Skip to main content

Quotable quote: definitely unnatural selection

He who would live must fight;
he who does not wish to fight
in this world where permanent struggle
is the law of life,
has not the right to exist.

— Adolf H, My Struggle

Something to bear in mind next time someone describes something as “natural selection” in action.

It also highlight’s FOSS’s non-destructive approach to development. Perhaps we should whomp up an official philosophy & call it:

“main() { kampf(); }?”

Comments

Major said…
I occasionally thought of you while I was doing Human Biology at UWA. The Anatomy department at UWA is extremely "evolutionist". They did however have something they regarded as sillier than creation science and that was the over-generalization beyond biology. We had at least 3 hours of lectures which could have been summarized in four words: Social Darwinism is crap.
Leon RJ Brooks said…
Uh, yeah.

I wouldn’t be so selective in limiting my criticism that way.

Some of the other applications people find for the odder aspects of mutation plus selection are absolutely hilarious!

BTW, uncanny precognition again WRT PRep. Well done. If you can find a way to channel that, it’d be well marketeable.
Major said…
mutation plus selection is a fairly good search algorithm, especially if you add genome mixing (some analog of sex) and more so again if you have some analog of development to reduce the search space.

No precog involved. I visited Perth because he was ill. I was present at the end because his daughter called and said it was time.
Leon RJ Brooks said…
Hmmm... I think this comes back to fighting, since in principle the major selective effect is early death due to unfitness.

So I guess you could view “existing long enough to work your way through something regarded as development” to be a survival trait in itself.
Major said…
(Not your fault, I wasn't clear)

By "development" I meant pre-birth.

The human genome has 10^9 symbols selected from a four symbol alphabet. Human brains have 10^10 neurons with 10^14 connections. Obviously the genome can't code the brain and yet it does. The missing link is a (in the case of Humans, hideously convoluted) development process.

There is a lot of interesting work coming out of the artificial life people on this (google "artificial ontogeny"). I expect it to start having spin-offs for non-Alife genetic algorithm types RSN.
Leon RJ Brooks said…
Yeah, I missed that point. At least as much my blame as yours. (-:

However, “development” as such is no different from ordinary living, except that our prospective wee beastie doesn’t yet have to forage for food & drink, or figure out how to dispose of wastes.

With human beans, a remaining difference is in cells like brain cells, which don’t replicate or grow very much at all after birth.

Spin-offs for Alife people... now there’s a mind-boggling concept!
Major said…
With the possible exception of weeks when they have too close encounters with open car doors, born humans do not have whole structures appearing and disappearing on a weekly basis. First trimester fetuses do. This is a lot different to just eating and excreting (adults) or even eating, excreting and growing (kids).
Major said…
That should have been "first trimester embryo/fetus" of course. In fact most of the dramatic rearangements I am refering to occur in the embryonic period.

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...