Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA00309 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:43:13 +0100 Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:29:32 +0100 To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Determinism Message-ID: <20010414112932.A1365@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <3AD610F4.26664.8FC3C3@localhost>; <20010413163507.A1851@reborntechnology.co.uk> <3AD73020.26741.337A84@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <3AD73020.26741.337A84@localhost>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 04:58:08PM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 04:58:08PM -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2001, at 16:35, Robin Faichney wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 08:32:52PM -0500, email@example.com wrote:
> > > On 12 Apr 2001, at 11:46, Robin Faichney wrote: > > > You obviously
> > don't think that only one factor can be nonrandom. > > That would be
> > silly. You just expressed yourself clumsily. But you > > also missed
> > the point. Big time. Skimming instead of reading, as > > usual, I
> > expect. Whether the mutation is random depends on one's > >
> > perspective. In evolutionary terms, it is, because the cause is > >
> > outside of that explanatory framework, but a radiologist might very >
> > > well take a different view. (Be careful to shield your gonads,
> > Joe!) > > > Sometimes genes (a small statistical percentage which is >
> > unresolveable to particular genes a priori) just fail to precisely >
> > replicate. Sometimes ambient radiation or chemical exposure can >
> > cause breaks. Particular mutations are not determined by any >
> > environmental conditions which have anything to do with the kinds > of
> > mutations produced; in that sense, they are random with > reference to
> > the environment in which they must subsequently, and > nonrandomly,
> > succeed or fail.
> > Then you were agreeing with me, weren't you?
> No, some percentage of replications are simply going to be flawed,
> for no reason(s) we have been able to ascertain, although
> superdeterminists will assume that there HAS to be one (or more);
> while one cannot a priori judge of every individual gene that it will or
> will fail to replicate correctly; a degree of error is part of the
> system. Notice that such mutations are not tied to the particular
> environmental pressures that they might alleviate; no
> Lamarckianism here!
Is that actual disagreement with the substance of my argument, or,
I wonder, by any chance, just another grabbed chance to display your
> > > I did not express myself in sufficient
> > > depth on the matter, as I have had problems with people being able
> > > to follow me when I do so generally.
> > Why do you think that is, Joe? :-)
> Thinking, and the capacity to do so well, has everything to do with
Of course. If people don't understand you, it has nothing to do with
the clarity of your expression, your writing skills, the type of language
you use. It's simply because you fly so high above us. Right, Joe.
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 14 2001 - 11:49:46 BST