Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:49 pm

<< Week of September 29, 2016 >>
Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday
29 Day Month

30 Day Month

1 Day Month

2 Day Month

3 Day Month

4 Day Month

5 Day Month





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Ch. 11 - Memes: the new replicators 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Sophomore


Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 266
Location: Riverhead, Long Island
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 6 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male

Post 
geo wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:
Consider the origins of Christianity. The mythicist view is that the Gospels are a fiction that was written in Alexandria with the conscious express purpose of establishing a new religion by inventing a mythical saviour who would press all the buttons needed for mass appeal.



I have always suspected that Jesus was a real person the same way Robin Hood was a real person. The man who became "Robin Hood" existed, but his real life story was likely much more mundane and it has been embellished to the point where it has become complete fiction. It seems to me that for a myth to have that kind of staying power it probably started as something more or less true. Part of the appeal would be that it really happened. And only through the retelling process, the Chinese whispers Robert speaks of, does it become increasingly fictionalized.

We see that today in movies or books that purport to be "based on true events." The authors invent dialogue and add events to help the story along. Actors will probably look nothing like their real life counterparts. The story is more fiction than fact even before it leaves the storyboard. And, yet, people are intrigued because it is passed off as true.

I suspect we will never know if Jesus really existed. I still think a real man probably served as a template for him—maybe a rabble rouser just as Robin Hood was—but we will never know for sure. On the other hand, it seems not so unlikely that a religion could be completely fabricated. Look at scientology, which is so bizarre and sci-fi-esque that it could have been made up by a science fiction writer. Oh right, it was.


I have had a number of liberal Christians (even clergy) relate a similar belief. They often propose that the story of Jesus is truthful even if not factual. It's a philosophy that at first blush seemed like total BS. I did some reading on it and thought that the argument might have some merit, but then after contemplating it a while I'm back to thinking it's rationalizing with semantics.

I'm curious what others think of this argument and of what Dawkins might think og it.


_________________
-Colin

"Do not tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don't tell them where they know the fish." -Mark Twain


Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:53 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6866
Location: California
Thanks: 1015
Thanked: 1945 times in 1572 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
I'm sure characteristics were taken from a person or many people to fabricate the man, even if it was just a random dude the author had in his head while writing that part of the bible. This is how writers create characters. I don't think there was ever a Jesus as legitimate as there was a Robin Hood. There's way too much fairy tale and fabrication.



Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:42 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Rhodes Scholar

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4025
Location: NC
Thanks: 1549
Thanked: 1632 times in 1246 posts
Gender: Male

Post 
Interbane wrote:
I'm sure characteristics were taken from a person or many people to fabricate the man, even if it was just a random dude the author had in his head while writing that part of the bible. This is how writers create characters. I don't think there was ever a Jesus as legitimate as there was a Robin Hood. There's way too much fairy tale and fabrication.


Right. If there was a Jesus or some guy who perhaps fell afoul of the Roman authorities, the story ended up being seriously embellished. People like a good story anyway, but once those with a religious agenda got involved all semblance of truth would have been compromised additionally by emotional bias.

The other possibility is that the story was written down precisely as it happened. Miracles and other impossibilities aside, it would probably be the first accurate history ever written down. :mrgreen:

Likewise, there is little or no evidence to support Robin Hood's historical existence.

From Wiki: ". . . The oldest references to Robin Hood are not historical records, or even ballads recounting his exploits, but hints and allusions found in various works. From 1228 onwards the names 'Robinhood', 'Robehod' or 'Hobbehod' occur in the rolls of several English Justices. The majority of these references date from the late 13th century. Between 1261 and 1300 there are at least eight references to 'Rabunhod' in various regions across England, from Berkshire in the south to York in the north.[22]

The term seems to be applied as a form of shorthand to any fugitive or outlaw. Even at this early stage, the name Robin Hood is used as that of an archetypal criminal. . .


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Thu Oct 22, 2009 12:43 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Rhodes Scholar

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4025
Location: NC
Thanks: 1549
Thanked: 1632 times in 1246 posts
Gender: Male

Post 
For what it's worth, I'm going to try to post some of my thoughts about the last few chapters of The Selfish Gene before starting The Extended Phenotype. I usually hate to highlight or mark books in any way, but I underlined a lot in this book, either ideas that seemed provocative or simply when Dawkins shows us really interesting ways of looking at things.

