begin quoting Todd Walton as of Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 07:51:24AM -0700: > On 6/7/05, Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > begin quoting Todd Walton as of Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 07:31:37AM -0700: > > > In fact, genes don't care about anything. They're not concious. > > > Their mention in this context was somewhat of a non sequitur. > > > > Apparently I used an idiomatic form of 'care' with which you are > > unfamiliar. > > I am not unfamiliar with it. To what effect were you using it? > That's my point. I'm not against anthropomorphizing consenting > inanimate objects, but can you translate your statement, "the genes > don't care if your life is crap if you have lots of kids to survive > you",
I can try. It's said that genes are a self-replicating structure, and what they replicate is their own structure; what is built by/around that structure -- i.e. us -- isn't what's being preserved, except insofar as it helps the self-replication process. Thus, the "goal" of a gene is to replicate itself. Given a goal, we can talk about other fuzzy concepts, such as "want", as in "a gene wants to replicate itself", or "care", as in "a gene only cares about those things that lets it replicate itself better". In that sense, a gene doesn't _care_ about your quality of life, it only cares about replicating itself. In fact, if *reducing* your quality of life increases the number of children you have and their survival (and thus the survival of the gene), that's a valid optimization strategy. As you point out, genes don't _actually_ care. (In fact, according to some people, _nobody_ *actually* cares, it's all just deterministic biology, and we're little meat puppets.) > into precise and non-fuzzy English, Not so such _that_ is possible. > and then explain how it > relates to DJA's point? Living short, brutish, nasty, unpleasant lives in the backwaters of the world where you die young and painfully doesn't really make too much of a difference from the point of view of a gene. So long as you pop out a few kids and train 'em up, so that the genes endure, the race will survive even if you die young and unhappy. Keeping the land from the jungle doesn't take a fulfilling, happy, sanitary, or in any way pleasant life. (Although, it's more fun if it happens to be a fulfilling, happy, sanitary, and pleasant life. It's just not important that it *be* so.) > begin quoting DJA as of Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 11:22:42PM -0700: > > Indeed, it's a wonder that the populations of these backwaters haven't > > died off centuries ago and the land gone back to jungle. > > This is what you were responding to. I think your comment was a non > sequitur, that's all. It may _look_ like one, but I don't think it is. It may have been a bit of a leap, however. :) -Stewart "I leap, you plod, he trips." Stremler
pgpdDK7NfQ48D.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
