Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA18108 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Sun, 19 Aug 2001 16:17:45 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c128c7$b39e8d40$7b06bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <email@example.com> References: <3B7F17D4.29065.57A644@localhost> Subject: Re: Morphic fields Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 17:57:16 +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 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
----- Original Message -----
> On 17 Aug 2001, at 22:13, Dace wrote:
> > Formative causation is a theory of memory, not origins.
> > But it should be noted that origins are much easier to explain
> > according to the morphic model. Life began from the interaction of
> > organic compounds that were already stabilized in their structure
> > through resonance with similar, past compounds. This helps to bridge
> > the chasm between simple, organic material and the first bacteria.
> > And rather than relying on blind, genetic mutation, organisms can pass
> > on to future generations their creative adaptations to changing
> > environmental circumstances.
> Then the 'theory' (and I use the term loosely) is actually a magical,
> mystical alternative to the discredited genetic version of the
> passing on of acquired traits known as Lamarckianism. Sorry, but
> these Occam-violating velleities cannot be smuggled in through
> either the front or the back door.
Morphic field theory is not some kind of reflection of Lamarckism.
In fact, tests has shown that, would the inheritance be Lamarckian
that not only trained animals would learn a trick much faster, but no-
trained animals too. That is not the case.
In the orthodox theory would neither trained and no- trained anaimals
learn a trick faster.
In morphic theory both trained and no- trained animals would learn
a trick faster ( and faster... and faster).
Remerber, Vincent wrote, something about learning to ride a bike.
He told us that he could not ride a bike, or anyway not so good.
But the gist of morphic theory is that he would learn it faster, even
he was now ' older '.
Being able to ride a bike or not has nothing to do with morphic
theory. Learning it, is.
The general idea is, whenever and how old you are, doesn 't matter,
5 years or 95, the speed by which both would learn to ride a bike
would be the same. And if we would follow up the 5 year old, we
should be able to test if his/ her kids learn to ride a bike " faster ".
But, properly tests would fail, and prove your point, but other, let's
say personal circumstances would dismiss any acceptable result.
Those would than be, I don 't know how old Vincent is, but let's
say he is 40. At that age learning to ride a bike would involve more
fear for falling down, discreased reflexes, physical restrains etc.
You can even add social and cultural restrains.
In a way, and you may laugh, the more people learn to ride a bike
or a car, the easier it becomes for future generations to learn it too.
And those have not to be future generations from my point of view.
In a sense we all make it mush easier for a 80 old granny to learn
to ride a car. But there again the prove will fail to past the test, not
because and just because due she will fail to pass the driverstest
3/4 times, but because neighbouring aspects help to do so.
( I am ,because we are)
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 : Sun Aug 19 2001 - 16:22:12 BST