Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA20022 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 20 Aug 2001 08:43:55 +0100 From: <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 02:46:46 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The "logic" meme Message-ID: <3B807A16.24999.BA622E@localhost> In-reply-to: <009501c12902$525bb5e0$c024f4d8@teddace> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On 19 Aug 2001, at 15:57, Dace wrote:
> From: <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?
Explain how genes which do not contain such a template can yet
channell the damned thing, and from where, and by what medium,
and how it is coded, and where your EVIDENCE is that such a
fantasy is anything more than the fever dream of some scientifically
illiterate brain! You CAN'T! And do you know WHY you can't????
Because it DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! And WHY doesn't it
work that way? Because it works ANOTHER way; a way we
understand to the degree that we are actually able to purposefully
manipulate it. You're becoming a more persistent memebot than
the worst I've seen here with your continual snake-oil hawking. It's
disgusting, and probably the kind of thing that floods SERIOUS
thoughts and thinkers off this list!
> > > 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 wholesale
> > 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.
Your assumption of a blueprint is tantamount to the assumption of
a blueprint reader. Both are cognitive errors; it's just that the
second is more readily recognizable, since creationists have been
trying to sell it since before the Scopes Monkey trial. What use, I
might ask you, would a blueprint be without a blueprint READER?
NONE WHATSOEVER! The growth of a living organism is an
extremely complex chemical chain reaction, which blindly
proceeds from the formation of the zygote onwards, and neither
needs nor receives astral radio messages from beyond the grave in
orderr to do so.
> > > > > 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
> > forthwith.
> 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, 42:347-357.
Quote the paragraphs where it says that the birds' lifespans are
less than four years, for this is extremely unusual for bird species
(outside of hummingbirds); most live more than twelve years, and
some species of parrots outlive us. Since I do not have the
references to check your veracity and would not put it beyond you
to fabricate same in the service of your memetic obsession, I ask
others on this list to please check same.
> 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 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 - 08:49:43 BST