From: Maru Dubshinki (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jan 31 2005 - 17:50:42 MST
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:49:07 -0800 (PST), Phil Goetz
> Oops - I forgot that Gould specifically argues
> that this argument may not apply to societies,
> which may in fact tend to become more complex
> over time. Although I don't buy his argument.
> The conclusion may be right, but his claim that
> the ability to transfer skills from person to
> person via language throws all the rules of
> random-walk evolution out the door doesn't make
> sense to me. Communicating acquired skills just
> changes evolution from Darwinian to Lamarckian,
> but I don't know that it would change its
> - Phil
I have a suggestion: cultural evolution could be seen as not
Darwinian, nor Lamarckian, but faster and better because the culture
can improve the heuristics (that is, make it less of a random walk)
used to generate the culture; when Darwinian or Lamarckian evolution
either just randomly generate and pass/fail; or have faster feedback
based on what was necessary to survive.
Microsoft delenda est.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT