Posted on 06/28/2006 5:16:22 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
The second one seems to take the attitude, "well, now that everyone agrees that this is real...". Yeeeeah.
Sometimes I think I dislike Dawkins for his views on religion.
Sometimes I think it's just jealousy that he's banging Lalla Ward.
Did he say that or did you say that? And if you say it, you must know a lot about the origin of life in order to know he doesn't know squat. And if that's the case, please enlighten me, because I'd like to know.
Roto Rudder is back after a long hiatus. Welcome to the bloodbath :-)
Sounds like vitalism to me.
Actually he was very clear and explicit in mentioning it was simply a tool to help understanding.
Had to look that one up and I'm considering, due to my selfish genes, becoming an atheist.
Thanks for the ping!
It's an important work in and of itself. If you ever heard of the idea of the "meme" (a self replicating bit of information much like a "gene" but normally called an idea) this is where that idea was born. It leads to a whole new way of viewing culture and human thought.
She certainly had Billie Piper beat. I watched those episodes as an impressionable teenager. It shouldn't have been allowed.
Dawkins just slapped a scientific-sounding name on a phenomenon well-familiar to linguistics, historians of ideas, and others in humanistic or sociological fields. Another (IHT?) article on Dawkins admits in detail the failures of the mimetics field. Wish I'd kept the link, I think I found it through aldaily.org.
Hamilton showed that it all makes sense when one considers that an individual is not the only carrier of his genes. The very same genes, or at least half of them, are carried by each of an individual's siblings, with lesser fractions shared by uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces. For an altruist to help these relatives survive and propagate their genes is almost as good as propagating his own genes.
Sounds plausible on first hearing, Patrick. But on second hearing....
Please 'splain to me how the "selfish gene" benefits from altrustic acts performed on behalf of individuals who are not part of one's kinship group. Apparently, this is not a concern for animals (e.g., hive and swarm behavior, etc.) But in the human realm, altrustic acts may be extended to total strangers.
How does Hamilton's insight apply to that situation?
Thanks for the post, PH!
Well jeepers, PH, if I'm such "a treasure," then how come I'm not on your ping list? :^)
Another thing: In my last, I was asking you for your view of the question at hand. Rather than give it to me, you gave me a link to another website, to discover what I do not know I'm supposed to discover, since you seemingly refuse to communicate such basic things as "what to look for" (from your point of view that is). So I gather you intend that I am to be left floundering around all by myself, without any guidance at all.
All I really wanted, from square one, was to be able to figure out what you actually think about issues of mutual interest.
May I observe that, on the basis of long experience, one rarely hears answers from our friends the NeoDarwinists in regard to particular urgent questions. Instead, one gets directed to external web sites....
Speaking for myself, my current urgent reading list is as long as my arm. Do you suggest everything should go back in the line, so that I might read your excuse for not replying to me directly? Why would I consider doing any such stupid thing?
All I want to know is: What do you, personally, think of the content of those external web links? I mean, if you're recommending them to me, you must think they are worthy in some way. And if you think they are worthy, then supposedly you have evaluated evidence and imposed rational criteria so to reach that conclusion.
From the standpoint of a person advancing such an argument, what kind of reasoning, what kind of actual human communication does a "passed-off" referral to a third-party authority actually represent?
And your seeming thanks (not that you owe me any thanks at all) for my sincere question, takes the form of referring me to a website that houses such kernals of wisdom as: "How Cooperation Can Evolve in a Cheater's World."
Man, you can't be serious. If you are, and if you are also "legion" (i.e., as may be validated any time by the latest poll numbers properly spun), then Western Civilization is doomed indeed.
Seemingly there are more questions than answers these days. Hope you can help to find real solutions to the problems we human beings actually face, under currently prevailing conditions.
Thanks for writing PH.
Personally I find this article and the linked one both lacking in what ought to be the most fundamental point: why does the biological organism, molecular machinery, swarm or biosphere want to live at all? In the linked article which is based on software, it would be why do the players play?
What is the origin of the will to live?
That should be answered long before "what is the origin of the will to die?"
Thank you for always wonderful posts!
My last post has upset you. That was not my intent. God bless you, BB.
It's a metaphor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.