Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA19616 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 20 Aug 2001 07:55:42 +0100 Message-ID: <009501c12902$525bb5e0$c024f4d8@teddace> From: "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> References: <3B7DA5B7.1230.19D901C@localhost> Subject: Re: The "logic" meme Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 15:57:27 -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 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> > > > Invoking Occam here is a big mistake. The whole point of field
> > > > theory in biology, all the way back to the 20s, was to reduce the
> > > > number of "entities." Field theory is far more elegant than
> > > > germ-plasm theory. All the complexity involved in storing
> > > > blueprints in our chromosomes and somehow translating them into
> > > > actual bodies is washed away with the concept of a holistic field
> > > > governing development. This is not to suggest, of course, that
> > > > elegance constitutes proof.
> > > >
> > > We already know that the genes are there;
> > That we do. What we don't know is that they contain instructions for
> > the creation of a transcomputational structure known as an "organism."
> Actually, we do, for when we inject them into an empty ovum and
> apply electric current, Dolly results.
And when you turn on your radio, Eminem results. So, is Eminem contained
inside your radio?
> > And we've begun learning to create technology from this modification.
> > As Francis Bacon once said, "Truth and utility are the same thing."
> > This is a caricature of science.
> The fact that genetic modification actually modifies the resultant
> organisms cannot be avoided or overcome by any amount of huffy
> anti-science pooh-poohing by one who would have us adopt
> wholsale fantasies entirely bereft of any evidentiary support and
> only pseudocorroborated by wishful and highly unlikely
> interpretations of just-so stories.
Your local auto dealer can give you a blue car or a red car, a two-door or a
four-door, a stick or an automatic. That doesn't mean he builds the damn
thing. Yes, genes affect all kinds of features, including many in our
brains. But this cannot logically constitute proof that genes contain a
blueprint of our bodies.
> > > > I know of that specific example, and if
> > > > indeed birds took up the habit after four years, and all the
> > > > previous birds were long dead, how do you explain than that the
> > > > new generation got hold of such a habit !? There weren't any birds
> > > > left from where young ones could possibly learn how to open milk
> > > > bottles !
> > > >
> > > I think that they have a life span exceeding four years.
> > Well, the ornithologists who studied this case disagreed. But then
> > the logic in your hand is worth more than a few experts in the bush.
> Prove that contention, complete with precise breed and
> ornithologically based longevity characteristics, or withdraw it
I already cited the source. But for you, Joe, I'll cite it again: Fisher
and Hinde, "The opening of milk bottles by birds," British Birds,
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 : Mon Aug 20 2001 - 08:15:38 BST