Gene propogation machines
The [/w/index.php?title=Forum:Genetic_evolution_vs_memetic_evolution_(LQT!)&offset=20110113143423&lqt_mustshow=754 highlighted comment] was created in this revision.
"I am a machine built to propagate my genes. Not yours, not society's best, mine. That's what I'm built to do, that is my purpose, my raison d'etre. This is why I want to have my children with my genes. Any other arrangement, whether rational or not, simply won't be acceptable. End of. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)"[1]
- <monotone> Errrrr, I am Lumenati ReasonDiva 8000. According to my sensors your lumenator has malfunctioned.</monotone> You don't seem like one who would consider themselves to be a "social darwinist" so this must be some new fashionable scientificish evolutionary theory? Could you please explain how you came to the conclusion that you are "a machine built to propagate [your] genes"? ~ Lumenos (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Lumenos, I am only going to say this once. You are a fucking nut.
Read the Selfish Gene by Dawkins. It gets even more interesting though. It turns out that there can be interchromosomal competition between genes in the same organism. In highly polygamous species the male chromosome often develops genes that try and over extract resources from the mother, while the mother's chromosomes try and suppress this.
I can dig up some specific papers on this if you want. One of my favorite demonstrations of it was two sub-species of mice, one was highly polygamous the other monogamous. They could interbreed though. If you took a polygamous male mated with a monogamous female you wound up with giant babies, if you did the reverse you wound up with scrawny under nourished babies. This gets into the Red Queen's race issues of signaling, but its intra-organism selection.
Que? I don't know that mice have any understanding of the future consequences of who breeds how and when, thus I don't understand how that proves that Jack Hughes is programed to propagate his genes.
Is it possible Jack has been programed by some sort of "education"?
Individuals are a product of genes, the traits that genes encode for are traits that increased the propagation of the gene that encodes that trait.
No, it is like saying computers are the product of the machines that built them. You might try looking up the meanings of the words "genotype" and "phenotype."
But, Teacher, I thought we were talking about the behaviour and value system of one particular "computer".
And ultimately behavior is a product of proteins.
Lumenos
Seriously I would expect most people on this site to be aware of the contents of "The Selfish Gene" even if they haven't read it. Check it out, it's an important book, possibly more than anything else Dawkins has written.
Why can't you just tell me what the book says, as it relates to this topic?
I don't believe anyone understands human behavior enough to prove genetic determinism.
RTFM - seriously.
In the meantime - from Wikipedia
“”The Selfish Gene is a book on evolution by Richard Dawkins, published in 1976. It builds upon the principal theory of George C. Williams's first book Adaptation and Natural Selection. Dawkins coined the term "selfish gene" as a way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution as opposed to the views focused on the organism and the group. From the gene-centred view follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with one another. Therefore the concept is especially good at explaining many forms of altruism, regardless of a common misuse of the term along the lines of a selfishness gene.
An organism is expected to evolve to maximize its inclusive fitness — the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual). As a result, populations will tend towards an evolutionarily stable strategy. The book also coins the term meme for a unit of human cultural evolution analogous to the gene, suggesting that such "selfish" replication may also model human culture, in a different sense. Memetics has become the subject of many studies since the publication of the book.
|
Note that this implies that evolution favours the survival of the gene rather than the individual. In most cases this comes down to the same thing but bees which die to protect the hive are a classic example of when it's not.
At the risk of oversimplification in evolutionary terms my "job" is to be a vehicle for the survival and propagation of the various genes that I am made up of. My evolutionary "fitness" is determined by the number of genetic offspring I produce. Note that it's the number, not the quality, whatever that might mean. As such I am programmed to prefer my offspring over those of others. This is not wholly determined - adopted children are loved as much as natural offspring - but it is summed up in the old phrase "blood is thicker than water" or, as SJC's son said - "Kids that you are related to are cuter".
This is why eugenics is counter to genetic evolution. I would gladly give my life for my children - my genetic offspring - and would make sacrifices for my tribe - my close genetic cousins. However expecting me to give up genetic survival for the sake of... of what? Some vague concept in the "improvement" of humanity? This is doubly true when, as you point out, strict genetic determinism is highly doubtful - now you're asking me to give up genetic survival for some vague "improvement" in humanity using a method that may not work very well. Nah, that breaks the program.
Your book review, didn't elaborate much on the simple concept of genetic determinism, so I'm replying to your later comments.
"At the risk of oversimplification in evolutionary terms my "job" is to be a vehicle for the survival and propagation of the various genes that I am made up of."
- That's a fine analogy. But unlike the mouse you "know" who your "boss" is. Can you disagree with your "boss"? Do you have any preference for subjective things like happiness, liberty, awareness? Isn't your conscious mind and it's needs, more of a certainty than unimaginably complex theories of how the body works?
"My evolutionary "fitness" is determined by the number of genetic offspring I produce. Note that it's the number, not the quality, whatever that might mean."
- Quality means their genes can last longer (since that is aaaaall you care about). Otherwise why aren't you hunting night and day for pregnatable females to shag?
""Kids that you are related to are cuter"."
