Development and evolution

Is the subtitle of Evan Thompson’s Chapter 7 in his book Life in Mind (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), the main title of which is “Laying down a path in walking.” Therein he details the received view of biological evolution and compares it with the enactive, dynamic systems view. It is highly technical and beyond my current knowledge of the topic, but nonetheless instructive in my burgeoning education down this path in walking. A copy of the chapter can be found here.

13
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
10 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution | Albuquerque BMAIEdward BergePaul Watson Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Paul Watson
Member
Paul Watson

I will look at the chapter. However, the “received view” of biological evolution, underwent an important improvement (much to the delight of developmental biologists) around 20 years ago. This “revolution” went conceptually further than what biologists already understood, that every trait is, more or less, a product of gene X environment interactions, which i learned about in high school. This new appreciation of the complexity of the natural selection and adaption process was tied to the surge of interest and knowledge about “epigenetics.” Basically, this important new view entailed an increased appreciation that you don’t necessarily have to wait around… Read more »

Paul Watson
Member
Paul Watson

I think “Enactivism” sensu Thompson implies some kind of “Meaningful” interaction between organisms being responsible for something over and above what could reasonably be expected in the normal exquisitely complex Darwinian interactions between organisms through ecological and evolutionary time. All such Darwinian interactions are ultimately competitive in nature, although many sophisticated competitive strategies have evolved that involve deeply strategic, magnificently cooperative and even compassionate behavior and underlying neurological mechanisms. So I have never been able to figure out what is added by sticking in the “enactive” thingy. Nothing that organisms do requires that extra piece, as far as people who… Read more »

Paul Watson
Member
Paul Watson

Ed and All,

I am preparing for a rare back-country road trip to the SW part of the state. I hope to re-enter discussion on Monday or Tuesday. — Paul

Paul Watson
Member
Paul Watson

PS: No modern Darwinism that studies whole organisms is capable of looking at them as anything other than dynamic systems. There are layers of mechanisms in any organism to enable complex contingent responsiveness to both varying inner conditions and the outer environment, which includes other individuals and culture. — paul

Paul Watson
Member
Paul Watson

No modern DARWINIAN…

trackback
Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution | Albuquerque BMAI

[…] the “development and evolution” thread on Thompson, Paul compared him with “people who actually study […]

Paul Watson
Member
Paul Watson

I agree with this quote below, although nobody ever argued for anything like “isolation” of modules. The whole “computational doctrine” of EP rightly assumes that there are “functional groups” of neurons throughout the brain which are, more or less, specifically designed to perform certain kinds of computations based on certain kinds of inputs. But the paradigm assumes dynamically regulated yet generally massive connectivity amongst these functionally specialized groups, most especially in the neocortex. From Sulikowski: “… nor informed by assumptions of massive modularity or domain specific mechanisms (Burke). With these considerations in mind, Klasios and Bryant both argue that computation… Read more »