I spoke vaguely in more technical terms so as to product response, if any, from those who had some knowledge of Dawkins amongst others work in the field of Gene / Phenotype manipulation of fellow genes, organisms and environments.
I’ve been reading a book called ‘The Extended Phenotype’ by Richard Dawkins that had me really pissed off, in a good way… I think??? While it’s a very good book it had me thing way to much about Game Theory and ESS (Evolutionary Stable Systems, i.e. Put basically this is any system that interacts with itself, like an ecosystem but it’s an ecosystem that is stable and will not destroy itself. It’s a system that’s in balance, i.e. self-sustaining). In Game Theory it’s where a group of agents of different strategies have all be averaged out to the point were there is the right number of each for the system to stay stable. (e.g. one such system could be made up of 50% Kind people, but aware of cheats, 15% Gullible People, 35% Chancers (Opportunist that will cheat). There’s not just one Evolutionary Stable System, but many, the only difference is what proportion that each possible strategy uses and the environment that the system operates in, this also affects the proportions. Meaning if resources are very hard to come by then it’s more then lightly that a Kind but aware of cheats will have a high percentage- say 90%, 2% Gullible, 8% Chancers. Chancers still exist only because there are so many others that are willing to be kind short-term, but after they see the cheat stop helping, but the cheats always have new prays as there are so many who will initially be kind.
So an agent’s strategy must beat its opponent’s, but if its opponent strategy is the same it will more then lightly work with itself to the advantage of both. (i.e. People who can group together and work with each other in trust will beat others that don’t work with each order. Kind of like hunting packs, the pack works with each other against the common pray). The long and the short of it is Reciprocal Altruism, or what we call common sense, but it’s only common because all the other strategies have been weeded out though the process of Survival of the Fittest and have been proven to be redundant.
I’m unsure of how much people know about Genes, but a Phenotype is the effect the Gene gives off on the external world. So the Gene would be the computer program, while the User would only ever see the programs effect, which is what the Phenotype is, not the code, that’s the gene. So the end product of the code is the Phenotype, it’s a little ethereal in its concept until you think about it for a bit and then it makes perfect sense. Example, no one Gene does anything; it’s always a couple of them interacting that makes up an effect (a phenotype). So what we call the gene for eye colour is more then one gene, it’s the combined effect of many. That’s the reason why it can be hard to change just a single attribute of a person, because it’s not as simple as changing a single gene. The body itself is an ESS made up of genes that work with each other. Look at all the different forms of bacteria or other micro-organism that make up the human person, it a synergy of entities created from our Genes Phenotypes that cause us to be what we are. The more you examine what we are the less definite our substance becomes, such is the nature of synergy.
Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way on to what’s pissing me off! Well just a little more explaining. Also I hope I haven’t pissed you off and you’ve stopped reading. 
You know the way all animals use different forms of deception to survive. Butterflies with the different patterns on their wings; Leopards with their spots for camouflage, etc. Then there’s the way animals use there physical size for intimidation. Like the way aggravated cats arc their backs to make themselves look bigger so its physical presence will scare ways its opponent. Or it could be used in humans to intimidate others into doing what they don’t want to do. Meaning one imposes their will on another using the threat of some from of force. While this will work, it’s mostly a short-term fix, as the one that is intimidated will look for ways of revenge and try to get even. Therefore long term it’s a self destructive strategy, well at least only a small proportion of the people can use this strategy as it has high mortality rate so isn’t necessarily the most effective when it comes to Survival of the Fittest. Fear, that’s just one survival strategy to get others to do your bidding. What if there was a strategy were others would do what you wanted without the side affect of revenge, or it costing you any of your outwardly obtained resources, i.e. money, food. What if you could some how make people do what you wanted because they actually wanted to do it for you. What if we call that strategy Love? Genes who Phenotype product a physical form that cause others to become “weak at the knees” or “possessed by passionâ€, “those who would give up anything for Love.†It’s similar to taking a drug, but this drug is injected through our eyes (if you’ve read Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash you’ll get the idea, it’s like the virus in that book). A physical form that affects another person’s nervous system and unwittingly to them makes them more open to suggestions from the person who they are attracted to. Long term this is a good strategy (assuming the other person doesn’t end up heart-broken and decides to kill the object of its affection) as if both people love each other, both will work for the common good, synergistically speaking two become one, blah, blah, blah. Its follows the main selection criteria, beats other strategy directly or indirectly as it’s less risky, while if the strategy comes into play against itself it will work together for the good of both.
But now, what happens to people who are or become immune to that strategy? Where physical appearance or the idea of Love is no longer desirable? What if love no longer moves you to help another and you just see it as the crewless form of deception. As I think I’ve become that way. Whether it’s caused by my Gene’s, which I doubt, or more lightly my Memes (i.e. what makes me think and Ideas I have formed from past experiences and cogitation) I think I’m just becoming the ultimate cynic! I have to be careful how I say this, as I’m not a woman hate or bear ill will as I know we’re all in the exact same position, the only different is I now have an acquit awareness of something that others possible don’t… so with that said… Now when I look at women I don’t see her physical beauty, only a physical form that has more or less ability to manipulate me to do its will. Personally I find this a dark outlook on love as people all believe it to be something wonderful. Yet I see it simply as two groups of Genes whose physical forms have successfully coercing each other into doing what it wants. Love isn’t something special, it just a product of mutual manipulation and that heavenly feeling is just like any additive drug, if it didn’t feel good you wouldn’t do it! If sex was like going to the dentist contraception would never have been invented. Love is an Evolutionary Stable Strategy; that is, it works with itself to propagate itself.
Have we been genetically selected over many generations to feel like a half a being without Love? Because love is a good strategy when it comes to creating new offspring and rearing said children for the cycle to be repeated?
So this has gotten me pissed off. The usual contemplating existence and its nature, then struggling to re-appropriate the newly believed facts while getting ride of that shit I was taught by the mindless masses. Its amazing how new knowledge changes the shape of the world around us; showing how little we really know about it’s true form and the fact that the world I personally live in is completely different to anybody else’s, as the perceived world is only a by-product of a conscious mind, which swirls around in there with all the order crap we pickup along the way.
So to quickly recap what I’m saying…
It’s like intimidation but instead of using fear to frighten it has the opposite effect, using the equivalent of an aphrodisiac so to speak to control and coerce. Animals have used size and colours to intimidate as a defence mechanism against other animals. Why not create another form of intimidation that uses a more sootel approach to lower the defences and not only that but makes the pray more vulnerable and open to carrying out the other animals will. This would be an obvious advantage for aiding in survival, as in survival of the fittest terms, whenever your will is opposed successfully you have lost a battle of fittest and been proved weaker. Therefore the ultimate genes should win every battle, in theory anyway.
It’s already accepted that genes produce indicators to show other genes that they are fit and healthy specimens (this is one form of Phenotype). What if there was a mutation that played off this already existent effect to overload the detecting genes (kind of like a buffer overflow error that computer virus writers use) they exaggerate their own features to become a super healthy gene. What would be normal notification of healthy genes would become a massive signal pointing out a group of superior genes to a level that causes the viewers own gene mechanisms to become retarded in operational efficiency and create an overriding, but an artificial need to be with those genes. This having two forms in particular, Lust and Love.
Any comments?