Prof. Tim,
Why? A carrot seed isn't food, but the grown carrot is (Er, whassup,
Doc?). I don't see your logic here.
This is the crux of my argument: That all things are related; that we
cannot speak of genes having no intent and humans as having intent. Unless
you can say where intent arrises from, the discussion will not go beyond
this point. What is intent? Is it will to live, is it desire for desire,
is it cooperative effort, is it a memetic pattern which "prefers" one
adaptation over another? Or, do humans not have intent? I still say that
if the human can choose then there is choice at the level of the gene.
If the carrot is food for humans, then there is nutritive substance in the
carrot; therefore, the entity which relates to seed as humans relate to
carrots MUST be able to use the carrot/seed in exactly the same way as
humans use the carrot/seed; for carrot or seed the nutritive value is
either there or it is not. It does not arrise magically!
Brett
At 09:55 AM 8/20/97 -0700, you wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, Brett Lane Robertson wrote:
>> Saying that DNA is the agent for biological evolution is like saying
>> that the Mississippi is the agent for returning water to the ocean--it
>> is one of the more obvious ways but in turn is a result of more-and-more
>> subtle processes
>True enough. But talking about the "water cycle" (evaporation,
>condensation and return) doesn't help you much if you're trying to build a
>levy! You'll end up all wet, Brett!!
>DNA is what holds the code that creates the bodies that make you and me
>and the birds and the bees and the flowers and the trees. And *you* don't
>think it *might* just be an important part of "the plan"? Ignorance,
>Brett. Straight up ignorance.
>> >Do you believe that it is *genes* which "compete"? (I wish we had a less
>> If there is a more dense example of "competition" (and that is the human
>> race), then there is a less dense example in the gene. If one is willing to
>> say that genes do not compete (they are not willful), then one must be
>> willing to say that their product also does not compete (that humans are not
>> willful).
>Why? A carrot seed isn't food, but the grown carrot is (Er, whassup,
>Doc?). I don't see your logic here.
>Yes, genes are not willful, they don't have an agenda. That's just a way
>of looking at them that is convenient for use to understand. It's awfully
>wordy to say, "The genes that for whatever reason survive and replicate
>copies of themselves better will proliferate to a greater extent than
>those that are less successful at copying and spreading" when you can just
>say "genes compete". It's a shorthand, that's all. Don't confuse it with
>intentionality. Genes have no intentionality.
>I can't recommend Richard Dawkin's _Selfish Gene_ enough. (Don't be put off
>by the name. Shorthand again.) I think part of it may be on-line
>somewhere. Maybe someone else knows.
>-Prof. Tim
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm
doing.
Wernher von Braun