Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA04444 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 6 Aug 2001 20:12:59 +0100 Message-ID: <002501c11eab$8dc19700$0988b2d1@teddace> From: "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> References: <3B6D89AF.4354.5F2CB6@localhost> Subject: Re: Logic Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:10:45 -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 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> > 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 ether.
> Actually, the mythical thing is the idea that there is a cold morphic
> resonential wind blowing through the halls of history that contains
> the shape of things to come. The argument ad ignorantium (we
> haven't proven the exact linkage of genes with ocular structure in
> every particular yet, so it must be due to something else someone
> dreamed up) was listed as a logical fallacy by the greeks 2500
> years ago, and the passage of time has not led to any successful
> re-evaluation of its status as a logical error.
It's not just that the "exact linkage of genes with ocular structure" hasn't
yet been worked out but that no linkage whatsoever has been worked out.
Nobody has the slightest idea how genes could produce eyes or any other
organic structure all the way down to protein.
That's not to say that the argument for resonance-based memory is based
entirely on a critique of gene-based memory.
> > 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.
> The music does not originate from inside the radio because it is
> intentionall beamed into the ambient air by radio engineers. Your
> analogy would, to be assiduously applied, require the existence of
> the Great Morphic Beamer, that is, of a God, most likely akin to
> the god of the latest propaganda incarnation of the biblical
> creationists, intelligent design theory.
Morphic resonance need not be intentional. It follows naturally from the
priniple of like-affects-like. What Sheldrake is proposing is a law of
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 : Mon Aug 06 2001 - 20:17:13 BST