Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA07157 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 27 Aug 2001 04:45:22 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [209.240.220.175] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Song of Myself Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:42:47 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F32tXsL1c00goZolmRB00012ace@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Aug 2001 03:42:48.0080 (UTC) FILETIME=[56ED6100:01C12EAA] Sender: fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: Song of Myself
>Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 21:43:27 -0500
>
>On 26 Aug 2001, at 11:56, Dace wrote:
>
> > From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
> >
> > > > Sheldrake is suggesting that the form of an organism somehow stays
> > > > with the present, even when its materialization has long since
> > > > vanished. This is simply a roundabout way of saying that if
> > > > memory is real, it's holistic, not particulate.
> > > >
> > > And this idea of an ethereal or astral memory, in the complete and
> > > utter absence of any site or mechanism for same, is itself an
> > > anthromorphization and a (very old) mystically driven error.
> > > Platonic Forms, 'somehow' hovering in the celestial spheres, to
> > > inform the mundane world, long after their dead carriers have
> > > dissolved away; it makes for okay greek literature, and even
> > > possesses a seductive touch of poesy, but scientific and empirically
> > > veridical, it is not.
> >
> > Platonic Forms don't evolve. They transcend time altogether.
> > Sheldrake criticizes Goodwin on the grounds that his "generative
> > equations" are unaffected by the emergence or extinction of the
> > species whose forms they describe.
> >
>Whether a species of starfish is dead or alive, five arms
>mathematically works best from a geometric stability point of view,
>just as five legs does for rolling chairs.
> >
> > In the morphic model, there's no
> > field until there's a species in resonance with its past. As the
> > species evolves, its form changes. Thus what it resonates with also
> > changes. Fields evolve right along with the organisms they govern.
> >
>This would make the genetic evolutionary evolution of the organism
>causally responsible for the changes in such a field, rendering the
>very idea, much less the existence, of such a field Occamically
>superfluous. Why doncha borrow one of those groovy field
>detectors from the scientologists?
>
Didn't they "borrow" the skin galvanometer from Jung? He put it to good use
in his complex theory at least IIRC. Just like the engram was yanked from
Semon.
[grumble, snort, chortle]
These days neuroimaging technology [PET and fMRI] has replaced archaic
devices such as galvanometers as a means of studying mental states.
(snip)
>
> > The parts of a
> > machine are manufactured separately and then placed together. Its
> > form is imposed onto it, rather than arising intrinsically, and is
> > separable from the matter that comprises it.
> >
>That's because we build it. We also build genetically engineered
>living organisms. And your point is?
>
>
Have you personally taken part in building any genetically engineered
organisms? I haven't.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
===============================================================
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 : Mon Aug 27 2001 - 04:49:59 BST