> Prof. Tim wrote:
> >I don't understand this paragraph.
>
> I saying there has to be a 100% correlation between memetic vector and a
> constant...I call the constant environment. You say that in figuring the
> vector everything which matches up is averaged to zero.
Where do I say that? I say nothing of the sort. A memetic vector is not
something that you "figure out". You may be able to chart tendencies, but
it is not a logical switch that is either 1 or null.
> I say that if the
> environment (or some constant) is correlated to this vector; then what
> matches will correspond 100%--will not be averaged to nothing and
canceled
> out. You are working from a null hypothesis and averaging all
correlations
> about the central point according to chance (the typical form of
> correlation):
No, I'm afraid that is not at all what I am doing. Again you misunderstand
and assume far to much as a result.
> I am saying that this equation seems to revert back to chance
> recombination and does not allow for "intention" and/or self-order. I
> proposed that self order was merely complexification of the environment:
> Your equations do not allow for an ordered evolution (which may be a fear
of
> being called a "creationist"...that is you seem to have problems with the
> idea of self-order or intent).
You're projecting again, Brett.
-Prof. Tim