Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Original Sin - Scripture and Reason
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 9 of 203 (668307)
07-19-2012 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by GDR
07-19-2012 1:37 PM


I would say that we are all born with a selfish nature with no real understanding of selflessness. From the quotes in the OP we can see that Dawkins would agree with that, as does the Bible, although less directly than Dawkins.
But Dawkins does not believe that selflessness is exclusively the domain of memes. He does accept that the genes can create bodies that do apparently altruistic things. He points to bees and vampire bats as well as some others if memory serves. He doesn't claim that bees suicidally defend their hive because of their culture, but so doing would be classed as 'selflessness'.
One of his central points is that selfish genes can give rise to selfless behaviour. Granted, he also believes that memes have an impact on our behaviour too: The brain is built part by genes and in part by the environment (which includes learning).
Less than 2000 years ago the most civilized nations on the planet found it entertaining to watch people fight to the death or to watch people being killed by wild animals.
And we still find that kind of stuff entertaining, we've just found safer ways to get our kicks (films/video games/sports etc).
There is a lot wrong, but there is also a lot that is right and I think that it is evident that if we take the long view that the world is a better place now than it has been in the past.
Yes, even including the World Wars, the chances of dying by the hands of another human have decreased over time. And this can be put down to the evolution of culture via memes.
What Dawkins has done, based on reason, is to come up with a concept of original sin. He says from the quote above that we have the natural selfishness in our genes. He then goes on to say that we are cultured by what he has termed memes. He tells us that because of memes we can rebel against the tyranny of our selfish replicators.
I both agree and disagree. I think modern research has called into question a lot of this in some sense.
What causes us to 'rebel against the tyranny...'? Rebelling against the tyranny... is itself an idea. And it can replicate. So its a meme. Our memes might help us overcome the tyranny of genes, or I would rather say that it helps us find more optimum ways of existing within the tyranny of the genes. But what helps us overcome the tyranny of memes? Some have suggested temes as the next level
The Bible tells us that we have knowledge of good and evil and the ability to choose between them.
We don't need the Bible to do that, observing human behaviour is all that's required.
As we can see from this, memes are not physical but are non-physical thoughts and ideas that can be passed from one person to another resulting in the change of thoughts and ideas of individuals and societies.
In one way of looking, genes are not physical too. They are just information. They are typically based on a physical substrate called DNA. Memes have a physical substrate in the brain.
Original sin has always been a difficult doctrine to understand. My contention is that if we combine scripture and reason it is no longer difficult.
The difficulty of original sin is not resolved by this I'm afraid.
The difficulty is in why should the actions of one couple, determine the moral standing of all of their descendants? And in what way is Jesus' sacrifice a way around this? That's where all the hard theological work tends to get done.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by GDR, posted 07-19-2012 1:37 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 07-19-2012 3:32 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 07-19-2012 10:00 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 18 of 203 (668412)
07-20-2012 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by GDR
07-19-2012 10:00 PM


