ROGER TO DAN AND JONATHAN
JONATHAN:
> I think this reinforces my point that it is all a question of
> definition. Your corporation REDEFINED what was considered to be the
> president's legitimate signature (presumably with the consent of the
> president himself). If someone copied MY signature and made a stamp of
> it, this would NOT be my legitimate signature.
>
ROGER:
Yes! This is why I keep going back to the progress we have made in a large
range of previous discussions on the issue of PATTERN. The issue of copying
is intertwined with the definition of what is an acceptable copy. A pattern
is a simplification of the relevant part of reality that -- in this context
-- is to be copied. Is an identical DNA squence (though built of different
proteins) as good as the original sequence? Is every number "6" as good as
any other number "6", though formed of different ink stains on different
pieces of paper or of different pixels? Is the president consenting that the
image of his signature is as good as the original? If so, in each of these
cases, then it works as a copy. If not, then it doesn't. Copying depends
upon identifying patterns and evaluating what is and is not relevant and then
duplicating that which is relevant. (In other words, it is based on Quality)
But, even here, evolution does not depend upon the process of copying being
perfect. In fact it depends upon the process being imperfect! Evolution
requires some element of variation. (As a reminder, the 3 essential elements
of evolution are selection, replication and variation.)
Rog
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