Understanding the Baldwin Effect

mick,Thanks for all the info. I'm in the middle of reading the Masel paper (which the author was kind enough to forward to me). I have a much better understanding of canalization (through Brad's links) and Bateson's model as well.I understand much better (via Waddington and Bateson's models) the idea that genetic assimilation comes about because of "plasticity." Seems so vague to me... and so it's really hard to know how extensible / general it is. Brad posted some information about a proposed mechanism for genetic assimilation of the cross-veined feature.. well, I understand OK, but I'm very unsure about, for example, using these results to talk about genetic assimilation of behavior.I did come across something in Masel's paper that surprised me (I didn't catch it in the Waddington articles that I read), and I wanted to put it out there: and If I understand all the terms properly, this means that genetic assimilation does not occur in cases where there is no "natural" (i.e. without the 'perturbation' of say, a heat shock) phenotype.If that's right, then that's a surprise to me, and the result of "genetic assimilation" is not nearly as surprising or powerful as I had been thinking. I thought that "genetic assimilation" could occur even in the case where the phenotype is not present in the "sans perturbation" population.Is that right?Thanks again for your long post. Hopefully I'll finish the Masel paper tonight; these papers take me a long time to read because I'm still developing a background in this subject area. But it's exciting, and I'm glad to have the info!Ben

Brad,Thank you very much for all the links. I"ve read about half, and the rest I'll keep for reference. I understand better now. I have a better understanding of Waddington's ideas about genetic assimilation (although now is a good time to go back and review Baldiwin's ideas). I'm thinking about how this information can be used in neural network models of behavior. The models mick described are too non-technical and underspecified for my taste in judging whether they come into play in neuron-based learned behavior.I can imagine how cross-veinlessness can be genetically assimilated, but not how brain-based behavior, such as a baby bird reacting to a red-colored stripe can be. I need to re-read his proposal, to try and remember the details, but I get the gist. I found Gottlieb's discussion (of the genetic / environment dichotomy and the need to synthesize embryology / phenotypic development with population genetics) extremely interesting. I was convinced. I need to read the end of the book again, though, to think about his own further theoretical proposals. I found some parts interesting and others troublesome.Ben

you said

quote:

---

I can imagine how cross-veinlessness can be genetically assimilated, but not how brain-based behavior, such as a baby bird reacting to a red-colored stripe can be.

---

below is quick and with lots of errors. I'll work in a more readable version laterI’ll try to show you how the physiological relations of the wandering cloud phenomena in dead octopi/cephalapod to skin motor regions might contain a case for assimilation. I prefer to think along nonWaddingtonian lines given that he said

quote:

---

in The Paradigm for the Evolutionary Process It is essential that biologists should be as careful and precise as possible in formulating an adequate and profound theory of evolution, since it is nowThe search for a fundamental theory of biology then shifted towards genetics. A living system bega to be regarded as basically one in which there is hereditary transmission of mutable information. This makes possible, or indeed inevitable, the process of natural selection, and thus of an evolutionary process

---

but hey, if you like his work, it is not hard to interpret facts accordingly. There is a lot of data on cephalopod color relations so I cant be certain that the possibility I am setting up might not be actual but where I am headed is towards what needs to be done to show as Gottleib suggested of integrating population genetics and behavior better. I see Lewontin’s statements

quote:

---

It is not the function of theory to describe what has happened in a particular instanceTheretical population biology is the science of the possible; only direct observation can yield knowledge of the actual.

---

as stumbling blocks and his two sentences in here

quote:

---

Why, in fact, are there different species at all? And, most curious of all, what, is the significance of the fact that 99.999 percent of all species are extinct? Now, such questions can be framed in molecular terms but not usefully, just as an apple can be described in quantum mechanical terms (in theory); but no one wants to know anything about an apple that a quantum mechanical description will tell him. Moreover, many important biological questions remain unanswered precisely because the present trend of biology leads away from them