selfish replicators, altruistic individuals
OK but I understand Dawkins to be saying that genes can only generate behaviour that appears selfless. Genes on their own only function in order to best support their survival.
No, I don't think he's saying that genes can only generate behaviour that appears selfish (I assume you meant selfish). AS one of your quotes notes:
quote:
The contention is that the genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level.
emphasis added. It might harm the doer of good, even as it helps increase the frequency of the gene within the doer of good. As long as the gene is being selfish, the phenotype can be being selfless.
Genes function through mindless natural selection and primarily function as genetic replicators. Dawkins view is that there are social replicators that have naturally evolved over time that enable us to overcome our selfish genes.
Yes they have. But our selfish genes made us into social primates. Social primates do apparently selfless things. Often going to extreme lengths for close family members. This helps increase the frequency of that gene (as other members of the family that are being helped probably also have that gene).
Memes have allowed us to expand those we cooperate with as we consider all of humanity as 'one big family', but it doesn't completely override our lowered opinion of 'others'.
I don’t see that in what I have read. I only see that selfish genes can give rise to behaviour that appears to be selfless but in actuality isn’t. Can you give me a quote that supports that statement?
Well, that'd kind of one of the points the book makes as a whole. It's about how selfish replicators can build cooperative phenotypes. Here is a relevant quote from an interview about the book in 2006:
quote:
...if you have selfish genes then you may have altruistic individuals and that's what the book's about.
quote:
...people think it means that we are selfish or that individual organisms are selfish and it doesn't mean that...and as a consequence of genes being selfish individuals like us may be very altruistic. So a great deal of the book is explaining why individuals are altruistic because genes are selfish...one of the ways {genes} work is to make individuals altruistic, nice, cooperative - it's not the only way...
If you actually have a copy then I suggest Chapter 12, 'Nice guys finish first', and well the rest of the book too.
Further more in 'Memes: the new replicators' he says, regarding 'true altruism':
quote:
It is possible that yet another unique quality of man is a capacity for genuine, disinterested, true altruism. I hope so, but I am not going to argue the case one way or the other...even if we look on the dark side and assume that individual man is fundamentally selfish, our conscious foresight...could save us from the worst self excesses of the blind replicators...we have...the mental equipment to foster our long-term interests rather than...our short term interests.
He's not going to argue whether the altruism that people actually exhibit is genuine altruism, or driven by some selfish desires. It doesn't matter whether it is genuine altruism or just apparent altruism.
I would agree that our memes have made us more altruistic, but we would never have generated those memes had we not had the genes that encouraged cooperative behaviour.
I agree with your statement on genes but I’m not at all clear as to what the substrate would be for memes.
They use the physical substrate of the brain to replicate, but their physical substrate can be any number of things. Have you ever worn a tie? There is the physical tie itself, representing the meme as well as the idea in your brain - composed of neuron states etc.
If it is ok with you I’d like to leave that alone for now as I see it just dragging us off topic.
I'm not trying to discuss that issue - just saying what the real problems of original sin are. That we are flawed beings has never been a difficulty I think anyone has ever had.
Edited by Modulous, : added subtitle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 07-19-2012 10:00 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by GDR, posted 07-21-2012 12:25 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 23 of 203 (668467)
07-21-2012 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by GDR
07-21-2012 12:25 PM


Re: selfish replicators, altruistic individuals
Yes, he talks about genes behaving selfishly without regard to the organism, but as we are our genes, he also extends this natural selfishness to the organism himself.
Selfish genes can and do give rise to selfish behaviours. But those same genes can give rise to selfless behaviour. We might see this at its extreme in kamikaze bees. My primary point was that memes are not necessary in fostering selfless behaviour, and the selfish genes can create (at least occasional) selfless phenotypes.
The point I see it is this. Essentially, we are selfish, but in that selfishness we can find benefit from co-operating. That is how I understand the Christian concept of original sin.
I agree that in part, the Christian 'solution' to 'original sin' is to make people act in their own self-interest by proposing heaven/hell.
Original sin, as I understand it, proposes that we are inherently sinful or born into sin or what have you. I do not regard the selfishness of a baby to be in any way, sinful, but original sin would suggest otherwise. I understand that being born into selfishness is not usually considered a moral statement about a person.
Could you support your notion of original sin being about selfishly benefiting through apparently self-less acts? And remember, the entity that selfishly benefits does not have to be the selfish organism - that's built into the Selfish Gene idea, and I'd like to see any kind of analogous concept in Original Sin.
However, he also acknowledges when he talks about blood donors in the UK, (by the way we aren’t paid for donating blood in Canada either), that people do this without any perceived benefit. He agrees that we can move beyond that. Actually, I don’t think his blood donor example is particularly strong, as by donating blood it could be perceived as encouraging others to donate blood so that there will be a supply available in case I need it.
I agree there may be some selfish rewards for blood donation (the reinforcement of the belief 'I am a good person', the fact that blood donors sometimes advertise their good deed to get social kudos and probably some others too), I always enjoyed the bit just after that where he talks about vampire bats.
I think a better example is when someone in the developed world donates money to aid starving families in relatively undeveloped countries. For the individual it means less money for him/herself. From a societal point of view we would be better off without them as they are still consuming resources which would be available to us if they were to cease existing.
Personally I think selfish memes and selfish genes successfully explain this apparently selfless behaviour. In this, I might be more Dawkinsian than Dakwins Actually, in many of his recent talks he has said more or less what I'm saying here, but probably better.
Selfish genes tell us to look after our own. That's because the selfish genes that tell us to do this have multiple copies so actually the genes are helping themselves while the organisms help each other. If there were no other forces at play that may be sufficient to explain giving foreign aid.
However, there are forces at play which cause us to distrust foreigners as they are potential threats regarding the control of essential resources.
So memes come in, and give us the notion that all of humanity is one big family and so everyone should be helped just as much as other members of family. This meme has not yet advanced to the point where we do this fully. However, the wiring that tells us 'help out our allies' is being co-opted by the idea that 'everyone not explicitly an enemy is an ally'. So we help out famine sufferers, or flood victims, or whoever.
Dawkins calls it a
quote:
misfiring by-product of our Darwinian past when we lived in small villages...which meant we were surrounded by close kin...one good pre-requisite for the evolution of altruism...we would have been surrounded by people who we are likely to meet again and again throughout our life - which provides the basis for the other main Darwinian reason to be moral or altruistic...although we no longer live in small bands, the same rule(s) of thumb...are playing themselves out under the alien conditions of modern urban society...
...it has become modified and refined through culture...
When I read the Bible we have the Genesis story telling us that we gained the knowledge of good and evil. We then have the Cain and Abel story where it is clear that we chose evil or selfishness. (Original sin) The Bible is an on-going narrative of how God wants us to rise above that selfishness. That is the story that is in the scripture but that becomes a much clearer picture when we overlay the reasoning of Dawkins on top of that scriptural story to give it a much fuller meaning.
I don't think it's possible to rise above the selfishness that our genes have given us. I think at best, we can delude ourselves that we are overcoming our selfishness. In the end, when we ask ourselves, Cui bono?, we'll find that there is some selfish entity that is benefiting. Whether its a selfish individual, a selfish gene or a selfish meme.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by GDR, posted 07-21-2012 12:25 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 07-21-2012 9:28 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 70 by GDR, posted 07-22-2012 5:59 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 28 of 203 (668496)
07-22-2012 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
07-21-2012 9:28 PM


