<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=UTF-8 http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Dear Howard,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I am about to head for the airpot. However, on the "genetics
as intelligence etc.": treat retrovituses a classical parasites, <U>but
parasites of chromosomes</U>. Much will fall painlessly into place! Cheers, Val
Geist</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=HowlBloom@aol.com
href="mailto:HowlBloom@aol.com">HowlBloom@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=paleopsych@paleopsych.org
href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=dranees@compuserve.com
href="mailto:dranees@compuserve.com">dranees@compuserve.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, November 26, 2004 8:18
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Paleopsych] genetics as an
intelligent system</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Instead of "metagenetics", can I offer an alternative
term--geneteams. How do gene teams work together to learn to
learn? Which brings us to some other questions whose answers
I've been trying to pin down.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>When did the full suite of modern atoms--the 92 natural
elements--become complete? Did the full panoply of modern atoms
arrive after the collapse of the first meg-stars, stars that swelled,
ignited, then died off very quickly? That first period of star
death would have been a mere two million years after the big
bang.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Or did the complete suite of modern atoms have to wait six or seven
billion years until several generations of smaller, longer-living stars had
collapsed?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>More important, when did the first carbon-based MOLECULES
appear in this cosmos? We know many of the details and the
timeline of nucleogenesis--of the genesis of subatomic particles.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But the term "moleculogenesis" doesn't yet exist. Nor does the
concentrated study of this topic. At least I've been able to find
nothing about it on NASA's absolutely terrific resource, its Astrophysics Data
System --<A title=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/default_service.html
href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/default_service.html">http://adsabs.harvard.edu/default_service.html</A>.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Another question. At what point does learning and memory first
appear in the evolution of the cosmos? Is an atom of iron a summation of
a big slice of the history of the cosmos? Has it survived one
catastrophe after another, thus demonstrating its adaptive hardiness? In
other words, is there memory, learning, and projection of future possibilities
at the inanimate level?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Then the big question. How long did it take after the genesis of
the first simple carbon-based molecules before those molecules learned how to
condense information from the past and aim toward an imperialist goal--to take
over as much inanimate stuff as possible and turn it into biomass?
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Competition first appeared as atoms--brand new things in 380,000
abb-- discovered gravity. Greed first appeared when clumps of matter
competed to become galaxies, stars, planets, and moons. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But there was something new about the greed of massive teams of atoms
arranged in twists that could replicate. There was something new about
the hunger of the dna-and-cell based teamwork that generates the
incredible variations that contribute to the spread of biomass.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Paul's words suggest that restlessness and boredom have been a key part
of this learning system. I've been calling this a restless cosmos, a
driven cosmos, an obsessive compulsive cosmos for a very long time. But
Paul is suggesting that we make computer-based learning machines restless
too. That we make them try out new possibilities just for the hell of
it, just to evade the pain of boredom, the pain of staying precisely the same,
the pain of ennui. Paul is on the brink of suggesting that we make
computational programs hunger for pop culture, for music and games that test
and expand the silicon brain in new ways.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Paul is suggesting that genes may be as restless and boredom-prone as
Baudelaire, who painted ennui as the ultimate pain. He's suggesting that
on the sly, when they're not working, genes play around and dance in leisure
time. Or at least that's what Paul's ideas inspire in me.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I know that leisure, entertainment, pop culture, art, and play are
not useless. I've known it since I began my 20 years of fieldwork in
these fields--poetry, art, magazine publishing, and finally popular
music. Paul seems to be whispering to me that these cultural expressions
may be a stochastic search for new possibilities. And his words suggest
to me that genes play games too. They play the sort of musical
games--establishment of a theme, then variation on it--that Greg's mechanisms
make possible.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Paul, my apologies if I've bent your words, but they're extraordinarily
evocative.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Can you share the Einstein-Bear connection you were pondering?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Meanwhile, here comes some relevant material from Instant
Evolution. Howard</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>How does biomass invent new body-combinations, new phenotypes?
