Re: Logic + universal evolution

From: Dace (
Date: Fri Aug 10 2001 - 19:38:01 BST

  • Next message: Chris Taylor: "Re: Teleology etc."

    Received: by id VAA14365 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 21:37:53 +0100
    Message-ID: <004a01c121cb$97351280$da86b2d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <>
    To: <>
    References: <3B732E54.31548.1291B56@localhost>
    Subject: Re: Logic + universal evolution
    Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:38:01 -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

    From: <>

    > > To my knowledge Wilson has never responded to Sheldrake's thesis that
    > > termite mounds are governed by morphic fields, with the termites
    > > occupying a similar role to cells within animal bodies. Wilson has
    > > never responded to this suggestion because he has no alternative.
    > > It's just up in the air. He doesn't like the field explanation, but
    > > he can't offer anything better.
    > >
    > > Here's a quote from The Social Insects (1971):
    > >
    > > "It is all but impossible to conceive how one colony member can
    > > oversee more than a minute fraction of the work or envision in its
    > > entirety the plan of such a finished product. Some of these nests
    > > require many worker lifetimes to complete, and each new addition must
    > > somehow be brought into a proper relaitonship with the previous parts.
    > > The existence of such nests leads inevitably to the conclusion that
    > > the workers interact in a very orderly and predictable manner. But
    > > how can the workers communicate so effictively over such long period
    > > time? Also, who has the blueprint of the nest?"
    > >
    > > It's just like in the body. There seems to be no reason why
    > > everything works the way it does. We just assume there must be a
    > > control mechanism somewhere in there, which is based on a blueprint of
    > > some kind. So where are the chromosomes of termite mounds? And if
    > > termite mounds don't need a design of some kind buried deep within it,
    > > then how can we simply *assume* that the body requires any such thing?
    > > The regular forms of these mounds is a perplexing question for which
    > > there's no answer outside of field theory, whether the static,
    > > mathematical idealism of Goodwin or the evolutionary, memory-based
    > > model of Sheldrake.
    > >
    > Simple rules can have complex consequences. The apparently
    > choreographed movements of schools of fish or flocks of birds are
    > explained by each individual bird's tendency to keep its neighbor
    > within X and Y distance of itself;

    Obviously. The question is how the birds manage to maintain the right
    distance, particularly when the whole flock turns on a dime. Either the
    brain is running an incredbly elaborate motion program or the flock is a
    morphic field in which the birds are "particles." While the latter
    possibility might strike you as being "weird," the former possibility would
    require neural computing processes unimaginably more powerful and rapid than
    anything humans have ever devised.

    > the building of beaver dams is
    > explained by the rule that branches and mud are to be moved
    > towards the sound of running water. I'm sure that there is a similar
    > rule or small group of rules, probably connected with pheromonic
    > chemical marking, that will suffice to explain termite mound
    > construction.

    But of course.

    > > Ted
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

    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 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 21:47:00 BST