Brett Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
www.window.to/mindrec
--WebTV-Mail-1496167389-11874
Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
From: BrettMan35@webtv.net (Brett Robertson)
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 14:58:50 -0500
To: bohm_dialogue@rome.cis.plym.ac.uk
Subject: Genetics (was Re: the flow)
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV)
When I talk of genetics being "chance correlation about a mean of zero"
I am giving the definition of statistics. All statistics are based on
this mathematical formula which assumes that the average across all
individual scores in a group (added together and divided by the number
of individuals) equates to the number zero.
When a "thing" (behavior, or occurance of an objcet, trait, etc.) is
figured into this equation, a bell curve of possibilities (for the
existence of the thing) is represented as a *probability* that this
thing occurs. The actual 100% probability that any thing occurs within
this curve is null (according to the formula). That is, there is not a
thing we are talking about but there is a chance correlation about an
average of all similar (non) things whose sum and average (zero)
suggests, nontheless, that there is a possibility for this thing to
exist anywhere across the curve in certain quantities.
"Genetics" as a restatement of this curve says that there is not a trait
which is being studied, but that there is a possibility for the trait to
be manifest... by chance. The mechanism suggested by which this happens
is that chance is the beginning assumption and that all possibilities
are equally distributed under the curved line though that each of these
possibilities-- competes with other possibilities that negate them 100%
(chance correlation of relativistic possibilities about the mean of
zero).
If this mechanism is observed in the behavior of a group, it translates
that every member of the group is equally opposed by an "opposite"
individual, and through competition (mutual opposition), they will
destroy each other 100% so that any occurance of ordered (non-chance)
evolution will have an equal (but paradoxically a zero chance) of
survival. Genetics proposes "mutation" as the mechanism by which change
happens and assumes that all traits are equally destroyed (as they must
be for the formula to work... that is they must have no "advantage" for
survival or else the curve of chance is no longer valid).
If this formula works the same for objects (which have no intellegently
ordered survival schemes), then the *environment* similarly selects any
and all traits (or no traits, though being an objective environment,
that is assuming that something exists, the more productive way of
looking at this is that every trait is equally represented so that the
"virtual" appearence of a non-trait within the individual has an
objective counterpart which is non-virtual, objective, and an
environmental factor which *physically* negates it). Though this would
seem to leave no environment, in practice, this leaves an environment
which is non-selective or non-intelligent... that is, the environment is
equally applicable to all contingencies like a blank slate, or a control
variable against which the process of chance recombination might be
studied.
What this suggests, in a genetic sense, is that the environment
literally creates mutations from "nothing"... the theory of "spontaneous
generation" (like the outdated idea that flies are created by stagnent
water, spontaneously). This leaves open the term "mutation" as a
variable which does not apply to the formula and by which all evolution
occurs (which is not destroyed by chance recombination and which is not
selected for by a "blank" environment): It leaves *ordered* progression
of a single variable, "survival" and a theory by which this occurs,
"memetics".
Brett Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
www.window.to/mindrec
--WebTV-Mail-1496167389-11874--