Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Jerry Rhee]

As per how the Wolpert quote ought to lead, please try a google search for:
The size of embryonic fields is, surprisingly, usually less than 50 cells
in any direction.

And if you're concerned of where actually the ambiguity lies, I'd recommend
looking up bicoid or wnt in morphogenesis.

Best,
Jerry R

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Jerry Rhee  wrote:

> kirsti, list:
>
> thanks for your response.  I am well aware of certain things and not so of
> others.  But when I raise attention to the sizing and scaling problem, I am
> concerned with future objections.  It is with that intention I said what I
> said.  For instance, why do you not even bring up the biology when you're
> so ready to bring up matters that are of importance for you?
>
> "Thus an "idea" is the substance of an actual unitary thought or fancy;
> but "Idea," nearer Plato 's idea of
> *ἰδέα*, denotes anything whose Being consists in its mere capacity for
> getting fully represented, regardless of any person's faculty or impotence
> to represent it."
>
> Best,
> Jerry R
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:46 AM,  wrote:
>
>> Jerry R., list
>>
>> The question of "sizing" electromagnetic "fields" is not the kind of
>> question to be posed first. (See e.g. Kaina Stoicheia). If you pose the
>> question, the answer is: Not possible to answer it.
>>
>> The problem of morphic (etc.) resonance must be tackled before any
>> measuring of any kind of size makes sense.
>>
>> If e.g. the equation of quantum potential is properly studied, one can
>> see that distances vanish, only frequences remain (to be measured). With
>> kinds of requences only possible resonance matters. In principle, there are
>> just three kinds of (inter)resonance. One of them is indifference.
>>
>> Wave theory is needed, not just particle theory. They are complementary.
>> As you most likely well know.
>>
>> Also, the question of proper scale must be tackled before any attepts to
>> measure sizes in any sensible way.
>>
>> Best, Kirsti
>>
>>
>> Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 6.6.2017 22:48:
>>
>>> btw, I was also trying to call attention to the difficult problem of
>>> sizing the field, for different, complex physical/mechanical and
>>> chemical interactions operate across large domains.  It's hard to
>>> imagine a complete theory of pattern formation involving a field size
>>> of a whole, entire vertebrate embryo.  a better approach would be to
>>> treat individual, growing fields of proper size, ~ 500um.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> J
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Jerry Rhee 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> dear kirsti, list:

 I was responding to your remark:
 ""Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a
 theoretical concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining
 anything, a theory is needed, with sound experimental evidence
 backing it up."

 I posted a quote from Lewis Wolpert's theoretical paper on pattern
 formation that ought to lead you to the sound experimental evidence
 on morphogenetic fields. It's rather large and still mysterious
 once you get down to the molecular details.

 Best,
 J

 On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:42 PM,  wrote:
 Dear J. Rhee,

 You addressed you post especially to me, but I can't see any
 connection to my recent post to the list.

 Seeing the host of copies you listed up, I guess you take your
 point to be a most important one.

 Please do enlighten me on your reasons and grounds.

 With most kind regards.

 Kirsti

 Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 6.6.2017 21:21:

 Dear kirsti, all,

 "The size of embryonic fields is, surprisingly, usually less than
 50
 cells in any direction."

 Surprisingly, that makes a morphogenetic field about 500um in
 diameter.

 Best,
 J

 On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM,  wrote:

 Helmut,

 "Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a
 theoretical concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining
 anything, a theory is needed, with sound experimental evidence
 backing it up.

 Do you think the experimental evidence Sheldrake has been
 presenting is not sound? Are there flaws and shortcomings in his
 theory? - If so, where?

 Or are his theories just surprising and odd?

 In 1990's I got interested in Sheldrake. Took up some of his
 experiments both in detail and as wholes. Found out that they were
 exceptionally well designed and carried out.

 I did (and do) find some shortcomings in his theory, but only of
 the usual sort. They could be even better. (As any worthwhile
 theory
 should!)

 All criticism should be specified in these respects. I think.

