RE: Dawkins etc

From: Lawrence DeBivort (
Date: Fri Sep 07 2001 - 18:28:38 BST

  • Next message: Dace: "Re: FW: England humour"

    Received: by id SAA10520 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:29:07 +0100
    From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <>
    To: <>
    Subject: RE: Dawkins etc
    Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:28:38 -0400
    Message-ID: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
    In-Reply-To: <004701c13721$501cd5c0$3724f4d8@teddace>
    Importance: Normal
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
    Precedence: bulk

    Hi, Ted, the difference between electromagnetism and gravity on the one
    hand, and 'MR' on the other, is that I can readily do conclusive experiments
    and acquire direct experience with the first (e.g. compasses, magnetos and
    falling) whereas I can't with your 'MR.' So 'MR' just remains a set of words
    of at best uncertain reference to any real-world phenomenon -- unless you
    can provide a better statement of what 'it' does and how.

    Stating that:

    > As properties of nature
    > they require no explanation.


    > The point of a real explanation is that it needs no explanation of its
    own. >

    is not sufficient to expalin away the lack of any real statement of 'what'
    and 'how.'

    > How are macromolecules molded in living structures? Memory, of course.

    Saying 'of course' does not make it so, and one can imagine many other ways
    of providing for such cellular evolution (not 'molding', as this choice of
    wording necessarily implies the unsupported existence of a 'mold', which is
    what your idea of 'MR' requires, if I understand it correctly). Agreed that
    this is far from being understood, and thus one at this point can't say that
    ANY one theory is 'of course' the right one.

    > If we can prove that *intrinsic* forms
    > resonate over time, then we've explained memory according to a fundamental
    > property of nature.

    Without worrying yet about proof, it might simply be useful to be able to
    state a coherent, non-metaphoric description of the physical properties of
    how 'form' resonates, and how an unshaped or evolving medium might via this
    'resonance' be influenced to take on the form. Giving a name to this
    concept does not constitute making such a statement, no matter how catchy or
    repeated the name is.

    I hope these comments help bring focus to what the 'MR' discussion requires,
    in my opinion, for it to become useful.

    Statements like: "As properties of nature they require no explanation" leave
    me pessimistic that 'MR' will be treated to such a discussion.

    Ted, I do thank you for your responses to my queries. If any such thing as
    'MR' exists, you have a yeoman's work ahead of you.

    In friendship,

    - Lawrence

    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 Sep 07 2001 - 18:33:55 BST