Does Evolution Have A Trajectory?

I'm sorry to have been AOL for the last several weeks. Aside from the ordinary chores of finishing up an academic year I have been concentrating on a very interesting problem related to my systems science book efforts. In fact, I think I may have made something of a breakthrough in my own understanding of something really fundamental.

I have written about hierarchical control and evolution before, but in this working paper I have coupled some of these ideas with the nature of complexity, its evolution, and how nature manages complexity with hierarchical control structures. And, most important, how this all works into the scenarios I have presented regarding the future of humanity and our evolution to eusapience. There is a lot here.

I've planted the files on my server at work (it is related to my general research agenda!) so here is the link:

Does Evolution Have A Trajectory?

Comments

[Phil Henshaw]

Sure George, Evolution has a very clear trajectory, easily discovered empirically, and now well supported in theory. You'd find out more about it from studying *how nature does it* than from studying theory originating from any other source. The general envelope of evolution is the "developmental life cycle".

www.synapse9.com/issues/images/PrHierarchyDDsm.jpg

See also www.synapse9.com/chapters.htm

[Alexander Carpenter]

Upon a first flow through your paper, my initial question is about whether or not what you characterize as "hierarchy" in nature is not really some combination of hierarchy and "holarchy," with a disposition toward the latter. Holarchy is a very useful notion when exploring and describing self-organizing complex systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holarchy for starters...

Ken Wilber is entranced with holons, and Arthur Koestler gets the most credit for introducing the notion. All Taoists are intuitively in deep relationship with holonic interactions. I can't get by without them these days.

[Tiité Baquero]

George,

Thank you for your kind comments as well, I have a high regard for you, your work and the tenacity of your convictions.

Changing survival strategy as an evolutionary device is a valid proposition; however, change is a difficult concept because it is a variable function of evolution. So, at least in principle we must assume that change is already occurring, even if, we do not know or cannot know the outcome outside of probability.

Therefore greater sapience would have to be a measure of change over time, resulting from the effect of the improvements introduced to generate such change, as it would be in the case where the results are to be seen as an improved human survival strategy.

It follows that, doing nothing to introduce survival improvement will also reveal a change over time, as conditions would go from bad to worse, to horrible to extinction.

Therefore George, it would seem that greater sapience will not happen on its own without an activator. Archeology suggests fairly clear over a credible time-line, that an improved stone-hand-ax model arose to replace the one that had been in use and which remained virtually unchanged for perhaps a million years.

What I’m suggesting to you by way of responding to the question of whether we should intercede or not is, that the answer is, yes, but with the introduction of the improvement itself as the mediator, rather than, merely securing the need for improvement.

For instance: Cell phones are a triumph for that (improvement first) thesis as they became a clear choice, with the greatest level of voluntary adoption at a global scale, in a very short period of time and across the entire spectrum of human activity.

One can only marvel at the power of such efficiency which can be traced back to a single improvement. Moreover, I’m not aware of any significant examples, where a law to make cell phone use mandatory was required or where people were forced into cell phone usage.

Now, can we do anything to ease the effects of our own version of the comet?

The answer is not only yes, but is a must do. George, the improvements are already here, they have been here for decades.

The difficulty is that, Homo sapiens are so bad at looking ahead, that the future is mostly in the hands of historians of various disciplines while the visionaries are neglected and ridiculed. That is, until enough time has passed, and the historian looks at the data afresh and then, proclaim the improvement fit for consumption.

The trouble with that practice at present is that we do not have the luxury of a lot of reaction time.

I’ve often said that: One reason we do not perceive extraterrestrial consciousness is because our ignorance hides it in plain sight.

If, we were to look back at the makers of the stone-hand-ax I’ve mentioned above, it is likely that, the realization of the tool’s limitations was the spark for the “need” for further improvement.

Furthermore, when the new stone-ax-with-a-wooden-handle came into widespread use, the new ax was in the hands of a new Homo type, perhaps Homo sapiens, but, my point is that the improvement itself was the catalyst for the transition and the transition itself the cradle for the additional culture which in terms bore the sapience to match the implications of the improvement.

So George, if history is any indication, human consciousness is as high as it is going to get. The improvements, however, even in their primitive early incarnations, are needed now most of all because they are the true indicators that a transition is taking place.

