Hello everyone
RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
>
Hi Jonathan
For what it's worth I do agree with you. A definition must be
unambiguous. But does that mean the definition is equal to the value?
>>
>
> 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.)
Hi Roger
Perhaps it is just a matter of language semantics but evolution does not
depend on anything. If I might suggest a different term, evolution is
more the rendering of reality. In that context, copy or imitation fall
short of adequately describing reality. A copy: 1) to make a copy;
reproduce; duplicate. 2) to make an imitation or reproduction. 3) to
admit being copied. 4) a pattern given for imitation. (Practical
Standard Dictionary)
In each of these definitions there is an underlying assumption of an
original and a copy, which Jonathan warns against. A rendering on the
other hand seems more in keeping with the signature idea. Render: 1) to
make of or change to a specified character; cause to be. 2) to bestow or
provide; give. 3) to give in answer to requirement of duty. 4) to
reproduce the character or spirit of. 5) to express in another language;
translate. 6) to return by way of requital or retribution; to give back.
Just a thought.
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