From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Dawkins' Mutation Test for Replicators
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 21:10:56 +1000
-----Original Message-----
From: Gatherer, D. (Derek) <D.Gatherer@organon.nhe.akzonobel.nl>
To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk' <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Date: Monday, 30 August 1999 7:01
Subject: RE: Dawkins' Mutation Test for Replicators
>Chris:
>This 'purity' concept, when applied to genes comes in the form of a link
>from an individual to immediate family and from there to distant family and
>so out into the species; you need a 1/1 correlation to achieve 'perfect'
>communication and so all of this type of communication (if it exists) would
>drop off at a high rate (1/2^n) the further away you are from the 'pure'
>state. (you could test this using crystals....)
>
>Derek:
>Please, let's not bring crystals into this.
>
:-) your assumptions are showing! there is nothing 'far out man' in this
particular area -- I shall explain:
In the old days of radio crystals they used to cut the crystals along the
X/Y axis. The problem was that in using this 'natural' cut it was found that
occasionally these crystals would 'jump' frequencies and so were useless for
long term radio work. No explanation was offered for this, all that happened
was the X/Y cut was avoided.
Crystals are, by their nature, 'pure' forms and in the context of purity we
start to see a pattern in that when I cut a crystal along a natural fissure
so there is little loss of atom layers such that the two surfaces resulting
from the cut are highly correlated; the more layers you lose in the cutting
process so the faster the drop-off of correlation (at a rate of1/2^n).
If you place each of the resulting crystals in a faraday cage you should not
have any detection of resonance from the surfaces of each crystal. In an
experiment done some time ago we DID find 'resonance' in that stimulation of
one surface elicited a 'change' in the surface in the other crystal. This
experiment was 'casual' and so needs 'work' but it does go along with the
identical twins concept and the 'purity' pattern. (would need to use SQUIDS
to do things 'properly'.)
The crystal observations do not necessarily mean that we have some sort of
'magical'communications but it does emphasise the presence of the 'purity'
pattern in that we find similar concepts at all scales of analysis --
crystals or twins or even with correlated minds (this seems to come about
due to two or more people having the same *beliefs* and as such thinking the
same way. It would logically follow that 'synchronous' thinking would be
observed as if there was some sort of 'psychic' connection. Since strong
belief systems are very fundamentalist and so EITHER/OR there is no
necessity to bring in the 'synchronicity' arguement, all you need is a
sharing of context (even if thousands of miles apart) to generate almost
identical thinking patterns and when compared later the only 'explanation'
is 'psychic'.
This said, the crystal data is 'interesting'.
>Chris:
>There has been some discussion of testing all of this on the Quantum Mind
>list and a paper has already appears in Physics Letters outlining the
>proposed experiment using identical twins. Interstingly a previous
>experiment 'suggested' possible linkage but also suggested that of all
pairs
>of identical twins only 25% of the pairs actually showed anything
suggesting
>'correlation', this goes along with the Dominant/Recessive format of
>
>DD : Dr : rD : rr -- which is a level 2 dichotomisation of of the D/r
>dichotomy. The rr group being those who 'suggested' some sort of link.
>
>Derek:
>No, there's a simpler explanation. 25% is just the background level you'd
>expect for random guessing. And the Mendelian genotypes above are just
>genotypes. They are not 'level 2 dichotomisations of the D/r dichotomy'
>
there was no 'random' guessing, the tests where on brain wave patterns, both
twins placed in faraday cages.
>Chris:
>In the 100 monkeys so a critical genetic correlation was reached that
>allowed the monkeys on the other islands to 'suddenly' become aware of the
>washing process;
>
>Derek:
>Oh, come on Chris, what a load of old rubbish! Pardon my language, but
>genetics has nothing to do with telepathy (which doesn't exist anyway!).
>There is no way whatsoever that a 'critical genetic correlation' (Whatever
>that is - it's not a phrase I recognise from the 15-odd years I've been
>doing genetics) can cause a telepathic effect.
>
your are taking things out of context, the context is the *purity* pattern
in thinking. Genetic correlation comes from the continuum effect were CE =
sum of 1/2^n (1/2^n being the genetic relationship of an individual to
others) the effect would mainfest when CE = 2 which is what you find in
'pure' forms ('ideal' identical twins) is 1/1 + 1/1 = 2.
relationship to parents/siblings is 1/2
aunts uncles = 1/4
and this is without considering repressions of expression that can skew
these relationships.
I would seriously consider an analysis of twin data etc etc since it does
say something about the purity pattern. The question is whether this is a
'real' pattern or else a pattern linked to our method of analysis, our ways
of thinking. Personally I am biased to the latter, as I demonstrate in my
articles on wave/particle duality and the EPR paradox (which implies
'superluminal' communications). My assertion is that the results of the
experiments comes from the recursive dichotomisations used in the
creation/analysis of the data; the method alone guarantees seeing frequency
distributions that imply some sort of connection, wave interference patterns
imply dependencies but these patterns are built-in to the method - ANY
recursive dichotomisation will create these patterns regardless of the
nature of the elements of the dichotomy!
In the crystals experiment so the METHOD was dichotomous (surfaceA/surfaceB)
and so we can generate patterns (that our equipment is designed to detect)
that 'suggest' hidden connections but are in fact properties of the method
being confused with properties of the 'thing' under analysis, thus the
connections are not necessarily 'real' but more methodological anomolies.
Since our equipment is designed to detect pattern imposed by the method of
analysis so illusions can be perpetuated. We need to be wary.
best,
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