Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA14742 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 10 Aug 2001 22:12:06 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 16:16:04 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: Re: Teleology etc. Message-ID: <3B7408C4.2261.13AB141@localhost> In-reply-to: <3B742097.DE53E8D@bioinf.man.ac.uk> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 10 Aug 2001, at 18:57, Chris Taylor wrote:
> Sorry you're getting such a kicking Ted - I have to say I admire your
> staying power!
>
> Two points to start:
> 1) You just can't cite Kant as an authority on molecular biology. 2)
> Protein folding is rather complex - many chaperones help out,
> different cellular compartments are involved, as are timing effects to
> allow local folding. You need a concept of an energy landscape, which
> is 'out there' in a sense(...), but you most emphatically do not need
> mystery fields of force.
>
> TD:
> > To my knowledge Wilson has never responded to Sheldrake's thesis
> > that termite mounds are governed by morphic fields, with the
> > termites occupying a similar role to cells within animal bodies.
> > Wilson has never responded to this suggestion because he has no
> > alternative. It's just up in the air. He doesn't like the field
> > explanation, but he can't offer anything better.
>
> JD:
> > I'm sure that there is a similar
> > rule or small group of rules, probably connected with pheromonic
> > chemical marking, that will suffice to explain termite mound
> > construction.
>
> I've seen simulated paper wasps build complex nests despite
> individuals only having small simple locally applicable rule sets
> (consisting of simple input=output pairs). Termites would be easy
> enough too. Wilson didn't have decent computers and complexity theory
> to help him.
>
> And btw where did the *first* termite mound come from (and the first
> protein structures too)?
>
> TD:
> > Sheldrake gets around both of these problems.
>
> No he doesn't - he tells us a story without evidence. He's his own
> worst enemy as far as science is concerned, but then I suspect we're
> not his target demographic.
>
> > Memes not a product of genes, so must be from MR etc. etc.
>
> Uh-uh - the whole point of this group is the study of culturally
> heritable patterns - heritable as in copyable. No need for any
> ethereal templates. And again, where do the first ones come from?
> Evolution by natural selection operating on variation explains this
> diversification for me, what does MR have to say about it (genuine
> question)?
>
> > Has anybody spoke to the infamous 100th monkey phenomenon yet?
>
> Pah-leeze put me out of my misery...
>
The hundredth monkey syndrome will probably be the next
thing Ted attributes to morphogenetic fields (along with the
disappearance of Amelia Earhardt and the kidnapping of the
Lindbergh baby...;~).
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Chris Taylor (chris@bioinf.man.ac.uk)
> http://bioinf.man.ac.uk/ »people»chris
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 Aug 10 2001 - 22:50:35 BST