Re: Logic

From: Dace (
Date: Sun Aug 05 2001 - 18:04:02 BST

  • Next message: Dace: "Teleology"

    Received: by id SAA02211 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 18:06:40 +0100
    Message-ID: <002801c11dd0$bcb276a0$6b87b2d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    References: <3B6B17EB.9352.269CD6C@localhost>
    Subject: Re: Logic
    Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 10:04:02 -0700
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
    Precedence: bulk


    > > 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. Genes are like the options on
    > > your car. They don't tell you anything about engines and wheels and
    > > whatnot, but they tell you what color you'll be and whether or not
    > > you'll have power steering.
    > > We resonate with our own kind. This is why life is divided up into
    > > species. Morphic resonance works according to similarity. We resonate
    > > with ourselves first and secondly with those who are similar. That
    > > would include everyone in our species. We have a collective mind, and
    > > this mind determines the form of our bodies as much as the archetypes
    > > of our unconscious.
    > Oh, Puh-LEEEZE! Are you trying to tell us that without genes we
    > would all look like generic humans?

    No, without genes we wouldn't exist. What I said is that if you share
    exactly the same genes with someone else, you'll come out looking identical
    to that person.

    > > > 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.
    > >
    > > How can a radio dial change the music you're picking up unless it
    > > contains a program by which that music is constructed?
    > Ambient radiation, chemical exposure and viral infection can cause
    > genetic mutation. And radio dials (rheostats or varistors) direct (to
    > a particular frequency) the application of a schematically
    > instantiated heuristic on the separation of the carrier from the
    > signal for ALL frequencies within its applicable bandwidth, not one
    > for particular station X or Y and a different one for station Z, and no
    > station is 'beaming in' eye color to the genes as if they had little
    > antenna receivers on them listening to the morphic pied piper
    > resonating somewhere in the ethersphere.

    Genes determine eye color. This is a well-established fact. What's *not*
    established is that they determine the structure and functions of the eye.
    In neo-Darwinian biology, genes play very much the same role as the ether in
    Newtonian astronomy. Rather than accept the existence of
    action-at-a-distance, astronomers posited an ether across which waves of
    gravity could propagate like waves on the ocean. Now the same thing has
    happened in biology. We have trouble accepting the possibility that
    influences are exerted over a distance (in this case across time instead of
    space). So we invent a germ-plasm which mechanically induces the formation
    of the body. While genes do indeed play an important role in the activities
    of the organism, the genetic program is as mythical as the lumineferous

    > The attempted analogy
    > is bad in so many places and on so many levels as to be
    > absolutely nonrelational, thus totally useless.

    It's a purely logical point. The music from a radio does not originate from
    within the radio itself. Therefore we cannot assume that in all cases the
    form of a thing arises from within the thing itself. You can't just assume
    a priori that the form of the body originates from within the body. It must
    be demonstrated a posteriori. No such demonstration has been forthcoming.


    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 - 18:10:54 BST