Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA02005 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sun, 5 Aug 2001 15:33:40 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c11dc1$430550c0$f805bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745FCC@inchna.stir.ac.uk><000d01c1171c$6783d260$ddd9b3d1@teddace><002101c11a02$2099ed60$9303bed4@default> <002f01c11c88$087fae80$3524f4d8@teddace> Subject: Re: Logic Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 17:13:09 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Genes don't determine form. They distort it. If we didn't have genetic
differences between each other, we'd all come out looking exactly the same.
Indeed this is the case with identical twins. Genes account for
differences. They have nothing to say as to the more profound question of
<< I do understand, but to what kind of information do genes distort the
info which resides in themselves and as a result this determines the actualy
form, no !?
And if we were ever able to trace back how the change come about
according to what kind of info in the gene changed and why in the first
place, it would be possible IMO not only to memetic engineer people to
the extreme but also to memetic determine them !
Genes do indeed choose an underlying species- like memory bias to
produce our bodies instead of the numerous alternatives avaible, but
how does that similarity make us all different !?
Such a system seems to me inspired by the Quantum Theory.
The collective reality would be than, like you mention a Bio- Platonism-
like concept wherein all differencies all do resemble alike.
But like in QT, the relaity about Bio- Platonism can 't be predicted, but
the chance that one condition becomes reality is defined and determinated.
And in order to get ' individuality '/ distortion the system should ' fix ',
' appoint' for each possible particle avaible only one and exactly one
condition ' for each moment ' that a chance for definition and determi-
nation pops up. ( Hope this makes sense).
That is, we are all the same beneath a collective species- like level
but we are all different because each of us is born in and by different
circumstances. Although, and that too we see in identical twins,
are slim and in more cases negligible, but those differencies ' fix ' us in
And that would link up to what Sheldrake says, that an organism is as
a point in a morphogenetic field. That field would not be reducible
to the particle as the particle would be reducible to the field. Each
organism exist in its own ' private ' niche/ creode, so to speak, wherein
all is ' defined ' and determinated ', so to speak.
The model you have outlined here, is by all means one I like, being a fan
of Sheldrake myself ( I started off upon this list with a thread about him),
but it seems you gonna ran into the same trouble I ran into, if you gonna
switch from the organic to the memetic memory mode .
If you ride a bike and you do it well the first time, the second time and
so on, it will become easier.
In the organic mode genes attract info from the genetic memory- pool
and they will make up your body accordingly.
But, if you attract info to ' become a better Catholic' from the memetic
memory- pool, IMO that info is not there as just Bio- platonic, but as
' learned ' , as ' acquired' info. Or should it be that with the chosen con-
dition all of its possible and probable consequences were accounted for !?
That in the ( Memetic)Bio- Platonic concept all of the Ideals were
present !? This sounds strange and bizarre to me. What about education,
for example !?
Where must we place this on the Planck scale !?
Where genes follow ' epigenetic landscapes' and do become deeper
involved in the organic behavior of what they supposingly must built,
and do become a collective inheritable reality, memes seems to lack
that ability !
IMO, I think we can/ must broader our view ans say, not only the fact
that you were brought up as a Catholic, would liable draw you into the
Catholic meme or not, but also the fact that your parents needs you to,
desires this, wishes that,...
If indeed, like Sheldrake and Waddington speculate that genetic traits
and habits and forms are like epigenetic- landscapes, why don 't we
have epimemetic- landscapes, like I speculate !?
Why is a form/ an organism reducible to its genetic parts and not to its
memetic parts !?
Why unites apparently morphic resonance only organic particles and
not memetic ones !?
And this makes no sense if we take Sheldrakes notion of an ' cumula-
tive influence ' serious.
Why is it so that we can say that a genetic trait gets inherited over time
and not a memetic one !?
Aren 't they any ' epimemetic landscapes ' which canalises behavior and
get inherited by the offspring !? I say there are, but somehow most of us
argues that memetic pathways do unfold themselves in the interaction of
And in a sense being all good Darwinians would proove my point of the
existence of epimemetic landscapes wouldn 't it !?
_ It is like I said before, and for what it matters, we all, you, our co-
members, me are trapped by our memes. We alone can escape them.
( I am, because we are) just a quantum computation
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 : Sun Aug 05 2001 - 15:37:52 BST