> I am saying that there is a 100% relationship between the history/background
> of a behavior and the cells which make up the individual (though whether the
> particular cells belong to an individual exhibiting behavior seems
> irrelevent to what I am pointing out). The relationship is a *historical*
> link (not physical or mental, necessarily)
[clip stuff about consciousness that I don't quite get, but would rather
explore in a separate thread so to lesson my confusion here, on this one]
> So, yes, the connection is a "recognition"; but more than that, the
> process(es) is represented in their physical form.
>
> If there is only one time-line, one history for all objects; then, the same
> processes which built the cell also "builds" behavior. Something like "form
> follows function", I'm saying that "form follows process". I do not see how
> we can have two processes from one historical development (one time
> line)--though perhaps two offshoots from the same developmental process?
A binurfurcation(sp?) perhaps? Like what happens with a fractal's
equation as it develops?
> So, as the history is the same (process), so cell and behavior are the same
> (form).
>
> I am guessing there may be several basic processes--offshoots of one main
> process (the history of man, the history of woman, the history of
> humankind/the history of a sperm, the history of an egg, the history of
> humankind). I may be assuming too much when I say that memetics is such a
> basic process that a physical structure will be found which has made this
> process into a recognizable form (structure)...I don't think I am off base.
I don't think you're off base either, now that I understand what you're
saying. (And thanks for clarifying!) Although I too wonder if there is
/really/ a physical structure at the root. Maybe a property of the
interaction of physical structures, instead. Like a primary physics of
processes, maybe?
-Prof. Tim