Wounded King

Do people feel that memes are anything other than a metaphor?

Albert Cipriani

Dear NPM,
My apologies. I’ve heard of memes in relation to how, for example, pyramid building took off during roughly the same time all over the world, presumably without any sort of what we call communication. Therefore, I thought that what you meant by memes was a sort of cosmic telepathy.

But based upon how you describe the little buggers, sure. And of all the memes, with no disrespect to chicken jokes, the most popular one must be the one that is expressed by two letters: “OK.” That Americanism is everywhere.

Sure. In Catholic terminology such a story would be an example of having induced a “well-formed conscience.” Now my question: Don’t you see that such a story which appeals to our “better angels” (as Lincoln put it) is unrelated to genetics?

If you believe that humans learn how to be altruistic (through stories etc.), you’ve accepted my non-naturalistic explanation for it. Even tho it’s another topic and I don’t expect you to agree with me that learning is a spiritual process, you ought to be able to see that it is not an autonomous genetic process. And if you admit that learning is not that, you’ve admitted that it is not a product of evolution.

Evolution gives us the tools to learn (oversized brains, and butt bones that free up our hands by allowing us to walk), but evolution does not extend into that learning process. For example, evolution did not cause us to chip stone tools. It only gave us the means to do so.

And slothful cavemen till this very day who choose not to learn the stone tool meme pay the price or cause others to pay their price. Do you see how this brings us to the threshold of a model for evil? – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Wounded King

That isn't non naturalistic, it simply isn't purely genetic. There is no evidence that these behaviours originate anywhere outside of the natural processes of the brain. All you seem to be saying is that morality is simply a cultural phenomenon, which is arguable.

Alix Nenuphar

Albert Cipriani:

You said,
Are you simply stating that your information regarding 'memes' is in conjunction with this argument, or do you actually hold the position that 'pyramid building took off during roughly the same time all over the world'?

If the former, I have no further comment. If the latter, your information source appears to be radically in error; I would suggest you treat it with a grain of salt.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Alix,
I don't think we have any argument here. Tho I don't have any problem accepting other people's assertion that pyramid-building did seem to catch on like a plague around the world at roughly the same time.

How about fire, chipped stones, gods, fear of comets, calendars? A lot of things do seem to come to mankind all at once. But I'm agnostic on this issue and have no bone to pick or stone to chip with you on it. -- Cheers, Albert Cipriani

kctan

Oh yes evolution did cause us to chip stone tools as well. Stones are hard, it won't take long for our brain to realise that. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to discover that stones are hard & you don't have to be a rocket scientist to discover what 'hardness' is all about.

The learning process itself is an evolution in it's own right. Scientific methods of research & development aren't exactly new you know & yes we did evolve slowly from one method of learning to another. This is evidence in the narrowing of learning gaps between different technologies. I.e. stone age to bronze to copper to metal to industrial to nuclear. If you don't like this, you can use arithematics as well. From simple calculus to trigo to abstract.

BTW There's nothing evil at all with slothful cavemen who choose not to chip stone tools & cavemen who does. It's a matter of survival of the fittest & those who choose to make themselves fitter inspite of being weaker then almost everything in their environment.

The 'god concept' of explaining things is very old & we actually have to learn that 'god' can explain alot of things but in reality explains nothing. This is another example of the evolution of 'learning'.

Dr. Retard

From skimming this thread, it seems that Albert accepts that we can explain a good deal of altruistic behavior in terms of biological evolution. We can explain a lot of the recognizable facets of altruistic behavior. However, Albert doesn't see how we can explain every single facet.

I ask: so what?

Does Albert expect an evolutionary explanation of every single facet of human moral sensibilities to be at our hands? Wouldn't such an explanation be a monumental scientific achievement? Not to be expected after 150 years of Darwinism, but maybe thousands of years of non-stop scientific advancement? The mere fact that we don't have a complete explanation is yawnworthy. The fact that we do have an incomplete and suggestive explanation means we're probably on to something.

(In passing, we don't even have a complete handle on the matter to be explained. The phenomena of human altruism is itself the object of very incomplete knowledge. Witness the disputes in this thread over what it is. Again, we have a pretty good idea of what it is, but nothing settled.)

Now, if Albert has some general impossibility proof of evolutionary explanations, then that's something different. But the mere incompleteness of the explanations we have... that's nothing. So what?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue under debate.

Majestyk

No. I think you got it.

We won't know until neuropsychology has mapped the brain in detail, assigning synaptic and neurotransmitter patterns to the impulses that contribute to observable behavior.

Beyond that it is all speculation. Some speculations are more rational than others, though.

Then again, even after the mapping some may claim that the creation of patterns that promote altruistic behavior will have a supernatural explanation for their existence.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Kctan,
You say: How is that assertion any different than that: “The devil made me do it!”? I find it preposterous that a scientific-minded person would assert that evolution, a naturalistic process, could cause us to be creative in so specific a way as to “cause us to chip tools.” That’s the inverse of theists claiming an evil spirit could cause us to behave evilly.

From this absurdity you further muck up the evolutionary waters with:
This is breath taking. Newton said he did what he did only because he was able to “stand on the shoulders of giants.” But according to you, Newton brought us calculus thanks to his more evolved learning gene having gotten, well, more evolved. Let’s see, who should I believe, Newton who did what he did and said how he did it, or Kctan who did nothing I know of but provide a contradictory explanation of how Newton did what he did? Newton or Kctan? Tough call, but I think I’ll go with Newton. – Catching my Breath, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Albert Cipriani

Dear Maj.,
You just don’t get it: You mistake the shadow for the figure, the wake residue caused by a sailboat for the cause of the sailboat's propulsion. No doubt, every conscious thought has its naturalistic correlative in some neural correspondence. But to conflate all of consciousness into what is merely happening in the brain is to mistake the shadow of the tree for the tree.

Even if the shadow were all that there is, how would your map of the forest’s shadows constitute an explanation of anything? You have confused a description for an explanation. You have sold out your birthright of wonder and awe over the miracle of consciousness and altruism for a paltry descriptive pudding. Sadly, Albert the Traditional Catholic