First of all, there was a small but important typo in my first reply to her
posting. Here's my typo-free second hint to the meaning of life:
2) The Bible said that God created all living beings. Evolution later
showed that to be wrong. This doesn't mean life doesn't exist.
Here's a few additional memes:
>This amorphous soup where we all began--where did it come from?
The ocean. But a step or two beyond that, all matter comes from stars.
When a star goes super-nova is spews matter out into the universe. This
eventually becomes solar systems. In other words, as surely as we are
childern of the apes, we are living, self-aware childern of the stars. We
are descended from stars.
Stars are replicators. They are born, they grow old, they die. When they
die, the remaining gases are used to create new stars. However, stars have
no genes and no memes. I know this sounds a little strange, but it's true.
That stars must die to reproduce is not unique. The male Praying Mantis
finds himself in the same situation.
>is this group stating that there is no
>meaning to life other than the meaning of gene-creation?
No. All I was saying was genes are designed to reproduce. Our bodies and
minds are built according to our gene's instructions. Therefore, they have
a strong, but not exclusive, effect on our behavior. Memes also effect us.
Furthermore, I was talking about genes, not Virus. David McFadzean, one of
the founders of Virus, sent me the following info when I asked the same
"What is Virus" question:
"Virus was originally created to compete with the traditional (irrational)
religions in the human ideosphere with the idea that it would introduce and
propagate memes which would ensure the survival and evolution of our
species.
The main advantage conferred upon adherents is Virus provides a conceptual
framework for leading a truly meaningful life and attaining immortality
without resorting to mystical delusions."
Thanks,
Dave Leeper
dleeper@sybase.com
"The Blue Sky is an Illusion created by the Sun to hide an Infinite Black
Void." - David Leeper
-----------------------------
>I can't speak for Dawkins, but this question isn't as tough as it seems.
> The unit of evolution is not the individual, its the genes. An alcoholic
>can pass on their genes quite well. My mother did. In fact, I've know
>alcoholics who were (sadly) very successful at reproduction. The drug can
>damage/destroy an individual all it wants, if the individual successfully
>passes on its genes, the genes have accomplished their "goal".
Let's evaluate this theory if children were allowed to drink/do drugs.
They would and do drink/take drugs to excess if adults did not control
their behavior through physical force or memetic transfer of
"drinking/drugs are bad". It just isn't easily explained from a gene
perspective. Our genes should want us to drink only to the point that we
procreate, but some drugs, like cocaine, actual inhibit the ability to
procreate. What if we gave cocaine to children? They would become
addicted and be unable to procreate and potentially die before puberty.
But that doesn't explain why everyone would want so much to do them in the
first place.
>While I tend to agree with this theory, I'm not so sure it applies to the
>case of the alcoholic. By making genes, not the individual, the unit of
>evolution, we can answer these "damage to the individual" types of
questions
>by simply ignoring them.
But referring to my previous paragraph, if damage to the individual
inhibits procreation of the gene, then why doesn't drug
addiction/alcoholism eventually become extinct? And is it really just a
mutation in the first place? Since if everyone did crack cocaine (I'm glad
to say I don't know this from personal experience), everyone would become
addicted.
>This one I have to flatly disagree with. Altruisum includes acts such as
>self-sacrifice for the good of the group. This is (was) really a tough nut
>to crack. How do you explain the voluntary destruction of an individual in
>terms of Evolution? It was cases like this that lead to the creation of
>Group Theory of Evolution and answers like the one given above about "more
>joy". A concept that has proven to be simpler and more fit is, again,
>genes. By performing the altruistic act, the individual actually increases
>the likelyhood of its genes reproducing! How? Through relatives. This
>explains Mothers sacrificing themselves for their childern, for example.
> This line of though is well worked out. A clear explaination of it, with
>many examples, can be found it the book "The Moral Animal".
What about gang/mob psychology? How do we explain in genetic terms
sacrifices made in interracial gangs? Is everything that cannot not be
explained, genetically, given a backup memetic explanation. If so, have
you not come to a similar argument that religion makes--"here's the
rationalization; if it doesn't fit, use this all-purpose explanation that
fits every other situation which explains everything in a circular
fashion..." This sounds like free will in Christianity (that explains away
all that icky bad stuff) or karma in Buddhism (because we deserve it).
And perhaps most importantly, is this group stating that there is no
meaning to life other than the meaning of gene-creation? This amorphous
soup where we all began--where did it come from? What's on the flip side
of the universe? I ask these questions because I wonder about them myself
daily. I ask myself daily because gene creation just isn't enough to
warrant getting out of bed each morning...
A wacky woman in KC,
Janet