Re: Logic

From: Dace (
Date: Tue Aug 07 2001 - 18:15:32 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: Logic + universal evolution"

    Received: by id SAA06236 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 18:17:41 +0100
    Message-ID: <001501c11f64$9e575a00$f188b2d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    References: <><000d01c1171c$6783d260$ddd9b3d1@teddace><002101c11a02$2099ed60$9303bed4@default><002f01c11c88$087fae80$3524f4d8@teddace><000901c11dc1$430550c0$f805bed4@default> <000d01c11e9b$238ea680$0988b2d1@teddace> <001901c11eb5$834f2300$c905bed4@default>
    Subject: Re: Logic
    Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:15:32 -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


    > > Mechanistic theory divides memory into two kinds. The body's memory is
    > > stored in genes, while the mind's memory is stored in the brain. In
    > > Sheldrake's model, memory is singular. Every organ, including the
    > > remembers via resonance with similar organs from the past. The "mind"
    > > thus the memory that keeps each organ functioning the way it always has
    > > before. Since the brain is attached to sense organs, the mind
    > > with the brain involves awareness alongside memory. Otherwise the mind
    > > the brain is no different from the mind of the heart or the lungs or the
    > > pinky toes.
    > << Ok, I see his and your point, and in a way you say here the same
    > thing like I above, but you see, written down like that, you ain 't gonna
    > get evolution. Every organ remerbers its own previous state(s), where as I
    > try to include ' new ' information into the genes/ organs in a way that by
    > birth of a new organism that information is already part of that organism.

    Evolution is not impelled by memory of past forms. It's a product of
    creative adaptation on the part of organisms to changing environmental
    conditions. When enough members of a species have made a particular
    adaption, it then becomes part of the collective memory of that species.

    > > Waddington's model can certainly be applied to memes. The question is
    > > whether the epimemetic landscape is a function of genes or resonance.
    > > memes reducible to genes? Or are they the resonance of neural
    > > with previous, similar neural structures?
    > << You see, you too stick to the view that genes control everything,
    > epimemetic landscapes must be a function of the genes. Why !?
    > Why can 't it be that epimemetic landscapes control in what way, to which
    > extend genes unfold themselves !?

    I'm arguing that memes have no relation whatsoever to genes. Memes are
    associated with thought. When enough people subscribe to a particular
    belief, such as the notion that evolution is a product of changing
    environmental conditions and random genetic mutation, then this belief
    becomes part of our collective memory.


    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 : Tue Aug 07 2001 - 18:21:54 BST