 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)dariusgriffin ...and 272 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613474 Today 12 Topics 127502 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Skeptic: You also took a bit of flak for likening religion (I think specifically Catholicism) to a virus? Is that still your position? Dawkins: Yes. I come to it through the analogy to computer viruses. We have two kinds of viruses that have a lot in common--namely real biological viruses and computer viruses. In both cases they are parasitic self-replicating codes which exploit the existence of machinery that was set up to copy and obey that kind of code. So I then ask the question, "What if there were a third kind of milieu in which a different kind of self-replicating code could become an effective parasite?" Human brains with their powerful communication systems seem to be a likely candidate. Then I ask, "What would it feel like if you were the victim of a mind virus?" Well, you would feel within yourself this deep conviction that seems to come from nowhere. It doesn't result from any evidence, but you have a total conviction that you know what's true about the world and the cosmos and life. You just know it and you're even prepared to kill people who disagree with you. You go around proselytizing and persuading other people to accept your view. The more you write down the features that such a mind virus would have, the more it starts to look like religion. I do think that the Roman Catholic religion is a disease of the mind which has a particular epidemiology similar to that of a virus. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Skeptic: But couldn't the Pope (or Evangelical Protestants for that matter), reply, "Look, we just have a terrific meme. It's winning what you would describe as a Darwinian battle and you're angry because you just don't like it." Dawkins: Religion is a terrific meme. That's right. But that doesn't make it true and I care about what's true. Smallpox virus is a terrific virus. It does its job magnificently well. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing. It doesn't mean that I don't want to see it stamped out. Skeptic: So once again the discussion goes back to how do you determine whether something is good or not, other than by just your personal choice? Dawkins: I don't even try. You keep wanting to base morality on Darwinism. I don't. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, he's got some cool insights into the world... I'm reading this huge Stephen Wolframs A New Kind of Science at the moment and that's a real mind blower in places...He basically uses Cellular Automata to explain the complexity of the world we see around us and bases everything around small programs rather than the hardcore maths of standard science & physics.....obviously there's more to it than that (it's nearly 1200 pages long...) but that's kinda the basic concept... you can check it out at ... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Thanks for the suggestion (have any others u remember particularly standing out?) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
do you dig ken wilber? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I read lots of sample pages, that looks very interesting! (for interpreting as musical/art creation too) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
His gene selectionism is quite a nice idea .. but its quite "religious" itself if you like - but I guess I'm temporarily ill with the post-modern flu :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Don't you reckon the whole gene selectionism thing (opposed to the "received view of evolution" that views the organism as the unit of selection) - or more META-speaking, the whole unit of selection concept is liable to the problem of infinite regress either way .. because on the one hand, gene's are made up of chemicals, which in turn are made up of atoms etc. etc. And on the other hand you get super-organisms, ecosystems -- etc. etc. Everything is contingent (not that this helps, we have to look at stuff with a dichotomy of sorts - in evolutionary terms, the most fundamental one being the : Inherited/Non-inherited distinction) ... Language sucks |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Richard Dawkins gene selectionism ideas that you're referring to are quite simplified, more for a reading audience of nonscientists, so sometimes it tends to come together a little too well. Douglas Adams had some excellent arguments against religion for you w M w. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Science is oversimplified. Whilst I don't entirely agree with the "new-kid on the block" developmental systems, I do think it works wonderfully as an objection to such evangelical dichotomous views as gene selectionism (simplified or not!) .. check out oyama, gray&griffiths .. i forget the others involved in this new theory. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Genes contain coded information; selection acts on them differentially based on this information, rather than on the chemical properties of the genes themselves. Atoms can't evolve. Why am I saying this? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The environment also provides information. In fact to say that a gene is "for" a trait is somewhat meaningless as this presupposes a context, and the context also has an affect on the trait. So - it is perhaps better to say a gene is "for" a trait in a specific set of circumstances. Atoms don't evolve no - perhaps I should have just left it at - "there is a problem with defining one specific unit of selection" - for example Altuism is best explained in terms of a super-organism model, in which case the unit of selection is well beyond gene or even organism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Here are sum "werrdz" gotin from 2 peepal at techtv.com in some snail sex messageboard (since I do not value my own opinion anymore about anything-and luckily they didn't either cuz they didln't not post my mpost) in response to "his idea being religious". If they are not related in any way to anything relevant I take full responsibilitumy for being the retard that I am. "This has nothing to do with religion, although some people want to make it a religious issue. Thanks to several posters here for showing thier inability to differentiate between the discipline of empirical study (aka science), and threats to thier religious schema. Science gathers lots of information and posits conservative theories for peer review, which seems more sensible to me than reading one book (if even that much) and pretending to be able to explain everything. I *could* bury my head every time I don't want to think about, or try to understand, someone else's point of view. But then I don't like getting sand in my ears. I find it amusing that the faithful who believe a book written over hundreads of years by several authors is perfect and must not be questioned condem scientists who are at least smart enough to review and even change thier opinons when new evidance warants such a revision. Science is the only self regulating system that consistantly works to eliminate errors and faulty logic, this is why theories are revised and even abandoned. As a famious quote says, once someone adopts a belief, its almost impossible to change thier mind. The Bible and other religious text contain all sorts of claims about healing the sick, making the blind see, etc, yet only science has succedded in doing this on a daily basis. As far as Evangelical Preachers who heal the sick , studies have shown hundreads of the so called healed die after stopping medical treatments, medication, etc. The faithful says faith alone can move moutains, yet it is science that has moved mountains, put man on the moon, and shaped the world around us. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
plus religion is a big vague ass word that is interpreted differently to just about everyone. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so is science :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"the selfish gene" entertained me with detail and ideas like otto von schirach's "8000 bc", so if my narbled brain toobs were credible, I'd suggest it. He definately answers your question about which level selection operates on and a lot more. It's on page 35,36 and 37 mostly. It's hard to fit it all in a bunch of posts. learning stuff only makes the entire universe seem more pointless (probably the reverse is true since MY brain came up with this statement.. in fact for all my statements, please interpret them as the reverse of what was said.). ajlkf al ;wj eo a;o wler ;g a;jwre og aoj vlj aldsjf |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
A little something courtesy of Jean Baudrillard (and textz.com): "The belief in truth is part of the elementary forms of religious life. It is a weakness of understanding, of common-sense. At the same time, it is the last stronghold for the supporters of morality, for the apostles of the legality of the real and the rational, according to whom the reality principle cannot be questioned. Fortunately, nobody, not even those who teach it, lives according to this principle, and for a good reason: nobody really believes in the real. Nor do they believe in the evidence of real life. This would be too sad. " |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wmw .. thanks- dunno if i'll get a chance to check it out in the near future .. but if i do i will? the only thing i'm hinting towards is, whilst i think developmental systems theory is flawed itself, it works very nicely as an objection to gene-selectionism. Umm.. lemme see if i can find anything .. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
nano: ken wilber??...haven't heard of him, any recommendations?..What field does he work in?... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's a weird comment :) It was entertaining and I think that's all that matters to me. comments like that stumble around us having the limited world view of our sensory organs and pitifully small brain (compared to intelligent life on the eleventeenth moon of Iuodak 4) The saddest thing in the universe is to watch moths batter themselves against lights, misguied by their sensory input only because humans have altered their world. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