People will embrace the improvements (like the cell phone) if we just go ahead and use them. People know it is time for improvement; it is also time that we show people what the improvements are and how to use them.

The “difference” between; “we need a better hand-ax,” and “here is a new wooden-handle-ax,” was, as it turned out, the addition of a whole new species to our genus.

Change is a hard concept to understand, which is why we are so bad at it. Improvement over time is not only accessible and friendly, but, quite natural and easy to get used to as well.

George, next, I will comment on: Does Evolution Have a Trajectory?

[George Mobus]

Phil,

Have studied it from nature. My first degree is in biology! But thanks for the additional links.

---------------------------------
Alexander,

The holarchy concept is very useful in this regard. In my systems book I describe objects as whole systems and then go on to arrange them in hierarchical organizations connected by networks of relations. I believe this is the essence of holarchy but I do not use (or have not used) that term explicitly as it is less known to systems workers, I think. I will have to investigate its use more.

-----------------------------
Tiité,

I may need to read it all over again to try to understand this comment! I can be dense sometimes. But I want to focus on this:

So George, if history is any indication, human consciousness is as high as it is going to get.

I think we need to unpack the notion of high vs. low consciousness. What does it mean, a higher consciousness? I had been steeped in the Eastern literature regarding levels of consciousness, from the Vedic traditions of Cosmic Consciousness through Brahman Consciousness. There consciousness (starting with sleep at the lowest level) comes in more or less discrete levels with the highest achieved by following various practices such as meditation. I do not doubt that humans experience or are capable of experiencing various gradations of the feeling of consciousness, including something akin to being one with the universe. I have come to question the various spiritualistic interpretations, however, due to the current state of understanding of brain science.

From my perspective, consciousness comes in levels, biologically defined, of first-order, second-order, and what I have called second-and-a-half order. The first order we share with most, and probably all animals (if we recognize a sub-level of first order, we could include plants that do respond to their environments). That is simply being aware of the environment and responding appropriately to stimuli. In lower animals this is mediated by the lower brain as automatic response systems. In reptiles and higher we add some memory/learning capacity in the form of primitive cortical structures like the amygdala. In birds and lower mammals we add an outer cortex to the cerebrum and obtain yet higher forms of first order consciousness in that they can respond to far more complex environmental contingencies. Finally, in primates we get the glimmers of second-order consciousness, an awareness of being aware, or self-reflection. We see the beginnings of the expansion of the prefrontal cortex (where I claim sapience took root) and the von Economo cells providing fast communications between the limbic and prefrontal regions. To be sure we don't see behavioral signs of this (e.g. recognizing ones self in a mirror) until we get to chimpanzees (some evidence this is true in dolphins also, but jury still undecided). We can assume, I think safely, that early forms of Hominids carried this capability.

In modern Homo sapiens we have an even greater capacity at self-reflection. We have language and symbolic representation/manipulation capabilities that rely on our having not only awareness of awareness (we are aware of our being aware, at least episodically), but also the ability to analyze the efficacy of our second-order awareness and even influence it by building a better understanding of the way the world works in broad scale. That is part of what I claim sapience is.

Now, in my view, we can, indeed, evolve yet greater capacity for sapience. This would amount to elevating the second-and-a-half consciousness to a full third-order. In that kind of mind, I believe the evaluation and reconstructing of second-order consciousness becomes more or less routine. For most of our species, I think the episodes of self-evaluation are rare, and generally sparked by external events. In eusapient beings I'm suspecting that such evaluation will be on-going and lead to much greater levels of veridical, morally-based judgments. This is what I call a higher level of consciousness. And I am quite convinced it is extremely rare in our global population!

It may be rare, but the good news is it is present in incipient form in some small number of people. The ordinary laws of variability would mandate there exists some representatives of humanity possessing this kind of consciousness or its precursor.

The trick for us as a species is to recognize that evolution is not finished with sentience even if our current version (us) suffers an apparent setback. My proposals are not meant to claim a guarantee that future humans will be mostly eusapient. Nothing we could do would ever guarantee anything in evolution. But we might be able to nudge the process in the direction toward yet higher (in my terminology) consciousness. Such beings, I'm betting, would display much greater capacities for cooperation as a modus operandi than the current version of sapiens. It seems worth a shot to help increase the odds of high sapient beings will make it, especially given the threats of the coming conditions.

