Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA20097 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 20 Aug 2001 08:50:00 +0100 From: <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 02:52:55 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Multiple-minimum Message-ID: <3B807B87.22754.C003D0@localhost> In-reply-to: <008301c128fb$d68928e0$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 15:11, Dace wrote:
> From: <email@example.com>
> > > > According to the evolutionary model, useful memes enhanced the
> > > > reproductive success of those brains that were more permeable to
> > > > them at the same time that brains selected for more brain-
> > > > permeable useful memes; co-evolution, from both ends.
> > >
> > > It's interesting that your usual teleological approach actually
> > > works in this example. That's because memes function in the
> > > context of the human mind. In the arena of reflexive
> > > consciousness, goals alone can determine behavior. Given our
> > > capacity for self-determination, we humans can select and pursue
> > > goals without any help from physical or morphic causation. Amino
> > > acid chains, on the other hand, can't intentionally fix in their
> > > minds the correct protein configuration and then methodically
> > > pursue this vision. They have to be guided, both deterministically
> > > by physical properties and probabilistically by morphic resonance.
> > >
> > The morphic resonance fantasy is unnecessary; As the
> > mathemetician LaPlace answered Napoleon, when he inquired why
> > there was no mention of a Grand Designer in his work, "I have no
> > need of such a hypothesis." The physico-chemical lock and key
> > properties of the chains and the chaperones are quite enough, as has
> > been voluminously explained to you (and not just by me).
> No one has explained anything. The so-called "multiple-minimum"
> problem remains outstanding. This means there are numerous possible
> minimum energy configurations, and no one knows why the correct one
> gets selected.
Chaperones, as has already been explained to you, but apparently
has not permeated your morphic filters. Obviously, nothing but
your fantasy explanation, no matter how well it is scientifically
supported, counts for you any more.
> According to morphic theory, the same protein configuration should
> occur even when composed of entirely different sequences of amino
> acids. This is exactly what happens. Among the serine proteases, for
> instance, only 40% of the positions in the polypeptide chains are
> occupied by the same amino acids. Yet they are strikingly similar,
> with most of the twists and turns being identical. Same thing with
> the hemoglobins. They all have virtually the same structure, yet none
> of them share more than three amino acids out of the 140 to 150 slots
> along the chain.
> Sheldrake isn't denying the importance of the chemical properties of
> polypeptides. He's merely pointing out that these properties alone
> cannot account for protein-folding.
When the amino acids are different yet the combinatory
configurations formed by their bindings are similar, this would be
expected to happen. And as far as only three out of 150, this is
exceedingly strange, as there are only 22 amino acids.
> 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 - 08:54:41 BST