Re[2]: The evolution of "evolution"

From: Robin Faichney (
Date: Tue 25 Oct 2005 - 08:38:28 GMT

  • Next message: Derek Gatherer: "Re: The evolution of "evolution""

    Monday, October 24, 2005, 10:03:10 PM, Dace wrote:

    > Why not attribute radio, for instance, to magic? After
    > all, from a material standpoint nothing mediates the reception of a signal
    > from a transmitter. And how about a pair of magnets that "magically"
    > attract each other at a distance? Again, from a material standpoint,
    > nothing mediates event, since a magnetic field is composed of space, not
    > matter. And if spatial systems can be viewed holistically, why not temporal
    > systems?

    > Reductionism rests on the common sense notion of contact mechanics between
    > visible components. This is not a scientific concept but a deeply
    > ingrained, widely distributed habit of thought, i.e. a highly successful
    > meme.

    Visibility is not the issue. Detectability is. The notion that conventional scientists have problems dealing with anything they can't actually see is ridiculous. What they have a problem with is things that cannot be detected. Radio signals can easily be detected at any point between transmitter and receiver. You ask us to believe in an influence that is utterly undetectable. That's the difference.

    Best regards,
    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue 25 Oct 2005 - 08:58:55 GMT