I look forward to your comments on the trajectory paper.

George

[Tiité Baquero]

George,

I will have to go along with your perspective on “consciousness” for several reasons, foremost amongst, because it’s broad enough to glimpse into the sequential development over time of our interpretation of consciousness which, sadly somehow still escapes a formal definition.

My reference of “human consciousness is as high as it is going to get” was more engaged in the context of “as good as it is going to get,” which has been typical to human development prior to the overlap of a better description regarding the same phenomena, at a given time in history.

Consider Plato’s student Eudoxus imagining the heavens as a series of concentric spheres; a notion that was as good as it was going to get, until Aristotle propped them up into reality. That is, until Copernicus made more sense of the idea, which was overlapped by Kepler, then by Galileo and then demolished by Newton’s single law “Gravity” and then that was as good as it was going to get… until Einstein. You get the picture.

George the point I am making is that consciousness is as high as it is going to get because the overlapping consciousness that you and I are seeding sets–up the boundary conditions where the improvements to the strategy can be differentiated from more of the same, as in the sample case with cosmology from Plato to Einstein and beyond Einstein to current string theories and other models which like consciousness itself, are works in progress.

I must point out that, string theory does not tell us much about the constituency behind the Big Bang and that consciousness is still up for a definition that reconciles all that you’ve just said with neuroscience.

Again George, it does seem that the “improvement” thesis itself, even as incipient as it may look at first when contrasted to the last “as good as it gets” can be seen as a sequential component of evolution, which is curiously enough, hugely consequential.

More, on my comments to the trajectory paper, next.

[Alexander Carpenter]

George, I am separately e-mailing you a file attachment that artfully distinguishes hierarchy and holarchy. I would have posted that material in this comment space, but too much formatting would be lost. Enjoy!

[Tiité Baquero]

George,

I’m delighted that you have brought your thoughts to this current assessment of the phenomena regarding emergence, organization, complexity and their debt to energy flow.

The reason I admire your systems thesis is that it frames the dialog about a question that has lasted the length and history of human curiosity. It does so, in terms that are at once, revealing of the trajectory of the human notions (interpretation) concerning life, its beginning, purpose, destiny and such, over the time span of its duration.

In my opinion, your thesis, enters the dialog at an ideal if not auspicious moment in history, where, the detail of the thesis (that is the genesis and history of the ideas that evolved to frame the thesis) can be seen as sequential events, each, with a particular time signature that gives the material its place in history and a position in the history of our interpretation regarding the evolution of life on Earth.

That, I think, is of vital importance because the dialog as is, should be refocused more to how we, as a species, are going to move forward in an environment that is increasingly hostile to life (even to the standards of our interpretation now) rather than a dialog, about reconfirming what we already know about life in the context of an environment that for all practical purposes no longer exists.

Therefore, the origin of life is nicely bracketed as you surmised it, of course as with all science, it is provisionary withstanding the adjustments coming from a newer interpretation and or new evidence for those data.

The corrective input, however, I’m sure is coming from Nature, via a cognitive level where human sapience is modified at first, to be at ease with the idea of life extended to accommodate, Nature, as the primary driver and human ingenuity as what it really is, a new comer to life with a collaborative (with Nature) option to design privileges.

Does evolution have a trajectory?

The short and best answer at this moment in history seems to be…Yes!

However the kicker about the evolution of life on Earth, George, is that after a period of roughly 3.5 billion years or so, with the advent of Homo sapiens, the “trajectory” or the path of the evolutionary trajectory, split into two separate curves.

When we look at the evolution of life on Earth from our vantage point in 2011, the best data is telling us that we are looking at one “natural process” with a bifurcation that in general terms is manifesting itself thus.

One trajectory, or the original curve, which is composed of several million plants and animals, that remain to date, within the provisions of natural selection over the 3.5 billion year course of life on Earth.

The other trajectory or branched curve, is occupied by (Homo sapiens) us, let’s call it the “human nature” sub-curve (a nature–consciousness–hybrid designed and authored by the species itself independent of nature) which, while being biologically tied to the natural process (as a creature) has learned to overwrite the natural evolutionary parameters of life on Earth.

