Text 356, 168 rader
Skriven 2004-10-13 07:37:00 av Fabrizio J. Bonsignore (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: There Was No Grace Pe
=================================


tomhendricks474@cs.com (TomHendricks474) wrote in message
news:<ckhf88$92k$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
> >> And the uv and temp cycle would destroy any replicator
> >> the minute it came into existence UNLESS it already was stable in the
> >> environment - and that suggests
> >> earlier chemical adaptive aspects.
> >
> >Ok, I assume by chemical adaptive aspects you mean either a closed
> >cycle of reactions or compounds which assume different forms according
> >to changes in the environment. These would act as building blocks to
> >build te replicators, like words forming a sentence ike `copy me` or
> >`I copy myself`. I cannot easily verbalize the idea I have in mind but
> >I am thinking of something similar to Goedel`s self referencing
> >sentences. It would be a matter of finding the minimum set of `words`
> >which combined can give rise to such kind of sentences, also in their
> >minimum (most efficient) state. Yet by assuming earlier adaptive
> >aspects you are assuming that the replicator`s ability to replicate
> >depends on the building blocks and is not a function of the way those
> >blocks connect, i.e., of the configuration of the replicator as a
> >whole. 
> 
> TH
> Yes and this is a new paradigm. I suggest that
> every aspect of life before the replicator, the replicator
> and every evolved aspect of life is that it better 
> survives or is more stable in its environment.
> Life is an energy moderator with modification through descent.
> Life did not emerge and then evolve ways of surviving
> (there was no grace period for metabolism or replication) - it was that that
> best survived that day and the next.
> 
This is what I mean by the idea of having a sentence from the
beginning that makes sense even when there are (certain) changes in
the environment. But notice that there must be *some* regularity in
the environment, otherwise it is like a race condition, between a
changing replicator and a changing environment. If conditions change
too abruptly or unpredictably from one moment to the other the
replicator has to survive the changes during its lifespan and the
replicated instances must be able to survive a (completely) different
set of conditions... That must be the reason why life didn`t start
right away after the planet was formed but `emerged` once the
planetary dynamics where more or less stable.
Life is a closed energy dynamic. As far as we know, once that dynamic
started and closed, it never stopped and here we are.

> It is equivalent to say that a sentence`s meaning (its adequacy
> >to the referent) is independent of changes in the words that compose
> >it and to adapt it would need to change words. A sentence like `it
> >rains` is true when there is a light shower and when it is storming
> >but if you say `it is storming` the sentence`s meaning is destroyed
> >the moment the storm turns into a light shower. So first replicators
> >could be very resilient from the very beginning to changes in the
> >environment, particularly if those changes were cyclical and smooth,
> >as a property of the replicator as a whole, not as a property of its
> >subcomponents. To form such sentences, however, we must have an ample
> >vocabulary to begin with.
> >
> >
> >> but to adapt there must be
> >> >changes to adapt to. So it adapted against other classes or
> >> >replicators, against other instances of th replicator, and/or against
> >> >some changes in the enviroment.
> >> 
> >> TH
> >> No it was burned up
> > 
> >Like in there was only one instance of the replicator? But the
> >replicator must have been formed by spontaneous assembly of
> >subcomponents (unless there was some form of template...)
> 
> Spontaneous implies a fluke or a chance event.
> There is no room for chance. What will survive
> is that that is most stable in that environment -
> not that which chance event creats, and then more
> chance events allows it to exist until it can evolve
> to adapt. That just doesn't make sense.
> 
I meant spontaneous for the assembly of subcomponents into a well
formed replicator in the sense that they autoassembled. Unless there
was some kind of template (not implying a *directed*, conscious
template), hence the idea of cribages and the possibility of clays as
the first (immediate) environment for life.

But that that is most stable was created by `chance`, things happen at
some moment, though I understand that given the proper environment
(and components) chance does not occur at all, like in those games
where the ball falls from peg to peg until it arrives into a cell that
contains a prize. The prize was an adapted replicator sufficiently
stable to give it *an edge* over a changing environment. Life as a
necessary consequence of the environment and the available molecules.

But notice again that there must have been variations from the very
beginning in the replicators and that variation is what provided the
adaptation. Like having different shades of green and those that
survived where the more or less conspicuous, while the very noticeable
didn`t. Life is diverse from the beginning, so it didn`t have to
survive by chance until it evolved. The more stable variations
survived and changed. That might have been the origin of the different
branches of life, though all must have shared the very basic
subcomponents (the minimum vocabulary) plus some variations.
 
>  so given the
> >existence of more than one molecule of the subcomponents we would have
> >several instances of the replicator. Not all would be burned up, even
> >if by sheer chance or the protective effect of being among other
> >instances. The fact is that once they are in existence they can start
> >adapting against themselves and this adaptation must take the form of
> >more complexity for the most basic forms and/or variations 
> 
> Yet here you are postulating a grace period - a period
> where the environment does not destroy the chance
> event. This doesn't make any sense. It is not likely
> to have happened, while it is most likely that what I contend had to happen.
> 
> 
> (atoms,
> >molecules) for more advanced replicators (I am thinking of L-systems).
> >This property can be a property of the replicator from the very
> >beginning. No grace period.
> > 
> >>  There is no period of grace in
> >> >Reality, there are no stationary conditiond, Reality always changes,
> >> >but not all aspects cahnge at the same rate. There can be scenarios
> >> >withperiods of grace in only those aspectsof the environment that
> >> >favor the emergence of replicators, like for instance, stable
> >> >concentrations of chemicals durng long periods of time compared to the
> >> >quantity of replicators.
> >> 
> >> TH
> >> Now you are getting to my point and suggesting the
> >> obvious. There was  a type of pre-life chemical
> >> selection that favored that that was more stable.
> >> And that is my point - the point of this thread.
> >
> >Like the child`s toy of matching forms and holes where the forms that
> >go through the holes are the basic words from which replicator
> >sentences are formed and tested against the environment, the
> >environment including themselves.
> 
> But let's say the environment tests two molecules
> 1. is a replicator that is in no way adapted to its
> environment.
> 2. is a molecule already tough enough to survive
> that environment.
> 
> Which of the two will survive according to all reasonable arrguments?
> 
> (snipped)
2 the molecule. I understand where you are getting at. We need first
to create a basic vocabulary of stable molecules before assembling
them into a successful replicator. The molecule(s) will survive until
a reaction destroys it. Then the (auto)assembly maybe easy, with
stable components.
But if an unadapted replicator replicates quickly enough it can start
changing (adapting) and that particular life line will survive. But
how simple can be a replicator? It must be more complex than most
molecules. So it is easier to think of stable molecules preselected as
you said before arriving to replicators. In any case, we don`t need a
grace period, only a not-so-chaotic environment.
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/13/04 7:37:06 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)