The idea that Dawkins leaves us with at the end Ch. 11 is one he brought up earlier: that we can rebel against our selfish genes and by doing so behave in a genuinely altruistic manner. For someone like Dawkins, this idea seems almost ridiculously optimistic.

"We can see the long-term benefits of participating in a 'conspiracy of doves', and we can sit down together to discuss ways of making the conspiracy work. We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism—something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."

I would say the challenge of conspiring against our selfish genes is the "sit down and discuss" part. The world is getting smaller, but political boundaries remain formidable obstacles to cooperation across borders. In the past, world wars have provided the impetus for individual nations to come together and work towards a common goal. Currently we're seeing an interesting phenomenon with global warming—a collective desire across nations to reduce greenhouse emissions. It seems that we've propagated (through memetic means, Dwill?) the idea that there is at least a potential danger of a global warming threat. But actual solutions to the problem remain out of reach. Dawkins has mentioned that using birth control as an individual way of rebelling against our selfish genes. It seems to me at a time where environmental degradation is so widespread and species are vanishing that reducing our numbers would be a true altruistic move for the human race (or at least a long-term survival strategy).


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:00 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5547
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1395
Thanked: 1403 times in 1096 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
geo wrote:
Dawkins has mentioned that using birth control as an individual way of rebelling against our selfish genes. It seems to me at a time where environmental degradation is so widespread and species are vanishing that reducing our numbers would be a true altruistic move for the human race (or at least a long-term survival strategy).

Let's see, at your tender age, Geo, can you remember Stewart Brand, the guy who launched The Whole Earth Catalogue in the late 60s? He's still around, actually, and has a new book in which he says some surprising things, for a counter-culture type. One of them is that the population problem is not to worry about, because population-wise the trends are negative worldwide (or soon will be.) So the population will level out by the end of the century. Maybe not decline, though.

I am struck, too, by Dawkins' lack of belief in genetic determinism, at least regarding how we will act toward each other and the environment. He knows more than almost anyone about genetics, and regards the nuts and bolts of it as binding on every creature. Yet in contrast to those who are more ignorant of genetics, this does not make him say we're doomed to act in accordance with our blindly self-propagating genes. Do you think he's forcing this cheerful face a bit? I think it is an act of beauty whenever we do act against biological programming geared toward individual survival or success.



Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:18 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5547
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1395
Thanked: 1403 times in 1096 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
Robert Tulip wrote:
I think you over-estimate the power of individuality.

Perhaps. But when you include the element of the intensity or strength of the belief along with differences in understandings, I think the variations are numerous. Meme theory can't account for the variation in intensity, can it?-- a variation that is enormously significant.
Quote:
Conformist societies encourage everyone to be the same, and have been quite successful in this. Group identity has a powerful evolutionary attraction.

Are you advocating group selection, against Dawkins and modern genetic theory? Oops, I see from the lines below in your post that you are. I also personally do not believe that any goal-directed behavior such as that of humans can be under the influence of evolution in a Darwinian sense (which is the only sense in which I wish we'd use the word!)

I've done my ranting against memes and should desist. Can it suffice to say that, since memes have not been shown to be a scientific idea, to use that terminology is equivalent to the choice of applying a certain critical theory in interpreting literature? The critic is using a lens which he or she believes illuminates meaning. But it is an option to do so, and for one to not follow suit just reflects a different taste.



Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:44 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Rhodes Scholar

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4025
Location: NC
Thanks: 1549
Thanked: 1632 times in 1246 posts
Gender: Male

Post 
DWill wrote:
Let's see, at your tender age, Geo, can you remember Stewart Brand, the guy who launched The Whole Earth Catalogue in the late 60s? He's still around, actually, and has a new book in which he says some surprising things, for a counter-culture type. One of them is that the population problem is not to worry about, because population-wise the trends are negative worldwide (or soon will be.) So the population will level out by the end of the century. Maybe not decline, though.


I do vaguely recall the Whole Earth Catalog, DWill. Never heard of Brand though.

