|
Author
|
Topic: Stuart Kauffman Chat - November 15th- 4pm Eastern
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 30. October 2002 16:49
For those interested in complexity theory and self-organization...
On Friday November 15th at 4pm Eastern ISCID will be hosting a live moderated chat event with Stuart Kauffman on his latest book Investigations. The event is free and open to the public.
http://www.iscid.org/stuartkauffman.php
[ 06. November 2002, 22:32: Message edited by: Micah Sparacio ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 06. November 2002 22:38
Good news. I just got done talking with Stuart Kauffman and we've rescheduled his chat at ISCID to Friday November 15th at 4pm Eastern.
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 15. November 2002 21:08
Real life, in the form of the volunteer emergency squad of which I am a member, prevented me from attending. Will the transcript be published here?
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 02. December 2002 21:39
(bump) Micah? Transcript?
Thanks!
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 02. December 2002 23:26
Here are three interchanges I found interesting, from the transcript:
Live Moderated Chat: Stuart Kauffman
Draft Transcript* from November 15, 2002 4:00-5:00 PM Eastern
Copyright © by International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design 2002.
[Two questions concerning Kaufman’s thoughts on ID]
Downard
Dr. Kauffman, would you care to comment on William Dembski's Complex Specified Information arguments, and the extent to which you think they are applicable to actual biological systems?
Stuart Kauffman
Well, I debated William. I think the basic question he asks is perfectly reasonable. How would we recognize a signal from space as non-noise for example. But in the biological realm, I feel he has not made his case. There are too many alternative explanations, based on Darwinian selection, to get such complex specified information.
masciarelli
...For a young "tired of Darwinian dogmatism/ID seems pretty cool" guy like myself, do you think that ID is not only a 'perfectly reasonable' question, but maybe even one that warrants serious intellictual attention, resources [not nec. $$], and active investigation? Specifically , is there a reason not to give design some time? [please pardon any typos ;-0]
Stuart Kauffman
I think the design question is legitimate. I just worry about the methodologies, and hidden reference to a creator.
[And a good question by Emma Peel, with an important answer by Kaufman]
Emma Peel
ID theorists tend to view the sequence space of life as creating isolated islands of functionality that usually can't be travelled to via small steps. Darwinians tend to think of them as connected. What kind of networks tend to be connected rather than isolated? (What general features or metrics do they need?)
Stuart Kauffman
Peter Schuster, in Vienna, U vienna, has done wonderful work on this subject. He made models of RNA sequences that folded, categorized each RNA by the kind of fold it made and showed 1) a power law distribution of the number of sequences that fold into each shape, 2) that thecommon shapes each form a percolating connected web across sequence space all of whose members are neutral mutants of one another such that one can traverse the entire space stepping only on the same shape. Further he and his colleagues showed that all the common shapes formed such webs, and came very near one another.
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 03. December 2002 00:45
Micah,
Many thanks. I should have looked before bumping! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic