Subject
VN and Evolution
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victoria N. Alexander" <alexander@dactyl.org>
Saturday, October 25, 2003 Society for Literature and Science 17th
Annual Conference Austin, TX.
Abstract:
Nabokov argued that a slight
resemblance between one insect and another or between an insect and its
environment could not be furthered by the function or purpose it
served, leading gradually to mimicry. The subtleties of Nabokov's
argument against Darwinian gradualism have been missed by most of his
readers. He did not critique Darwinism in the same way that
Creationists do. Nabokov did believe that natural selection could
explain many adaptations and shifts in the direction of evolution, but
he did not think it could explain mimicry. He realized there were other
forces at work assisting natural selection, which were especially
apparent in the case of "mimicry." Recent work in what is called
"structural" and "neutral" evolutionary theory support Nabokov's views,
which seem to have been influenced by teleomechanism, a form of
theoretical biology derived from Kantian teleology.
I also organized 2 roundtable discussions at the conference. The
abstracts of these talks point out the relevance of doing art-science
investigations of fiction, providing a theoretical background /
motivations. I you could run all three abstracts on NABOKV-L, some
subscribers might find the subjects interesting.
Best,
Victoria
Friday, October 24, 2003 Society for Literature and Science 17th Annual
Conference Austin, TX The Status of Emergence Roundtables Victoria
Alexander (organizer/chair), Katherine Hayles, John Johnston, Eve
Keller, and Susan Oyama
Introduction by Victoria Alexander:
http://www.dactyl.org/thought/roundtable.htm
The Status of Emergence I: Science and Representation*
Complexity scientists take an artistic or subjective approach to the
study of emergent phenomena, which, they claim, cannot be described
reductively. "Mind" that emerges from "brain" activity, the complex
self-organization that characterizes living forms, structures produced
by genes and environment, and the meaning(s) of a literary work are
examples of emergent phenomena.
Although historically evaluations of emergent complex systems have been
viewed as subjective, theoretical physicists now claim relatively
objective evaluations are possible. Instead of interpreting a raw data
stream by imposing a preformed model on the system as a whole,
scientists look at a model stream, which is the actual behavior of an
ensemble of parts in the system. The regularities found in the way the
models change, give a quantitative (rather than merely qualitative)
description of the universal laws regulating and defining the system.
The hypothesizing scientist is thus removed from the theory-building
process; the complex system provides a representation of itself. If
this approach is valid, might we be entering the post post-classical
era of science? How will this affect our approach to emergent meaning
in literature?
The Status of Emergence II: Scholarship and Popularization*
The new use of model streams in science may be comparable to some
Formalist aesthetics. As Henry James argued, relative objectivity or
"truth" can be known through the accumulation of dynamic impressions
(or models). If relative objectively can be understood this way, the
"science wars" between conservative scientists and postmodernists may
finally come to an end. More scientists might become interested in, for
example, poetics and narrative theory, and this might allow insight
into important concepts such as "creativity," "originality," and
"complexity" etc.
The most productive art-science collaborations would involve scientists
who use aesthetics to understand natural processes—instead of using art
merely to illustrate scientific concepts. Likewise, humanities scholars
would focus on art/artists that use science, not as a subject, but as a
tool for understanding the artistic process. Only if two-way
interaction is accomplished will general audiences be persuaded of the
relevance of art-science explorations, Since increased audiences means
increased chances of support for art-science workers, like it or not,
the new theory of relatively objective emergence may be worth pursuing.
*Supported by the Dactyl Foundation for the Arts & Humanities.
From: "Victoria N. Alexander" <alexander@dactyl.org>
Saturday, October 25, 2003 Society for Literature and Science 17th
Annual Conference Austin, TX.
Abstract:
Nabokov argued that a slight
resemblance between one insect and another or between an insect and its
environment could not be furthered by the function or purpose it
served, leading gradually to mimicry. The subtleties of Nabokov's
argument against Darwinian gradualism have been missed by most of his
readers. He did not critique Darwinism in the same way that
Creationists do. Nabokov did believe that natural selection could
explain many adaptations and shifts in the direction of evolution, but
he did not think it could explain mimicry. He realized there were other
forces at work assisting natural selection, which were especially
apparent in the case of "mimicry." Recent work in what is called
"structural" and "neutral" evolutionary theory support Nabokov's views,
which seem to have been influenced by teleomechanism, a form of
theoretical biology derived from Kantian teleology.
I also organized 2 roundtable discussions at the conference. The
abstracts of these talks point out the relevance of doing art-science
investigations of fiction, providing a theoretical background /
motivations. I you could run all three abstracts on NABOKV-L, some
subscribers might find the subjects interesting.
Best,
Victoria
Friday, October 24, 2003 Society for Literature and Science 17th Annual
Conference Austin, TX The Status of Emergence Roundtables Victoria
Alexander (organizer/chair), Katherine Hayles, John Johnston, Eve
Keller, and Susan Oyama
Introduction by Victoria Alexander:
http://www.dactyl.org/thought/roundtable.htm
The Status of Emergence I: Science and Representation*
Complexity scientists take an artistic or subjective approach to the
study of emergent phenomena, which, they claim, cannot be described
reductively. "Mind" that emerges from "brain" activity, the complex
self-organization that characterizes living forms, structures produced
by genes and environment, and the meaning(s) of a literary work are
examples of emergent phenomena.
Although historically evaluations of emergent complex systems have been
viewed as subjective, theoretical physicists now claim relatively
objective evaluations are possible. Instead of interpreting a raw data
stream by imposing a preformed model on the system as a whole,
scientists look at a model stream, which is the actual behavior of an
ensemble of parts in the system. The regularities found in the way the
models change, give a quantitative (rather than merely qualitative)
description of the universal laws regulating and defining the system.
The hypothesizing scientist is thus removed from the theory-building
process; the complex system provides a representation of itself. If
this approach is valid, might we be entering the post post-classical
era of science? How will this affect our approach to emergent meaning
in literature?
The Status of Emergence II: Scholarship and Popularization*
The new use of model streams in science may be comparable to some
Formalist aesthetics. As Henry James argued, relative objectivity or
"truth" can be known through the accumulation of dynamic impressions
(or models). If relative objectively can be understood this way, the
"science wars" between conservative scientists and postmodernists may
finally come to an end. More scientists might become interested in, for
example, poetics and narrative theory, and this might allow insight
into important concepts such as "creativity," "originality," and
"complexity" etc.
The most productive art-science collaborations would involve scientists
who use aesthetics to understand natural processes—instead of using art
merely to illustrate scientific concepts. Likewise, humanities scholars
would focus on art/artists that use science, not as a subject, but as a
tool for understanding the artistic process. Only if two-way
interaction is accomplished will general audiences be persuaded of the
relevance of art-science explorations, Since increased audiences means
increased chances of support for art-science workers, like it or not,
the new theory of relatively objective emergence may be worth pursuing.
*Supported by the Dactyl Foundation for the Arts & Humanities.