From: Dace (edace@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed 18 Jan 2006 - 22:19:24 GMT
Chris,
> I do see this as similar in a sense to Ted's fields: Two
> explanations that would result in identical outcomes cannot be
> distinguished one from another by reference to that outcome,
> leaving the way open to (over/mis)interpet at will, but I think
> they are kind of seperable in that yours _remains_ firmly in the
> realm of the unknowable because happenstance is unpredictable at
> our level (I'm a superdeterminist so it should be knowable at
> some level but without 'god-like' knowledge of the system in
> practice it is pseudorandom), whereas Ted's aims to counter the
> testable (if incomplete) with the untestable (by any reasonable
> expectation). Although as a rule in those circumstances one's
> hand should always be on one's wallet...
Untestable by any reasonable expectation? That's an odd assertion, given
that a major portion of our recent discussion was Miroslav Hill's
experimental evidence in favor of a "nonlocal" connection between closely
related but physically separated cells.
www.med.muni.cz/biomedjournal/pdf/2000/04/211-222.pdf
If cells exposed to a selection pressure rapidly adapt by way of the
appropriate genetic mutation, this demonstrates nonrandom mutation. If the
same mutation, after numerous generations, begins cropping up in related but
isolated cells, this demonstrates nongenetic inheritance within a given
species. Such inheritance has also been demonstrated in learning
experiments on rats, mice, pigeons and most recently, chicks. Rising IQ
scores in the absence of rising intelligence seem to indicate the
inheritance of enhanced aptitude at IQ test-taking. Whether it's falsified
or not, clearly nongenetic inheritance is a testable proposition.
We've been over this many times on this list, including just last month, so
why your statement to the contrary? It's awfully convenient, isn't it, to
be able to set aside the notions of nonrandom mutation and nongenetic
inheritance as untestable and therefore safely beyond the realm of scientifi
c inquiry. This is called wishful thinking. You have a particular habit of
thought, and you don't want to let go of it, so you deny reality in order to
maintain your preferred beliefs. Since your habit is culturally reinforced
rather than merely your own, that makes it memetic. To deny reality is of
course insane. But the insanity is collective, which is why it's so
powerful. It's bigger than any one person. In short, it's a meme, and your
mind is only one more of its colonized territories.
I think you're in conflict with the collective delusion, and this is what
fuels your need to keep bringing this up. It's an unresolved issue. The
autonomous Chris, buried under mounds of memetically mediated garbage, keeps
trying to re-establish his authority. Meanwhile memetic Chris keeps
repeating the neo-Darwinian superdeterminist catechism. Incidentally, this
is exactly what I did back in the 80s as a teenager. Absent any faith in a
god, I went for the next best thing, the atheist variant of Calvinism. I
had to keep repeating, over and over again, the narcotizing notion that
everything is determined, that it's all just a bunch of atoms obeying
eternal physical laws, that we have no true self or responsibility for our
actions, because deep down I knew it was all a load of crap.
(autonomous) ted
===============================================================
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 2.1.5 : Wed 18 Jan 2006 - 22:39:26 GMT