Re: Determinism

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sat Apr 14 2001 - 23:55:59 BST

  • Next message: joedees@bellsouth.net: "Re: Determinism"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA01309 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 14 Apr 2001 23:53:20 +0100
    From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:55:59 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: Determinism
    Message-ID: <3AD88F2F.28371.4CBE7F@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <20010414112932.A1365@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    References: <3AD73020.26741.337A84@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 04:58:08PM -0500
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On 14 Apr 2001, at 11:29, Robin Faichney wrote:

    > On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 04:58:08PM -0500, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
    > > On 13 Apr 2001, at 16:35, Robin Faichney wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr
    > 12, 2001 at 08:32:52PM -0500, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote: > > > On 12
    > Apr 2001, at 11:46, Robin Faichney wrote: > > > 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.
    > > > > > Then you were agreeing with me, weren't you? > > > No, some
    > percentage of replications are simply going to be flawed, > for no
    > reason(s) we have been able to ascertain, although > superdeterminists
    > will assume that there HAS to be one (or more); > while one cannot a
    > priori judge of every individual gene that it will or > will fail to
    > replicate correctly; a degree of error is part of the > system.
    > Notice that such mutations are not tied to the particular >
    > environmental pressures that they might alleviate; no > Lamarckianism
    > here!
    >
    > Is that actual disagreement with the substance of my argument, or, I
    > wonder, by any chance, just another grabbed chance to display your
    > dazzling intellect?
    >
    No, the small percentage of genes that simply replicate incorrectly,
    without chemical or radiational cause, is, I would guess, pretty
    randomly distributed around the genome.
    >
    > > > > 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.
    > > >
    > > > Why do you think that is, Joe? :-)
    > > >
    > > Thinking, and the capacity to do so well, has everything to do with
    > > it.
    >
    > Of course. If people don't understand you, it has nothing to do with
    > the clarity of your expression, your writing skills, the type of
    > language you use. It's simply because you fly so high above us.
    > Right, Joe.
    >
    Only some of you, who would prefer to adhere to and advocate your
    cherished delusions rather than actually consider empirical
    counterfactual evidence. Didja even READ the paper Wade posted
    about Pet-scan evidence concerning the substrate location of the
    self-sense in the brain?
    > --
    > 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 : Sat Apr 14 2001 - 23:56:22 BST