On Karma, Probabilities and The Game. - Page 8 - Science, Math and Philosophy Forum

Cadence, rhythm, and seat relation to velocity and angular momentum, yeah.

Ram a white Ford van into a snowbank, execute a perfect 240 degree a half foot from a snowbank the next winter.

Quit driving 'cause I had to see about the girl later.

10-20-2015 , 05:59 PM

#178

lastcardcharlie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 10,435

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

Dawkin's recognizes selection at every level. He explicitly talks of it being at levels other than genes.

What other levels?

10-20-2015 , 06:01 PM

#179

VeeDDzz`

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,384

The universe has been selected-for, by selection mechanisms operating in a system so large that it is beyond our ability to perceive or measure.

Multi-level selection yo.

Pass the chiba.

10-20-2015 , 06:01 PM

#180

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,410

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

That's stretching it a bit

The vehicles have characteristics like wanting to eat, have sex, have a pleasant life, pretending to like olives, not die etc etc. These vehicles do not generally give a monkies about the genes.

Neither do the genes. Or the group. Or the species.

Quote:

The fact evolution happens at many levels doesn't make any difference to the fact that if the vehicles end up not doing a good job at persisting the genes through time then the species will be unfit.

That isn't Dawkins. It is general evolutionary theory. When discussing your nose hair, it seems inappropriate to equate them to your entire hygienic habits.

10-20-2015 , 06:13 PM

#181

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,849

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

Neither do the genes. Or the group. Or the species.

The genes have no chance of carrying about the genes. The vehicle generally doesn't but might.

Quote:

That isn't Dawkins. It is general evolutionary theory. When discussing your nose hair, it seems inappropriate to equate them to your entire hygienic habits.

You have too narrow a view of the selfish gene. Yes it's possible that some traits are gene invariant but it's not a big deal.

10-20-2015 , 06:42 PM

#182

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,410

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

The genes have no chance of carrying about the genes. The vehicle generally doesn't but might.

Seems equally unlikely that they'd be selfish.

Quote:

You have too narrow a view of the selfish gene. Yes it's possible that some traits are gene invariant but it's not a big deal.

It is a huge deal. Loads of people collect cats (beneficial to cat genes) despite the cats reducing fecundity in our species and this has done nothing to reduce our likelihood as a species of surviving or even limiting the number of cat hoarders within our species. That is the picture next to evolutionary altruism in the dictionary. If genes are trying their best to be selfish, they aren't particularly good at it.

10-20-2015 , 06:45 PM

#183

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,849

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

Seems equally unlikely that they'd be selfish.

It is a huge deal. Loads of people collect cats (beneficial to cat genes) despite the cats reducing fecundity in our species and this has done nothing to reduce our likelihood as a species of surviving or even limiting the number of cat hoarders within our species. That is the picture next to evolutionary altruism in the dictionary. If genes are trying their best to be selfish, they aren't particularly good at it.

Genes aren't trying to do anything. People do sometimes care about genes.

Also cat genes are genes too. Also fitness is not the same as producing as many copies as possible.

Last edited by chezlaw; 10-20-2015 at 06:50 PM.

10-20-2015 , 08:01 PM

#184

Kristofero

banned

Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 1,317

There's pinkeye then there are pink eyes. Or purple ones too, come to that.

Maybe it's red giants coding, or it's just untapped potential.

Point being, there will be irises and corneas. Corneas might not be corneas as we know it but you hardly need silicon implants. Although exploring every possible redundancy has its uses.

Besides, Rila Crags.

10-21-2015 , 12:09 PM

#185

PairTheBoard

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 10,037

Selfish Gene only cares about the evolution game when he has a bet down on it.

PairTheBoard

10-21-2015 , 05:39 PM

#186

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,410

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

Genes aren't trying to do anything. People do sometimes care about genes.

Some Genes are Wilder.

Quote:

Also cat genes are genes too. Also fitness is not the same as producing as many copies as possible.

The human genes aren't doing it right if they are altruistic toward cat genes. Such a thing can't happen because Dawkins said it can't and he said math in the general vicinity of it.

Fitness (in terms of Dawkins) certainly is all about a gene maximizing the production of copies of itself. In real life, it isn't, but we are presumably still talking about Dawkins' ideas.

10-21-2015 , 06:17 PM

#187

Kristofero

banned

Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 1,317

Dawkins is just a singular gene expression. He's an idiot.

One might as well pin the future of humanity on Tucker Max.

10-21-2015 , 06:29 PM

#188

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,849

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

Fitness (in terms of Dawkins) certainly is all about a gene maximizing the production of copies of itself. In real life, it isn't, but we are presumably still talking about Dawkins' ideas.

You have far too simplistic an idea in your head. Human vehicles caring about others can increase fitness even if it sometimes manifests as individuals who adore cats or fall in love with cars.

Nor does maximising fitness imply maximum fecundity of any individuals or that a higher rate of reproduction couldn't be achieved.

10-21-2015 , 07:28 PM

#189

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,410

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

I don't disagree with any of that. Dawkins does.

We* simply don't act anything at all like he imagines. Err, well out of those 4 aces that he imagines are the whole deck, we don't.

*"We" being social animals that are carrying around those genes and who also aren't insects. Also the genes themselves.

10-21-2015 , 07:33 PM

#190

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,849

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

I don't disagree with any of that. Dawkins does.

No he doesn't

Or at least I disagree with you about him disagreeing about that and it's not close on most of it.There is simply nothing like a requirement that any trait should be good for the reproduction of all of the individuals.

10-21-2015 , 07:57 PM

#191

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,410

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

Huh? The requirement is that your mission should you* accept** it, is to maximize the transference of the genes you and your ilk hold in common to the next generation.

That does happen occasionally.

*you being the individual dude and to a lesser extent a family and to a lesser extent your extended family and to a lesser extent your race.

**you* will accept and like it or I will turn this car around young man!

10-21-2015 , 08:04 PM

#192

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,849

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

Huh? The requirement is that your mission should you* accept** it, is to maximize the transference of the genes you and your ilk hold in common to the next generation.

Which however you look at it doesn't require all individuals to contribute at all let alone in some maximal fashion.

Nor does it equate to maximum number of copies.

10-21-2015 , 08:36 PM

#193

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,410

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

Which however you look at it doesn't require all individuals to contribute at all let alone in some maximal fashion.

Nor does it equate to maximum number of copies.

As the great evolutionary philosopher, G. Coleman once said "what you talkin' 'bout Willis?"

Individual genes are 'posed to be trying to maximize their subsequent copies. That they have to compete and this somehow doesn't lead to an obvious grey goo solution through the magic of deus ex machima they are seeking a stable population.

10-21-2015 , 08:53 PM

#194

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,849

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

That doesn't mean all individuals have contribute at all let alone in some maximal fashion. Nor does it equate to maximum number of copies.

10-21-2015 , 09:08 PM

#195

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,410

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

That doesn't mean all individuals have contribute at all let alone in some maximal fashion. Nor does it equate to maximum number of copies.

What does that have to do with the price of immortal genes in China?

10-21-2015 , 09:13 PM

#196

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,849

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

What does that have to do with the price of immortal genes in China?

It means that the fact some people adore cats doesn't in anyway contradict the selfish gene. Caring can manifest in many ways in individuals and even if many of those are bad for the genes it can still be the case that creating vehicles that care is better for the overall fitness of the genes.

10-21-2015 , 09:28 PM

#197

PairTheBoard

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 10,037

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

That doesn't mean...

Put simply, what does Dawkins say in "The Selfish Gene" that wasn't already being said by evolutionary theorists? What's his insight if any?

Genes tend to survive in a population if the trait they're responsible for provide that population with advantages in the process of natural selection?

PairTheBoard

10-21-2015 , 09:35 PM

#198

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,849

Quote:

Originally Posted by PairTheBoard

I'm not a historian or quite that old

I guess before Dawkins they thought individual or community fitness mattered far more than it does.

10-21-2015 , 09:56 PM

#199

PairTheBoard

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 10,037

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

I'm not a historian or quite that old

I guess before Dawkins they thought individual or community fitness mattered far more than it does.

Which? Individual or community? And "matters" for what?

What did Dawkins say?

PairTheBoard

10-21-2015 , 10:04 PM

#200

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,849

Quote:

Originally Posted by PairTheBoard

Which? Individual or community? And "matters" for what?

What did Dawkins say?

PairTheBoard

Mattered for survival of the fittest. Not sure what you mean by 'which'

Page 8 of 15

First

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Last

Closed Thread Subscribe

...

Page 8 of 15

First

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Last