- You'll just grab at anything that appears to support your philosophy. Look and you will see counter-examples.
"As such I am programmed to prefer my offspring over those of others."
- Obviously, we are not all that way. How do you explain me? I prefer my "memetic" offspring who I have chosen, not an ancestral heirloom.
"This is why eugenics is counter to genetic evolution. I would gladly give my life for my children - my genetic offspring - and would make sacrifices for my tribe - my close genetic cousins. However expecting me to give up genetic survival for the sake of... of what? Some vague concept in the "improvement" of humanity?"
- Let's take the extreme example of genetic engineering. Do you like absolutely everything about your genes? Say you had omniscient knowledge of your genome and your wife's genome, and you could combine germ cells, select every gene, and control the entire process. Would you change nothing?
"You'll just grab at anything that appears to support your philosophy. Look and you will see counter-examples."
Where to start?
- There is a yawning abyss of difference between a "philosophy" and a gut reaction.
- It is a very good thing that infants are cute, since that provides motivation for the laborious endeavor of keeping their little butts dry and clean, to say nothing of the hours spent marching up and down with a colicky kid on one's shoulder, screaming its lungs out right in one's ear. I can testify that it takes an awful lot of cuteness to make up for that, when the time could have been far better spent catching up on sleep.
- I am not sure I even have a philosophy. To the extent that I might have the approaches to one, they could be summed up by the clever sayings on the back of the little tags once attached to Salada tea bags. My friend Paul claimed that those tags all said the same thing: "Don't be a dickhead."
- There are always counter-examples. Something about them defining the parameters or boundaries of any rule... oh, right; that is what's meant by "proving the rule," putting it to the test.
- More significant than the counter-examples are the central examples, the ones which define the prototype of a coherent cluster of ideas.
- Philosophy has taken great strides since Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Many of those steps had to do with demolishing the false dichotomies at the root of classical logic.
- Have a nice day.
Just to be clear I guess you are arguing that "Kids that you are related to are cuter" is a universal trait of humans?
"More significant than the counter-examples are the central examples, the ones which define the prototype of a coherent cluster of ideas."
- Have you pretty much shown us the unquestionable evidence that you have discovered a "central example"?
"It is a very good thing that infants are cute, since that provides motivation for the laborious endeavor of"...
- When I said "philosophy" I basically meant "speculation" and "hypothesizing"; wild, creative, "fascinating" hypothesizing, that would make Kent Hovind proud to be a scientist. Dream on, ReasonDiva.
"There are always counter-examples. Something about them defining the parameters or boundaries of any rule... oh, right; that is what's meant by "proving the rule," putting it to the test."
- And you've clearly
providedproved the "rule" in this case, Teach.
I guess you are arguing that "Kids that you are related to are cuter" is a universal trait of humans?
Guess again.
Looking for unquestionable evidence or any kind of teaching in this corner of the web is liable to be frustrating and fruitless. Using your own made-up definitions of words such as "philosophy" is guaranteed to make discussion useless.
I was replying to Jack who reproduced your quote (thus the ""quadruple"" quotation marks). Here is the fuller quote:
"As such I am programmed to prefer my offspring over those of others. This is not wholly determined - adopted children are loved as much as natural offspring - but it is summed up in the old phrase "blood is thicker than water" or, as SJC's son said - "Kids that you are related to are cuter". "
Note the topic of this thread. Perhaps I don't understand either one of you.
"Looking for unquestionable evidence or any kind of teaching in this corner of the web is liable to be frustrating and fruitless."
- Not really looking for it, just arguing that any evidence doesn't seem to be there. You agree?
"Using your own made-up definitions of words such as "philosophy" is guaranteed to make discussion useless."
- This is a close one, "An academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism" [1] but I would say "speculation" rather than "reasoning". Or "doctrine: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school"[2] Being that I consider myself a (bad) philosopher, I like to poke fun at people who think they practice "science" because they ramble in "scientificish" jargon, as in erroneously using some observation of the natural world or a "scientific study" to support their philosophy (usually naturalism which isn't such a bad religion, but genetic determinism is off the deep end, IMO).
I never understood why you chose the subject that you did. However you start off by disputing that I am a machine built to propagate my genes. As this is pretty much the main thrust of "The Selfish Gene", a book I urge you once again to read as it really is an important one, I, and others, referred to it. No one said that were genetically determined, genetically predisposed certainly, but not genetically determined.
There is no avoiding that the source of this squabble debate is a thread you started on eugenics and the post that you refer to was my attempt to point out that I am genetically predisposed to prefer my genetic offspring to those of others. As such, for all those whose genes are considered "unworthy" eugenics goes against their genetic programming.
Should this matter? Yes, it should. You are depriving those you deem "unworthy" - and who are you to decide anyway - of the most natural of processes, one that everyone is preprogrammed to perform, even those who, for some reason or another, choose not to follow that program.
I think that reading (and hopefully understanding) The Selfish Gene should be a prerequisite to taking part in this discussion. Failure to do may give people the impression that you don't know what you're talking about.
Actually Bob, I get the "impression" that people don't know what they are talking about when they can't debate it in fewer words than a book, particularly a book they haven't written.