So far, we have carried on the project, in the absence of a better understanding of life as a biotic collective; an arrangement that is wholly dependent upon a common biosphere, which, is ultimately tied to a cosmological processes whose origin and total consequence we can only dimly see.

While this observation may come as a surprise, the data suggest that the surprise has been in the making for at least 200,000 years, beginning with the appearance of the anatomically modern human.

As we take a deep breath and recover, the first indication is that the separate trajectory notion, allows us to see the “emergence data” in a new light.

Furthermore, the interpretation of those data plus the new implications that surface as a result, leads to a whole new set of variables where the best “trajectory” forward is to be found.

The first computational pay-off, which emerges from the bifurcation scenario, is that we can begin to evaluate the evolutionary differences and similarities from a new point of view which has a single origin but two distinct evolutionary paths at play.

George, your synthesis of the human interpretation of evolution would have gladdened Darwin and unnerved his critics to madness.

However, unless we do something to organize the data and reinterpret what the data is telling us at this time, the motivation to spur humanity to sapience will not surface, and therefore, a transitional age towards the new Homo type would lack the cultural foundations to get started or the improved hierarchical control system principles to orient it.

Moreover, Joseph Tainter’s interpretation of the collapse of human complexity would yet again, claim another civilization.

There is no use in predicting a bedraggled troop of survivors inheriting a dying planet, which is left, with just the wish that new sapience (coming from where?) will inform a species, about how to survive in an environment that has never existed on Earth before.

George, with a fresh assessment of the evolutionary trajectory as mentioned above, the overall perspective of the two paths will clarify the data and point to where the adjustments are due, what they entail, and what kind of time do we have to react.

The contrast between the hierarchical control systems you are espousing and Nature’s own, under the scrutiny of the new perspective, will allow us to file into history a lot of the silliness and bias that riddles the human interpretation of life, whilst, opening our eyes to first principles of hierarchical system organization that will complement your work and at the same time filter out some of the confusion that is inherent in the dual trajectory problem.

Life on Earth is a very unique and wonderful subject for study; however, at this evolutionary junction, the definition of life itself, needs to be expanded to accommodate the reality of what it has become.

From there on, the ideas that will inform the course correction measures will easily ensue. In fact, in a peculiar way, ideas are already laid at our door, should we care to take the time to open the door and invite them in.

It will not be easy, as understanding the remaining mysteries of the universe may not prove to be as difficult as understanding the scope of human arrogance. Yet, we must try to do both.

[George Mobus]

Tiité,

Sorry for the delayed response. I've read and re-read your comment but must confess I an not certain I understand the dual trajectory. If this is another way to talk about divergent evolution then I am puzzled by what you are saying is different or new here. On the other hand, if it is something different then I am having difficulty visualizing the concept.

My thinking and writing have always been about emergence as the evolutionary response to complexification. I don't envision emergence as a splitting or parallel evolution but as the development of a new layer of interactions still tied to the lower layers and dependent on them. Human sociality and culture constitute the newest layer that is different from but nevertheless based on biology.

You say, "The contrast between the hierarchical control systems you are espousing and Nature’s own..." which I take to mean that you interpret my writing as delineating some difference between nature's hierarchical structure and humans. In fact I have tried to point out that the human condition is exactly part of nature. The only 'difference', which isn't a difference at all, is that human social organizations have not yet fully evolved so as to constitute a 'final', or settled hierarchical structure. We are still in the groping about phase where some of our institutions appear to be attempting to function in the final form, but are, missing critical pieces, as it were.

One of the most critical pieces is the fact that humans have not yet evolved adequate levels of sapience so as to individually function within our institutional structures such that those institutions then function well. This is why I say evolution (biological, not just cultural) is still pertinent to the discussion. I posit that we may influence the biology through using our conscious awareness and science to directly intervene with the genetic basis. But that is a hypothetical and not directly relevant to my main argument.

Biological evolution of humans did not come to an end with Homo sapiens. It still underlies any modifications (one hopes for the better) by the same selective forces that have guided evolution since the Big Bang (or whatever origin). What is unique about human evolution as we 'emerge' from biology-only is that our brains allow us to understand this even as we have, with those same brains, created much of the environmental conditions which will do the selecting.

Perhaps, as an artist, you can think of a visualization that will help me understand what you are describing as this split and parallel trajectories. Also, could you provide a deeper explanation of how you see this having happened (mechanisms). And, perhaps more explanation as to why you see my vision of hierarchy for humans as different from nature's.

Regards

George

[Tiité Baquero]

Thank you George, I will do just that in a few days.

[Tiité Baquero]

George

I’m very glad about your response and how neatly it fits within the “question everything” format of your blog.

I must confess that the thesis of a bifurcated evolutionary path was puzzling to me as well, particularly during the last half of the 70’s, when the thought was so preposterous, that, its absense from mainstream academic literature at the time, seemed to be a confirmation to the apparent absurdity of the thesis.

Even the experimental work that I carried out during the 80’s had to wait for 21st century developments in a number of research fronts, before, I could venture out to make a case for the evolutionary bifurcation thesis.

Oddly enough, at present, my early work seems to have found a foothold with recent data while at the same time, the new developments by others, may stand to beneffit greatly from what I have learned since.

I must, however, make an effort to qualify my proposal in a light, which I think, suites the temperament of my work and the perch upon which it rests.

If we can accept that (generally speaking,) science is about the values of variables and how they change over time.

Then, it is not a strecth to say that the scientific data involved, is not hostage, in principle, to either institutional academic validation, or, to the dictum of anyone particular academic specialty, that is, in order to assertain whether the data is valid or false–other than, the merit of its results, the predictions that it makes and their validity after the results are confirmed or falsified by experiment or observation.

It is widely known that Charles Darwin’s lack of academic creditation could not, today, get him a research grant or a job at any of the evolutionary biology labs.

I chose to do art, because it offered me the opportunity to embrace the “whole” of the human enterprise as one integral problem and to address it, from behind the veils of an aesthetic templet wholly costrained by the laws of Nature.

Therefore at least for the moment, I will suggest that we dispense with the science/ humanities-academic-distinction, only because, on the limit, their boundaries blend together–once the evolutionary characters of the human species are brought up in contrast to the evolutionary characters of all other life on Earth.

Allow me then to address your concerns regarding my proposal.

Divergent evolution is generally regarded as, a phenomenon derived from a differentiated fixation of characters resulting from genetic drift and natural selection pressures. While there are a number of instances in which divergence as such may be loosely associated with the synthesis of our own evolutionary trajectory in some sense, I think, that for the moment there is no need to invoke it at all.

As you will see, we are talking about a new development in evolutionary biology which just happens to be ripe for us, given the current state of the species in the 21st century and the general profile of environmental conditions attending our (civilization) and the general enterprise of life on Earth.

In fact, I’ll suggest that, those pressures, may be credited, for the timely appearance of relevant literature addressing those very concerns from a scientific-evolutionary-point of view.

Steven Pinker’s “The Stuff of Thought” comes to mind, he explores the “cognitive niche,” although, while the literature is rich in the formative and associative context, the jump to a bifurcation, however, is not suggested or declared.

Still, the emolument seems to be, that a number of lines of inquiry including yours is generating a climate in which a productive dialog respecting these ideas is flourishing.

Overall, one can sense a wave of accord suggesting that, the time has come for science and other disciplines to turn around their investigative microscope from nature to look at ourselves in the light of the nature we have created for ourselves–in–contrast to what science has observed in Nature.

George, you say “I don't envision emergence as a splitting or parallel evolution but as the development of a new layer of interactions still tied to the lower layers and dependent on them.” I agree with you to a point; however, the term I prefer is “bifurcation” as split implies separation from end to end and the former implies branching out, which is the case I’m presenting. I regret the use of “split” in the introductory sentence though in the following sentence I switched to bifurcation, which, has been the central theme all along.

The point is that incremental layers of complexity tied to a common ancestry and constrained by natural laws is one thing. A bifurcation occurs when one actor at a certain point in the progression, generates and (progressively in a gradual reductive sense) plays by a separate set of rules even if the rules are based, in principle, from the formative evolutionary rules. That is the evolutionary point that recent data is making available in support of the bifurcation thesis George.

Therefore, your data regarding hierarchical control systems, while it may be correct in the limit, is nonetheless intrinsically attached to the new set of rules as imposed by the actor (H. sapiens) operating as if (wholly)a part of the natural process, when in fact, is operating from a separate branch of the same tree. Evidence to that effect may be found in the observation that one (ours) is unsustainable and the other (all other life) is just a continuation of an ancient process.

Furthermore, the difference between the branches is made clear by the consequential outcome of each operative hierarchical control system. As you say, “We are still in the groping about phase where some of our institutions appear to be attempting to function in the final form, but are, missing critical pieces, as it were.” That is exactly the distinction between the two. Nature is way ahead on solving that proposition and H. sapiens has just got the message and the environmental pressures to find and add-on to the model the “missing critical pieces.”

Now, if we can conceive of “emergence” as “the appearance of new properties-over time-in an evolutionary sequence of events, within a given environment and its variable conditions” then, we are on the same page.

Emergence in those terms, will, clearly pave the way for us to focus our attention on the proposition for a “evolutionary bifurcation theory” where we should be able to examine: The sequential motion of its development, the effect of the interactions (that is, internal/external as a creature, in tendom, with the environment’s constituence and the attending variable environmental conditions) and the resulting adaptation to the complex variables of natural selection for each branch.

That way, emergence can maintain a common evolutionary origin and the bifurcation phenomenon an observation platform, as a departure, which, is grounded on the shared biology and evolutionary history of all terrestrial life, but, that in the case of H. sapiens, the bifurcation reveals itself as a new set of properties that not only have a history and a trajectory, but, also morphological, biomechanical and sentient (cognitive) features which clearly set H. sapiens appart from all other creatures.

Those emergent properties and a number of its modular characters can now be seen in contast to the natural evolutionary templet of natural selection. A visiting biologist from another planet, would have no problem making such a distinction based upon the observable data.

One observation that is growing acceptance in the scientific community, however, is that, “high intelligence does not seem to be a general goal of evolution” therefore our concern with sapience, can be ragarded as a feature that is unique to our own evolutionary branch.

Thereby providing a bit more than tacit evidence for the bifurcation thesis and for the distinction between the two separate hierarchical control models, their benefits and trade-offs.

Much to be pondered about this point, I’m sure.

While you correctly note that, “Biological evolution of humans did not come to an end with Homo sapiens.” The bifurcation in question is wholly bound to biology and trhough evolution to the earliest common ancestor, Else it could not be a bifurcation (a branch of.)

However, the central point of the thesis is, that if our understanding of evolution, so far, is good enough, then it is not to early for us to deduce that:
The evolutionary analysis respecting our common provenance from Nature and the evidence accounting for our “gradual and incremental separation from its survival norms in support of our own interpretation of such norms,” shows a discrepancy that cannot be accounted in the limit, by any other rational conclusion based on natural selection.

I’m confident that once we allow ourselves to confront that inevitability, science will connect enough dots to show that the bifurcation most likely began within the overlap of quadripedalism and bipedalism, somewhere around “six million years ago” or so, and proceded gradually (S.tchadensis is a good candidate) on to the creature reading these words on a computer monitor.

George, this new lanscape is vast and as you mentioned on occasion we are dense at times. The last 200,000 years are really no more than an evolutionary blink for life on Earth, however, this bifurcation phenomenon could have never been noticed before; for the simple reason, that it just appeared, now in fornt of us, for us to see it at this evolutionary junction, much like the bipedalist choice appeared at the beginning of the bifurcation.

Picture that George!

Now, it doesn’t take an NSF grant to confirm the potential of this line of inquiry, or to realize that this stuff is the stuff of big prizes in many fields. But for now it is what it is, a thesis waiting to become an important addition to the work started by Wallace and Darwin on natural selection.

Furthermore it is, unless you have a beeter idea, the most consistent approach to date, which embraces natural selection, places H.sapiens on its proper place and ushers in a wave of clarification and proportion to the known data, which is indispensable; should we want to do more than just rant, complain and criticize the ongoing and otherwise unstopable drama of life on Earth.

The implications of the “bifurcation theory” are sufficient to rock civilization out of the dulldrums and into a discovery mode that has never been seen by life on earth. H.sapiens is like a youngster, trading a learning permit for a valid driving license.

As a scientist, you understand that these few lines in this forum are not enough to make proper case, however I will share with you a few core propositions that may serve as a preview of coming attractions.

First let me be clear about “bifurcation” which I use in the context of “the branching off without loss of provenance and a unique (standing appart) gain on individuality” the mention of“split” or “parallel” was metaphorical and solely to suggest resemblance.