Re: selfish replicators, altruistic individuals
You may think that, I know otherwise.
That's nice, jar.
Would you like to join the discussion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 07-21-2012 9:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 8:47 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 30 of 203 (668498)
07-22-2012 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
07-22-2012 8:47 AM


the mysterious knowledge of jar
There's really not much to discuss is there?
You claimed to 'know otherwise'. So what you could try is explaining what it is you know, and then describing how it is that you know it - along with any supporting evidence and argument.
That's how it normally works around here.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 8:47 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 8:59 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 36 of 203 (668507)
07-22-2012 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by jar
07-22-2012 11:00 AM


Re: selfish replicators, altruistic individuals
I'm not sure examples are even relevant or important, but people have been known to place themselves in danger for the benefit of others, often for folk they do not even know.
Yes, they do. But just because you cannot discern a selfish motive involved does not mean there is not one.
Take kamikaze bees - who not only place themselves in danger for the benefit of others - but actually kill themselves for their benefit.
The selfish behaviour being demonstrated in this kind of example may be the genes (mistakenly, perhaps) 'trying' to selfishly increase their frequency in the gene pool.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 11:00 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 11:51 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 38 of 203 (668509)
07-22-2012 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
07-22-2012 11:51 AM


Re: selfish replicators, altruistic individuals
I'm not a kamikaze bee.
I didn't call you one - I was using it as an example of non-obvious selfish motives for behaviour that seems to only benefit others at a cost to the individual engaged in that behaviour.
I was saying that just because you cannot discern it, does not mean it isn't there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 11:51 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 12:00 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 40 of 203 (668511)
07-22-2012 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
07-22-2012 12:00 PM


Re: a human is not a bee
And I'm explaining to you that it just isn't there.
I guess I missed that explanation. All I see is you assert some unspoken knowledge (Message 25), an explicit refusal to explain yourself (Message 31) followed by an assertion that you discern no selfishness (Message 29 and Message 35), and that you believe you do things with no selfish motive, as if that meant something.
Your conscious motivations are not in question - what's being discussed on the unconscious motivations of both yourself, your genes and your memes.
I think that you've fallen for the classic delusion of thinking that the reason you believe you did something, is the reason why you did something. Sometimes you may be right, but it's difficult to impossible to determine that by mere self-inspection.
Incidentally - this is what it looks like when someone is trying to discuss something with you. It's exactly the opposite of the impression you are giving in this discussion. If you don't want to debate this matter - stop posting in this thread!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 12:00 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 12:24 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 42 of 203 (668515)
07-22-2012 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
07-22-2012 12:24 PM


