Dynamics of Macrosystems; Proceedings of a Workshop, September 3-7, 1984

There is an increasing awareness of the important and persuasive role that instability and random, chaotic motion play in the dynamics of macrosystems. Further research in the field should aim at providing useful tools, and therefore the motivation should come from important questions arising in specific macrosystems. Such systems include biochemical networks, genetic mechanisms, biological communities, neutral networks, cognitive processes and economic structures. This list may seem heterogeneous, but there are similarities between evolution in the different fields. It is not surprising that mathematical methods devised in one field can also be used to describe the dynamics of another. IIASA is attempting to make progress in this direction. With this aim in view this workshop was held at Laxenburg over the period 3-7 September 1984. These Proceedings cover a broad canvas, ranging from specific biological and economic problems to general aspects of dynamical systems and evolutionary theory

An Evolutionary Account of Technological Development

If 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution' (Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1973) , then, does nothing in technology make sense except in the light of evolution? This study will seek to construct an evolutionary account of technological development. To this end, it will consider and analyse a variety of theoretical proposals. In this thesis I will survey existing evolutionary accounts found in socio-cultural and engineering sciences, and will evaluate how these theories have been formulated. The study will look at evidence and theory, and it will consider the formalisation, visualisation and conceptualisation of ancestral-descent relationships in socio-technical systems. In recent years, this area of study has gained momentum among experts from different academic, scientific and theoretical backgrounds, particularly those working in the fields of theoretical and engineering science, technology, and in the development of social-technical systems. 21st century biologists, social scientists, philosophers, economists, and technologists have instigated lively and thought-provoking interdisciplinary discussions about the feasibility of quantifying and modelling macro and microevolution in technology. Neo-Darwinian theory and modern synthesis theory have prepared a framework for a more effective discussion than ever before. The question asked by many researchers in this area is how microevolution can bring about macro evolutionary events in socio-technical systems. However, any evolutionary account of technology requires the application of conceptual tools and special theoretical foundations for study that do not necessarily match those traditionally used in the study of the organic world. Therefore, to address how microevolution can influence macroevolution in technological design, it is important to establish an evolutionary account of modular systems in technology in order to depict the patterns and processes that have evolved over time in the process of design. The main principles that govern Darwin’s evolutionary scheme according to natural selection suggest that every system in nature uses variation, reproduction and heritability in order to evolve. The simplicity of the general principles that govern the theory of evolution in biology has enabled it to be generalised as a theoretical framework in other academic and research fields. However, the existence of directionality and intentionality in the production of artefacts makes it necessary to extend the definition of, and to re-examine, evolutionary mechanisms and classic notions of synthesis. For example, Simondon's theory of concretization considers the horizontal transmission of technicality in systems. Additionally, Baldwin and Clark argue that the theory of modularity is a powerful conceptual tool which can be used in different fields, and this theory sheds light on how extended evolutionary operators work in technological systems. It is possible to find similarities between evolution in natural history and the developmental history of modern technology. Historical objects in the two fields are connected together through the idea of reproductive descent. This thesis will investigate how the unit of selection affects the process of evolution and the hierarchical classification of modular systems, and how evolutionary mechanisms bring about evolutionary change in design space through time. It will explore how different evolutionary operators interact to cause 'phenotypic' effects. The main challenge of the thesis will be to explain developmental patterns found in socio-technical systems, and in the biological selective regime, into an extended synthesis. To this end, a scientific investigation of shared research is required, and emphasis will be placed on how this unifying approach can delineate evolutionary mechanisms, functional theory and evolutionary methodology of design, evolutionary operators, and phenotypic-genotypic distinction in technology. It is apparent that evolutionary theory can be used for theoretical planning in the growth and development of technical-social systems. The basic principles of Darwin’s theory of evolution notes that each system (which can), under a selective regime, achieves properties including variation, reproduction and heritability, in order that the system can evolve. Academics who study the growth and development of technology in the context of an evolutionary-historical process often use the idea of genetic transfer for inspiration

2016 - The Twenty-first Annual Symposium of Student Scholars

The full program book from the Twenty-first Annual Symposium of Student Scholars, held on April 21, 2016. Includes abstracts from the presentations and posters.https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/sssprograms/1015/thumbnail.jp

Sociobiology, universal Darwinism and their transcendence: An investigation of the history, philosophy and critique of Darwinian paradigms, especially gene-Darwinism, process-Darwinism, and their types of reductionism towards a theory of the evolution of evolutionary processes, evolutionary freedom and ecological idealism

Based on a review of different Darwinian paradigms, particularly sociobiology, this work, both, historically and philosophically, develops a metaphysic of gene-Darwinism and process-Darwinism, and then criticises and transcends these Darwinian paradigms in order to achieve a truly evolutionary theory of evolution. Part I introduces essential aspects of current sociobiology as the original challenge to this investigation. The claim of some sociobiologists that ethics should become biologized in a gene-egoistic way, is shown to be tied to certain biological views, which ethically lead to problematic results. In part II a historical investigation into sociobiology and Darwinism in general provides us, as historical epistemology', with a deeper understanding of the structure and background of these approaches. Gene-Darwinism, which presently dominates sociobiology and is linked to Dawkins' selfish gene view of evolution, is compared to Darwin's Darwinism and the evolutionary' synthesis and becomes defined more strictly. An account of the external history of Darwinism and its subparadigms shows how cultural intellectual presuppositions, like Malthusianism or the Newtonian concept of the unchangeable laws of nature, also influenced biological theory' construction. In part III universal 'process-Darwinism' is elaborated based on the historical interaction of Darwinism with non-biological subject areas. Building blocks for this are found in psychology, the theory of science and economics. Additionally, a metaphysical argument for the universality of process- Darwinism, linked to Hume's and Popper's problem of induction, is proposed. In part IV gene-Darwinism and process-Darwinism are criticised. Gene-Darwinism—despite its merits—is challenged as being one-sided in advocating 'gene-atomism', 'germ-line reductionism' and 'process-monism'. My alternative proposals develop and try to unify different criticisms often found. In respect of gene-atomism I advocate a many-level approach, opposing the necessary radical selfishness of single genes. I develop the concept of higher-level genes, propose a concept of systemic selection, which may stabilise group properties, without relying on permanent group selection and extend the applicability of a certain group selectionist model generally to small open groups. Proposals of mine linked to the critique of germ-line reductionism are: 'exformation', phenotypes as evolutionary factors and a field theoretic understanding of causa formalis (resembling Aristotelian hylemorphism). Finally the process-monism of gene-Darwinism, process-Darwinism and, if defined strictly, Darwinism in general is criticised. 1 argue that our ontology and ethics would be improved by replacing the Newtoman-Paleyian deist metaphor of an eternal and unchangeable law of nature, which lies at tire very heart of Darwinism, by a truly evolutionary understanding of evolution where new processes may gain a certain autonomy. All this results in a view that I call 'ecological idealism', which, although still very much based on Darwinism, clearly transcends a Darwinian world view