Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA10520 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:29:07 +0100 From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: Dawkins etc Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:28:38 -0400 Message-ID: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAIEAJCGAA.email@example.com> 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 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
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.
> As properties of nature
> they require no explanation.
> The point of a real explanation is that it needs no explanation of its
is not sufficient to expalin away the lack of any real statement of 'what'
> 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.
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