I thought the first exchanges were helpful in sorting things out a bit.
In general -
1) I think Bob is right that the word "autocatalysis" is at least being used
in a very broad & metaphorical sense here. For it to be used strictly it would have to
mean something like increased brain size producing more of some kind of chemical which
would lead to greater brain size, & it's hard to see how that could work. (Central
dogma & all that.)
2) If increased brain size means increased intelligence, & if greater
intelligence leads (statistically) to choice of mates with greater intelligence & thus
(statistically) greater brain size, so that offspring will have greater brain size -
then in a broad sense increased brain size does have an autocatalytic effect. In
that sense I think Glenn's argument is valid.
3) Going beyond that a bit - the phenomenon of intelligence introduces a
Lamarckian aspect to evolution because education means that _cultural_ evolution does
have precisely the character of "transmission of acquired characters." Whether that
means an actual increase in intelligence is another matter: Undergrads today can learn
general relativity but that doesn't mean they're intrinsically smarter than Galileo or
Newton, or even Aristotle.
4) Returning to the original question: It is, as Glenn says, largely a matter
of semantics. But I think it's an important matter of semantics because autocatalysis
in the narrow sense Bob noted (& which I originally had in mind) _may_ play a very
important role in chemical evolution, which is such an important issue that it's worth
keeping the term as precise as possible.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/