Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA00680 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 3 Dec 2001 20:30:07 GMT Message-ID: <001001c17c39$5b202d20$11a6bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <200112022159.fB2LxFS09328@sherri.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: circular logic Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 21:00:39 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: Wade T. Smith <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
Hi Wade,
> >And the habit, more likely the need, of reaching for
> >the highest leaves resulted in changes.
> Well, like I said- "At any rate, there is somehow a goal in
> lamarckianism, and, so far, nothing about evolution admits of goals."
<< Yes, but not as such though ! You can ' solve ' this problem by admitting
there is an asymmetry in evolution_ certain directions are getting favoured
above others. Along lines of natural selection, I agree.
Maybe the final goal is to achieve definite and absolute complexity.
> So, I'll go out on a short, strong, limb, and say, lamarckianism is
> looney.
> Biologically.
<< Like I said, IMO Lamarck, but I don 't think that was his goal ( sic),
wrote something psychological, not really biology. He did, with his
inquiries
into the animalworld., but he extended his evolutionary view to the psycho-
logy. And IMO, I think, there might be Lamarckian processes working.
That is not to say, there are, that have to be seen.
All evolution is based upon ' selecting information', Darwins natural selec-
tion concept is based upon that principle. But if you say, information, you
have to have some to select from. In the beginning of time, there was none.
There was no ' intellect organ ' either. No information, no organ, simple.
When time went by, more and more information was created and therefor
avaible, and natual selection could begin.
But in the meantime, evolution started. There was only then a vague sensi-
bility. Coupled with a muscular system, only simple contractions were
possible. The waving of the sea was enough, the tempeture was enough.
There was no memory. With the passing of the eons, natural selection
took over, complexer contractions, better muscular systems, memory,
brains, humans, Self, consciousness, culture.
Darwins concept is based upon selecting information, if you have none
you can 't select and evolution is therefor impossible.
Selforganisation is once of the options, blind evolution is another.
You need the one for getting the other.
Regards,
Kenneth
===============================================================
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 Dec 03 2001 - 20:42:54 GMT