---

as directly avoiding the issue.All quotes but yours so far from POPLUATION BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION edited by RICHARD LEWONTIN.http://www.cephdev.utmb.edu/refdb/pdf/6818.pdf - Apr 18, 2005
I worked up most of the facts from this web site.The idea I have is that the brain shifts during ontogeny (where neural networks might be applied) the frequency such that the comparison of polarized light created by quantum interference reflected OUT of the skin can match to a different completed observable quantum state of polarized light from the environment AND depend then on changes due to learning. So changes could be assimilated functionally without a dependent chemical switch provided the shape of the particle and wave motion through the colored cells is different enough to match the motor and color patterns observed. There may be chemical switches too but this instance focuses on photons. Below are some notes I will explain in the immediately above paragraph as I edit in more.
My youngest brother who spent some time doing research on superconductivity there in Japan with MIT is now working on neural nets with GeorgiaTech in Metz France.The view I am presenting if true would lead to better quantum computing without putting the entanglement up front. I think both of my brothers would prefer this state. Ill have to ask them next time I see them (July 4). Who knows, we might be able to get him interested in this, if you find the example I am trying to work up to show that population biology is actual and not possible (needing to explain the instance observable ("completed observable" in Dirac's lingo) and not merely the instantiation)is both credible, coherent and comprehensive. Two out of three is not bad.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-20-2005 01:52 PM

That's right. If the phenocopy is never expressed in the population because there is no naturally occuring peturbation that produces it, then it can't be selected.mick

Hey mick,I'm FINALLY going to get my hands on this book. Found it at the UCSD library; I'll probably pick it up tomorrow.It's been a while since I saw you around these parts. Stop by sometime if you get the chance.And thanks for all the useful info you posted up. It takes me a long time to find the time to get through everything, but it's important and useful, and I really appreciate it.Ben

Brad,You said in this post that you'd try to edit and clarify the contents. I understand most of what you're saying here, but I couldn't piece together the crucial paragraph: [qs]The idea I have is that the brain shifts during ontogeny (where neural networks might be applied) the frequency such that the comparison of polarized light created by quantum interference reflected OUT of the skin can match to a different completed observable quantum state of polarized light from the environment AND depend then on changes due to learning. So changes could be assimilated functionally without a dependent chemical switch provided the shape of the particle and wave motion through the colored cells is different enough to match the motor and color patterns observed.qsI understand quantum interference. I don't understand what two light sources you're proposing the brain is comparing, and I don't see how the brain is gaining access to the light sources. Can you clarify that a bit for me?I think that outside of that, I'm on top of this post.Thanks!
Ben

Sorry. I started to read Weyl and I found it easier than reading Dirac and second guessing Feynmann. I still need to give the philosophy of physics some more thought but I think the difference of my approach from what you might find elsewhere is that I do not think that the principle of least action should be used without a coordinate system connected to niches or Crozait tracks (dispute over what counts as an area of endemism etc). This bears on the ONE or TWO slit nature of the particle/wave duality implied by thinking post Bohr. Of course one might assume that creatures can keep track of the revolution of electrons around atoms by some unknown principle of least action. That's hard thought.This particular anaysis of the squishy creature got me past the issue of the form of the creaure itself (what its brain is vs what skin is outside said brain) by reading about the discover of polarized light effects VISIBLE in the oct's arm. It got me thinking in the same tissue place (dermal transition) that I often think of light in reptiles... so I had made the vert-invert transition DEPENDENT on polarized light being causal for the form-making of at least the lower ones phlyogenetically relatively to my interest.So I started to see if the fact could constrain any neural network application to "processing" of polarized light "information". If I was correct this would entail things about behavior likely that could falsify the idea. I didnt think that far. I only notice the division of the skin to nueral patterns.What I proposed was that given one can be abivalent "experimentallY" over which shape N2 or N12 is the "Actual" shape I wondered if ALL THE COLOR PATTERNS in the octopus skin can be geometricized via a brain processing the difference of the shape N2 or N12. I think I had thought is that in the decrease in intensity across the skin which the brain registers on first entry of light(polarized light out of the total)the skin bounces up to the nerves the N12 pattern that is further processed by the nerve cells (that is what I meant by "quantum intereference OUT of the skin"). I started to try to investigate the facts about nerve cells of octopus to further think if this was purely an effect of light on the cell vs a chemical mediator because you were thinking in terms of chemicals. I recall seeing some details on-line that looked like i could maintain that position relative your discussion on the "chemcial trigger" but the "ontogentic" change in the COLOR of the cells seemed to preclude the necessity of such a search outright. I may be wrong but if it is simply about the POLARIZATION componenat of total intensity and there is some phase shift of the polarization with respect to color it seemed the difference of the formal patterns of N12 and N2etc could explain the total behavior and color patterns of the octopus without nessessitating complex chemcial autocatalytic ciructs/metabolism to sustain the morphic variance.What struck me was that I could think of a whole nervous system comletely without haveing to assume that synapse chemicals were nothing but links maintaining electronic contact. I know that is not the standard view of that junction. But I was able to resolve some of philosophical problems with quantum mechanics in the process. How that relates to least action would need to be spelled in if it is true. I dont know enough physics to do that just yet and I am sorry I have not thought of this for a while.If you want me to give it a little more consideration let me know. I think I might have a few more sketches I made when thinking about it.The light sources are either the WHITEOUT arrow in the top which is any light coming to the octopus through the water and that reflected after in bounces off the interior of the skin of the octopus with cells that are seperated at lambda/4 intervals. This is the same case I often think of for reptile skins that have relective cells that might be imagined to send light back up to red and black cells. In reptiles I had never thought of thinking that it is only the polarized light that might be being "sensed" by the nervous system. By interposing nervous bodies in between this pathway it is possible to alter the proprotion of polarized light in the total amount of light the octupus recieves and since polarized light has the property of being rotable it seemed there was a degree of freedon that neural networks (the nervous system sensu stricto) could program or learn by tracking through ontogeny its own contributions to the changes in the kinds of polarized light the critter recieved becoming an adult.So... an adult octupus has not intrinsic control of the total amount of light it recieves but it brains out the amount of polarized light and as it does this it cannalizes behaviors and stops growing in certain ways. The color changes in the ontogeny of the cells in between the pathway show that the oct might develop though changing fixed rotations of plane polarized light (to the plane of the arm) as nervously learnt what physicists spent centuries to uncover.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-18-2005 10:27 PM

