Hello everyone
"Jonathan B. Marder" wrote:
>
> Hi Dan, Roger and all
>
> I'm enjoying your exchange - thanks for the invitation to participate.
Hi Jonathan
Thanks for responding!
>
> ROGER
> >When genetic patterns replicate, how true do
> >they have to be to be considered a copy?
> >And is there any original DNA?
>
> DAN
> Well perhaps someone like Jonathan could answer that one better than I.
> Universe seems to be a ever regenerating process in which copying is
> prohibited, at least in the context of every day reality. Universe seems
> to maintain just the right balance between total chaos and infinite
> sameness, or so our perceptions tell us. But who is doing the
> determining as to truth? What is, is. Reality is continuous and yet
> discrete simultaneously.
>
> JONATHAN
> Expecting me to make comments about DNA as a biologist may be a
> diversion.
> The pattern is a definition - if the definition is a particular sequence
> of nucleotides, then there is no "copy" vs. "original".
Hi Jonathan
Yes, as we originally began our discussion on memes, this is somewhat of
a diversion. You're right. Roger, shame on you. What are we doing
discussing DNA? Still, there are copies of originals too, right? Say the
Mona Lisa or any famous painting. Or Elvis. Why is a particular sequence
of nucleotides not considered an original if that is what the researcher
is defining? In other words, don't we have to originally know what we're
looking for before we can define it? If not, what criteria do we use?
>
> Let me illustrate with a few contasting examples:
>
> ****
> If I went to a live performance of Beethoven's Fifth, I wouldn't say
> that I heard a "copy" of the work.
> ****
> The definition of a "signature" is both the act of signing and the
> product. If you duplicate the product without the act, this is indeed a
> copy (or a forgery!).
I recall when I worked for a large corporation my check was never signed
by the president himself but his signature was always stamped on it. So
the value (if I may be so bold as to substitute value for definition) of
a signature doesn't necessarily lie in the act as the copy is treated as
real within certain contexts. By authorizing his signature to be stamped
on the checks, the act of signing has been duplicated yet the value of
the product remains identical as if the president signed each check by
hand. Henry Ford may have been the first to put this principle to work
with his assembly line production of cars early in the 20th century.
> ****
> Whether or not you can step into the same river twice depends on how you
> define the river.
> ****
Well yes, by even defining the river we learn to value certain aspects
of river while simultaneously ignoring others. And language allows us to
transfer certain aspects of river between ourselves in a very complex
interaction of context resulting in our concept of river. But these
"concepts" are in no way separate from the aspects they represent.
> Each oscillation of a wave is just as "real" as the first - no question
> of copying here.
> ****
> Finally, one can can regard movement as a series of transient copies of
> an object displaced incrementally along the time and space axes. This
> might fit a physicists description, but when we talk about a moving
> object, we are talking about the "real" thing, not copies.
> ****
>
> Sorry if this muddles things, but otherwise I think this "copy" vs.
> "original" discussion is going to be an unproductive distraction.
No muddle at all. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Dan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST