[MD] Dreaming and death

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Ian: Squonk, you said,

[QUOTE]
That which is appropriate is  merely the current sq convention. The
obsolete is worse than the current sq  convention, IFF evolution is
becoming more Dynamic, better IFF evolution is  failing to latch.
[UNQUOTE]

I like that pragmatic summary. (I'm  assuming you mean "if and only if"
by IFF) ....
 
Mark: Hello Ian. Yes, i'm trying to apply my training.
 
Ian: explain what you meant by "evolution failing to latch".
 
Mark: A new sq pattern has to accomplish two things:
1. Be stable enough to survive within the current repertoire.
2. Be open to Dynamic change (modify the repertoire).
If a new pattern latches but cannot go any further it is worse than the  
current convention because it can't become more Dynamic (modify the  repertoire).
If a new pattern fails to latch it can't become more Dynamic anyway without  
making it's failing to latch worse (chaos)?

Ian: Are you suggesting the natural consequence of "evolution" is  more
evolution and less sq's, fewer SPV's, fewer "species", fewer  latches
full stop ?
 
Mark: No. I do not want to suggest that at all, and this may sound like a  
paradox. More sq patterns, open to more Dynamic change, accelerates the  
evolutionary process it seems to me. I'm not a computer modeller but i would  like to 
see this tested.
Evolution generates more sq patterns, and more latches, and more changes  and 
thus becomes more Dynamic.
 
Ian: Interesting idea, doubtful biologically, but  feasible
socio-intellectually. Maybe "real" life is  ballistic.

Ian
 
Mark: If one considers the diversity of DNA variation within Gaia, or the  
biosphere, then maybe we already have proof of the biological feasibility of  
this evolutionary acceleration? It astounds me personally.
The most interesting accept of all this, as i am sure you will not be  
surprised to hear Ian, is the ability of an increasing complex system to  maintain 
its stability.
 
Love,
Mark