Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA05019 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:30:54 GMT X-Originating-IP: [209.240.220.143] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: phenotypic plasticity and ontogeny Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 14:28:14 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F1231uu243DW6uswMBi0000b68a@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Feb 2001 19:28:14.0342 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E250A60:01C08EE0] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: phenotypic plasticity and ontogeny
>Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:19:15 +0100
>
>Hi Scott,
>
>I am not acusing you of anything, but see here you do it once again,
>advocating that info crossing the germ- soma barrier is contentious, not
>impossible but open to debate...and that is what I like.
>Slamming the door in somebody's face is no neat thing to do, you did not
>by the way, hear somebody out, see that his arguments stick together and
>make up than your conclusion.
>I have recently spoke to Steele about our common interest points and what
>he replied upon my post(s) leaves me thinking that I am not ' so wrong '
>after
>all.
>But I need more time to work things out...
>So thanks for the positive way in which you see things....
>
>
I had sent e-mails which treated the topic of Steele in more length back
when Gatherer had seemed to be overly dismissive of you recently. These
e-mails were rejected, I think because of the transition to the new year or
something. I'll see if I have the rejection notifications still stored and
abtract the basic jist of what I had said in reply to yours and Derek's
posts.
You should pick up an intro text on immunology to follow along with Steele's
ideas. His recent book was IMO very informative in many ways, though I'm not
sold on his views. One would need to be a fellow immunologist and well
acquainted with the primary journal literature and also with the
developments in the field of molecular evolution to keep up to the whirlwind
of Steele's theses. I've only got an intro immuno course under my belt and a
basic grasp of some of the related topics in molecular biology/evolution and
immunogenetics, so Steele's book didn't leave me far behind, but the journal
lit might melt my mindbrain.
Steele had posted to talk.origins a while back, so maybe you could look up
that exchange on Deja. It didn't go very far, but I thought I benefitted. He
also posted to alt.psychology.jung too and I had laid out my very sketchy
views on the matter back when I was better acquainted with the numerous
surrounding issues. My main point was that Steele's theses are IMO confined
to the immune sytem and the peculiar genetics of immunoglobulins in
lymphocytes and that, *if* his views bear fruit, there might not be any
implications for neurons or the nervous system and thus behavior. The *if*
is a big issue too.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
===============================================================
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 : Sun Feb 04 2001 - 19:32:48 GMT