Re: Logic

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Tue Jul 31 2001 - 21:47:19 BST

  • Next message: Dace: "Macguffin"

    Received: by id VAA22270 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:08:26 +0100
    Message-ID: <002101c11a02$2099ed60$9303bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <> <000d01c1171c$6783d260$ddd9b3d1@teddace>
    Subject: Re: Logic
    Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 22:47:19 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    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
    Precedence: bulk

    Hi Dace,
    You wrote,

    > These "pants" you refer to were worn by all the early evolutionists,
    > including Spencer, Wallace, Darwin, and Lamarck. All were in agreement
    that evolution was driven by direct adaptation to environmental constraints.
    > Virtually no one took seriously the idea of a mechanical method of
    > centered on the nuclei of cells.
    > So, what happened in the 20th century to change our minds? What do we
    > really know about these "genes?" Well, we know we can alter morphology by
    "engineering" them. And we know there are 30,000 of them in the human
    > genome, which correspond to roughly 30,000 proteins. Does this mean that
    > genes "code" for the structure of proteins? No, actually they just
    > the models for chains of amino acids. As to how these chains fold up
    > correctly, this does not appear to be a mechanically driven process. From
    > protein on up, no form in the body has been linked to the sequence of
    > nucleic acids buried in our chromosomes. We know the alteration of genes
    > and protiens can have effects at various levels of the body's structure,
    > we don't know that the form of these structures reflects "information"
    > residing in genes.

    << Very interesting once again !
    You mean that the information you talk about in the above ' fix ', '
    form !? In a sense, that a gene ' expresses ' a certain form, what kind of
    form (that will be) we don 't know, due to what !?
    The kind of individual involved !? The kind of social structure involved !?
    The kind of genetic history involved !? To what kind of sensibilités the
    organism will react upon !?

    Due to what would any gene change something in the info residing in itself
    Yes, mutations, but what causes those mutations and indeed, ' how ' would
    that effect the gene that change your eye color if it does not contains a
    program by which the eye itself is constructed.
    In a other sense, what made the gene change its expression !?
    An inner urge !? A Need !? Which kind !? And whose urge will it be !?
    The organism' of those of the parents !?

    This is why
    > evolution is driven according to the sensible behavior of the organism
    > rather than the blind workings of its macromolecules. The atomistic model
    > of inheritance is unsuitable for evolution. Aristotle, Goethe, Whitehead,
    > and yes, even Bergson (despite his vitalism), tell us far more about life
    > than Crick and Watson ever could.

    << Yet once again, you mean here a need, an urge, le sentiment interieur,
    le élan vital, the concept of the ' différend ' ( Lyotard) !?
    In one word, Lamarck !?
    And if so, where do you leave Darwin !? On the side- line !?
    If so again, what about the Weismann's Barrier !? Breachable !?

    > But the recent revelation that the genome is one-third smaller than
    > previously imagined did nothing to call into question the reduction of
    > morphology to genetics. The power of the meme against all logic ensures
    > that the genetic model, both evolutionary and developmental, remains
    > untouchable.

    << Yes, my point all along. People, in general too of course, are trapped
    into the ways they think, or ought to think, or were brought up with, or
    by the ones they learned.
    As for this list, no harm done I hope, everyone is brought up with the
    notion that Darwin is " the true way ". For some reason it seems that Dace
    and I are not that much keen on staying in Darwins footsteps.

    Not that I say he is wrong, but in a way we have to dismiss ourselves
    from the memes which are driving us all mad with Darwin' s stuff.
    I said this before, if you look for Darwinian prove, you will find it every-
    where if you don 't have any " feeling" to look for something else.

    Not that I say, we, you and I are all ' wrong ', but try to see the ' logic
    of the arguments, try to see beyond the memes which block out the light.
    Anyway, maybe memes are blocking out my light, but than I wonder, why
    mine and not.... Vincents, or Robins, or Joe's, what makes you all diffe-
    rent from Dace and me !?
    Strange question of course,....

    Best regards to all,


    ( I am, because we are) all one

    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 2b29 : Tue Jul 31 2001 - 21:21:37 BST