Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA26596 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 11 May 2000 15:39:10 +0100 Message-ID: <391A8056.16E6856F@mediaone.net> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 10:41:42 +0100 From: Chuck Palson <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Fwd: Did language drive society or vice versa? References: <391A5E4C.A93575FB@mediaone.net> <00051114314905.00619@faichney> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2000, Chuck Palson wrote:
> >Robin Faichney wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 10 May 2000, Chuck Palson wrote:
> >> >Robin Faichney wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> So you're a creationist?
> >> >
> >> >No. I am not saying things come of nothing, only that the results are unpredictable.
> >>
> >> You're shifting your ground -- our argument was about whether human evolution
> >> was improbable. I'm very happy to accept evolution is unpredictable. But if
> >> you still hold to the former, then what causes these improbable things to
> >> happen, if not God?
> >
> >It seems to me that you are phrasing the question in such a way as to force the answer, -
> >i.e., a loaded question. The loading comes when you force cause into it. True accidents
> >don't first look for a cause before they happen.
>
> Sorry, I don't believe in "true accidents". Everything has a cause. In fact,
> most things have more than one. So there's no forcing, and no loading: the
> question is perfectly straight and above-board. (And see my reply to Wade.)
>
> >Or, look at it another way. Hyperreligious people (Wilson wrote recently that they have
> >discovered the gene for "hyperreligiousity") tell us that the normal curve doesn't by
> >itself constitute an explanation because it doesn't answer the question of what caused
> >events to happen in that distribution. Do you buy that question?
>
> I'm mystified as to why you ascribe that attitude to "hyperreligiousity".
Sorry, I carried it too far. I should have said that hyperreligious AND other people. It was
my way to wedge in that hyperreligious gene because I have a hunch that the degree of
religiousity has a genetic component -- which has fascinating implications.
>
> Yes, I do buy it. And I'd say that anyone who DID think that any distribution
> curve constituted an explanation, would make a very poor scientist or
> philosopher. "Oh, it's a bell-curve. Good, that saves us the bother of
> working out what causes it." Sheesh! On that basis, there's no need to
> investigate what lies behind IQ, because it has a normal distribution. Crazy!
>
I believe that it is chaos theory says that complexity by itself generates some indeterminancy
- that you can't predict the exact location of every molecule in a gas, only the net effect of
the group as a whole. Perhaps that is where the notion of accident and improbable events fits
in?
>
> --
> 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 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 May 11 2000 - 15:39:41 BST