Re: Logic

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sat Aug 04 2001 - 04:00:26 BST

  • Next message: Dace: "Re: Macguffin"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA28741 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 4 Aug 2001 03:56:32 +0100
    From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 22:00:26 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable
    Subject: Re: Logic
    Message-ID: <3B6B1EFA.8675.2856332@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <002301c11c85$72553760$3524f4d8@teddace>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On 3 Aug 2001, at 18:33, Dace wrote:

    >
    > > Hi Dace,
    > >
    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: Dace <edace@earthlink.net
    > > > Mechanism is far more compatible with creationism than evolution.
    > > > The
    > > point
    > > > of evolution is that the species are not molded externally. Their
    > > > forms arise from within, over time. [&&&] As long as we accept
    > > > external creation-- whether supernatural or natural-- as opposed
    > > > to
    > self-creation,
    > > > we're still in the thrall of Authority.
    > >
    > > << Very interesting point this !!
    > > Our forms arise from within, as in Bergsons ' le moi profond ', as
    > > the 'le Úlan vital ', as the " sentiment interieur ", as the " need/
    > > urge by
    > Lamarck
    > > !?
    > > If so, I am all ears !!!
    >
    > Well, Kenneth, the vital impulse is problematic. The problem is that
    > the closer we look, the less definition we find between life and
    > nonlife. There's just no basis for positing a "force" that animates
    > living matter and distinguishes it from nonliving matter. Organic
    > matter had to become very complex before even the simplest of
    > life-forms could have popped into being. We see in the
    > self-arrangement of crystals that nonliving compounds can form up into
    > "species." Crystallization tends to recapitulate already existing
    > types. This is no different than amino acid chains "desiring" to fold
    > up into one particular protein configuration and not any of the
    > numerous mechanically correct alternatives. Just goes to show that
    > Whitehead was on the right track when he said biology is the study of
    > the larger organisms, while physics concerns the smaller ones.
    >
    > Whatever it is that makes life alive is also what animates physical
    > existence in general. There's nothing privileged about living matter,
    > just as there's nothing privileged about the location of the earth or
    > the sun over any other place in the universe. Vitalism is just one
    > more meme that stopped mattering.
    >
    It isn't a matter of a 'force', as any reader of John Von Neumann would
    well know, but of the natural chemical properties of certain configurations.
    To understand why DNA and RNA are such efficacious little replication
    machines, and what they need to be able to do, and how they need to be
    configured, to accomplish same, you need to read his masterwork THE
    THEORY OF SELF-REPRODUCING AUTOMATA, published in 1966 by
    the U. of Illinois Press. Complex and dynamically recursive
    patternings make all the difference.

    ===============================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 2b29 : Sat Aug 04 2001 - 04:00:45 BST