Adaptation

[The Johnny]

I think semantics are important, if you arent using the biology definition of adaptation, then it would be nice of you to come up with one?

[The Johnny]

Adaptation:

1.The quality of being adapted; adaption; adjustment.

2.Adjustment to extant conditions: as, adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation; modification of some thing or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its current environment.

3.Something which has been adapted; variation

I guess that under the bolded definition, humans are more "adaptable", but now my doubt is then, what is the quality of rats/bacteria/virii/cockroaches, because they arent changing their "things or parts", would their quality be called merely "endurance" or some other technical term?

Also i suppose that animals/insects is different from bacteria/virii in the sense that the latter some strains are resistant to certain environment, but lets say, not a strain capable of withstanding freezing temperatures put in a highly salty environment and viceversa; while rats/cockroaches are more within the "endurance" category.

Im not sure this is still on topic, but regardless id like to know the appropiate term for each of these "survivabilities".

[Kai]

Okay.

The biggest problem I have with the term adaptation being used in this situation is we are actually talking about acclimation. Adaptation refers to an evolutionary process taking place within populations, not individuals. When an individual organism changes it's physiology in response to environmental variables, it's called acclimation.

Second, what grounds are we using for comparison here? Pigeons, bacteria more "adaptable" than humans? All animals can acclimate to the their environments at least somewhat, either physiologically or behaviorally. It reminds me of a statement my professor made on asking if insects are intelligent, or of greater or lesser intelligence than other organisms. He said it was much more useful to talk about something measureable, like memory. Can insects remember? Yes. Length of memory and for what stimulus are things that we can measure. Maybe if we were talking about breadth of ecological niche then a comparison could be possible. But just saying "humans are more adaptable" is a really vague and useless statement.

Third, Humans /are/ animals. We are metazoans, chordates, mamalians, primates, and great apes. We are not of a separate domain, we are not specially created, and we share characters that "we in our arrogance used to think were just human" (quoting Jane Goodall) with many other species. Rereading the OP, I see you are not advocating the separate domain of humans, so retracted.

While other animals are subject to slow change through natural selection, we can adapt in a behavioural manner much more quickly.

Other animals can acclimate behaviorally. Culture is a byproduct and extension of our genetic heritage, and the basic tendencies are under genetic control (and thus produced by natural selection, specifically inter-group selection (cf. multi-level selection).

Now replace genes with memes and humans with moral codes and BOOM.  There's my idea.  The most powerful and effective memes should be the ones that promote adaptation.  I say nay to objective morality and yay to adaptable morality.  Probably.

Well, yeah. Consider if we, as EO Wilson did in Consilience, had evolved from termite or ant like ancestors instead of primates. Our morality would include things humans consider immoral, like fratricide, as being wholly moral and good. There is a /human/ morality, which often seems to have universal elements, but it is not universal in the sense of all life, here or that which may be possible elsewhere in the galaxy.

Its this statement in particular:

The most powerful and effective memes should be the ones that promote adaptation.

That is confusing me. Taboo the words "meme" and "adaptation" and their variants, and try again.

[Kai]

Adaptation:

1.The quality of being adapted; adaption; adjustment.

2.Adjustment to extant conditions: as, adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation; modification of some thing or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its current environment.

3.Something which has been adapted; variation

I guess that under the bolded definition, humans are more "adaptable", but now my doubt is then, what is the quality of rats/bacteria/virii/cockroaches, because they arent changing their "things or parts", would their quality be called merely "endurance" or some other technical term?

Also i suppose that animals/insects is different from bacteria/virii in the sense that the latter some strains are resistant to certain environment, but lets say, not a strain capable of withstanding freezing temperatures put in a highly salty environment and viceversa; while rats/cockroaches are more within the "endurance" category.

Im not sure this is still on topic, but regardless id like to know the appropiate term for each of these "survivabilities".

Again, it's called acclimation. There's no specific word for "power of total acclimation", as every acclimatory change is in respect to a different variable. Human acclimation to temperature changes: Physiological =sweating, shivering; Behavioral = evasion. Putting on a coat wouldn't be considered acclimation unless people are born with the ability to produce and correctly wear artificial bioinsulation.

Is what we are really talking about here problem solving abilities, or as Cain mentioned, meta-cognition? The latter /may/ be unique to humans on this planet, but of course there's no way to find out without interspecies communication. The former is not unique.

So, possible topics this thread may be about standing under the word "adaptation":

1. Acclimation.
2. Problem solving.
3. Meta-cognition.

[Kai]

I'm almost certainly guilty of that, but if i could be bold enough to steer the conversation a little, I would like to get back to the "adaptable meme" concept.  I suspect it would no doubt have some parallels to rationalist and discordian thinking, as it would likely have to promote self-questioning, to avoid dogma and thus a lack of adaptability.

What I am suggesting, is (mostly cause I think this could be a fun experiment) a belief system where the central tenet it not "this is the correct way", but instead "the correct way is the way most effective in the given situation".  If it were proposed as belief/religion it may be helpful to throw on some moral failsafes, but it seems plausible to me at least that working with people is probably more effective than not.  maybe...

It sounds like you're talking about rational pragmatism, IOW, optimization within both epistemic and instrumental rationality.

ETA: Is there a word for the ability to change one's own mind? Openness? I'd hate to define that term under "adaptability" since it's a variant of adaptation which has a very specific biological definition and various connotations.

[Adios]

FTR not a lot of desert dwellers will survive after being dropped in an arctic environ without training. FFS.

[Kai]

FTR not a lot of desert dwellers will survive after being dropped in an arctic environ without training. FFS.

Very true. And vice versus.

