SUBJ1

In other words, offering the coutier's reply is different when you are right instead of wrong. Allow me to demonstrate: My experience suggests to me that my sole intention is not merely to replicate genes. I don't doubt this plays a large role in your life and that of many/most people. Do your purport to understand my conscious/subconscious motivations better than I do? Supposing you do not, we have different programming. The question is, whose inclinations are better? My inclinations are to better our lives, your's are to propagate your genes (supposedly).

But my "coutier's reply" isn't a great argument because you have "science" (ie "Dawkins") to tell you that I don't know my true purpose.

"Your continued [...] RTFP failure (one small example)"

I believe in all likelihood I misread and there was not some COINTELPRO joker desperately trying to make us believe that we are each other's enemy. (You once lectured the class on the quality of eduction one may receive on an Internet forum. I do make many mistakes and I often acknowledge them.) However, none of my arguments in this thread or the "pro-choice eugenics" forum, were based on that premise and therefore this is yet another ad hominem remark.

Did I read another post wrong? Is there a post where someone has explained how Dawkins has verified that we are gene propagation machines? Was there even evidence Dawkins would agree with that assessment? Or is the only "argument" here to RTFB and HAFB (have a fucking baby)?

That phobe/phile hiccup was too easy, sorry. You did own up to it.

Not going to comb through the thread for other examples, but another example leaps to mind: taking "way of making another egg" and bringing consciousness and intent or teleology into it was at the very least an extrapolation, a non sequitur.

I offer the thought that our consciousness, subconsciousness and other brainal functions are a product of much more low-level body chemistry. That chemistry is not simple. It may not even be strictly deterministic, but still it has profound effects which many people do not even notice.

Not enormously relevant but interesting, there is a video of some molecular simulations of DNA activity, and protein synthesis.

Apology accepted. I might have some other things to apologize for. I don't like making people feel bad, especially me. Anyway, getting back to business...

Your next example is not quite as apparent as the first. I thought the whole "eggs way of reproducing itself" was a counter-intuitive scoff at teleology.

Chemistry that is possibly not deterministic? You mean "random" or some sort of supernatural"/"metaphysical"?

I wouldn't argue that chemistry/people isn't deterministic, but here we are talking about whether neuro-memetic chemistry is like unto software, while genetic chemistry is like unto hardware. Jack's statement in the OP suggests not only that hardware determines behaviour, but that its sole "function" is to reproduce hardware. My computer could be said to be using humans to reproduce and evolve itself, if you squint and consider the possibility.

That analogy between people and computing machinery is too flawed to be very useful. Biology does not offer a bright line between hardware and software, begging the question of whether organisms have either such thing to begin with.

WTF is "neuro-memetic chemistry?"

No need to squint to take the view that computers (and networks of them) are using humans to accomplish their development and reproduction. More reality and less science fiction about it all the time.

I'm talking about the effect of environment on the brain. How, for example, through one's environment one may come to believe that we are gene-propagation machines and go on to use this as a basis for an ethical principle that would forbid us from promoting voluntary eugenics on the grounds that it restricts the normal/natural functions of the body and mind.

Not sure how that qualifies as "chemistry."

I'm of the opinion that what enters the brain, via the senses, causes physical changes in the brain. For example, memories and perceptions. Memories would seem to be stored in electro-chemical form.