Re: Determinism

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Fri Apr 13 2001 - 02:32:52 BST

  • Next message: Aaron Agassi: "Re: Determinism"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA27007 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 13 Apr 2001 02:30:17 +0100
    From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:32:52 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: Determinism
    Message-ID: <3AD610F4.26664.8FC3C3@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <20010412114633.A1523@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    References: <3AD4D833.2591.2B5C17@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 10:18:27PM -0500
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On 12 Apr 2001, at 11:46, Robin Faichney wrote:

    > 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!)
    >
    Sometimes genes (a small statistical percentage which is
    unresolveable to particular genes a priori) just fail to precisely
    replicate. Sometimes ambient radiation or chemical exposure can
    cause breaks. Particular mutations are not determined by any
    environmental conditions which have anything to do with the kinds
    of mutations produced; in that sense, they are random with
    reference to the environment in which they must subsequently, and
    nonrandomly, succeed or fail. I did not express myself in sufficient
    depth on the matter, as I have had problems with people being able
    to follow me when I do so generally.
    >
    >
    > 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.
    >
    I never claimed that microbes are free; that would require self-
    conscious awareness <hehe>. But, in fact, beneath the level of
    self-conscious awareness, which is the level which can impose
    categories of meaning upon items of brute being, meaning does not
    exist at all. It does not exist in microbiology, but microbiological
    facts mean something to self-consciously aware microbiologists.
    You can NEVER phenomenologically extract the level at which you
    operate from that which you purport to peruse; you can only delude
    yourself that you have succeeded in doing so.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    There is no such thing as a purely objective theoretical framework,
    only intersubjectively agreed upon ones (which are usually so
    agreed upon because they are seen by many to fit the data). No
    matter what the level one is trying to explain, the level FROM which
    one attempts to do so never changes, for explamation necessarily
    is perfused with meaning, and that requires entities capable of
    signification, i.e. self-consciously aware entities. And theory is
    best drawn from practice (from the experientially derived data), not
    imposed upon it a priori.
    >
    > Of course, you can't get home and dry if you won't move.
    >
    Unless you move you will remain all wet.
    > --
    > 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 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 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 02:33:20 BST