 Best,

 Kirsti

 Helmut Raulien 

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[Jerry Rhee]

kirsti, list:

thanks for your response.  I am well aware of certain things and not so of
others.  But when I raise attention to the sizing and scaling problem, I am
concerned with future objections.  It is with that intention I said what I
said.  For instance, why do you not even bring up the biology when you're
so ready to bring up matters that are of importance for you?

"Thus an "idea" is the substance of an actual unitary thought or fancy; but
"Idea," nearer Plato 's idea of *ἰδέα*,
denotes anything whose Being consists in its mere capacity for getting
fully represented, regardless of any person's faculty or impotence to
represent it."

Best,
Jerry R

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:46 AM,  wrote:

> Jerry R., list
>
> The question of "sizing" electromagnetic "fields" is not the kind of
> question to be posed first. (See e.g. Kaina Stoicheia). If you pose the
> question, the answer is: Not possible to answer it.
>
> The problem of morphic (etc.) resonance must be tackled before any
> measuring of any kind of size makes sense.
>
> If e.g. the equation of quantum potential is properly studied, one can see
> that distances vanish, only frequences remain (to be measured). With kinds
> of requences only possible resonance matters. In principle, there are just
> three kinds of (inter)resonance. One of them is indifference.
>
> Wave theory is needed, not just particle theory. They are complementary.
> As you most likely well know.
>
> Also, the question of proper scale must be tackled before any attepts to
> measure sizes in any sensible way.
>
> Best, Kirsti
>
>
> Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 6.6.2017 22:48:
>
>> btw, I was also trying to call attention to the difficult problem of
>> sizing the field, for different, complex physical/mechanical and
>> chemical interactions operate across large domains.  It's hard to
>> imagine a complete theory of pattern formation involving a field size
>> of a whole, entire vertebrate embryo.  a better approach would be to
>> treat individual, growing fields of proper size, ~ 500um.
>>
>> Best,
>> J
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Jerry Rhee 
>> wrote:
>>
>> dear kirsti, list:
>>>
>>> I was responding to your remark:
>>> ""Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a
>>> theoretical concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining
>>> anything, a theory is needed, with sound experimental evidence
>>> backing it up."
>>>
>>> I posted a quote from Lewis Wolpert's theoretical paper on pattern
>>> formation that ought to lead you to the sound experimental evidence
>>> on morphogenetic fields. It's rather large and still mysterious
>>> once you get down to the molecular details.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> J
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:42 PM,  wrote:
>>> Dear J. Rhee,
>>>
>>> You addressed you post especially to me, but I can't see any
>>> connection to my recent post to the list.
>>>
>>> Seeing the host of copies you listed up, I guess you take your
>>> point to be a most important one.
>>>
>>> Please do enlighten me on your reasons and grounds.
>>>
>>> With most kind regards.
>>>
>>> Kirsti
>>>
>>> Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 6.6.2017 21:21:
>>>
>>> Dear kirsti, all,
>>>
>>> "The size of embryonic fields is, surprisingly, usually less than
>>> 50
>>> cells in any direction."
>>>
>>> Surprisingly, that makes a morphogenetic field about 500um in
>>> diameter.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> J
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM,  wrote:
>>>
>>> Helmut,
>>>
>>> "Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a
>>> theoretical concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining
>>> anything, a theory is needed, with sound experimental evidence
>>> backing it up.
>>>
>>> Do you think the experimental evidence Sheldrake has been
>>> presenting is not sound? Are there flaws and shortcomings in his
>>> theory? - If so, where?
>>>
>>> Or are his theories just surprising and odd?
>>>
>>> In 1990's I got interested in Sheldrake. Took up some of his
>>> experiments both in detail and as wholes. Found out that they were
>>> exceptionally well designed and carried out.
>>>
>>> I did (and do) find some shortcomings in his theory, but only of
>>> the usual sort. They could be even better. (As any worthwhile
>>> theory
>>> should!)
>>>
>>> All criticism should be specified in these respects. I think.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Kirsti
>>>
>>> Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 6.6.2017 02:52:
>>>
>>> Supplement: Sorry, Mr. Laplace, please transform into Lamarck in
>>> the
>>> below text.
>>> Lalala,
>>> Helmut
>>>
>>> Dear list members,
>>> I suggest three steps of more or less innovative thinking: 1.:
>>> Dogmaticness, 2.: Open-mindedness, 3.: Magical thinking. I think
>>> that
>>> the middle way is the best: Open minded thinking. Dogmaticness
>>> blocks
>>> the inquiry, and magical thinking reverses cause and effect and
>>> leads
>>> to false conclusions.
>>> To tell, whether a 

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[kirstima]

Jerry R., list

The question of "sizing" electromagnetic "fields" is not the kind of 
question to be posed first. (See e.g. Kaina Stoicheia). If you pose the 
question, the answer is: Not possible to answer it.


