It is interesting how Darwinian theory is being applied to cybernetics.
I don't think I can fully agree with all of the generalizations, however.
For example, the idea of "internal self-organizing selection" seems
highly problematic in regard to evolution, although I agree that there
is something going on internally that contributes to selection.
The problem I see is that any useful definition of evolution should involve
replication of forms through time requiring resources (either matter
or energy). It is this resource requirement that leads to environmental selection
and ensures that survival cannot depend solely on internal selection. Even
the example of the crystal doesn't seem to work if one thinks of a growth of
the crystal or a series of crystals. The environment does select them in terms
of the mineral availability, and hypothetically, there would be a difference
in which kinds of crystals "survive" depending on environmental variables.
Perhaps I have missed the point here -- If so, please enlighten me.
Also, I think that for us to talk about evolution in non-metaphorical terms,
there has to be a mechanism of "descent with modification" and here descent
implies replication (i.e., not just a single form changing over time). Are
cyberneticists assuming otherwise?? If so, I think we may be stretching the
defintions too far. It would be useful to clarify the difference between biological
evolution and evolution of non-living systems. To do that, of course, one
has to define life in a robust and fundamental way, and I think that
too should be attempted before definitions of evolution can be distinquished usefully.
