He acknowledges that DNA is a code that involves memes. Whose?
Excellent question.
Introspection, meditation… exploration of my ancestry, as far back as possible.
Connection of my behaviours, my tastes, my attitudes, with this past.
Self is a continuum, complicated by heterosexuality.
Two divergent continuums merging, in unknown ways, manifesting in unforeseeable consequences.
Studying yourself as objectively as possible.; as severely as possible.
You have no clue what I am saying.
DNA is not a meme.
Culture is a meme.
DNA is biological.
inherited memories, what Jung called a “collective unconscious.”
We inherited the memories of our ancestors in the form of bio-algorythms, guiding, informing, directing us.
Meditation is a way of tapping into it.
Dreams is another way these memories communicate with our consciousness.
Intuitions, feelings… also…
Our ancestors speak to us through our subconscious.
We seek strength through them.
Here is where your ilk confuses this inner voice for ‘god.’
Inherited memories (DNA) converge, in consciousness, with experiential memories - this is where culture factors in.
The two streams of memories often competing and, as in the case of nihilism, like Abrahamism, contradicting each other.
This is where morality and ethics diverge.
Genetic - DNA, Nature - moral impulses - conscience.
Memetic - culture, experiences, Nurture - ethical codes of conduct.
What you are saying is not scientific.
It’s poetry, pseudo-scientific chicanery… a word salad. Arguing against that level of insanity is futile. Just watch as the predictions fail to come true and the organism implodes on itself. The same thing happened to Kaczynsky.
It is scientific, sweetie…
DNA guides organic processes, as if the body remembers how to grow hair, or nails, or how to stand and walk…or to be afraid of the dark, or to be aroused by a specific symmetry without having to measure it or be aware of how or why.
How do animals know how to have sex, or how to hunt, or how to swim?
How do bees know how to build a perfect hexagon, a spider to weave its webs…a bird to build a nest
Much more than your god, and this self=other self-hating crap you spew.
Our episodic meme-ories are not passed on epigenetically. At least — no geneticist has yet succeeded in making that the case, to my knowledge, and can you EVEN FRICKEN IMAGINE THE MASSIVE DUMPSTER FIRE THAT WOULD BE if they did??? Every generation — full knowledge of the previous generation’s laundry situation.
The memes in our genes are encoded by the Programmer in whose image we are made.
Tabula rasa is every infant.
Superstitious sweetie, there are studies that state that a man passes on his state up until the moment his body created the sperm that will impregnate an ovum.
Up until the very moment of the sperm’s creation, memories are being transmitted.
If you’re going to be scientific, try to be consistent.
The bullshyte you believe contradicts science… but you want to use what you understand of it to question another’s positions.
A true hypocrite.
No “full knowledge” sweetie.
That’s not how it works. A plant knows how to seek water, or grow a flower…and it has no brain.
There are memories stored in your cells… across your entire body.
Cells communicate with the brain, via the nervous system…the transmissions are not lucid, sweetie…no complete clarity…all feelings, intuitions, sensations…
All you know are your lucid memories…and that’s why you are triggered by the term.
Tabula Rasa is the postmodern, nihilistic last hope.
No tabula rasa, sweetie.
Your Americanism is showing.
You cannot escape your past…even the past before you were born…you can try to deny and forget, but you do not get rid of it.
I recently actually took the class that would’ve shown me the studies you’re talking about … but what it showed me was quite the opposite. You are mistaken.
You are always up to date…cutting edge.
Keep taking those classes in conventional thinking.
How about consent violations …did you take a class in that?
You’ve reached the end of knowledge and there, you’ve discovered god.
Congratulations, sweetie. You’re done.
Now you can spread the wisdom on these forums.
Are you impervious offline?
They could really use you at the circus.
Is that how you commune with your ancestors, via your DNA? What form do these communions take, are they memories… do they contain visual and auditory impressions?
There is error correction in DNA. See my last posts. We are not communicating with our ancestors, we are communications of the original. Anything that affects our offspring due to trauma in the womb gets reset for their offspring once conditions improve, and does not forever impact the original code to the point it cannot be reset.
If a “mutation” dilutes the further away you get from a location, it is worth questioning whether it is actually an epigenetic response that can be reset when part of the population moves away from that location.
This conversation totally reminds me of the one over at the 3 body problem thread, where we are discussing (non-)perturbation.
…and reminds me that it doesn’t matter what material makes up an object, whether flesh and blood, or silicon, as long as it is configured such that it can send and receive signals that it can willFULLY modulate (accrete?) (construct)…
The theory and data related to social identity are also highly compatible with research on individualism and collectivism (Triandis 1990, 1991).
Individualism/collectivism constitutes a dimension of individual differences, with group (cross-cultural) differences in the trait resulting in differences between societies in the extent to which emphasis is placed on the goals and needs of the ingroup rather than on individual rights and interests. For individuals highly predisposed to collectivism, ingroup norms and the duty to cooperate and subordinate individual goals to the needs of the group are paramount. Collectivist cultures develop an ‘unquestioned attachment’ to the ingroup, including ‘the perception that ingroup norms are universally valid (a form of ethnocentrism), automatic obedience to ingroup authorities [i.e., authoritarianism], and willingness to fight and die for the ingroup. These characteristics are usually associated with distrust of and unwillingness to cooperate with outgroups’ (Triandis 1990, 55). Like social identity processes, tendencies toward collectivism are exacerbated in times of external threat, again suggesting that the tendency toward collectivism is a facultative response that evolved as a mechanism of between-group conflict.
The existence of such a mechanism implies that the group has been the vehicle of selection, in Wilson and Sober’s (1994) terms. It is an important theoretical question whether such adaptations for between-group competition are compatible with selection at the individual level. Given that these mechanisms appear to be highly sensitive to the presence of external threat to the group, they may also track individual self-interest, since in times of threat, group and individual interests increasingly coincide. One could conceptualize a person as choosing between a self-sacrificial act that helps a group with whom one shares a significant genetic overlap, and a selfish act that is very unlikely to help an individual confronted by a menacing group and would also be likely to cause the group as a whole to fail. Under such circumstances, it is better to hang together than hang separately. The unit of analysis is the group, and the psychological mechanisms are the result of between-group conflict. However, such a mechanism is compatible with supposing that people have an algorithm that attempts to balance the costs and benefits to the individual of continued group membership with costs and benefits to be gained by deserting the group and engaging in an individualist strategy.
There appear to be examples of people who are so extremely collectivist that defecting from the group is not a psychologically available option.
Especially striking has been the phenomenon of individuals who readily undergo martyrdom or mass suicide rather than abandon the group. We see examples periodically in modern times, and there are many historical examples, ranging from Christian martyrs in ancient times to a great many instances of Jewish martyrdom over a two-thousand-year period.
[Separation and its Discontents]
-MacDonald, Kevin>
I do not suppose that such an extreme level of self-sacrifice is a panhuman psychological adaptation. However, it may well be the case that a significant proportion of Jews are extremely prone to collectivism, to the point that they do not calculate individual payoffs of group membership.
The proposed model is that over historical time, average group standing on the trait of collectivism increases among Jews, because individuals low on this trait (in this case, individuals who do not conform to expected standards of group behavior) are more likely to defect voluntarily from the group or be forcibly excluded from it (see PTSDA, Chs. 7 and 8 )
[Separation and its Discontents]
-MacDonald, Kevin
First thought: Do you influence (pull on, change) the group, or does the group influence (pull on, change) you? Do certain adaptations reflect a change in you/group, or just a change in HOW you/group pull/influence/change other/them?
Does it HAVE TO be one, “one or the other”, or both?
Individuals and groups are relationships.
Individuals determine what direction the group will take.
Individuals with advantageous combinations of traits, relative to environmental circumstances, propagate and spread their traits within the group.
There are no groups without individuals and individuals without groups.
Life is a group…species are sub-groups of life.
Subspecies are sub-groups…the individual is not the end, because cells are groupings constituting an individual.
Energy patterns in harmony being the beginning and end.
Patterns in harmony create unities.
Life is a unity that has become self-sustaining and aware.
Human individuals belong to human races (subspecies) of a cooperative biological category (species) named homo sapient, belonging to a family, named primates, belonging to a group named mammals, belonging to life, belonging to cosmos/existence.
No singularity.
An individual without a group that willfully pivots self=other, us=them is a mere piece of an aggregate/composite. In order to have homeostasis within and between persons the will of each must choose to function in a way that benefits the group. There is no such thing as a general will (a consent structure of many wills). There are only specific wills in agreement.
A house divided will not stand.
Ants are what you describe, deer.
Ants, termites, bees…
I higher organisms’ individuals must challenge and stand apart from the group to force it to move forward, to evolve faster, to progress.
Species splinter into subspecies (races in humans) this is part of natural selection.
Without separation there is no life.
The skin, exoskeleton, separates so as to self-organize in antithesis to cosmic flux.
Without this antagonism we remain like plants.
No consent required…do or die.
You think that creatures that merely follow instinct can agree as willful beings? Do you think they are not merely responding to chemical signals and are consciously aware of themselves and of the group?
First question. If not conscious … Who programmed that into them? Second question. If conscious … What test(s) did you use to make that assessment?