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 <jerryr...@gmail.com> 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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> 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 <jerryr...@gmail.com> >>> 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, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> 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, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> 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 is necessary to inquire about the >>>> ways how "habit" exactly is formed, stored (memorized), >>>> transmitted, >>>> and so on. >>>> Best, >>>> Helmut >>>> >>>> 02. Juni 2017 um 08:55 Uhr >>>> "John Collier" <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote: >>>> >>>> I am not sure that these "dogmas" are not merely working hypotheses >>>> that have served well. >>>> >>>> But there is some reason to think scientists (if not science) can >>>> be >>>> dogmatic. A colleague and occasional co-author of mine is one of >>>> the >>>> world's experts on Douglas fir. He submitted a grant application >>>> noting that he had found variation that could be explained neither >>>> by >>>> genetics nor by environment, and he wanted to explore >>>> self-organization during development. This is a commonplace now, >>>> but >>>> thirty years ago he failed to get the grant because his referees >>>> (not >>>> Douglas fir experts) said that he just hadn't looked hard enough >>>> for a >>>> selectionist explanation. >>>> >>>> John Collier >>>> >>>> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate >>>> >>>> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal >>>> >>>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier [1] [1] [2] >>>> >>>> >>>> FROM: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com] >>>> SENT: Thursday, 01 June 2017 11:19 PM >>>> TO: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >>>> SUBJECT: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake >>>> TED >>>> Talk >>>> >>>> John S, list, >>>> >>>> John S wrote: "As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists >>>> agree, >>>> nothing is a dogma of science." Well, I would certainly agree that >>>> nothing _ought _to be a dogma. >>>> >>>> And yet Peirce railed against "the mechanical philosophy," >>>> materialism, necessitarianism (recall his response to Camus in >>>> "Reply >>>> to the Necessitarians"), reducing cosmology to the nothing-but-ism >>>> of >>>> actions/reactions of 2ns, etc. >>>> >>>> Certainly not holding dogmatic views is an _ideal_ of scientific, >>>> but >>>> I do not agree you in that it seems to me that any number of >>>> scientists in Peirce's day and in ours as well yet hold them, >>>> whether >>>> they would say they do, or think they do, or not. >>>> >>>> Late in life, Peirce concluded the N.A. (not including the >>>> Additaments) by writing that even "approximate acceptance of the >>>> Pragmaticist principle" has helped those who do accept it: >>>> >>>> ". . . to a mightily clear discernment of some fundamental truths >>>> that other philosophers have seen but through a mist, and most of >>>> them not at all. Among such truths -- all of them old, of course, >>>> yet acknowledged by few -- I reckon their denial of >>>> necessitarianism; their rejection of any "consciousness" different >>>> from a visceral or other external sensation; their acknowledgment >>>> that there are, in a Pragmatistical sense, Real habits (which >>>> Really >>>> would produce effects, under circumstances that may not happen to >>>> get actualized, and are thus Real generals); and their insistence >>>> upon interpreting all hypostatic abstractions in terms of what they >>>> would or might (not actually will) come to in the concrete. . . . " >>>> >>>> (CP 6.485). >>>> >>>> It seems to me that Peirce is clear--and while here he seems to be >>>> addressing philosophers in particular, elsewhere and frequently he >>>> argues this for science more generally--that many thinkers >>>> (philosophers and scientists alike) do indeed hold such dogmas as >>>> "necessitarianism" and "mechanism" (==Sheldrake's slide for dogma >>>> #1 >>>> "EVERYTHING IS ESSENTIALLY MECHANICAL). That Peirce's views were >>>> far >>>> from dogmatic follows for me from his theory of inquiry including >>>> his >>>> pragmaticism. >>>> >>>> Again, I don't necessarily agree with Sheldrake's list of putatie >>>> dogmas, and I would certainly fully agree with you if by "nothing >>>> is a >>>> dogma of science" you mean that this should be an essential maxim >>>> of >>>> the ethics of science. But just as Peirce argued that every >>>> scientist >>>> has a metaphysics--even as certain scientists argue against >>>> metaphysics altogether, that everyone of them ought take pains at >>>> discovering what are her perhaps hidden metaphysical >>>> presuppositions--I think that even those who claim that "nothing is >>>> a >>>> dogma of science" (but, I must quickly add, certainly not you, >>>> John) >>>> still many yet hold certain dogmatic views, and that these can >>>> enter >>>> into even whole 'schools' in certain fields of scientific endeavor. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Gary R >>>> >>>> GARY RICHMOND >>>> >>>> PHILOSOPHY AND CRITICAL THINKING >>>> >>>> COMMUNICATION STUDIES >>>> >>>> LAGUARDIA COLLEGE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK >>>> >>>> C 745 >>>> >>>> 718 482-5690 [2] >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:34 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 5/31/2017 10:48 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: >>>> >>>> I agree that #3 is not a dogma of science. >>>> >>>> As Peirce emphasized and nearly all scientists agree, >>>> nothing is a dogma of science. >>>> >>>> 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 [2] [3] [1] . >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- 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 [2] [3] [1] . >>>> ----------------------------- 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 [2] [3] [1] . >>>> >>>> Links: >>>> ------ >>>> [1] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [2] [3] >>>> [2] http://web.ncf.ca/collier [1] [1] >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> 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 [2] [3] . >>>> >>>> Links: >>>> ------ >>>> [1] http://web.ncf.ca/collier [1] >>>> [2] tel:718%20482-5690 >>>> [3] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [2] >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Links: >>> ------ >>> [1] http://web.ncf.ca/collier >>> [2] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm >>> >> >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
