Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA06680 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 3 Feb 2000 18:04:31 GMT From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk> Organization: Reborn Technology To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: More on what memes are made of Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 17:37:38 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200002030035.TAA09051@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net> Message-Id: <00020317453101.00465@faichney> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
I'd snip some of this quotation, but it's highly relevant.
On Thu, 03 Feb 2000,
Joe E. Dees wrote: >
>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
>> >From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
>> >
>> >> It occurred to me that what I'm trying to say about physical information, genes
>> >> and memes could perhaps be made clearer by a little additional explanation on a
>> >> particular point.
>> >>
>> >> Some time ago I came to the conclusion that the trajectory of an arrow, for
>> >> instance, is just as real as the arrow itself. The trajectory is not
>> >> "substantial", but it is a pattern based in the material world, and if we
>> >> examine the arrow as closely as we can, down to the atomic and subatomic
>> >> levels, we find that in fact it's not very "substantial" either. We are, due
>> >> to evolution, somewhat better equipped to handle arrows than trajectories
>> >> (though in fact we're quite amazingly good at dealing with the latter -- watch
>> >> any ball game, or better still, play it, while mindful of trajectory plotting). But
>> >> that's no reason to view the arrow as "more real".
>> >>
>> >We're dealing in the macro realm, not the quantum, and therefore
>> >zen emptiness and the buddhist doctrine of the absence of inherent
>> >reality does not apply.
>>
>> Any zen teacher who knows little or nothing of QM would find that a *very*
>> strange claim. As I do myself, though perhaps for different reasons. If you're
>> refering to my examination of the arrow, that's hardly central to the argument.
>> From what you say below, you seem to agree that the trajectory is just as real
>> as the arrow, which is the point I'm trying to make there. So what's your
>> problem?
>>
>Zen teachers make more than a few strange claims themselves.
>You seem to be attempting to lay the groundwork for a
>reductionistic substitution of the trajectory alone for the (arrow +
>trajectory) system by asserting some sort of arrow unreality; that
>won't work.
I do no such thing. My point is that arrow, trajectory and system are all
equally real. You're so keen to find fault, you misread what I write. I won't
waste my time with any of what followed this silliness.
-- Robin Faichney===============================This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 03 2000 - 18:05:03 GMT