Re: Copies vs. Originals (Re: MD Re:MEMES)

[RISKYBIZ9]

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