From: Joel.M Dimech (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu 13 Oct 2005 - 16:15:50 GMT
> I have been following this conversation with interest. I think your comments about ‘memory’ problematic, but Derek’s confidence that a set of growth factors ‘explain’ ontogenesis is problematic, too.
One has to be extremely cautious with the word ‘memory’; as Derek said it’s not appropriate to qualify the ongoing process. ‘Memory’ is acceptable as long as one keeps in mind it’s not about recording events, playing a recording, and using a recording to... You see, then, how much the word ‘memory’ can be misleading in the context of ontogenesis. The word ‘memory’ is acceptable in the sense of epi-genesis: phenomena that exist aside, or outside the process of genesis. What we might call ‘memory’ is actually the Information Condition of any given phenomenon throughout nature. What is the Information Condition? Nothing that should faze you, it’s a way to refer to the physical properties that nature imposes on everything. Nothing has ‘memory’: anywhere and at any time, everything is subject to physical properties - temperature, volume, pressure, etc. In this respect, the concept of ‘agent’ is very important, because physical properties are imposed on them. The whole of the agents In the process of embryogenesis exhibits different types of sensibility to physical properties. In agents, quantity in physical properties may change through time, but not their type of sensibility. Agents may have ‘memory’ in this double meaning: (1) the unchangeable nature of their type of sensibility to physical properties, and (2) any change that occurs in their physical properties turned out to be conserved. At this step, we come across why it is really inappropriate, and counter-intuitive to use the word ‘memory’. Any change turns out to be conserved, because it comes from an irreversible process; it’s impossible for the agent to turn back to a previous state. Each irreversible process destroys the previous state, actually it creates a new agent; this new agent is ‘as is’, it does not remember what it was before existing since it didn’t exist. Tricky, isn’t it? In conclusion, ‘memory’ refer to the exact opposite of the real process since it hasn’t the slightest remembrance capacity. Joel
=============================================================== 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 2.1.5 : Thu 13 Oct 2005 - 16:33:05 GMT