The problem of morphic (etc.) resonance must be tackled before any 
measuring of any kind of size makes sense.


If e.g. the equation of quantum potential is properly studied, one can 
see that distances vanish, only frequences remain (to be measured). With 
kinds of requences only possible resonance matters. In principle, there 
are just three kinds of (inter)resonance. One of them is indifference.


Wave theory is needed, not just particle theory. They are complementary. 
As you most likely well know.


Also, the question of proper scale must be tackled before any attepts to 
measure sizes in any sensible way.


Best, Kirsti

Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 6.6.2017 22:48:

btw, I was also trying to call attention to the difficult problem of
sizing the field, for different, complex physical/mechanical and
chemical interactions operate across large domains.  It's hard to
imagine a complete theory of pattern formation involving a field size
of a whole, entire vertebrate embryo.  a better approach would be to
treat individual, growing fields of proper size, ~ 500um.

Best,
J

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Jerry Rhee 
wrote:


dear kirsti, list:

I was responding to your remark:
""Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a
theoretical concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining
anything, a theory is needed, with sound experimental evidence
backing it up."

I posted a quote from Lewis Wolpert's theoretical paper on pattern
formation that ought to lead you to the sound experimental evidence
on morphogenetic fields. It's rather large and still mysterious
once you get down to the molecular details.

Best,
J

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:42 PM,  wrote:
Dear J. Rhee,

You addressed you post especially to me, but I can't see any
connection to my recent post to the list.

Seeing the host of copies you listed up, I guess you take your
point to be a most important one.

Please do enlighten me on your reasons and grounds.

With most kind regards.

Kirsti

Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 6.6.2017 21:21:

Dear kirsti, all,

"The size of embryonic fields is, surprisingly, usually less than
50
cells in any direction."

Surprisingly, that makes a morphogenetic field about 500um in
diameter.

Best,
J

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM,  wrote:

Helmut,

"Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a
theoretical concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining
anything, a theory is needed, with sound experimental evidence
backing it up.

Do you think the experimental evidence Sheldrake has been
presenting is not sound? Are there flaws and shortcomings in his
theory? - If so, where?

Or are his theories just surprising and odd?

In 1990's I got interested in Sheldrake. Took up some of his
experiments both in detail and as wholes. Found out that they were
exceptionally well designed and carried out.

I did (and do) find some shortcomings in his theory, but only of
the usual sort. They could be even better. (As any worthwhile
theory
should!)

All criticism should be specified in these respects. I think.

Best,

Kirsti

Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 6.6.2017 02:52:

Supplement: Sorry, Mr. Laplace, please transform into Lamarck in
the
below text.
Lalala,
Helmut

Dear list members,
I suggest three steps of more or less innovative thinking: 1.:
Dogmaticness, 2.: Open-mindedness, 3.: Magical thinking. I think
that
the middle way is the best: Open minded thinking. Dogmaticness
blocks
the inquiry, and magical thinking reverses cause and effect and
leads
to false conclusions.
To tell, whether a theory is open-minded or magical, there are two
ways, I think. One of them is theoretical, the other experimental.
The
experimental way is easy: Can the experiment be reproduced by other
experimenters in other laboratories, and will the results be the
same?