Those of us who look closely at data, are quick to notice that “one thing” is really a great many things. Variable equations did rescue the curious mind from the mayhem of such peculiar singularities, and in a very real sense enable the emergence of the domain where the bifurcation theory has its greatest ally.

While there is not a single environmental pressure responsible for triggering evolution, one can, however, narrow the field to propositions with the most to offer on their own, and referentially, to other evolutionary trends that are concomitant with the emergence of the characters being observed.

In the case of the bifurcation theory, let me propose a “mechanism” with those qualifications, let me offer mammalian bipedality, as an evolutionary point of reference amidst a shared hominine trajectory derived from earlier ancestors.

If our understanding of natural selection is invoked, we can infer, that survival pressures acting upon by a particular actor, resulted over time in an adaptation manifested in the common ancestor of H.sapiens. That adaptation was to favor bipedal walking as a trade-off for the accruing benefits of locomotion and a wider range of manipulation.

A notable first (biomechanical) benefit, was the freeing of already prehensile hands to be devoted to a range of new tasks and the handling of a new set of problems and their variables. There, in the variables is the key to the start of the bifurcation because early observation of the emerging sets of variables by the hominid, enabled “cognition” wich is the formative domain of cause and effect reasoning and its offspring “information.”

Abstract reasoning plus data, then, enabled language to–dialog–to–sociality and now, we can deduce that a number of permutations of this templet, selected through some clade (of shared evolutionary characters) to enabled the line that led to H.sapiens and to the form of mild insight, regarding, the anatomy of cause and effect, which at present troubles the the species with the threat of extinction.

The evolutionary line to H.sapiens, had (unknowingly) tapped into a strand of the binary code of matural variable computation which in conbination with natural selective pressures, generated the gradual “bifurcation” between natural evolution and the unique brand of selective evolution which (on the fringes of natural selection) characterises “human nature.”

Furthermore, for a species to be able to credibly demonstrate, that a the degree of independence from natural selection has been achieved, (as proposed by the “Bifurcation Theory.”) it would require a contrasting piece of evidence so compelling, that the idea of an evolutionary bifurcation would stand neatly in the “contrast,” while at the same time, functioning well whithin the shared evolutionary trajectory of natural slection to a primordial common ancestor.

One such compelling piece of evidence (for the bifurcation theory), would have to be; H. sapiens amplitude to “react to change, simultaneously, in both evolutionary time (as all other creatures on Earth do) and in “real time” as only our species can do.

That George, is the big biological prize of cognitive reasoning. Stated a bit differently it reads. H. sapiens, a species with the sole power and control of information over all other life forms on Earth.

So what?

That is the right question, because being where we think we are (still bunched with the rest of life on the evolutionary tree) exempts the species from responding to change at the corresponding evolutionary level where the species is really located.

The answer, as best as I can see, is that: Only from that evolutionary perch where we are, would we, be able to react to the changes that we have introduced and to the survival pressures that such changes have and are generating for us and all other life.

Knowing where you are is the first step to finding your way home. The way forward proceeds as it did at the beginning of the bifurcation. That is, cognitively, reasonably and still (once again for us really) with nature’s tried and true natural selection overview, the only difference would be that this time we know much more about, natue, and about the consequences of cause and effect over time.

George, as I hope you notice, your work on hierachical control systems is immensely significant as it is quality work, particularly regarding the general architecture of the common overall system.

The bifurcation was so gradual and for so long (millions of years) that, it is only recently that its effects became openly quantifiable, and in such a way, that work like yours, should have no problem finding bridges or suitable boundaries and the data placed where it makes the most sense while helping to clarify the new inferences.

George, I hope this can ease some of your concerns, however, there is so much more to this, particularly once we make a real approach to bifurcation as a theory and place on the table the number of testable predictions that it makes and the available evidence for some of its initial and dramatic underpinnings.

We may not have the energy to sustain our decline, but we certainly have the information to power a redirection course and perhaps enough time to do it. H. sapiens was naturally selected for the prize, let see to it, if the species has the smarts to claim it.

Cheers

[binary options]

Very interesting article, enjoyed reading it. Life for sure has a trajectory. Life cycle is a fact. Just have to pay attention to the behavior of our pets.
[Moderator edit: removed commercial URL]