That's what Greg and Eshel's papers make us question. Perhaps the
process isn't Darwin's gradualism. Perhaps its Stephen Jay Gould
and Niles Eldridge's saltation, their big jumps all at once, their punctuated
equilibrium. Perhaps it's my "instant evolution".</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But when I wrote about instant evolution (<A
title=http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm
href="http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm">http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm</A>),
I never looked at the underlying genetic mechanism. I simply tried to
demonstrate that geneteams work much faster at invention than we think.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Meanwhile, Eshel has called for a new view of evolution, one
that's "orthoganal to Darwinism". He's called for an approach that
doesn't follow the standard lines of argument but steps way outside the
boundaries of evolutionary theory as we know it today.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Greg's synthesis of work on genes looks like it fits with instant
evolution and with the megateams that geneteams make when they work together
en masse. Some geneteams work in megateams to learn and to create. Some get
inventive and superbrainy via the complex parallel processing that hooks
trillions of computational engines, trillions of genomes, together in
Eshel's bacterial colonies.</DIV>
<DIV>Some gene-and-cell-teams seem to get restless, they seem
to ache for self-reinvention in Greg's multicellular
organisms. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That ache is held in check rigorously. Then one day things change,
and that ache shows what it was trying to be in private, when it was still
restrained. How many of these aches for reinvention are memories of old
strategies, old body types, that worked in previous circumstances? How
many body-shifts are totally new? We can see the radically new wherever
we look in the fossil record. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Well, not so radically new. The difference between a tyranosaurus
rex and an anolis lizard skittering across a sidewalk in Florida is not that
great. The difference between a crab and a fish is huge. But that
difference seems to have appeared very quickly in the fossil record. It
unfolded during the quick creative burst of the Cambrian era roughly 550
million years ago. (I could be wrong. There may have been an earlier
split among the first primitive multicellular ancestors roughly 1.2 billion
years ago.) But one way or the other, the change that tossed crustaceans
down one path and proto-reptiles down another was swift,and the
variations since then on the theme of crustacean and quadruped has been much
smaller than we tend to think.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Here's more on instant evolution from my four-year-old paper on the
subject. What new meaning does the material I gathered take on in
the light of what Eshel and Greg have put forth? Howard</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>from <A
href="http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm">http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm</A></DIV>
<DIV><!--StartFragment -->
<P align=center><FONT face="Century Gothic" size=6>INSTANT
EVOLUTION</FONT><FONT face="Century Gothic"><BR><FONT size=4>The Influence of
the City on Human Genes <BR>A Speculative Case</FONT></FONT></P>
<P align=center><FONT face="Century Gothic" size=4>by Howard
Bloom</FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal mso-tab-count:2=""><FONT face="Century Gothic">Geneticist
Neil Howell, of the University of Texas’ Galveston-based Medical Branch,
contends that one form of human DNA—that contained in the
mitochondria—sometimes makes adaptive shifts in a mere one or two
generations.<A title=http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn11
href="http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn11" name=_ednref11>
[11] </A>The research with which he hopes to prove this is still in its infant
stage. But Howell’s suspicion that genes can be swift gains credibility from
the rate of phenotypic change among insects and fish.</FONT> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal mso-tab-count:2=""><FONT face="Century Gothic">Here’s an
illustrative passage on the subject from my upcoming book, <I>Global Brain:
the Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21<SUP>st</SUP>
Century</I> (John Wiley & Sons, August 2000):</FONT> </P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P class=MsoNormal mso-tab-count:2=""><FONT face="Century Gothic">If a
passel of nearly identical animals is cooped up on a common turf, it
frequently splinters into opposing groups which scramble determinedly down
different evolutionary paths. E. O. Wilson, who brought attention to this
phenomenon forty years ago, called it character displacement.<A
title=http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn12
href="http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn12" name=_ednref12>
[12] </A>The battle over food and <I>lebensraum</I> compels each coterie to
