/lit/ - Literature

Numale

>>16630413
I will argue with you for this for approximately 16 hours if you want.

>>16630402
>He didn't even realize himself how unpleasant this book actually is
i don't think you've actually read it

i have no idea what this thread is about
op is a fucking retard is all i can ascertain

>>16630402
Science casually explains a lot of shit philosophy took a long time to even try to grasp

>>16630402
>Read the fucking chapters about parents and offspring or males and females or siblings, it is sadistically evil but it's all very clearly true.
Quick rundown?

>>16630425
I have read it about 10 times because I associate it with being 13 and this comforts me. I have read his other book The Ancestor's Tale a similar amount of times of the same reason.

He absolutely did not understand the implications of what he wrote for human psychology, his naive humanism makes this very clear.

>>16630441
Basically you are a machine that is trying to replicate its genes, this means that you have incentives to murder your siblings, rape or dominate or abandon or cuckold your mate, and manipulate and abuse your parents or child. You also have incentives to cooperate with these people, but it's all a carefully constructed calculus for whatever helps your genes replicate best, or rather it's on average that for people who reproduce successfully. It is completely and utterly amoral and ruthless, morality is literally just some incoherent artifact of behavior meant to aid genetic reproduction.

If you believe in God or something similar this doesn't apply of course.

>>16630477
>Basically you are a machine that is trying to replicate its genes, this means that you have incentives to murder your siblings, rape or dominate or abandon or cuckold your mate, and manipulate and abuse your parents or child. You also have incentives to cooperate with these people, but it's all a carefully constructed calculus for whatever helps your genes replicate best, or rather it's on average that for people who reproduce successfully. It is completely and utterly amoral and ruthless, morality is literally just some incoherent artifact of behavior meant to aid genetic reproduction.
proof? also the guy who came up with this theory turned to god in the end

>>16630500
Just do research into behavioural biology, how is he going to prove this to you exactly?

>>16630438
Other way around

>>16630402
>>16630477
Yeah that's not the conclusion he pushes for, that's what you inserted in it. In fact, Dawkins had to stress multiple times since that you are not your genes because of retards like you who go and interpret his writing in the dumbest possible way.

>>16630402
Spooked

>>16630519
Yeah you could explain how we are not just our genes, or wait no you can't because there is literally no argument to be made and you will not probably not even respond, and if you do it will not contain an argument, just some kind of insult and deflection.

>>16630512
It's really not, philosophy said some of it first though.

>>16630402
You're going to upset the horde talking like that anon. These people think they're important and have souls.

Have you read The Denial of Death? The Moral Animal?

we're memes too

>>16630402
>empirical science invalidates ethics

sweet summer child, that used to be my favourite book and worldview until I read this

Population geneticists are so fucking stupid. Genes exist in relation to an environment and there is no point in performing an analysis without including the relation between phenotype and environment. Killing your siblings is sure as fuck going to affect your fitness in a negative way in most cultures, and as evolution doesn't distinguish between "natural" and "cultural" environments this will affect the evolutionary outcome over time.
Also, OP seemed to miss the class on the Is-ought problem.

>>16630549
The Denial of Death has always seemed like a very specious concept to me so I never read it, The Moral Animal though looks interesting, I'll read it, I see that Gould criticized it on the Wiki page which is a sure sign that it's actually good.

>>16630527
Or you could read the very fucking introduction to the book you so miserably failed to understand (if you have a newish edition) and take it from the author himself. I'm not here to argue with morons, I'm here to quickly push back against stupid shit and get back to doing things that are worthwhile.

>>16630402
Top pseud.
Top midwit material designed to make "science" the new religion in which bugmen place themselves as God.

>>16630581
As I said, zero argument, because you can't make one. Almost amusing

>>16630583
If it's a religion it makes you a slave to a sort of evil or uncaring God, it doesn't make you God. It's practically Lovecraftian

Slightly off-topic, but what are some more books that like Dawkins's Climbing Mount Improbable, or James Gleick's Chaos? I really want to read about something deeply with lots of visual examples and details about the mechanics of things. I don't really care about the topic.

>>16630588
I did point you to the exact source that contains what you need, the very source you claim to have right there with you. You can lead a retard to water, but you can't make him drink.

>>16630620
You can continue to make posts where you present no argument and deflect and insult, it will serve as an illustration of what I said, so it's kind of helpful.

>>16630477
That's all just basic biology. Not sure why you see it as 'radical'.

>>16630643
Because it replaces our ideological and political map of human behavior with a mechanistic version that is extremely cold.

>>16630477
So whats the deal with gays?

>>16630664
Nobody has come up with a coherent theory for that as far as I know. If gays are mostly bisexual then the problem sort of disappears but idk the stats for it and I assume the stats are not very good.

>>16630402
>Not reading the later chapters about the prisoner's dilemma and how ultimately more is to be gained AND lost through altruism than opportunism.

He grounded ethics in reality, kiddo.

>>16630659
That already happened 500 years ago.

>>16630707
It's a cope. Altruism and psychopathy will each be used regardless, based on whether they help

>>16630732
Maybe but this one actually explains why we are like that, it explains what we are. Earlier theories were based on much less stable ground.

>>16630748
Of course. And that doesn't actually make anything a cope. I said gained AND lost.

>>16630477
>If you believe in God or something similar this doesn't apply of course.
What do you mean by "doesn't apply"?

The one thing I remember my pastor saying from childhood is to not read richard dawkins and I've been scared to do so ever since. Like his words will cast a magic spell on me and doom me to hell if I read them.

>>16630748
>It's a cope.
Look at this dumbass, look at him and laugh.

>>16630773
You can read him, just don't read Ted.

>>16630477
So why do homosexuals exist?

>>16630792
Lack of selective pressures on human diversity. Shitty strategies of reproduction begin to exist.

>>16630792
>He still thinks people are born homosexual
There's no "gay gene".

>>16630800
>the only thing you are is the calculus of reproduction
>btw this can mean absolutely anything, including actions completely antithetical to reproducing
Wow, my world view is shattered.

>>16630762
If you have different metaphysical views than materialism then the conclusions of evolutionary biology don't have to apply to human nature.
>>16630777
Based inability to make any argument or really say anything at all

>>16630800
>Lack of selective pressures on human diversity. Shitty strategies of reproduction begin to exist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94_omZ2RnfI

>>16630402
the most midwit post this week
read the red queen next i want to see your midwit retardation on more ethics vis a vis biological 'insight'

>>16630823
The way evolution works is that organisms that are 'selected' based on whether they reproduce or not. It literally depends on variation in which some organisms have traits that are less conducive to reproduction

>>16630477
>Basically you are a machine that is trying to replicate its genes, this means that you have incentives to murder your siblings, rape or dominate or abandon or cuckold your mate, and manipulate and abuse your parents or child. You also have incentives to cooperate with these people, but it's all a carefully constructed calculus for whatever helps your genes replicate best, or rather it's on average that for people who reproduce successfully. It is completely and utterly amoral and ruthless, morality is literally just some incoherent artifact of behavior meant to aid genetic reproduction.
Explain catholic saints or celibates in general? Explain recluses?

>>16630856
defects. Evolution accounts for defects, variation. Humans also are constantly encountering new environments for which they may not be evolutionarily adapted because of rapid technological change.

>>16630827
Ok, I thought you meant that a person holding metaphysical beliefs is somehow exempt from behavioral biology.

>>16630402
Is this the first time you've read anything biology-related? Why are you being this excited over it? Are you 15 or something?

>>16630512
>>16630539
Anon >>16630512 is right I think

>>16630823
>>16630854
>>16630792
>>16630856

It's extremely important to recognize two things:

1. Selection pressure is on the reproduction of one's genes, not one's own particular mating behavior. There are species of insects where a majority of individuals never mate at all, but their close genetic relation to mating individuals still creates selection pressures on their behaviors to benefit those individuals that do mate.

2. Genetically deleterious aberrations will exist regardless. Some children are born with conditions that simply cause them to die outright--these are obviously not advantageous, given the resources and risks required for bearing children. Even if homosexuality were entirely genetically determined and produced no downstream benefits to genetically related reproducing individuals, it could still continue to exist simply because of transcription errors.

>>16630911
I came to terms with this like 10 years ago, I just pretend to be excited because it makes people respond on 4chan, which I am very unhealthily adapted to. Even this post is complete bullshit and divorced from how I actually feel, I am literally incapable of posting honestly on this site, it's like I have conjured a daemon that acts as me when I start typing here and he has evolved into his own thing.

>>16630926
Homos aren't related to their relatives as closely as eusocial insects though so the point is kind of moot.

>>16630983
Not sure if you're pretending to be OP or are the actual OP, but if you are then you should make more meaningful posts, as pretending won't get you anywhere. I know this place has gone to shit when it comes to serious conversations, but don't be insincere if you want to have those. Make a normal thread, and if people don't respond then make a new one later. It's better than the approach you went with in this thread.

>>16630792
I've heard Dawkins discuss the "sneaky fucker" theory (tl;dr the manly-men go out and hunt while the fag stays behind and fucks the females), but honestly, I think the more likely answer is that homosexuality is a learned behavior. This IS what LBGTOTPRRIQWQR--!+++A is, it's a religion and a culture. So, the better question is
>why do some men want to put their dicks in other men's asses?
The answer is probably a degree of genetic susceptibility combined with learned behavior. Homosexuality correlates highly with trauma and low IQ.

Sidestepping OP, one actually radical thing about Dawkins is memes and his Extended Phenotype theories. In short, Dawkins posits that we should view complex order-making done by an organism as an extension of its phenotype. An ant-hill is just as much an expression of an ant's phenotype as its coloration, as genes are responsible for both. Many structures (for example, ant-hills and mouse-tunnels) are genetically determined. But, these species can also learn. The complex interplay of genes and their expression, alongside memes, means that we can view things like ant-hills as an intrinsic part of the ant, and a necessary descriptor of it.

Now, apply that to humans, and suddenly we've opened up a whole new world that no one wants to deal with.

>>16630988
>Homos aren't related to their relatives as closely as eusocial insects though so the point is kind of moot.

You literally don't understand the phenomenon in question. Homosexual individuals are as genetically related to their siblings as they would be to their own children.

>>16631096
Eusocial insects are 3/4 related to siblings rather than 1/2, that's how it works.

The Selfish Gene is good but you shouldn't let it be the only book you read on the subject. There's more to evolution than just genes. Maybe give the book in the pic a read for a wider view.

>>16630837
>Mr. Argument still silent on this post.
Should I spell it out for you why I linked the BAH conference in relation to your uninspired pseudoevolutionary theorizing?

