On what the simplest semiotic system is, Luis, is your little
> thermostat thingie (equivalent to my organism in the thermocline)
> semiotically closed? Where does the goal state come from?
Quick note. I said it needed to have 2 symbols (discrete, etc). Your
system, I believe does not operate with symbols, right?
> Similarly, I would assert that both biological and social "progress"
> over time is an observed FACT (with no necessary connotation of
> goal-directedness or necessity, Luis). We see this in biologiy in the
> evolution of eukaryotes, trophic hierarchy, multicellularity,
> eusociality, even mammalian homeostasis (Jesper: I think mammals
> actually ARE more morphologically complex than reptiles), let alone
> cognitive evolution (human or otherwise).
The fact is that systems of higher complexity arise. This is not what
has been referred to as progress. As I said earlier, progress has been
equated with a necessary evolution into more complexity. That is, a
sequential tendency to increased complexity, not the mere appearance of
more complexity. Gould's book tries, and succeeds in my opinion, to
discredit this view of progress. So does McShea's work. So, if progress
is what biologists have referred to as this ladder of increased
complexity, then it is by no means a fact. The appearance of complexity
is of course a fact and no one disputes that, gould and MchShea just
claim that this happens by diffusion or passive evolution.
Thanks for your summary of the points. I agree with most of it.
Cheers,
Luis
_________________________________________________
Luis Rocha (Postdoctoral Associate)
Computer Research and Applications Group (CIC-3)
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Mail Stop P990
Los Alamos, NM 87545
e-mail: rocha@lanl.gov or rocha@santafe.edu
http://www.c3.lanl.gov/~rocha