Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA00633 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 24 Aug 2001 04:45:43 +0100 From: <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:49:44 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: "Newage sewage" Part 2 Message-ID: <3B858888.18824.122E74E@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > > > His latest book is entitled Dogs That Know
> > > > When Their Owners Are Coming Home: And Other
> > > > of Animals. He prefers a romantic vision of the past to the
> > > > bleak picture of a world run by technocrats who want to
> > > > Nature even if that means destroying much of the
> > > > the process. In short, he prefers metaphysics to science,
> > > > he seems to think he can do the former but call it the latter.
> > >
> > > Sheldrake is allergic to metaphysics. He offers no
> > > explanation of either origins or memory. He leaves these
> > > open.
> > >
> > His morphic resonential god is a mystery? How convenient!
> > Actually, though, mataphysics is a dead discipline in serious
> > philosophical circles; people look beneath rather than beyond
> > physical world (for beyond verification is the realm of belief, not
> > knowledge), and have thus rejected metaphysics in favor of
> > the consequences of which CAN be tested. But there is not a
> > extant successful test for the existence of morphic fields, just a
> > lot of speculative fiction possessed of varying degrees of literary
> > cachet.
> Again, you've evaded the point. Calling his theory
> no meaning or validity. There's no effort here to get the truth
> Sheldrake. It's just abuse and distortion.
No distortion is required to abuse such claptrap, only the truth
> Morphic fields can be demonstrated according to non-contact
> from one organism to another. Sheldrake produced a test
> this effect between pets and their owners. A skeptic by the
> Wiseman tried to refute Sheldrake by replicating the experiment
> to his astonishment, generated exactly the same data. No one
> successfully refuted Sheldrake's findings in this test.
As has been pointed out in another post, this claim is blatantly
> > > > What the rest of
> > > > the scientific world terms lawfulness--the tendency of
> > > > follow patterns we call laws of nature--Sheldrake calls
> > > > resonance.
> > >
> > > The concept of eternal, mathematical "laws of nature" is
> > > transcendent, i.e. "metaphysical." Sheldrake regards
> > > laws as being embedded in nature. Material existence is
> > > inconceivable without such properties as entropy and the
> > > toward equilibrium. But when it comes to the physical
> > > and the forms of particles, these do not follow from first
> > > principles and are therefore explainable according to morphic
> > > resonance. Rather than being shaped by "God" or "eternal
> > > electrons are stabilized by habit. The first electrons formed
> > > randomly and then the template has been maintained ever
> > > through resonance.
> > >
> > This 'form contagion' just doesn't wash, especially when one
> > considers that many of the particles formed have never come
> > contact with any others, and they are too basic and primordial
> > own receivers of such instructions, especially during their
> > formation, even if there could be such a thing as a universal
> > transmitter at this point - or any point; but now, Sheldrake
> > require many different ones - and how were they formed? Not
> > morphic resonance. And how do they work? Unknown - no
> > can be found.
> Like-affects-like. No different than mass in the case of planets or
> positive and negative poles of magnets. No need for a "universal
> transmitter." Every organic form contributes to the strength of the
> field associated with that form.
This smacks of Kirlian photography and seance auras, as well as
the discredited like-affects-like herbological Doctrine of Signatures,
which was dumped on the ashbin of pseudocience about the same
time as the phlogiston theory of fire. Mantrically repeating the
nostrum 'like-affects-like', as if it actually meant something, cannot
substitute for a detectable, observable and tweakable mechanism.
> > > > He
> > > > describes it as a kind of memory in things determined not
> > > > their inherent natures, but by repetition.
> > >
> > > "Inherent nature" is a metaphysical concept. There's no such
> > > thing in physics.
> > >
> > There's no such thing as repetition memory in physics.
> The point is that the author is unknowingly offering a
> concept at the same time that he's trying to knock Sheldrake
> with the "metaphysics" club.
Things do have self-identity. The can NOT dictate the identities of
as-yet-nonexistent other entities in the absence of some
empirically observable method of communication. To assert that
they can is not only metaphysics, but exceedingly ancient and bad
> > >Current organisms are stabilized by
> > > morphic fields, which in turn are stabilized by resonance with
> > > past, similar organisms.
> > >
> > And WHAT and WHERE are these morphic fields?
> As in magnetic fields, moprhic fields exist both outside and inside
> the objects they influence.
As if that's an answer. Give me a photograph of one, and x-ray, an
MRI of your precious MR, even. You have NO SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that such ephemera exist (mainly
because they don't).
> > > > This gives him a
> > > > conceptual framework wherein information is transmitted
> > > > mysteriously and miraculously through any amount of
> > > > time without loss of energy,
> > >
> > > Morphic resonance is based on form, not energy, so there
> > > be any energy loss in the transmission across time.
> > >
> > Form is embodied in matter, and matter is Einsteinianly
> > to energy; as Wade pointed out, this is a blatant and horribly
> > damning error (among many).
> Form is not the same as the matter with which it's associated. A
> stack of bricks is not the same as a house. The difference
> organism and a house is that the form of the organism isn't
> imposed but arises "organically" from within. This is why
> resonate with each other while houses don't. Resonance only
> with living form.
In the absence of matter, there is no form, either organic or un-,
just as in the absence of form, there can be no matter, for all
extended durational material possesses some configuration or
other, simply because it occupies spacetime. The 'within' from
which form arises is called the GENOME. The whole newage
sewage of people 'morphically resonating' whatever that could
possibly mean, reminds me of nothing so much as of James
Redfield's nauseous little newage tome THE CELESTINE
> > > The genetic model offers no
> > > explanation whatsoever for the remote control of genes over
> > > body.
> > >
> > The genetic model is mediated by mechanisms that have been
> > isolated and implemented to successfully create chosen
> > can't get much more empirical than that.
> Nobody has isolated any mechanisms by which genetic
> translated into organic structure.
> > > There isn't even a hypothesis for how it might occur which could
> > > then be tested and falsified.
> > >
> > Sure, it's been tested, and the genes for bioluminescence in
> > jellyfish make gene-spliced mice glow green, as the gene for
> > Vitamin A (carotene) in carrots causes gene-spliced rice to turn
> > yellow with it.
> This only tell us that genes play a role in organic form, not that
> they somehow code for it or control it.
The part they play is a coding for control; that is why we are able to control
it ourselves by altering them.
> > > Before we can take a critique seriously, the critic must at least
> > > demonstrate a basic understanding of the material under review.
> > > What we have here is an extended ad hominem attack punctuated with
> > > numerous factual errors. It cannot possibly serve as an effective
> > > refutation of morphic resonance.
> > >
> > Actually, it was a trenchant, decisive and devastating critique; but
> > presented to a morphic creationist, logic and evidence count for
> > little or nothing when weighed against their wishful fantasies.
> The author claimed that morphic resonance is transmitted by
> "morphogenic fields." This is completely off the wall, bears no
> relation whatsoever to the actual theory. The author has no idea
> what he's criticizing and no way of knowing that it's really false.
In fact, there IS no method or medium of transmitting shape in the
absence of contiguity that is proffered, most likely because such a
mechanism is physically impossible, and the best that Sheldrake
can do to keep his royalties rollong in (kinda like that other, more
explicitly newage sewage mystic, James Redfield), is to throw
some vague terms out there and elide the issue, secure in the
knowledge that nothing not proffered can be disproven,
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information
> 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 : Fri Aug 24 2001 - 04:54:23 BST