Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA07157 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 27 Aug 2001 04:45:22 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [184.108.40.206] From: "Scott Chase" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Song of Myself Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:42:47 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F32tXsL1c00goZolmRB00012ace@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Aug 2001 03:42:48.0080 (UTC) FILETIME=[56ED6100:01C12EAA] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
>Subject: Re: Song of Myself
>Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 21:43:27 -0500
>On 26 Aug 2001, at 11:56, Dace wrote:
> > From: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > > Sheldrake is suggesting that the form of an organism somehow stays
> > > > with the present, even when its materialization has long since
> > > > vanished. This is simply a roundabout way of saying that if
> > > > memory is real, it's holistic, not particulate.
> > > >
> > > And this idea of an ethereal or astral memory, in the complete and
> > > utter absence of any site or mechanism for same, is itself an
> > > anthromorphization and a (very old) mystically driven error.
> > > Platonic Forms, 'somehow' hovering in the celestial spheres, to
> > > inform the mundane world, long after their dead carriers have
> > > dissolved away; it makes for okay greek literature, and even
> > > possesses a seductive touch of poesy, but scientific and empirically
> > > veridical, it is not.
> > Platonic Forms don't evolve. They transcend time altogether.
> > Sheldrake criticizes Goodwin on the grounds that his "generative
> > equations" are unaffected by the emergence or extinction of the
> > species whose forms they describe.
>Whether a species of starfish is dead or alive, five arms
>mathematically works best from a geometric stability point of view,
>just as five legs does for rolling chairs.
> > In the morphic model, there's no
> > field until there's a species in resonance with its past. As the
> > species evolves, its form changes. Thus what it resonates with also
> > changes. Fields evolve right along with the organisms they govern.
>This would make the genetic evolutionary evolution of the organism
>causally responsible for the changes in such a field, rendering the
>very idea, much less the existence, of such a field Occamically
>superfluous. Why doncha borrow one of those groovy field
>detectors from the scientologists?
Didn't they "borrow" the skin galvanometer from Jung? He put it to good use
in his complex theory at least IIRC. Just like the engram was yanked from
[grumble, snort, chortle]
These days neuroimaging technology [PET and fMRI] has replaced archaic
devices such as galvanometers as a means of studying mental states.
> > The parts of a
> > machine are manufactured separately and then placed together. Its
> > form is imposed onto it, rather than arising intrinsically, and is
> > separable from the matter that comprises it.
>That's because we build it. We also build genetically engineered
>living organisms. And your point is?
Have you personally taken part in building any genetically engineered
organisms? I haven't.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
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 - 04:49:59 BST