Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA11930 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:00:14 +0100 Message-Id: <200108100057.f7A0vob04465@unix03.wehi.edu.au> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:57:46 +1000 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388) From: John Wilkins <wilkins@wehi.EDU.AU> To: firstname.lastname@example.org In-Reply-To: <20010810003925.AAA10755@email@example.com> Subject: Re: Logic + universal evolution Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On Friday, August 10, 2001, at 10:39 AM, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> Hi John Wilkins -
>> Interestingly, the word "evolution" was used independently by
>> and mineralogists, and by astronomers. The term "stellar evolution"
>> predates the biological sense, and in this case it is appropriate.
> And they're probably right to use it so.
> However, it always bugged me, mostly because 'evolution' had come to
> the creation of species, and stellar evolution was about the lifespan
> processes of stellar existence- one may as well say that one 'evolves'
> one changes from baby, to adult, to antique- since stars 'evolved' from
> youth to old age in their stellar range of lightyears.
Indeed, this would the etymologically correct, if you were living in the
However, anyone who uses the phrase "cosmic evolution" (other than Alan
Guth) immediately marks themself out as kook material.
> But, so far, no star has replicated and produced a different star. (Not
> that they could. Yeah.)
Actually, I gather this is not quite true. Stars can indeed give rise to
new stars in a predictable manner after they slough off material in the
red giant phase.
> Words.... If only there _were_ a morphic resonance, maybe we'd all use
> the same ones....
A serious point: I found when reading Alfred Wallace's material on
Spirit in evolution that it all made very good explanations if you
substituted the term "culture" for "Spirit" in his writings. Culture is
what causes the evolution of certain faculties, & c. I wonder if
Sheldrake's "spiritualism" is another case of this misplaced
misidentification of the effects of culture.
I have in mind the notion of a "ghost channel" in information theory as
-- John Wilkins Head Communication Services, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne Australia Personal page: <http://users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
=============================================================== 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) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 02:04:31 BST