find a separate slot in the environment from which to chisel out its
needs.<A title=http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn13
href="http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn13" name=_ednref13>
[13] </A> For example a small number of lookalike cichlid fish
found their way to Lake Nyasa<A
title=http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn14
href="http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn14" name=_ednref14>
[14] </A>in Eastern Africa roughly 12,400 years ago. It didn't take long for
the finny explorers to overpopulate the place. As food became harder to
find, squabbles and serious fights probably pushed the cichlids to square
off in spatting cliques. The further the groups grew apart, the more
different they became.<A
title=http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn15
href="http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn15" name=_ednref15>
[15] </A>The details of this process are somewhat speculative, but the
result is indisputable. The cichlids rapidly went from a single species of
fish to hundreds,<A
title=http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn16
href="http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn16" name=_ednref16>
[16] </A>each equipped with a crowbar to pry open opportunities others had
missed. Some evolved mouths wide enough to swallow armored snails. Others
generated thick lips to yank worms from rocks. One diabolical coven acquired
teeth like spears, then skewered its rivals' eyeballs and swallowed them
like cocktail onions. In the geologic blink of twelve thousand years, what
had begun as a small group of carbon copies became 200 separate species--a
carnival of diversity.<A
title=http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn17
href="http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn17" name=_ednref17>
[17] </A></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P class=MsoNormal mso-tab-count:2=""><FONT face="Century Gothic">Not only did
twelve thousand years suffice to change the genes which gave these fish their
body shape and bio-weaponry, that micro-sliver of an eon also provided ample
time to rewrite the inborn script of fish psychology. Each new cichlid species
was born chromosomally equipped with the hunting or scavenging instincts
essential for its new specialty. </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal mso-tab-count:2=""> <FONT face="Century Gothic">Then
there’s the swarm of bird-biting London mosquitoes which moved into the
tunnels of the Underground in roughly 1900 when the city’s half-built subway
system was still occupied primarily by construction crews. Once below the
sidewalk, the mosquitoes switched from feeding on feathered fliers to gorging
on such delicacies as rats, straphangers, and maintenance workers. By the
summer of 1998, the subterranean swarms had changed their genes so thoroughly
that they could no longer mate with their distant relatives who lived above
the pavement of the street. The pesky Tunnel bugs had taken their genome and
gone off on their own, forming an entirely new species.<A
title=http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn18
href="http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn18" name=_ednref18>
[18] </A>In reporting the story, Agence France Presse interviewed Roz Kidman
Cox, the editor of <I>BBC Wildlife Magazine, </I>the publication responsible
for initially breaking the news to a mass audience. Said Kidman Cox, "The
scientists we talked to say the differences between the above and below ground
forms are as great as if the species had been separated for thousands of
years, not just a century.”<A
title=http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn19
href="http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn19" name=_ednref19>
[19] </A>A mere one hundred years for a major shift in genes is not the
painful crawl invoked by champions of Pleistocene fixation. Instead it is the
quick-paced hop that Huxley called saltation.<A
title=http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn20
href="http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn20" name=_ednref20>
[20] </A></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal mso-tab-count:2=""><FONT face="Century Gothic">Yet another
insect can change its genome twice that fast. It’s the soapberry bug, which
has renovated its chromosomes to fit new needs at a pace that’s
dizzying…taking not 100 years but a mere 50. From roughly 1900 to 1980
landscapers and city planners in Florida and in Louisiana produced a bonanza
for any insect enterprising enough to go after it. The landscape designers
imported new breeds of ornamental trees in an effort to help their clients
outdo the neighbors or to spruce up a town’s streets. Florida’s sprucer-uppers
chose the Golden Raintree (<I>Koelreuteria elegans</I>), which packaged its
seeds in a slender pod whose walls were paper-thin. Louisiana’s outdoor
decorators went for <I>Koelreuteria paniculata</I> and <I>Cardiospermum
halicacabum</I>, whose seeds were stashed in packets with far thicker casings.