[Adios]

FTR not a lot of desert dwellers will survive after being dropped in an arctic environ without training. FFS.

Very true. And vice versus.

Exactly. Humans are actually very fragile and will die quicker than many of our wild animal cousins.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

ok, im gonna try put this in this simplest form.

Being able to change in response to ones environment = better survival.



How can this be applied to beliefs?  If it worthwhile considering this conjunction with the spread of ideas?  How would a belief system that defined "being able to change in response to your environment" as "good", differ from a belief system that defined "good" as being nice to people (human morality, as Kai said earlier).

Furthermore, could said belief system in fact focus on changing ones mind, as opposed to finding "ultimate truth"?

[The Johnny]

Being "dynamic"?

Which maybe has to do with Kai's system of "emergence" (i say maybe, because i havent actually read that thread).

[Cramulus]

oh hey, just found this great thread!

ok, im gonna try put this in this simplest form.

Being able to change in response to ones environment = better survival.



How can this be applied to beliefs?  If it worthwhile considering this conjunction with the spread of ideas?  How would a belief system that defined "being able to change in response to your environment" as "good", differ from a belief system that defined "good" as being nice to people (human morality, as Kai said earlier).

Furthermore, could said belief system in fact focus on changing ones mind, as opposed to finding "ultimate truth"?

Alright, I'm digging it...

So genes and memes both have similar goals - with genes we call it reproduction, with memes we call it transmission. They have a better shot at achieving this goal if they benefit the host.

---Incidentally, this is why there are no quakers anymore. Part of their group programming included the meme "NEVER FUCK. EVER.", which, it turns out, is not the best moral imperative for an organization with any longevity.



I've been thinking about this too - living here in the united states, our political spectrum consists of TWO count 'em TWO choices, neither of which are satisfactory. In my mind, since these parties build their platforms to be token resistances to each other, anybody who has 100% bought into one party or the other has a fucked up world view. To me, the healthiest thing is to take a bit from each party. Be Pragmatic, because you're not going to find a solution if you buy into the yes/no choices implicit in the system.

It's the same with religion. Every religion has a few kernels of wisdom in it, and you can actually enjoy those kernels even if you don't buy into the whole religion. I can dig on the Golden Rule even though I don't follow J-C. I can USE concept of the Nafs even though I know little to nothing about sufism. And I don't practice chaos magic or anything crazy like that, but I can get behind the notion of hacking certain parts of my nervous system though symbolism and visualization.

So perhaps we need a good term for somebody who only uses the useful parts of any platform, and is able to evaluate things critically without getting mired in identity politics. PRAGMATIC is the existing term. But I'm sure it could be repackaged in a way which makes it its own platform, a capsule people can swallow and incorporate into their thinking.



I'm not into the occult, but I do I practice PRAGMAGIC.

[Adios]

ok, im gonna try put this in this simplest form.

Being able to change in response to ones environment = better survival.



How can this be applied to beliefs?  If it worthwhile considering this conjunction with the spread of ideas?  How would a belief system that defined "being able to change in response to your environment" as "good", differ from a belief system that defined "good" as being nice to people (human morality, as Kai said earlier).

Furthermore, could said belief system in fact focus on changing ones mind, as opposed to finding "ultimate truth"?

I already accept that both of these are good. We have to ability to operate on more that one level at a time.

[Adios]

oh hey, just found this great thread!

ok, im gonna try put this in this simplest form.

Being able to change in response to ones environment = better survival.



How can this be applied to beliefs?  If it worthwhile considering this conjunction with the spread of ideas?  How would a belief system that defined "being able to change in response to your environment" as "good", differ from a belief system that defined "good" as being nice to people (human morality, as Kai said earlier).

Furthermore, could said belief system in fact focus on changing ones mind, as opposed to finding "ultimate truth"?

Alright, I'm digging it...

So genes and memes both have similar goals - with genes we call it reproduction, with memes we call it transmission. They have a better shot at achieving this goal if they benefit the host.

---Incidentally, this is why there are no quakers anymore. Part of their group programming included the meme "NEVER FUCK. EVER.", which, it turns out, is not the best moral imperative for an organization with any longevity.



I've been thinking about this too - living here in the united states, our political spectrum consists of TWO count 'em TWO choices, neither of which are satisfactory. In my mind, since these parties build their platforms to be token resistances to each other, anybody who has 100% bought into one party or the other has a fucked up world view. To me, the healthiest thing is to take a bit from each party. Be Pragmatic, because you're not going to find a solution if you buy into the yes/no choices implicit in the system.

It's the same with religion. Every religion has a few kernels of wisdom in it, and you can actually enjoy those kernels even if you don't buy into the whole religion. I can dig on the Golden Rule even though I don't follow J-C. I can USE concept of the Nafs even though I know little to nothing about sufism. And I don't practice chaos magic or anything crazy like that, but I can get behind the notion of hacking certain parts of my nervous system though symbolism and visualization.

So perhaps we need a good term for somebody who only uses the useful parts of any platform, and is able to evaluate things critically without getting mired in identity politics. PRAGMATIC is the existing term. But I'm sure it could be repackaged in a way which makes it its own platform, a capsule people can swallow and incorporate into their thinking.



I'm not into the occult, but I do I practice PRAGMAGIC.

Cram, nice. I smell a TFYS project in the making. Pragmagic Universalists.

[The Johnny]

Pragmatic:

1.Practical, concerned with making decisions and actions that are useful in practice, not just theory

Useful for what?

Good luck reconciling art or fun with practicality. 

[Kai]

Pragmatic:

1.Practical, concerned with making decisions and actions that are useful in practice, not just theory

Useful for what?

Good luck reconciling art or fun with practicality. 

You only think that because you're still under the impression that Spock was rational.