Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA24725 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:53:08 +0100 Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:46:33 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Determinism Message-ID: <20010412114633.A1523@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3AD45C63.71DDD7BF@bioinf.man.ac.uk>; <20010411162230.A1443@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3AD4D833.2591.2B5C17@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <3AD4D833.2591.2B5C17@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 10:18:27PM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 10:18:27PM -0500, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2001, at 16:22, Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> > But I'm sceptical of the utility of the pseudorandom number generator
> > concept. The concept of randomness, as most often used, is a
> > subjective one. Not "these events have no pattern", but "these events
> > have no interesting pattern". That's what's meant when it's said that
> > genetic mutation is random: in evolutionary terms, it is, but
> > individual cases often have clear causes, and without wanting to get
> > into areas I've recently been avoiding, we might suppose that all
> > cases are actually caused -- it's just that the causes are not
> > generally of interest to evolutionary biologists.
> >
> It is not the mutation which is nonrandom, but the selection.
You obviously don't think that only one factor can be nonrandom.
That would be silly. You just expressed yourself clumsily. But you
also missed the point. Big time. Skimming instead of reading, as usual,
I expect. Whether the mutation is random depends on one's perspective.
In evolutionary terms, it is, because the cause is outside of that
explanatory framework, but a radiologist might very well take a
different view. (Be careful to shield your gonads, Joe!)
Truth nearly always depends on context. "Free will" is meaningful in
personal and interpersonal terms, but not in microbiology. That's not
Relativism, just realism. Straighten out your levels of explanation,
distinguish between theory and practice and between inter/subjective and
objective theoretical frameworks, and you'll be home and dry in no time.
Of course, you can't get home and dry if you won't move.
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)=============================================================== 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 Apr 12 2001 - 11:56:09 BST