new #preprint, @OSFramework , happy to have this out the door, been working on it for a while.
"Darwin’s Agential Materials: evolutionary implications of multi-scale competency in developmental biology" osf.io/p23se/
In prior papers, I argued for morphogenesis as a kind of collective intelligence navigating anatomical morphospace with various competencies. I proposed a few ways in which evolution scales up from single cells' tiny goals to agents with larger goals (e.g., specific target
morphologies). Here, I ponder the flip side of the intelligence-evolution feedback loop: what does the competency of the morphogenetic layer mean for the evolutionary process itself? What might be the ways in which evolution works over an agential material? Check out the
"director's cut" version here - pretty sure a lot of references, text, and some of the more speculative ideas, will have to be pulled out for the official journal version. Oh, and it has plant galls! Awesome plant galls.
Now, here are renditions of the title by @midjourney as Remedios Varo, Joan Miro, and my favorite, if it were a page of the Codex Seraphinianus:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Whenever reviewers/editors suggest drastically reducing the # of references, or shortening content to fit "length limits" (for a digital end product!), I get closer to the ledge that was established by preprints. Why spend time begging to be allowed to include citations
to prior work to give proper credit and give readers a good path to read backwards, why wrangle over edits that distort one's message, why reduce the length of what we wanted to say, all for the privilege of paying thousands of $ to have it eventually "blessed" by a very small
number of decision-makers. We don't even really need the preprint archive - it's not like it helps zero in on relevant papers the way a journal used to, in the old days. What at this point, especially for conceptual pieces/reviews, is the argument to engage with a journal
I'm increasingly noticing (in manuscript reviews & comments after a talk) the claim that empirical success in predictions & driving new capabilities/discoveries is no evidence that a theory is any good. Please educate me on the philosophy of science that is driving this
view: what is the alternative? Of course we can be temporarily fooled by fit to data (e.g., epicycles), and that the Newtonian worldview gave way to Einstein's and so on. But big picture: if not judged by empirical success, what else do we have? Unless a paper/talk is claiming
that a model is the definitive last word on something, how can "just because it makes confirmed surprising predictions and drives new capabilities, that's no support for the model" be a valid response? It seems a crazy position to hold, but maybe I'm missing a convincing
development. Downstream of this are all the transcriptional cascades required for a good brain. But here's the key: the correct bioelectric state for proper gene expression is a *spatial pattern* - it's not the state of single cells, the transcriptional circuits are regulated
by a *difference* between Vmem levels of regions. How do cells sense spatial patterns of voltage across space, to drive the right gene expression downstream? More broadly, how do gene regulatory networks and bioelectric networks interact? What are the information dynamics? Here
I present to you, some images that Midjourney created from some scientific paper titles. I think maybe this should be required with every paper submission to a journal. Let's see some of your favorites!
"The spirit of D'Arcy Thompson dwells in empirical morphospace" (one of my all-time favorite paper titles) sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
So what's the deal with Substack? I've got some things to write that are too long for tweets, and are not traditional academic papers. I don't have a blog. Inspired by @erikphoel and @BenAnderson421 to consider Substack or something like it. The problem is that I don't have
the time to put out content very frequently or very consistently. It will be occasional, unpredictable. Does that make it a bad candidate for Substack? I could send some of these things to ~science magazines, but I have no time to wrestle with editors. How do people think about
this? Also, preprints - can preprints go onto a Substack? If not, why not? Do journals disallow that (consider it "prior art" for manuscript submissions) even though they've learned to live with preprint servers? Is there a benefit to using a preprint server for a traditional
I've played with GPT Chat, and I'm kind of annoyed at how hard it tries to avoid "misinformation". I get it, we don't want to drown in a sea of nonsense. But when I ask for an imaginative (fiction) text, I get 1 useful line and 4 sentences of disclaimers about how this is
so weird - it's somehow truncating all my tweet threads now and only posting the first 1 or 2. I was trying to say:
not to be taken seriously, how there's not a consensus, etc. etc. It feels boring and corporate to me - it gives very sanitized, inoffensive, "surface" answers. Like a candidate who is afraid to say anything meaningful lest it tick off the interviewer or something. The last