Yes, it's true that birth rates are falling all over the place, even in some developing countries where you would not expect to see such a trend. I think the UN is predicting population to reach a plateau of 9.2 billion souls in 2050. Unfortunately that's almost 2.5 billion souls more people than are currently alive. That's a lot of people. But really you could hardly expect a faster transition to zero population growth. That's only forty years away.

In another story, zero population growth will supposedly wreak havoc on the world's economic systems, so either way we're in for a rough ride.

From strictly an environmental angle, someone could make the argument that the world is already well past its carrying capacity. (If that's true, we'll find out soon enough.) Maybe an optimum number of humans could be worked out, say half of the current number. Population targets would be set and people would happily work together for the sake of the planet to reach those goals. That seems to make sense, although seemingly impossible to carry out.

DWill wrote:
I am struck, too, by Dawkins' lack of belief in genetic determinism, at least regarding how we will act toward each other and the environment. He knows more than almost anyone about genetics, and regards the nuts and bolts of it as binding on every creature. Yet in contrast to those who are more ignorant of genetics, this does not make him say we're doomed to act in accordance with our blindly self-propagating genes. Do you think he's forcing this cheerful face a bit? I think it is an act of beauty whenever we do act against biological programming geared toward individual survival or success.


Dawkins strikes me as someone with a rather internal locus of control. The knowledge of genetics and the humans species from an individual gene perspective is empowering. Did you get that feeling while reading this book? I think that's why Dawkins occasionally comes out with these "well, we could direct our species if we wanted to" mentality. He has already mentioned that we could increase our lifespans if we could only all agree not to have children until much later in life. But I guess these are only mind experiments. That kind of cooperation between humans goes against our genetic programming. There are no feasible ways to make that happen that I can see, but who knows?


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:45 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4994
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1628
Thanked: 1626 times in 1229 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post 
DWill wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:
I think you over-estimate the power of individuality.

Perhaps. But when you include the element of the intensity or strength of the belief along with differences in understandings, I think the variations are numerous. Meme theory can't account for the variation in intensity, can it?-- a variation that is enormously significant.
Memetics is about the evolution of ideas and beliefs. Hence the fact that a belief is held with great intensity by some and with little intensity by others is a feature of the memetic map, how the phenotype of the meme plays out in the world.
Quote:
Quote:
Conformist societies encourage everyone to be the same, and have been quite successful in this. Group identity has a powerful evolutionary attraction.

Are you advocating group selection, against Dawkins and modern genetic theory? Oops, I see from the lines below in your post that you are. I also personally do not believe that any goal-directed behavior such as that of humans can be under the influence of evolution in a Darwinian sense

Yes, DWill I am advocating group selection, and argue that rationality is evidence of human group selection. As the main mutation which produced homo sapien, group selection through rationality seems to me to have a good case. The issue now is that group selection on a global scale is needed to prevent human extinction. Clearly, a gene for group preservation would be superior to its allele. We have such genes that form our brains.

Quote:
memes have not been shown to be a scientific idea
Memes have been shown to be scientific. Logically, the paths by which an idea evolves and mutates are memetic. We can map these paths to see how the laws of evolution constrain the evolution of ideas. Etymology is a memetic science - seeing how words evolve over time while holding either a stable or a changing meaning.



Fri Oct 23, 2009 3:13 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Rhodes Scholar

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4025
Location: NC
Thanks: 1549
Thanked: 1632 times in 1246 posts
Gender: Male

Post 
Robert Tulip wrote:
Yes, DWill I am advocating group selection, and argue that rationality is evidence of human group selection.


Dawkins gives the example of the welfare state which is seen as "unnatural" meaning it goes against our selfish nature. The welfare state promotes group selection. Most of us would probably agree it's a good thing and an important function of society to take care of those who need it.

Edit: As for genetic determinism, isn't that becoming obsolete in the human race? Aren't we changing things so fast that only a meme-based system can keep up. Maybe our genetic evolution has reached its apex and it's up to us to move forward ("memetic determinism?" If we don't it seems we're going to crash and burn. Maybe it's not knowledge of evolution which Dawkins mentions as the turning point of a species, but some point in time when species takes charge of its own destiny.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:29 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

BookTalk.org Newsletter 

Announcements 

• Resources related to Uncle Tom's Cabin
Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:28 pm



Site Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.



Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2016. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank