Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA06940 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 27 Aug 2001 03:18:50 +0100 From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 21:22:56 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Shaggy Dog vs. Psychic Dog Message-ID: <3B8968B0.31624.4F564B@localhost> In-reply-to: <004401c12e6e$01935e80$6f24f4d8@teddace> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> > Biochemistry serves as an important tool to increasing knowledge of
> > how biological systems work. What role would studies of supposedly
> > psychic
> > serve?
> What they demonstrate is that organisms can't be comprehended
> according to contact mechanics. We must accept, as physicists did one
> hundred years ago, the existence of action-at-a-distance.
What physicists still agree on is that there cannot exist info-
communication in the absence of a pathway between transmitter
and receiver, a carrier for the message, and a code in which it is
framed (Shannon and Weaver). The existence of these factors for
MR has notable NOT been demonstrated.
> > Gilbert, Opitz, and Raff (1996) mention a likening of "the homeotic
> > gene complex" and "the Rosetta stone". Would ideas like MR have led
> > researchers toward homeotic genes?
> Sheldrake isn't denying the importance of standard research. He's
> just putting it in a different context, one that can explain things
> like life, organic wholes, and memory on their own terms.
Sheldrake's pseudoexplanatory just-so stories serve only to
mystify their adherents and to foreclose their engaging in genuine
> > Of these gene complexes Gilbert, Opitz, and Raff say:
> > "Their homologies enable us to translate our knowledge of
> > *Drosophila* development into the unknown realm of vertebrate
> > embryogenesis." Alas archetypes, sans the collective unconscious and
> > sans morphic resonance.
> > of us respect Goethe et al (the morphological idealists) without
> > needing
> > get spooky about it.
> > Gilbert SF, Opitz JM, and Raff RA. 1996. Resynthesizing evolutionary
> > and developmental biology. Developmental Biology (173): 357-372
> Will definitely take a look at this. Thanks.
> 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 27 2001 - 03:24:06 BST