These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
The epigenetic inheritance we talked about here a year or so ago would be similar. Ok, now how does this relate to word meaning and brain asymmetry? Martin On May 30, 2011, at 7:11 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: > On 31 May 2011 00:03, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote: > >> Huw, >> >> I think you win the prize for maximal name-dropping in a single sentence. >> How about you now unpack that, serially, for those of us operating with only >> half a brain? >> >> > Here's a quick first go at unpacking it. :) > > In 'Steps to An Ecology of Mind', Bateson described processes of biological > adaption in terms of an example of a giraffe and, in particular, it's > heart. Part of this interest appears to have been notions of plasticity. > Of being able to reach beyond a 'comfort zone' and being predisposed to this > kind of plasticity. If I remember correctly, the example given was of a > modestly sized giraffe that was able to mate with, or compete for a mate > with, stronger giraffes (stronger in the sense of a given genetic > predisposition to strength). The plasticity effectively allows the giraffe > to adapt his/her biology ontogenetically (through, say, increased muscle > mass by exercise). Now we have a situation where a humble sized giraffe > with good potential is able to mate with a range of giraffes including the > super-sized variant. > > The strong Lamarkian assertion is that things we learn ontogenetically can > be passed on to off spring. Traditional Darwinian theory doesn't allow for > this, the evolution is in one direction, and the adaption is achieved > through mutation and "random" cross-seeding. > > However, in the same way that Waddington demonstrated with fruit fly > ontogenetic change/adaption that is carried over into offspring, we can > follow the thread of this feedback using these concepts. Waddington showed > that by intervening in fruit fly pupae development, and thereby encouraging > particular wing formation changes to arise, that later generational > offspring 'inherited' this change in wing construction. > > We can conceive, logically, of the possibility of this occurring with the > aid of the concept of variety. An organism can be conceived of an unfolding > variety, starting from its genetic code, which we can take as expressing its > phylogeny. The interpretation of this genetic code, the unfolding process > of a living organism, comprises its ontogeny. > > Now, the genetic code, in addition to the environment in which it is > interpreted, expresses the organism's developmental variety, the different > ways in which the codes can be made sense of. So in order to see an > 'inherited' ontogenetic attribute it is not necessary to change the genetic > code, rather it may suffice to change the interpretation of the code > provided that the code has sufficient expressive variety to encapsulate the > adaption. > > Hence the idea of the plasticity of the giraffe, and its increased potential > to pass on ontogenetically derived 'tips' to its offspring. This comprises > of a more directed form of evolution which, I believe, is missing from the > classic Darwinian formulation (although I'm guessing that this is all par > for course in biological/DNA research etc). > > There is more logic to this Lamarkian-like process, which I could describe a > bit more (it's a bit late here). Though this may elaborate sufficiently? > > Huw > > >> Martin >> >> On May 30, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Huw Lloyd wrote: >> >>> With respect to inner form, the pieces that I find intriguing are >> Bateson's >>> take on Lamarkian-like development in conjunction with Waddington's >>> discoveries and Beer's approach to requisite variety. >> >> __________________________________________ >> _____ >> xmca mailing list >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca >> > __________________________________________ > _____ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca