Re: Song of Myself

Date: Wed Aug 22 2001 - 06:20:51 BST

  • Next message: "Re: Coordinated behavior among birds, fish, and insects"

    Received: by id GAA25402 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 06:16:44 +0100
    From: <>
    Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:20:51 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: Song of Myself
    Message-ID: <3B82FAE3.3163.6CCD87@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <006c01c12a77$56632ee0$eb25f4d8@teddace>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
    Precedence: bulk

    On 21 Aug 2001, at 12:27, Dace wrote:

    > > > > > > 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?
    > >
    > Chris wrote:
    > > So how might genes encode a radio for MR 'stuff'? How would we spot
    > > a mutation in such genes?
    > Genes don't encode anything. There's no "code."
    We read genomes like a code; we know that pairs of the four
    relevant amino acids, in certain sequences, promote production of
    certain proteins, which have particular effects. That's why they call
    it sequencing the genome.
    > There's no
    > information or instructions or program or blueprints. There's a
    > template for producing sequences of amino acids, but the rest is faery
    > tale.
    There is no 'rest', nor does there need to be; the production of
    particular proteins in combination and singly, at particular times in
    gestation, is all that is needed. These blindly and naturally, in
    accoranance with physical and chemical laws, produce/construct
    the organism.
    > Genes function in the body the same way a tuning device
    > functions in a radio. It's not as if 101.3 megahertz is somehow a
    > code describing the music that appears over that channel.
    Here comes the 'channeling Ramtha' mysticism again; this is the
    REAL fairy tale (the one for which there is NO evidence
    whatsoever, and the belief in which defies logic, reason and
    rationality). As if dead, rotted and gone organisms, their system
    configuration degraded and decayed beyond recognition, could
    nevertheless send 'messages from beyond the grave' to fertilized
    zygotes. Your idea of what genes do is about as plausible as the
    Greek idea that brains existed to cool the blood.
    > It's interesting that the "instructions" have moved from the genes to
    > the complex, nonlinear interaction of genes with each other and
    > proteins.
    This is what allows a smaller totality of components to function as
    a template for a complex organism; the complex recursive
    interactions between components multiplies their pattern storage
    capacity (by the magnitude of a factorial!).
    > The basis of morphic resonance is no different than
    > electromagentic resonance. It's all about vibration.
    OOH, it's newage sewage whutelight fluffybunny mystic
    VIBRATIONS! Hand me my Ouija board and lemme channel Kali!
    > Every structure
    > in the body has its own distinctive pattern of vibration corresponding
    > to its shape.
    Vibrations do not correspond to shape so much as they
    correspond to size and elemental composition; just check out
    tuning forks. And, BTW, vibrations do not encode the configuration
    or composition of the source, since many different configurations
    and compositions can produce the same vibrational frequency, and
    ocilloscopes and frequency generators can (each) produce many
    different ones. It just isn't feasible, or believeable.
    > The "dance" of genes and proteins is in sympathy to the
    > same dance carried out by the genes and proteins of other members of
    > its species.
    Hokay, now we have the Conga Line Theory of Harmonic
    Vibrational Frequency (swing them hips, now!), real credible to the
    credulous, and would probably gull the gullible, but it's only a just-
    so string of vague woo-woo words without a shred of evidence to
    back it up, an impossible task anyway due to a complete and
    convenient lack of testable specificity.
    > However, each individual starts with a slightly
    > different composition of genes, and this guarantees that the
    > individual will be unique. Genes account for our differences, not our
    > samenesses.
    This is perhaps the densest contention, and it arises from the
    confused idea that sameness and difference are nonrelational
    opposites, rather than being correlative opposites, that is, abstract
    ideal poles of a concrete real continuum of the more or less similar.
    > Ted
    > ===============================================================
    > 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:

    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 : Wed Aug 22 2001 - 06:21:24 BST