Re: Logic

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Sun Aug 05 2001 - 16:13:09 BST

  • Next message: Dace: "Re: Logic"

    Received: by id PAA02005 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 15:33:40 +0100
    Message-ID: <000901c11dc1$430550c0$f805bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <><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
    Precedence: bulk

    Hi Dace,
    You wrote,

    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
    our similarities.

    << 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
    time forever.
    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.

    Best regards,


    ( 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