If this is so, but there is no theoretical explanation available to
explain the results, then I guess that scientists will not stop
looking for explanations until they have found them. I do not
think,
that they are afraid of being accused of pseudo-scientificness. If
they were, they would not have become scientists, but clerks or
something like that. I think, that scientists are curious, and not
remote-controlled, as conspiration-theorists often claim.
I have read somewhere the proposal, that scientists should not only
publish their successes, but also their failures. Is this being
done
now to some extent?
On the other hand, for a long time Darwinism was the dogma,
Laplacism
was refuted, it was even correctly said, that in the Soviet Union
Laplacist-like attempts of crop adaption to colder climate has lead
to
famines. But today, Laplacism has a revival, due to the discovery
of
epigenetic mechanisms.
When 

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[kirstima]

Dear Jerry R., list

No theoretical paper gives detailed enough description of the 
experiments, experimental designs & the process of conducting the 
experiments in order to check its soundness.


Which is a time consuming job & which cannot be done without being 
properly skilled in designing and conducting experimental research 
oneself. Which is what I have been doing for a couple of decades. I also 
have been teaching post-graduate students how to design and conduct 
experimental investigations for many, many years.


Your belief that e.g. Wolpert "ought to lead" to sound evidence just is 
not good enough for me.


Also, if you find Wolpert's paper/ evidence mysterious, how can you 
conclude that the evidence is sound?


Best, Kirsti




Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 6.6.2017 22:43:

dear kirsti, list:

I was responding to your remark:
""Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a
theoretical concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining
anything, a theory is needed, with sound experimental evidence backing
it up."

I posted a quote from Lewis Wolpert's theoretical paper on pattern
formation that ought to lead you to the sound experimental evidence on
morphogenetic fields.  It's rather large and still mysterious once you
get down to the molecular details.

Best,
J

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:42 PM,  wrote:


Dear J. Rhee,

You addressed you post especially to me, but I can't see any
connection to my recent post to the list.

Seeing the host of copies you listed up, I guess you take your
point to be a most important one.

Please do enlighten me on your reasons and grounds.

With most kind regards.

Kirsti

Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 6.6.2017 21:21:

Dear kirsti, all,

"The size of embryonic fields is, surprisingly, usually less than
50
cells in any direction."

Surprisingly, that makes a morphogenetic field about 500um in
diameter.

Best,
J

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM,  wrote:

Helmut,

"Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a
theoretical concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining
anything, a theory is needed, with sound experimental evidence
backing it up.

Do you think the experimental evidence Sheldrake has been
presenting is not sound? Are there flaws and shortcomings in his
theory? - If so, where?

Or are his theories just surprising and odd?

In 1990's I got interested in Sheldrake. Took up some of his
experiments both in detail and as wholes. Found out that they were
exceptionally well designed and carried out.

I did (and do) find some shortcomings in his theory, but only of
the usual sort. They could be even better. (As any worthwhile
theory
should!)

All criticism should be specified in these respects. I think.

Best,

Kirsti

Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 6.6.2017 02:52:

Supplement: Sorry, Mr. Laplace, please transform into Lamarck in
the
below text.
Lalala,
Helmut

Dear list members,
I suggest three steps of more or less innovative thinking: 1.:
Dogmaticness, 2.: Open-mindedness, 3.: Magical thinking. I think
that
the middle way is the best: Open minded thinking. Dogmaticness
blocks
the inquiry, and magical thinking reverses cause and effect and
leads
to false conclusions.
To tell, whether a theory is open-minded or magical, there are two
ways, I think. One of them is theoretical, the other experimental.
The
experimental way is easy: Can the experiment be reproduced by other
experimenters in other laboratories, and will the results be the
same?

If this is so, but there is no theoretical explanation available to
explain the results, then I guess that scientists will not stop
looking for explanations until they have found them. I do not
think,
that they are afraid of being accused of pseudo-scientificness. If
they were, they would not have become scientists, but clerks or
something like that. I think, that scientists are curious, and not
remote-controlled, as conspiration-theorists often claim.
I have read somewhere the proposal, that scientists should not only
publish their successes, but also their failures. Is this being
done
now to some extent?
On the other hand, for a long time Darwinism was the dogma,
Laplacism
was refuted, it was even correctly said, that in the Soviet Union
Laplacist-like attempts of crop adaption to colder climate has lead
to
famines. But today, Laplacism has a revival, due to the discovery
of
epigenetic mechanisms.
When Sheldrake was claiming, that rats in Australia can be easier
convinced to jump through a burning ring, if before rats in England
have been taught to do that, you might ask: What should be the
carrying mechanism for this effect? Maybe there is something we do
not
know now, just as we did not know about the epigenetic methyl
molecules.
But: "Morphogenetic field" is not an explanation. Neither is the
"Dormative principle" of opium, and neither is "Habit". This
Peircean
"Habit" sort of disturbs me, because it is not an explanation. It
is
merely an observation. I think it 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

[John F Sowa]

Jerry, Kirsti, Gary R, Helmut, list,

I didn't respond to some earlier points in this thread because I was
tied up with other things.  But I looked into Sheldrake's writings and
the earlier writings on morphogenesis by Conrad Waddington, a pioneer
in genetics, epigenetics, and morphogenesis.  For a 1962 article about
Waddington's theories, see 
http://www.microbiologyresearch.org/docserver/fulltext/micro/29/1/mic-29-1-25.pdf?expires=1496787497=id=guest=4E2DC93EE4641BFAB00E8253006B4B2C 
.


Alan Turing (1952) wrote a mathematical analysis "The chemical basis
of morphogenesis" and cited a 1940 book _Organisers and Genes_ by
Waddington.  See http://cba.mit.edu/events/03.11.ASE/docs/Turing.pdf

Sheldrake has a PhD in biochemistry from Cambridge, and he spent a year
at Harvard studying the philosophy of science.  His primary reference
is to Waddington's work.  But many scientists believe that he crossed
the thin line between genius and crackpot:  he took a reasonable
hypothesis in biology and mixed it with dubious speculations about
parapsychology.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

For a sympathetic interview with Sheldrake by a skeptic, see
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/scientific-heretic-rupert-sheldrake-on-morphic-fields-psychic-dogs-and-other-mysteries/

Some comments on previous notes:

Jerry

Are you saying  Hamiltonian:Lagrangian :: local state:global state?


No.  I was just saying that the Hamiltonian and the Lagrangian are
related:  both are global functions of a system, and local equations
of motion can be derived from them.  For any physical system, the
Hamiltonian represents the total energy, and the Lagrangian represents
the total action (it has the dimensions of energy x time).

Kirsti

Are there dogmas in science? Could there be?


Gary R,

Certainly not holding dogmatic views is an ideal of scientific...


Science, as science, does not have dogmas.  As Peirce stated in his
First Rule of Reason, "Do not block the way of inquiry."

But scientists are human, and some are dogmatic.  They might
do everything they can to block hypotheses they don't like.

Kirsti

If so, how could one tell?


Sometimes it's hard to tell.  A theory that has proved to be
reliable for a wide range of applications is hard to give up.
Tycho Brahe, for example, correctly believed that the Ptolemaic
theory of epicycles was more accurate than the circles in
the theory by Copernicus.

But it was Kepler, Brahe's assistant, who discovered that
elliptical orbits were more accurate than the epicycles.

Kirsti

Are there flaws and shortcomings in [Sheldrake's] theory?


People have been trying to find evidence for parapsychology for
centuries without success.  There is nothing wrong with considering
the idea as an interesting hypothesis.  But Sheldrake seemed to be
just as dogmatic as anybody that he was criticizing.

Helmut

"Morphogenetic field" is not an explanation. Neither is the
"Dormative principle" of opium, and neither is "Habit".


Words, by themselves, can't explain anything.  Peirce admitted
that the following two statements are different ways of stating
the same observation:

   Opium puts people to sleep.
   Opium has dormitive virtue.

By applying Ockham's razor, nominalists would "shave away"
the concept of "dormitive virtue" because it is an unnecessary
assumption.  But Peirce said that the assumption that there
exists some underlying principle or substance can suggest a useful
methodology:  analyze the chemicals in opium to find some substace
that has "dormitive virtue".

In this case, the chemists discovered morphine as the common
chemical that had that dormitive virtue.  The neuroscientists
then began the search for naturally occurring chemicals in
the brain, and they discovered endomorphins -- whose structure
had that critical "dormitive virtue".

In summary, the hypothesis of "dormitive virtue" inspired
a successful search for chemicals and mechanisms tht might have
been overlooked.

John

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .