Re: The 1st chicken or the 1st egg

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Thu Aug 16 2001 - 19:49:46 BST

  • Next message: Bill Spight: "Re: Gene-Meme Co-evolution in Reverse?"

    Received: by id TAA10410 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:09:24 +0100
    Message-ID: <001701c12684$4d5c07a0$a207bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: "memetics" <>
    Subject: Re: The 1st chicken or the 1st egg
    Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 20:49:46 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Precedence: bulk

    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: <>
    > > > And btw where did the *first* termite mound come from (and the
    > > first
    > > > protein structures too)?
    > > As you well know, they evolved from earlier, more primitive
    > > structures.
    > >
    > > The idea here, since you seem to need for it to be explained to
    > > you, is that there cannot be morphic resonance across mutations
    > > and transitions, since it, by definition, informs as to similarities,
    > > differences. It's the same as the god argument (and who created
    > > god?); if morphic resonance was unnecessary for the first termite
    > > mounds ( or the first of anything), and it must have been since
    > > such was not available then, how can it possibly be that it is
    > > necessary for any successors, and if it is not, then why does
    > > Occam's Razor not apply? Short answer; Occam's Razor DOES
    > > apply, and it snips MR foolishness right off the skein.
    > << This seems to be a logical conclusion !
    > The problem with MR, as i see it, is that it seems to lack an '
    > evolutionary'
    > path where upon aspects of nature can walk.
    > Sheldrake explains, ( I changed his words in order to fit yours),
    > 1_ What determines the first mount !?
    > Shel_ That can 't be explained, it is something what comes into being
    > ex- hypothesi. It is something that can 't be repaeted because the first
    > mount ever influences all of the next. What we see is the outcome of
    > many trials.
    > What, IMO means that Natural Selection as a concept just can be the
    > last step known to us of a natural process where we never gonna see
    > the beginning of.
    > 2_ MR does not work on simimarity alone, though.
    > Morphic fields work also with and upon systems with which they
    > are connected. They lay down ' restrictions ' with a specific pattern
    > upon possible outcomes of natural processes.
    > What, IMO means that the very first mount, doesn 't have to be biased
    > upon an earlier more equally system.
    > Neighbouring systems could have helped to determine the very first.
    > X and Y both MR fields of similarity " created " a new one Z which is the
    > very first termite- mount.
    > Best,
    > Kenneth
    > ( I am, because we are) U

    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 : Thu Aug 16 2001 - 19:21:57 BST