not to change the subject, but
- Started
- Last post
- 58 Responses
- buKabu0
did you read the selfish gene recently? half the book is dedicated to altruism
but the real point is that memes fill in that gap, genes and memes dont always agree, this is most easily explained by this example, genes dont like birth control, but once, for what ever reason, memes for birth control are around, genes cant act fast enough, and the memes tend to win
which is to say, like i started this thread, mother theresa's mind was infected with, among other things, the memeplex virus known as catholicism, so yes, dawkins was in complete
- discipler0
If you begin with Dawkin's extreme Methodological Naturalism, it's easy to see how one arrives at this kind of conclusion. I don't buy it. It's the worst kind of Reductionism. The notion that selfless people who live for the good of others, is a fundamental flaw!? Claptrap.
Some would suggest instead, that it's Christ-likeness. ;)
- Mimio0
Dawkins most definitely accounts for radical individuals. Sure you read that? He even goes on to describe how successful ones effect generational outcomes and even change the course of evolution (i.e. The shrimp example).
- Mimio0
In fact he goes over this all again in his new book "The Ancestor's Tale"
- discipler0
There are too many anomolies and a gross lack of empirical evidence. Dawkins is simply following logically from the standpoint that we are glorified animals and nothing more.
- discipler0
It's classic Methodological Naturalism. Lots of assumptions and not convincing in explaining the many exceptions to the hypothetical rule.
- discipler0
It comes down to the fundamental flaw Naturalists have about Natural Selection. It is mindless and does not have a purpose or goal in mind for the future. It does not consider the benefit for future generations.
Dawkins and other MN give NS more credit than it's due.
- Mimio0
Not until the organisms get smart enough to influnece their own genetic futures.
- buKabu0
not convincing? i find mysticism even less convincing but exqually hell bent on sticking to its guns
- discipler0
This new book allegedly obliterates Dawkin's belief about memes:
- discipler0
well, if you want to caricature metaphysical notions (and perhaps realities) as "mysticism". I don't think it's fair to do that to the notion that there is reality that doesn't reside in a physical local.
- buKabu0
ah, see, i knew discipler could steer this derailed thread back to the joys of creationism
- discipler0
These findings are causing quite a stir. The scientific community of Naturalists are rethinking their selfish gene reductionism:
- discipler0
Creationism? Nope. I haven't mentioned anything about the Genesis account of creation. I'm simply taking the dualist/non-reductionist position on the issue of the mind. Which is what this thread is about, right?
- buKabu0
now, now, i was just giving a send up to Mimio, hes the one that introduced the term "mysticism"
- discipler0
From the Guardian article:
"And what about "selfish genes", the concept introduced by the Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins to describe how some genes promote their own proliferation, even at the expense of the host organism? The concept has been hugely influential but has tended to promote a reductionist gene-centric view of biology. This viewpoint has been fiercely criticised by many biologists, such as the late Stephen Jay Gould, who argued that the unit of biology is the individual not her genes. Systems biology is reasserting the primacy of the whole organism - the system - rather than the selfish behaviour of any of its components. "
- discipler0
heh, oh.
- Mimio0
I think what they;re really expaining there is that the big disconnect between Gould and Dawkins is that Gould primarily took a punctuationist view of evolution, which Dawkins attacked at one time.