Oh look...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution
...you had meme-twins! How cute!
Why don't we start here since this is the most important of theses, of the most important of all books, in the most authoritative of all wikis. Let's see, should I start with the section "Wha?!?" or the section "Attempt of explanation"?
"No one said that we're genetically determined, genetically predisposed certainly, but not genetically determined."
- Perhaps I must apologize for misinterpreting you all along. Let me backup. You described yourself as a "machine built to propagate my genes". Are you a multifunction machine or is that your only essential function?
In evolutionary terms that is my only function. I'm not sure there's any purpose outside of this either.
In the vernacular, that is usually stated as, "A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg."
Assuming the egg lacks consciousness, it doesn't really care if it makes a chicken. The consciousness is the only thing that gives the egg a subjective purpose (even if there is no free will). (Of course, eggs have a purpose for humans, but in this case we are talking about human chickens.) It seems that you are applying a sort of teleological metaphor to evolutionary "functions".
Are there other "terms" in which you have other "functions" (or any "purposes")?
Or try it this way; why should anyone care about their evolutionary function? For example, you seem to be using it as a basis for ethical values. Isn't that committing the is-ought fallacy?
(BTW I should probably mention at some point, that I'm perplexed by questions of free will and the mind-body problem. I'm reacting with questions/statements that hopefully sound good, going from point A to point B, but I may be missing something.)
Why should anyone care about their evolutionary function - well, if you believe, as I do, that the root of ethics is evolutionary then the two are closely linked.
The metaphysics of morality get well complicated and its hard to find logical reasons why eugenics is a "bad thing". However my point is that it is against the evolutionarily predisposed will of the people. It can be sold when it is generally agreed that those who are to be deprived of "breeding rights" are those who have no voice anyway but if you're suggesting, as Lumenarse is, that we should use eugenics to breed a master-race - remember that this is where we came in - then the dispossessed will be the bulk of the population.
So, whether eugenics is right or wrong I am saying that at the level Lumenarse suggested it would be against the will of the population and unsellable. You would have to enforce it.
And, now that we're talking about right/wrong and good/bad why should intelligence be the selection criteria. It is just as valid to say that only Olympic athletes should be allowed to breed. Maybe we should be even more exclusive - only those who show top athletic skills and have an IQ > 140 and or, just as validly, only those who have an income in the top 1% - they're proven winners.
Isn't it odd how those who suggest eugenics are always in the "approved group".
You are not making sense. Evolutionarily the women should be in favor eugenics, as it turns out they are not. Men should be against women's rights, they are not. Evolutionarily there should be no vegans. What people want to do has little to do with evolution, it's about their culture facing the environment. You are believing silly things.
Intelligence should be a selection criteria because it's a positive attribute. Obviously it shouldn't be the only one and we should be careful about measuring it.
Isn't it odd how those opposing eugenics always have an inferiority complex.
We both feel that the other is failing to make sense and, as such, this conversation is increasingly pointless. I have simply no idea where you have picked up the idea that I have an inferiority complex.
My opposition to eugenics is quite straightforward - it comes down to Article 16 of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights -
“”(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. |
Proponents of eugenics wish to do away with that right on the basis that selective breeding produces "better" human beings. That very concept chills me to the bone.
They do not. You can still have a family, but the father won't be the biological father. Your criticism is invalid.
Thinking that getting somebody pregnant is a big deal and therefore doing that would make the person a bit more "equal" to others seems like inferiority complex to me.
Thinking that getting somebody pregnant is a big deal and therefore doing that would make the person a bit more "equal" to others seems like inferiority complex to me.
No, that just says you have never experienced holding your new born child in your arms. Getting someone pregnant isn't a big deal - it's the big deal, it's the biggest deal of all, it's what it's all about. Nothing else comes close - my first gig in front of a 10,000+ audience was a high I'll never forget but not even in the same ball park as holding my son in my arms. I have a massive superiority complex over you in that I do understand these fundamentals because I have experienced them whereas you, quite patently, have not.
Nice save on the philosophy thing. I believe you may find that actual philosophers are pretty good at keeping things coherent, getting their ideas to hang together well. That is why you lost me at "wild, creative, "fascinating" hypothesizing, that would make Kent Hovind proud to be a scientist." I like to think that a working philosopher could demolish Hovind's "science," rub the pieces into the dirt and sprinkle salt on them without breaking a sweat.
It seems to me that Jack has a reasonable grasp of how genetics carries on in real life, one mating at a time. There is plenty of evidence around, so much in fact that it takes a lot of sifting to get at the bits relevant to any particular question. Reading Dawkins is probably as good a starting place as any for that.
As far as how central notions and counter-examples work, George Lakoff's "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind" is a fantastic overview, if heavy going.
So the only philosophers are good philosophers, in your lexicon? Or is there some regulating body? See I think Hovind had the "science" to begin with, for the same reason he won't know when it's been "demolished". (Unless we are talking about taking away Hovind's book selling business, which I don't think any philosopher has yet achieved.) He doesn't think outside the paradigm/tradition and it always assures him he has the answer. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule.