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

Helmut, Now you are talking! Excellent post. "Interaction" is one way of taking relational logic seriously. But it does not follow that "explanation" (if based on scientific evidence, may not have any objective definition. Or whatever the term used. I would prefer the expression: "objective

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"

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

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

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

    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

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

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