|
Hello everyone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
|