Soapberry bugs moved in to mine the new arboreal territories. Each developed
genes for a proboscis appropriately sized to seize the opportunities. In
Florida where the Raintree pods were easily pierced, the proboscises of
soapberry bugs were short. This made for easy sipping, thus saving on
resources and on energy. In Louisiana, where seeds of the new eye-pleasing
trees were protected by thick rind, soapberry bugs developed a proboscis of a
rather different kind—long, slender drilling cylinders which made the sipping
rougher but could bore through sidewalls of a kind far tougher.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal mso-tab-count:2=""><FONT face="Century Gothic">Was this
really a genetic alteration, or had soapberry bugs whose proboscises were
already short or long simply moved long distances, each to the appropriate
destination. Genetic testing showed that the specialized bugs had not come
from far away, but had evolved from local insects whose proboscises had
previously been adapted to harvest the bounty only of the local trees. By
checking the dates at which the new greenery had ben brought in, researchers
could pinpoint the time it had taken to tweak genes for proboscis length. That
span turned out to be a breathlessly brief half a century. <A
title=http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn21
href="http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn21" name=_ednref21>[21]
</A>So a flick of reproductive time can remake genomes in fast-breeding bugs,
but what about in larger beings? </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
mso-tab-count:2="">
<FONT face="Century Gothic">In the 1970s, Thomas and Amy Schoener <A
title=http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn22
href="http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn22" name=_ednref22>[22]
</A>deliberately stranded <I>Anolis sagrei</I> lizards from Staniel Cay on
numerous smaller islands in the Bahamas, each with a different sort of
foliage. Lizards on islands with stumpy plants adorned with small leaves can
operate more efficiently with short hind legs. Lizards on islands whose plants
are larger and more luxuriant do better if they have the long legs perches on
large leaves and large plant trunks allow, since long legs also increase
escape speed when running from the local lizard eaters. Washington University
biologist Jonathan B. Losos predicted that over time natural selection would
prune the lizards’ genes to equip the scattered creatures with the limbs which
best fit their needs. But how much time would genetic pruning take? Return
trips to the islands revealed it hadn’t taken much time at all. The lizards on
each island were soon measurably different. Some managed to diverge
genetically from their parent strain in the twitch of a single decade. That’s
the equivalent of ten generations—200 years—in human time.</FONT> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal mso-tab-count:2=""><FONT face="Century Gothic">Yet
according to University of Washington evolutionary ecologist John N. Thompson,
even this genetic sprint is painfully slow. Says Thompson,
"dozens" of genetic transmutations have been known to take place in a matter
of mere decades.<A title=http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn23
href="http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn23" name=_ednref23>
[23] </A>Thompson backs up his claims with rather startling facts: </FONT></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P class=MsoNormal mso-tab-count:2="">· <FONT
face="Century Gothic">“Gene‑for‑gene coevolution in wild flax and flax rust
in Australia has produced large changes in allele frequencies within and
among populations over just the past decade alone </FONT><BR><FONT
face="Century Gothic">· “The frequency of clones in <I>Potamopyrgus
antipodarum</I> snails within a single lake in New Zealand has changed
within the past decade through time‑lagged selection imposed by a major
trematode parasite. </FONT><BR><FONT face="Century Gothic">· “The
introduction of myxoma virus into Australia as a biological control agent
against rabbits resulted in rapid evolution toward decreased virulence
within only a few years.”<A
title=http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn24
href="http://howardbloom.net/instant_evolution.htm#_edn24" name=_ednref24>
[24] </A></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P class=MsoNormal mso-tab-count:2=""><FONT face="Century Gothic">Thompson
explains that one cause of swift genetic change is the sort of race in which
one species has to keep pace with its enemies and ecological partners. And
lizard expert Jonathan Losos adds that, “ If colonizing populations are
displaced into an environment that is often very different from that of their
source, they are particularly likely to diverge evolutionarily. ” What’s more,
writes Losos, the greater the difference in habitat, “the greater the
magnitude of differentiation.”</FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 11/25/2004 10:56:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
paul.werbos@verizon.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
face=Arial>Having spent all of about 5 minutes of real thinking about
the<BR>questions Greg raises... enough thoughts pop into the mind that<BR>I
doubt I have time to type them all.<BR><BR>First -- one of the reasons why
the establishment may find it difficult to <BR>fully<BR>address the
questions is that they are very limited in this case in the degree<BR>of
mathematical abstraction they use. It's a kind of qualitative
limitation<BR>in how mathematical thinking is used...<BR><BR>The
neuroscience establishment (which I know much better) has been
struggling<BR>with similar limitations... maybe a bit harder and a bit more
successfully <BR>so far...<BR><BR>------<BR><BR>It is interesting to ask:
now that we have learned a lot about intelligent <BR>systems in
GENERAL..<BR>and now that some of us have a reasonable first-order idea of
how this maps <BR>into the brain..<BR>what about the genetic
system?<BR><BR>Forgive me for using a new term which sounds a bit
pretentious -- <BR>"metagenetics."<BR>The prefix "meta" has been badly
misused lately, but in this case -- what <BR>else would<BR>be a good single
word to refer to the idea of a genetic system which<BR>"learns to
learn"?<BR>^^^<BR>Part of Greg's message is that we need to understand
metagenetics in order <BR>to make<BR>any sense at all of 97 percent of the
human genome. That's a big step, a <BR>good one,<BR>and an important one.
That idea has existed in some form for a long time, <BR>but to<BR>give it a
snazzy new one-word version and focus more attention on it is <BR>still a
good step.<BR><BR>But is there more going on here?<BR><BR>A natural way to
interpret "metagenetics"... is to think of ... a kind of <BR>second-order
system which is<BR>still designed to perform the same basic functions people
think about in <BR>genetic algorithms<BR>or evolutionary computing:
maximizing some kind of fitness function U(w) as <BR>a function of a
set<BR>of weights or parameters w. (Parameters could be anything from body
<BR>characteristics<BR>to behavioral response characteristics .. to
anything...) A sophisticated <BR>way to explore the space<BR>of possible ..
genotypes. Back in 1999<BR>(at a plenary talk at CEC99, the IEEE Conference
on Evolutionary <BR>Computing), I challenged<BR>people to send me proposals
to address a more interesting computational task:<BR>to design systems which
LEARN to do stochastic search to maximize U(w,X), <BR>where w is as
before,<BR>and X is a set of observed variables available to enhance
performance. I <BR>have reiterated this in many<BR>talks and tutorials... I
call this task "Brain-Like Stochastic search." <BR>It's very important
in<BR>engineering, for example; if we use evolutionary search to find the
best <BR>possible chip design<BR>for some task.... it would be good to
represent DIFFERENT chip design tasks <BR>by a vector X,<BR>and then use a
system which learns to do better on chip design task in general.<BR>For now,
it's enough of a challenge to treat X as "exogenous," but someday <BR>one
could advance to<BR>dynamic X...<BR><BR>Now: one COULD follow up on Greg's
questions by asking whether we can model <BR>the genetic system<BR>as one
which implements "Brain-Like Stochastic Search" with dynamic X. We <BR>may
ask: to what<BR>extent does this richer functional interpretation become
essential to <BR>understanding the basics<BR>of what we really see with the
genome?<BR><BR>Now -- a certain degree of "stockpiling" can be important
even in that <BR>limited context.<BR><BR>But another question occurs to me
today: would it make any sense to go even <BR>further,<BR>and evaluate the
possibility of a still higher level of intelligence in the <BR>genetic
system?<BR>I wonder.<BR><BR>In brains, evolutionary computing is certainly
far from enough, in any form.<BR>(And I suppose I know a few key things
about Edelman's work that Edelman <BR>doesn't....)<BR>In a word -- TIME.
Optimizing results INTO THE FUTURE, with anticipation or
<BR>foresight<BR>(both explicit and implicit), is absolutely central to how
brains work.<BR><BR>Could there be anything like THAT in the genetic system?
I wonder...<BR><BR>Various types of memory are essential in brains. There
are many levels of <BR>stockpiling in brains.<BR>Could any of THAT be
transferrable to the genetic case?<BR><BR>I wonder.<BR><BR>This morning I
was thinking more about Einstein than about Greg... but I <BR>suppose such
thoughts would be<BR>off-topic on this list. Oh, well.<BR><BR>Best of
luck,<BR><BR> Paul<BR>
<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>paleopsych
mailing
list<BR>paleopsych@paleopsych.org<BR>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 face=Arial size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10">----------<BR>Howard Bloom<BR>Author of The Lucifer Principle: A
Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History and Global Brain: The
Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century<BR>Visiting
Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; Core Faculty
Member, The Graduate
Institute<BR>www.howardbloom.net<BR>www.bigbangtango.net<BR>Founder:
International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic of
Evolution Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The Big
Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American
Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society,
Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society,
International Society for Human Ethology; advisory board member:
Youthactivism.org; executive editor -- New Paradigm book series.<BR>For
information on The International Paleopsychology Project, see:
www.paleopsych.org<BR>for two chapters from <BR>The Lucifer Principle: A
Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, see
www.howardbloom.net/lucifer<BR>For information on Global Brain: The Evolution
of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century, see
www.howardbloom.net<BR></FONT></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>
<DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>paleopsych mailing
list<BR>paleopsych@paleopsych.org<BR>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych<BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>---<BR>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.<BR>Checked by AVG
anti-virus system (<A
href="http://www.grisoft.com">http://www.grisoft.com</A>).<BR>Version: 6.0.802
/ Virus Database: 545 - Release Date:
11/26/2004</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>