You might try to guage how much substance you got out of this poorly presented discussion of vision in octs if the following means anything to you after reading both. I probably would not have understood all of Weyl's points here in detail but after mustering up my explanation indeed I think I do. I forgot to bring the book along . It is the same one I have been quoting from for the past few weeks.PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-19-2005 06:08 PM

Brad,I borrowed this book, and another you were quoting (Cause and Correlation in Biology), from the library. I'll give Appendix C a read through.Are there other parts of Weyl necessary to properly understand Appendix C? I'm hoping that my familiarity with quantum will suffice to carry me through.Thanks for following up on this. Consider my silence as "processing".Ben

In appendix E. Weyl concludes in a tempting vein by seeing objectively should Bohr's "idea of complementarity" be streched far enough to cover 'two modes of approach' he discussed there(to page 284), whether or not a paucity of lexicological filling remands the same historico-philosophical characteristics of his original 1926 thoughts or is being extripated neologistically etc by the rather systematic-scientific additional appendicies PROVIDED " new light is thrown on the relationship of subject and object" (Appendix C page 263 )because "observation is impossible without an encroachement the effect of which can be predicted only in a statistical sense. "By reading for implications rather than content (the herps I know so well and good get squeezed out of the letters 'MF'( no that is not "McFall"LOL)

quote:

---

mammals are sifted from the other animals in the zoo...corresponding operation for fish

---

see @ http://EvC Forum: Understanding the Baldwin Effect -->EvC Forum: Understanding the Baldwin Effect) new light can be shed on and by the correlation(al) shadow of Shipley you mentioned, straight into Gould's reference of the black and white differences of Darwin's pigeon for any grammetelogical manipulation of the same ostensive lexos. There is room there for theoretical biology of viable visions for genecombinations of Wright etc. Furthermore with some bradspeak I might even be able to have been already marshalling othoselection secularly precessing the Croizat track orthogenetically into the cross hairs of Weyl's aforesaid above fullfilled fundamentally with superposition OR Does NOT & all of this, can be written without refering to Driesh or vital forces. People other than me have to learn how to think over this last period. I am very very happy that you are at looking in all the correct places. Try to use Weyl's letter 'G' without any Bradspoke as the spoke to turn the GeorgiGladshevregenerator. You might not get ID but the design will be deaf'n. I dont know I am presently reading it from the other side, whatever that means(I know it does not mean that sand painting connects Paley and Aggasiz as Gould suggested).There might be a few other things in Appendix C, but I have been reading from maths to biology through physics rather than physics to math to biology or math to physics to biology. I need to try 'em all out to be sure we did not leave anything behind. I wish I was paid to do this but sadly I am not given this kind of time just now by my circustances albeit self-imposed. I am defintely finding people can not think as fast as we are talking on EVC anymore. I hope we have not opened Pandora's box and this will dissipate by the weekend but in this case only Plato knows regardless, I think we are only only casting a shadow on the same light no matter the writing or reading than Cause and Correlation of course?...This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-20-2005 05:55 PM