>>16631116
Jesus Christ.

Among humans, individuals have an evolutionary pressure to ensure the survival of their children, because each child has a 50% chance of carrying any particular gene that mediates the behavior.

The exact same degree of genetic relation exists between siblings, meaning a behavior that ensures the survival of a sibling (before they reproduce) is about as equally genetically beneficial as a behavior that ensures the survival of one's child (before it reproduces). So the fact that an organism doesn't reproduce does *not* demonstrate that it doesn't engage in behaviors that further its genes' interests, and in fact, under certain conditions it may actually be preferable to ensure the survival of siblings rather than reproduce (e.g. if you have many siblings and few resources).

>>16631164
>and in fact, under certain conditions it may actually be preferable to ensure the survival of siblings rather than reproduce
Under extremely rare circumstances, whereas with eusocial insects it has informed their evolution for millions of years, because the 3/4 similarity is extremely important in the evolutionary calculus. Humans are not bees or ants.

>>16631271
I am certain you've read exactly 0 books on this subject

>>16631283
I am certain you can't actually make an argument, not even the pretension of an argument. If you could you would have made it instead of making an irrelevant deflection and insult.

Unfamiliar with his work, may give this a read even though I know a bit about behavioral biology already. I mean this stuff is pretty much obvious these days. Which book does he talk about memes?

>>16631362
He invented the word meme in this very book, the last chapter specifically. He was never a big fan of where the idea went because he's both retarded and a pussy about the implications of his work for the humanities.

>>16631380
>for the humanities.
Does it really matter?

>>16631353
I have demonstrated that 1) non-reproductive diploid organisms are not excluded from increasing their genetic fitness, and 2) non-reproduction can be preferable to reproduction under certain circumstances. Notice that 2 is not even necessary for homosexual genes to exist--1 by itself is sufficient. Your "counterargument" is that female wasps share 3/4s of their genes with siblings, which is completely missing the purpose of the analogy. The truth of 1 and 2 don't depend on any the exact genetic circumstances, but the relative genetic relation of siblings and children, which I have already explained in the specific case of humans. You literally don't understand what you're talking about.

>>16630792
If you had a computer program write itself by trial and error it's safe to assume it would be riddled with bugs.

>>16631394
>non-reproductive diploid organisms are not excluded from increasing their genetic fitness, and 2) non-reproduction can be preferable to reproduction under certain circumstances.
yeah which I agreed with, but it's not often is it? I said that in my first post to you retard

>>16630519
Evolutionary theorists always make sure to point out, over and over, that things are a lot more complex than they seem, that an untrained human will have trouble thinking about and is prone to misinterpret their work, that the theories themselves are very hard to prove and reason about, etc.
OP just shows that no matter how many warning signs you slap on...

>>16630477
>>16630402
Based libertarian thought. Everyone is a perfect individual with no connective social tissue aside from Competitive™ Market™ Environments™. Please tell me more about how there is no society. I am causing flood damage to my carpet because of the sheer amount of pussy juice flowing from my puss.

Bees and ants don't exist, shut the fuck up.

>>16631413
Yeah there are definitely other things than genes and environment
you can list thiem right?

Now read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind for a dismantling of hacks like Dawkins.

>>16631421
see>>16631116
they behave that way because of their genetic relation to each other, an ant colony is basically a single organism, not a collection of organisms

>>16631422
Where in my post do I imply that?

>>16631437
by implication, because all I have said is that we are machines for genetic replication, and everything we do is a result of that, which follows exactly from what Dawkins wrote in his book.

moral behaviours and arguably religion evolved to solve the freerider problem you describe OP.

>>16630664
Bad genetic mutation or childhood trauma

>>16631407
Lol. Exclusive homosexual behavior is present in something like 4% of the population. Pointing out that it would be rare for homosexual behavior to be strictly genetically preferable to heterosexual behavior is not even in the ballpark of a counterargument. But the far more important point is that homosexual behavior does not have to be strictly preferable to heterosexual behavior for genes that code it to continue to exist--it just has to be preferable to the non-existence of the homosexual person, which is point 1), which you haven't addressed because you don't have anything to say about it. You're just wrong.

>>16630570
You might enjoy The Worm At The Core which is basically Denial of Death but with studies to back it up. Terror Management Theory

>>16630664
one hypothesis is that gayness is caused by an autosomal gene (i.e. a gene that is not relevant to gender) which makes you really want to fuck men
so if you get the gene as a woman it improves your chances of reproduction
this also explains gay promiscuity

>>16631469
Is Becker required reading before that?

>>16631449
What implication? Where do I state anything to the contrary?

>>16630477
According to this account, all human action is driven by selfish genes.

If all morality is merely gene-selfishness, of one sort or another, then there cannot be an independent morality of truth. There is no responsibility to tell the truth if lying helps spread genes. Our conventions of truth-telling are regulated by the higher biological reality of selection.

But in this case we have no reason to believe that the utterances of any scientist are intended to be true. We should at best take them to be attempts to reproduce. If truth and reproductive success coincide, great: but there is no reason for this to necessarily hold.

Therefore if we take this thesis seriously, we should not take science seriously. But in this case the ground for the thesis is itself undermined.

Suppose you respond: "science works because it takes into account our nature: it builds incentive structures that divert natural selfishness."

This proves my point: for that to be true we must have some control over our actions and motivations: we have to be able to, in some way or another, circumvent natural selfishness. But how are we able to do this? "Through reason".

But reason is part of our nature.
You can fill in the rest of the argument yourself.

>>16630583
>designed to make "science" the new religion in which bugmen
Retreating into a charicature of manly reactionary is just bugman + beard oil + boutique axe bullshit on steroids. You are wearing a costume and it's gay

>>16631469
Not that guy, uneducated here. What is the general idea in this book? I'm sick of my knowledge thirst backfiring on me mentally.

>>16631501
morality and truth are not the same concept. Truth is defined by your map of the world corresponding to it such that by following it you can achieve whatever goal you have. morality is a meme about intersocial behavior which is wholly unrelated

>>16631501
There is a fairly clear line of counterargument you haven't acknowledged--that accurate representations of the physical environment increase genetic fitness, while accurate representations of moral facts (if they exist) does not have any clear relation to genetic fitness. This would give us greater reason to doubt moral claims than empirical ones.

>>16630983
Kek

>>16630477
>this means that you have incentives to murder your siblings, rape or dominate or abandon or cuckold your mate, and manipulate and abuse your parents or child. You also have incentives to cooperate with these people, but it's all a carefully constructed calculus for whatever helps your genes replicate best
All of which is readily apparent if you take one step out your door and look at the real world and the people around you.
>nooooOOoOOOo but humanity is inherently good!
Kill yourself retard, you are breathing my air.

>>16631396
Great post.

Only counterpoint is gay germ theory

>>16630664
Genetic dysfunction

>>16631507
It builds on the original idea that almost all human behavior is based on the fear of death. We are unique in nature in that that we are sentient to the point that we realize our own existence will end some day. This causes a fundamental existential terror that is core to all we do.

Or so goes the argument.

you don't know what ethics and human nature is. vague biological reductionism is not nearly enough to wave it away. nothing will ever be so simple.

>>16631511
I am talking not of truth simply, but of the ethic of truth-telling which science must presume in order to function.
>>16631521
"that accurate representations of the physical environment increase genetic fitness, while accurate representations of moral facts (if they exist) does not have any clear relation to genetic fitness"

That accurate representations of the physical environment increase genetic fitness, interestingly, seems to build in an incipient morality-of-truth into evolution itself: selection in this case, selects for those who are best able to know the truth. This might be true, but already we are starting to stray from strict materialist dogma.

In any case, it is an ad-hoc claim which needs to be supported. There are some contemporary scientists who claim the exact opposite is true: that selection precisely selects against giving us accurate representations of the physical environment.

>>16631490
I don't think so, but The Denial of Death was a note entertaining read. It is referenced frequently in Worm At The Core which they wrote as a successor to Becker's work. Their entire careers were determined by shared interest in his book.

>>16631507
Denial of Death: fear of death is the driving force behind most human endeavor. We have vital lies about our place in the world and work on "immortality projects" to comfort ourselves. Much more to it but the wiki did a good job

Worm at the Core: building on previous idea with psych studies where participants are reminded of death vs control groups, proving many of Becker's theories correct, and building on them. Terror Management became a school of thought itself

>>16631577
Empty gibberish. Death is coming and nothing afterwards

>>16631577
anything other than biological reductionism is cope. There's no such thing as morality.

>>16631580
>That accurate representations of the physical environment increase genetic fitness, interestingly, seems to build in an incipient morality-of-truth into evolution itself: selection in this case, selects for those who are best able to know the truth. This might be true, but already we are starting to stray from strict materialist dogma.

No it's based on a similarity between the nature and behavior of the organism and the world outside it. The better the organism reflects the world, the better it can manipulate it, and thereby make copies of itself, so the organisms that properly represent and manipulate the world proliferate.

We might evolve to be deluded about the world in certain ways because it helps us better reproduce, but this is still based on a sense of the world in which folk versions of logic and truth reign. Attempts to deconstruct these methods and ideas have been rather unpersuasive.

>>16631622
That's a relief.

>>16631635
read the righteous mind by haidt

>>16631664
sure it is...

>>16631577
>>16631622
These posts are funny to me because I'm religious. You literally can't argue about either evolution or metaphysics. You just shitpost.

Evolution clearly indicates everything I've said in this thread, nobody has even come close to denying it. Metaphysics are an entirely different matter, and in the same way that you can't deny evolutionary theory you can't deny the ambiguity of metaphysics that makes something like a God seem impossible to extricate from any coherent and thorough understanding of reality. The 'evil' of evolution takes on a different character when you try to understand what the actual constituent parts of reality are.

>>16631662
>the better the organism reflects the world, the better it can manipulate it.

This is what I mean when I say selection selects for those who are best able to know the world. It isn't complicated.

You can say that "ultimately this is still a function of selfish genes though!." Which is not something I am denying. What I am denying is OP's claim that somehow this makes morality unreal.

Morality is emergent.

>>16631711
>What I am denying is OP's claim that somehow this makes morality unreal.
morality is truth and if you invent truth then it is not real.

>>16631711
Its emergence makes it a subset of mechanical variances on what helps chemicals reproduce themselves. This is not how humans conceive of morality, it points out a lot of flaws.

Again if you are religious or believe in some other metaphysical order beyond the material then this doesn't apply.

>>16631580
>That accurate representations of the physical environment increase genetic fitness, interestingly, seems to build in an incipient morality-of-truth into evolution itself: selection in this case, selects for those who are best able to know the truth. This might be true, but already we are starting to stray from strict materialist dogma.

This just isn't charitable to the idea in the slightest.

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that mental phenomena are either identical with certain material events or are epiphenomena of them, and suppose further that to some degree mental phenomena (or their material analogs, in the epiphenomenal case) "control" at least some of an organism's behavior, in a sense similar to how a steering wheel controls a car or a CPU controls the image on a computer screen. I think these suppositions are basically in line with materialism.

The question becomes whether there is selection pressure for mental phenomena to correspond to facts about the environment, and whether this correspondence is "known" to us. The latter question is a complicated second order question, but the first seems to have an obvious affirmative answer. If consuming certain resources is necessary to the survival of an organism, then any behaviors that make consumption more likely is selected for, even more so if those behaviors are triggered by the *presence* of the resource (unless the behavior is zero cost). So any mental phenomenon that controls the behavior in such a way that it happens when the resource is present, and does not happen when the resource is not, is selected for.

This doesn't require any kind of teleological or "morality-of-truth" assumptions. It operates entirely inside the materialist paradigm of behavioral phenotype.

>>16631677
It literally is. I love sleeping, it's one of my favorite things to do.

>>16631764
morality is truth and if you invent truth then it is not real.
>>16631780
>Its emergence makes it a subset of mechanical variances on what helps chemicals reproduce themselves.

Science is emergent in the same sense. This is not how (most) humans conceive of science. This doesn't make it not true.

Reason emerges as a function of evolution: as a function of the "mechanical varience on what helps chemicals reproduce themselves." But reason is not identical to the process that gave rise to it, nor should we expect it to be.

From reason we get all the stuff we are talking about: science, but also ethics. Ethics is simply the regulation of one's life in accordance with reason: it is the achievement of happiness by imposing a rational ordering on one's desires and projects.

I should have been clearer and said "ethics" not morality: I am not too keen on the distinction myself, but as people seem to think of morality as tied up with sentiments, this might make things clearer for you.

And there is some metaphysical order beyond the material, obviously, but one doesn't need to accept superstition to say this. Most mathematicians hold that there is at least a non-material mathematical order (intuitionism be damned), and mathematics is the prince of the sciences.

>>16631826
that's partially because you don't think before you go to bed that you're about to sleep forever with no dreaming.
>>16631849
>morality is truth and if you invent truth then it is not real.
your ''morality'' is an invention though. You're just adding stuff to nature and then putting the label of morality on it.

>>16631849
I think metaphysical claims are impossible to prove, which means that everything we can talk about is suspect, including our faculty of reason.

>>16630402
Everything in this book is fake and gay. Stop falling for the constructions of people you hardly know. This is the same person that said religion is useless.

>>16631951
Religion is just cope.

>>16631951
This book is literally impossible to deny if you accept materialism and evolution, the attempts to argue against it on those terms have been pathetic

>>16631905
>You're just adding stuff to nature and then putting the label of morality on it.

I think I don't really know what you were looking for in the first place. Again it was probably a mistake to talk about morality" and not "ethics" I am giving you a broadly Platonic account of what ethics is. What is wrong with the account?

>>16631826
"Sleeping forever" is cited early on in The Worm At The Core as a child's comforting lie about the nature of death. I think the truth is much more terrifying if you really think about it, although being alive isn't so great I do agree

>>16631935
This seems self-contradictory.

>>16631905
The way I think about it is that many times I don't even dream. So what would be the impact if one day i just didn't wake up? Not much really. There was a time not very long ago, maybe a year ago that the thought of death shook me daily for a month or so and gave me anxiety. Now not at all. Not sure what changed since but death genuinely doesn't scare me. Getting old and the process of actually dying may be, but being dead sounds kinda based ngl.

>>16631972
It is self-contradictory. Nobody has ever successfully answered Pyrrho, reason eats itself. We only have 'given x y seems to be true' where the x is never stable or really known.

>>16631951
I'm basically "right wing" on most issues but people like you are the reason I prefer talking to communists. Religion is a cope and is only useful for social control and stability. Individually it's brain poison self deception and if you actually believe in it you should leave the thinky talk to the big boys

>>16631989
That's fine, but then you must also disagree with Dawkins's claim.

>>16631999
No I agree with Dawkins' claim if we assume materialism and evolution. We can assume other metaphysical states in which his claim is not true.

>>16631986
You do understand that "dying in your sleep" is a lie too right? You don't die peacefully. You wake up terrified having a god damn heart attack, stroke, etc. It might seem nice to fall asleep and not wake up but most people's final moments involved serious pain, suffocation, etc. The last moment is your body struggling to stay alive until consciousness fades out.

>>16632009
Even to establish the conditional
>"if we assume materialism and evolution THEN Dawkins is right"
You are going to need to bring in other supplementary claims (its not a tautology), and in order to defend these claims you are going to need to use quite a bit of reasoning.

So you cannot actually even affirm this if you are true sceptic.

>>16632023
That's quite true, I agree with you. But we lack the ability to really explain how reason is suspect because our language presupposes it. We can just kind of intuit that maybe things don't relate that way but even that smacks of reason.

>>16632019
This is just speculation on your part. An aneurysm, for example, can plausibly disable your thinking very quickly

>>16632019
What you never hard sharp pains in your chest every time you breathe for a minute or two every once in a while? Never broke a bone? Been shot? Stabbed???

>>16630402
Hi Rich, I know it's corona and all.
There's some truth to the idea that poor product always needs more marketing.

>>16630477
>Basically you are a machine
No. There's a set of significant differences between organism and mechanism.
>this means that you have incentives to murder your siblings, rape or dominate or abandon or cuckold your mate, and manipulate and abuse your parents or child.
No, machines do not have any incentives at all.
>It is completely and utterly amoral and ruthless
Amoral according to what standard? If morality is some sort of "incoherent artifact", then amorality is as well.

Look, without good vocabulary you can't make a good argument.

>>16632068
I would be very interested to know why you think
>organisms and mechanisms are different
I assume this one is about complexity?
>machines don't have incentives
What do you call the literal physical forces that make them do stuff? The same physical forces that make us do stuff
>according to what standard
According to the standards of every single human culture on record. They would all look at Darwinian evolution as horrifying, not a single one of them admitted all its basic tenets.

>>16632092
>I assume this one is about complexity?
Not only complexity. I wouldn't want this to get into the quantitative waters.
If your car breaks down, it doesn't start a self-repairing process. You actually have to do something with it to get it repaired or get rid of it.
Organism is a self-regulating unit. This is why an organism can have an incentive to promote the well-being of this self-regulating unit, while mechanism cannot have any incentives.
>What do you call the literal physical forces that make them do stuff?
External circumstances directly or indirectly affecting their doing or not doing of things. Something like that.
>The same physical forces that make us do stuff
Except we have decision making power and actual incentive to promote what we think is good (or bad) for us, in simple terms.
Sun shines on me and I don't like it, so I hide in the shadow. Sun shines on you and you like it, so you sunbathe. External forces are the same, yet you may see sun as beneficial and I may see it as annoying.
>They would all look at Darwinian evolution as horrifying, not a single one of them admitted all its basic tenets.
God.. I'm not up for making a history lecture here, but to say that society actually lived by the moral standards perpetuated by the literates is at best completely wrong.

what i got from selfish gene is why being altruistic benefits the genes and why being a self-fuck doesn't

>>16630477
>Basically you are a machine that is trying to replicate its genes
wrong off the bat, lol
>t.sex is disgusting, offspring death, and family prison

>>16632135
Is a self repairing car an organism? What's the minimum for an 'organism'?

>>16632135
Organisms and mechanism both just follow causal patterns, organisms are just sustained by a process that mechanisms lack. They are not fundamentally different in terms of how they obey causal forces.

>decision making power and actual incentive
we are bits of space being caused by other bits of space, try to deny this in coherent terms. We like sun differently because of prior causes genetic or environmental.

>society lived by the standards of literates
no they were both and still are completely deluded, just in slightly different ways

>>16632137
they both do, varying by organism and situation

>>16630477
>incentives to murder your siblings
They share half of your genes so would this not be a disadvantage

>>16632278
there are dynamics that benefit sibling murder, among birds it is quite common for example, but in humans it exists too, more subtly, it's basically about getting resources from your parent which your sibling is a threat from

>>16631505
This. The really behind the "warrior ethos" is fucking hideous. It's murdering men and raping women. Those who worship the "warrior ethos" are worshiping the lifestyles of career psychopaths.

>>16631826
My man, as a child I was afraid of death and couldnt sleep so my mom told me that maybe there is something after death or its just like sleeping
I found great comfort in this somehow

>>16632311
>saw eric weinstein on JRE and thinks sibling fratricide applies to humans
out pseud.

>>16630402
the extended phenotype is also excellent. i wish this dork hadnt gotten into pop atheism

>>16631396
this isn't a great analogy: computer programs have a specifications.

it's infuriating (autism) because computer programs produced by stochastic search are a) faster b) bug-free.

>>16632343
you appear to have made a mistake, you wanted to make an argument against what I said, but instead you started rambling about random unrelated people.

>>16632332
Weird how it hits people differently. I have always just accepted it, wasn't until I was like 23 that it started to really get to me. I'm too invested in my ambitions to really be worried about it these days. Being a proud fuck pays baby.

>>16632207
No. There is a qualitative difference between organism and mechanism. I'm not stepping into the frame of "and what if mechanism does X?"
Organism can die, mechanism cannot.

>>16632223
>organisms are just sustained by a process that mechanisms lack
Organisms self-regulate. Mechanism is built to do a specific task with the help of external forces. You build a car and use it for driving.
Organism grows, organically.. That's not a "process that mechanisms lack." That's a difference in principle.
>They are not fundamentally different in terms of how they obey causal forces.
Okay. Can your car get depressed?

>we are bits of space being caused by other bits of space
There there with the burden of proof.
>We like sun differently because of prior causes genetic or environmental.
Support this claim with something. Evidence maybe.

>>16632458
Do you think we are not bits of space caused by other bits of space, because that's what your entire argument rests on, otherwise mechanism and organism are the same thing. What else causes bits of space to move apart from other bits of space?

>>16632421
>'m too invested in my ambitions to really be worried about it these days.
Your immortality projects
>Being a proud fuck pays baby.
The vital lie

>>16630664
>>16630683

For now the only thing proven is that gay men tend to have female relatives with statistically higher fertility. That's the only fact. There are multiple hypothesizes on the why.

>>16632478
>that's what your entire argument rests on
No, self-regulating and able to live and die versus material object without any self-regulating capabilities is not about bits of space caused by bits of space.
Your leading question is not very interesting to me. I can try a leading question of my own then. Why do you think it's obvious that mechanisms are not organic?

>>16632478
I agree with you. The people that argue semantics above organism vs machine always have some religious belief they are hiding. Usually they feel they have a soul and cannot be a machine themselves

>>16632482
I definitely know I'm not immortal.. though I'm very healthy these days.

>>16632485
It's also been observed that having older brothers increases the likelihood of being gay

>>16632485
The loss of fertility to the family doesn't make up for the fertile daughters. Would be nice but it doesn't hold up. There's a hormonal factor. Having older brothers makes you more likely to be gay. Something in the womb

>>16632493
Self-regulating capabilities are still just bits of space causing other bits of space to act, it's still just mechanics, cogs causing each other. What is really the difference to you, is a snowflake or a crystal self-regulating because it maintains a certain structure for a while?

>>16632524
>Self-regulating capabilities are still just bits of space
Capability does not equal space..

>>16632548
It is literally bits of space causing each other. What do you think your body is, magic? it's atoms interacting in predictable ways

>>16631133
Tell me more anon

>>16632554
>It is literally bits of space causing each other
There with semantics again.
So, everything is atoms, therefore there is no difference between anything? Tree is the same as water. They are just bit of spaces moving around as atoms. Anon, really..

>>16631133
>epigenetics
>symbiosis
this book is probably bullshit. Explain its core argument if it isn't.

>>16632566
A tree and water have different chemical and structural compositions, does that really pass for an argument in your mind?

I will ask you again, what in your body, including your mind, is not just atoms interacting with each other, do you have some metaphysical theory you want to put forward?

>>16632504
I'm talking about The Denial of Death. Your activities give you meaning in the face of your mortality and help you push away thoughts of death

>>16632590
The"vital lie" part is where we convince ourselves these activities are meaningful.

Meh, pointless babbling. All you need is the Bible.

>>16632582
>A tree and water have different chemical and structural compositions
Nice. Organisms and mechanisms have different structural and regulating compositions. Thank you. First you tried to appeal to no difference by mentioning everything is atoms and now you conveniently find the difference in chemical and other compositions. Bravo. Mechanisms and organism also have different chemical compositions by the way.

>do you have some metaphysical theory you want to put forward?
No.

>>16632597
The Bible is a valid alternative as is every other revealed religion. Materialists have to deal with this though.

>>16632598
lol you are very dumb and I can tell you are going to leave in a second

A tree and water have different structural and chemical compositions but they both are mechanical, just like an organism and a mechanism, they both operate because of the same physical processes. They can be different in higher order nature while still being the same in basic nature.

And of course you don't have any metaphysics, you can't even think, you don't even know what happens in your head when I ask you to think about how things cause each other. Fucking hilarious

>>16632618
>lol you are very dumb and I can tell you are going to leave in a second
Good. I finally got the ad hominem out of you.

>organism and a mechanism, they both operate because of the same physical processes
Except one can self-regulate and the other one cannot. So maybe they don't operate by the same processes if the processes are different.

>And of course you don't have any metaphysics
Ad hominem #2. Way to go. When you get to three, you will get a special reward.
>you don't even know what happens in your head when I ask you to think about how things cause each other
It's interesting that you think you know what I think.
>Fucking hilarious
It's also interesting that you write when amused.

>>16632670
>Except one can self-regulate and the other one cannot. So maybe they don't operate by the same processes if the processes are different.
absolutely fucking lol

The tree and the water and the organism and the mechanism all obey the rules of physics right? despite being structured differently? Or did you have an alternate theory about reality worked, that's why I asked you about metaphysics.

>>16632680
>The tree and the water and the organism and the mechanism all obey the rules of physics right?
I never claimed they don't obey the rules of physics. One can self-regulate, and can have an incentive due to having being alive or dead at stake while the other one doesn't have those things.
>that's why I asked you about metaphysics
Judging by your writing, I'm not convinced you studied metaphysics. Hence I have no need to bring them up directly.
Maybe that's something about incentives or something, or maybe only external forces made me think this way.

>>16632700
And you don't think the way that physics works is 'mechanical'? It's not just things causing each other?

>>16630664
Because the theory of evolution works on the basis of groups, not just individuals

If a tribe of humans benefited from having a certain percentage of homosexuals, then homosexuality would be perpetuated even though the gay men themselves never reproduced.

The exact reason they benefit a group is a topic for speculation. One idea is that the rest of the men were more comfortable leaving them with the women when they went out hunting because they didn't have to worry about getting cucked.

>>16632706
... Stop using leading questions. I'm really not interested in that.
Also, I'm waiting for cars to evolve. On their own. It's really a pain that they stay the same once you build them and keep untouched.

>>16630664
I liked that essay by Jung when he says that being gay signifies arrested development, and that it's a phase that you should get through (hopefully without noticing too much).

>>16630748
It turns out safety and security are highly prized by the reproduction process. This means the genes will tend towards societies which provide safety and security. Before you comment on the current social climate, be aware this process works on the level of hundreds of generations, so you would have to look at societal trends over that type of time scale. Ultimately, synergy is such a potent force of nature that, although ultra self interest and psychopathology occur, they are on the losing side of evolution. The arc of history does bend towards justice.

>>16630773
>"What ever you do, don't read things that will challenge your dogmatic worldview! Just blindly and passively accept it."
I swear, Christcucks are so pathetic

>>16632723
Is physics mechanical? And if it is mechanical and if organisms obey the rules of physics, then how are they not mechanical? It doesn't matter if things evolve or not to determine whether they are mechanical.

Calling it a leading question and presenting no argument isn't going to work but you can keep trying

>takes a giant shit on you

>>16630500
>proof?
>PROOF?!! *eyes go cross* I NEED PROOF??!!

>>16632745
>Calling it a leading question and presenting no argument isn't going to work
It's actually working brilliantly because you didn't explain how physics are "mechanical", whatever that means for you, and want to somehow challenge me. You want to argue that physics are mechanical. Go ahead with all the definitions. I'm not obliged to argue with every barking sound you produce.
> And if it is mechanical and if organisms obey the rules of physics, then how are they not mechanical ?
Again, man. You have to present arguments yourself..
If something obeys laws of nature, it's natural. If something does not obey laws of nature, it's unnatural. I get the jazz. Except there are subcategories. Saying that everything is natural, therefore there is no difference between things is as awkward as saying that if you obey some form of mechanical rules, you are a mechanism and that's the end of it.

>>16632790
A mechanism is things causing each other right, that's what gears are? That's what physics does, which includes organisms. I will enjoy your next avoidance of this extremely obvious fact

>>16632805
I won't bother to count how many of my responses you have ignored.
>A mechanism is things causing each other right
No, I never said that.

>>16632814
What is a mechanism then lmao? It's not a thing which is ruled by its components causing each other to move in a certain way? Just like an organism lol

you have literally no argument at all, just nothing

>>16630477
Cringe, I am not a machine trying to replicate its genes.

>>16631996
You’re basically retarded

>>16632835
I can believe that, you're probably defective in the sense of being ugly and really bad at fucking girls

>>16632825
Read this
>>16632135
Also, you devote quite a lot of time to this "nothing" that I have.

>>16632852
Yeah I read and responded to that. Organisms can differ from other objects while both being mechanical, ie. being composed of parts that predictably cause each other to behave in certain ways. You still have not presented a single argument against this idea, and you won't. because you can't.

I am a machine of God.

>>16630477
This goes to show how harmful the average 4channer's approach to literature is (mainly non fiction).
They see words printed in a book in order to "learn", because books have the "truth", which is the best thing you could learn.

>>16632863
> You still have not presented a single argument against this idea, and you won't. because you can't.
There's this interesting thing in psychology. Once you start losing grip and fear being lost or embarrassed, you start exclaiming things like "you can't, you won't". This is because it's better to comfort yourself by telling yourself (out loud) that the opponent will not be able to present an argument.
>being composed of parts that predictably cause each other to behave in certain ways
... So, car and squirrel are both mechanical..? They work very differently in terms of what maintains them, how they work, and how they react to external and internal influences. I get it, you have this semantic trap set up. "If they react in accordance with physical laws, they are mechanical because physics are mechanical. End of story." Except it isn't end of story.

>>16632910
Then what is the story lmao? They are clearly mechanical, define the word mechanical in a way that doesn't clearly include how physics work in an organism. You can't do it, because the way atoms in an organism work is clearly the same as how they work in a clock or any other mechanism. It's the same mechanical process, it's just different on higher order levels of abstraction. That makes the phenomena different, it doesn't make them not mechanical.

You will utterly fail to define mechanical in any way that coherently includes the physics of a clock but doesn't include those of an organism. You probably won't even try.

>>16632925
>You will utterly fail to define mechanical in any way that coherently includes the physics of a clock but doesn't include those of an organism. You probably won't even try.
I would like to refer you to the first part of my post here >>16632910
You are, once again, trying to comfort yourself.
>define the word mechanical in a way that doesn't clearly include how physics work in an organism
I don't recall you every defining anything as far as our conversation here goes...
>You can't do it, because the way atoms in an organism work is clearly the same as how they work in a clock or any other mechanism
Ah okay so it's not that all things are the same, but that all things work the same. Squirrel "works" the same way as a car. Some metaphysical views are really off when you try to apply them to real life scenarios, I suppose.
"Atoms work the same, so all things and living organisms work the same." God..

>>16632946
I said that all things obey the laws of physics, and the laws of physics are mechanical, ie. they are just cogs interacting with each other like a machine. Mechanical.

This includes organisms. It doesn't matter that they seem different to you on a higher level, they are still mechanical entities, atoms making each other bounce around. What do you not get about this?

>>16632906
Should we not aim to learn truth then? Even if the > words printed in a book
do not have the truth, shouldn't we try to find it in other ways?

>>16632906
fucking retard lel

>>16632962
>It doesn't matter that they seem different to you on a higher level
So, squirrels and cars do work the same..
Except they don't..

>>16633020
They're both mechanical. I'll make it really simple for you, they both have electrons and protons and neutrons, so they both obey the laws of physics.

>>16633071
Right I love seeing squirrels turn off and om

>>16630402
It stopped being relevant in biology 20 years ago

>>16630402
you have to be 18 to post here.

>>16633452
does a mill turn off and on you retard
>>16634144
No it did not and if you attempt to bring some bullshit about 'symbiosis' or whatever you're an idiot

>>16630664
Fags have a lot of female friends and aren't seens as a threat by chad