Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA25732 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 22 Aug 2001 07:19:31 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 01:23:37 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Morphic fields Message-ID: <3B830999.26800.A6441B@localhost> In-reply-to: <003101c12a6a$2fa188e0$eb25f4d8@teddace> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 21 Aug 2001, at 10:53, Dace wrote:
> Chris,
>
> > > You've got Goodwin all wrong. He's not a materialist. Genes
> > > merely
> direct
> > > the organism toward the appropriate morphogenetic field, which
> > > then determines the organism's final structure. Though it's not
> > > directly observable, the field has an independent reality. Not
> > > chemicals but a "logical relational order is what defines the
> > > distinctive organization properties of living organisms." A
> > > rational taxonomy is "based on the logical properties of the
> > > generative process rather than a genealogical taxonomy based upon
> > > the accidents of history." Goodwin believes in
> math,
> > > not history. Morphogenetic fields are "generative field
> > > equations."
> While
> > > Goodwin's fields are eternal equations that generate organisms,
> Sheldrake's
> > > fields are influenced by-- and evolve in accord with-- the
> > > organisms
> they
> > > influence. It's a question of eternity versus memory.
> >
> > Point is, Goodwin's fields are like the crystal structures of
> > various minerals - just 'out there' because of the structure of
> > matter etc., cf. the coat patterning thing (stripes v spots). If an
> > organism is at a certain size scale, it must do certain things
> > because of the way the world is. These, as you say, are constants,
> > as much a property of the universe as a vortex round a plughole,
> > therefore outside the realms of which you speak. If he's 'branched
> > out' into MR, which I'm not sure that he has, then that's a pity.
>
> Goodwin has not branched out into morphic resonance. He maintains
> that morphogenetic fields are unchanging properties of nature. The
> equations governing the forms of dinosaurs existed before dinosaurs
> came into being and continue to exist now. This is why he rejects
> natural selection as the driving force of evolution. Organisms evolve
> when they get drawn into a morphogenetic field representing a
> different bodily structure.
>
> He discusses this in his debate with Richard Dawkins, which can be
> accessed here:
>
> http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/organism.html
>
All he's saying is that the bigger that organisms get, the greater
the configurational constraints mandated by gravity.
>
> > > It used to be that the blueprints of the body were stored
> > > sequentially
> in
> > > genes. As I learned in my cell biology class in college, this is
> > > no
> longer
> > > taken seriously by most researchers. Now it's believed that
> > > genetic information is somehow lodged in the nonlinear "dance" of
> > > genes with
> each
> > > other and with proteins. The whole point of reducing the organism
> > > to molecular storage of information was to get around having to
> > > define life
> on
> > > its own terms. Then it turns out the storage device is itself
> > > animated, alive, free. This is akin to neuroscientists conceding
> > > that memories aren't really contained in the
> brain
> > > like data in a computer but are somehow dynamically stored in the
> > > continually shifting arrays of synaptic transmission. First life
> > > is
> reduced
> > > to machine, and then the machine springs to life.
> >
> > That's science for you. And I don't think the memory thing is best
> > charaterised as a concession; they just inherited some stuff from
> > the neural networks people and applied it.
> >
> > > Clearly, the theory is shot. The white flag has gone up over the
> citadel.
> >
> > All you did was list the successive theories - I believe the last
> > one is alive and well.
>
> That's exactly the problem. If there really is a state of being
> "alive," then the deterministic mechanism of neo-Darwinism is false.
> Keep in mind that neo-Darwinism is not a theory of life. It's a
> theory of organic machines. Nothing is "alive and well." This is
> primitive, pre-scientific thinking. Some machines work, while others
> fail. That's it. It may be sterile and suffocating, but at least
> it's clean. Nothing messy or weird, like life or memory or self.
>
Actually, um, no. This misunderstanding completely ignores the
crux of complexity theory; the emergent properties of complex
systems. Life is not a matter of matter or of energy or of the two
together, but of the complex and dynamically recursive patterns in
which the two are intertwined.
>
> > > > Modellers do use fields as a shortcut (nothing wrong with that
> > > > as any mean-field-approximating physicist will attest) but these
> approximations
> > > > have no independent reality.
>
> Are you denying the existence of electromagnetic fields?
>
Electromagnetic and gravitational fields are not info-transmission
capable without intentional modification according to a symbolically
based code layered upon the carrier by a transmitter and decoded
from it by a receiver, both constructed for the purpose.
>
> > > Even Waddington was ambiguous on this point. One of the creators
> > > of morphogenetic field theory, Paul Weiss, completely flip-flopped
> > > more
> than
> > > once on this issue.
> >
> > No I mean that mean field approximations are an accepted *modelling
> > technique* across the sciences.
>
> I understand what you mean. Waddington was never entirely clear if he
> agreed that fields are only modelling techniques. Weiss stated
> explicitly that they're real but at other times claimed they're not.
> For fifty years we've pretended these confusions don't exist, that
> we've got everything all figured out, but inevitably they pop back up
> again.
>
Some fundamentalists insist upon taking metaphors literally.
>
> > > > The whole thing (MF) still seems too elaborate really, I mean,
> > > > doesn't it imply that there are time bridges that are presumably
> > > > exploitable? Should we not be able to find out what dinosaurs
> > > > really looked like if we could tap into this etherial thing (I'm
> > > > not ridiculing, just trying to explore the scope of the
> > > > implications - would be cool actually, finally kill off 'walking
> > > > with dinosaurs'[ack]).
> > >
> > > It's called, "atavism." Ancient traits crop up all the time.
> >
> > Unlocked by changes in homeobox genes (or the next layer of control
> > down), which encode proteins possessed of DNA-binding domains that
> > switch other genes on and off; for example antennapedia mutations,
> > or the chicken with teeth and a scaly tail.
>
> Atavism can certainly be explained according to neo-Darwinian theory.
> Though I think it's actually a function of morphic resonance, it can't
> be used as evidence to support MR theory. That's why I set it aside
> in my earlier post and offered evolutionary convergence instead as
> evidence for MR. There's currently no other explanation for
> convergence.
>
The flawed argument ad ignorantium rears its ugly head once
again; you offer your failure to understand alternative explanations
as proof of the truth of your favored contention. There are other
explanations; you just discount them because they're not the one
you prefer.
>
> > > > Also, while you're here, I didn't get a good answer to the MF
> > > > version of
> > > > descent with modification...
> > >
> > > Formative causation is a theory of memory, not origins.
> > >
> > > But it should be noted that origins are much easier to explain
> > > according to
> > > the morphic model. Life began from the interaction of organic
> > > compounds that were already stabilized in their structure through
> > > resonance with similar, past compounds. This helps to bridge the
> > > chasm between simple, organic material and the first bacteria.
> > > And rather than relying on blind,
> > > genetic mutation, organisms can pass on to future generations
> > > their creative
> > > adaptations to changing environmental circumstances.
> >
> > This is not a source of novelty. The only answer anyone has given to
> > this (here) was that previous 'patterns' hybridise somehow to give
> > new patterns (another unprovable I suppose), so would you posit
> > particulate inheritance from ancestral patterns? The alternative
> > (blending inheritance) leaves you with decreasing variance in stuff
> > over time.
>
> Nobody can explain novelty. It's novel. By definition, it can't be
> explained. If something can be explained, then it's not really novel,
> is it? This is why Sheldrake relegates it to "metaphysics."
>
Actually, novelty can be explained. And how? By random
mutations. We even understand that they will occur at a rate
largely determined by the ambient environmental radiation.
>
> > On the protein thing, I want to break it down and see where you
> > object. 1) An extended linear configuration is an unstable
> > configuration for a chain of amino acids. 2) The chain will
> > self-attract where oppositely charged regions drift near to each
> > other. 3) Water-water H-bonds are the best, and statistically the
> > most likely state of a system like this is that most of the H-bonds
> > will be water-water. 4) Therefore the globular state of the protein
> > is most likely. 5) The particular state of the globule is determined
> > in part by self-self interactions and in part by interactions with
> > other molecules. 6) Genetically coded choices of a.a. sequences
> > exploit the properties of the products of the various ways a protein
> > can be predisposed (remember lots misfold and are disposed of!) to
> > fold.
>
> The first four points are perfectly valid. But the fifth point has
> not been scientifically demonstrated. It's merely taken on faith that
> someday we'll understand how thermodynamics and chemistry cause
> protein folding. So far, no luck. Here's how Science Week recently
> summed it up:
>
> "Given an ordinary polypeptide, the number of possible
> configurations is astronomical. If a particular protein always
> assumes the same configuration in a living system (its "native
> configuration"), and if that configuration represents some sort
> of energy minimum for the polypeptide chain, how does the protein find
> that energy minimum within milliseconds? Does the protein pass through
> every possible configuration state until the energy- minimum
> configuration is "discovered"? Or are there constraints that reduce
> the number of possible configurations to a much smaller number? As
> easy as it is to state this problem, the problem is a puzzle that has
> confounded researchers for 40 years."
>
And complexity theory is zeroing in on the answer, having to do
with fitness landscapes populated by strange attractors occupying
the energy-minimum configurations, towards which the relevant
proteins naturally 'gravitate'. It's kinda like nature's version of
Occam's Razor. You might also check out annealing theory.
>
> Sheldrake is suggesting that these constraints are provided by past,
> similar proteins. Like the late physicist Walter Elsasser, Sheldrake
> maintains that only a kind of "holistic memory" can account for the
> incalculable complexity of the organism.
>
But he fails to identify or isolate a testable mechanism, which
renders his work as nonscientific, and in as fact speculative fiction.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Wed Aug 22 2001 - 07:24:02 BST