Re: Discussion and debate are not synonymous
And I'm explaining to you that it just isn't there.
I guess I missed that explanation.
I'm somewhat confused by your saying you missed that when you actually quote it.
Now I'm confused. I quoted you asserting that you had explained it/were explaining it. I did not quote you explaining it. I quoted the entirety of Message 39 so I'm pretty sure I didn't miss anything.
The assertion I made was that I am unable to discern any selfish motive whether intellectual, genetic or otherwise in those actions I take that are unselfish.
And my counter was that just because something is not discerned by you, does not make it so. There is no reason to suppose that if there were a selfish force in play - you would necessarily discern it.
That is not a claim that all actions are unselfish and there are certainly times that I do things that might meet your criteria, but the essence is that as a human I can behave beyond simply responding to any genetic or selfish causes.
I am not asserting that you claim all actions are unselfish. I'm just saying the ones that appear selfless might not be; The selfish influences may be
a) genetic: by helping out your community you are making your community stronger, which helps the replication of the genes that influence helping the community.
b) individual: by helping your community you hope to gain (consciously or otherwise) social benefits through reciprocity or the reinforcement of your belief that you are a good person or what have you.
c) memetic: By bringing in your neighbours trashcan you are displaying a certain behaviour. This advertisement increases the chances of the 'bringing in other's trashcans' meme of being replicated.
d) other: maybe there are other forces at play that I have not discerned.
I can grant the notion that when we calculate things out, some actions may turn out to not benefit anyone sufficiently to justify the act - that is to say, mistakes may be made by the various entities in promoting certain behaviours. Some memes you may have adopted may be very poor replicators. Those that encourage secret acts of kindness for example. They can't easily replicate through mimicry, though they might replicate through other means.
But those memes that you have that are successful replicators, are those that encourage behaviour that gets them replicated. The same goes for your genes. You may have some genes or memes that encourage behaviour that does not get them replicated, and that behaviour may even be selfless.
But just because you cannot discern these selfish influences, it does not follow that they are not present.
If you do not want to discuss this topic then stop posting in this thread.
But I do! That's why I invited you to join the discussion in Message 28, but you were the one that demurred in Message 29 claiming that 'There's really not much to discuss'. I've tried numerous times to get you to subsequently join in and bring your position and your support for that position.
My position is that selfish genes can build unselfish individuals. That selfish memes can encourage unselfish behaviours. That the only part of this that intersects with the original sin notion is the part that observes that individuals are often selfish and that it takes will to overcome our selfishness. GDR seems to think that some memes are God-given and these ones encourage selflessness - but my main counter is that our biological nature is to be social primates. That our selfish genes encourage behaviour that benefits our community even at a cost to ourselves.
That genes can even create individuals that engage in suicidal behaviour, but that memes are even more powerful in this element. Fighting and dying for one's country might be explainable largely in terms of genetic influences (protect the community/family) - but we can't escape the power of memes such as ' Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori' and so on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 12:24 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 1:27 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 44 of 203 (668517)
07-22-2012 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jar
07-22-2012 1:27 PM


Re: Discussion and debate are not synonymous
Lots of words but I see no content.
I'm willing to bet that lots of words with no content trumps very few words with no content in terms of which of us is trying to have a discussion about the issues raised in this thread. Again - if you don't want to discuss the issues in the thread, and simply want to share your opinions, then now that you've done that - you can desist from posting.
If you want more content, see my earlier posts in which I was discussing the position with someone who clearly wanted a discussion.
It is a fact that I and others do things that are not driven by selfish motives.
And I'm asking you over and again to support this fact. All you've done so far is claim that your inability to discern selfish motives is somehow relevant.
We are in "Faith and Belief".
That does not mean that this is a forum where we simply declare our beliefs. We are still required to support our positions. It just doesn't have to be to a scientific standard. The rules still apply in this forum:
quote:
Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 1:27 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 1:37 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 47 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 1:51 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 46 of 203 (668520)
07-22-2012 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by jar
07-22-2012 1:37 PM


Re: Discussion and debate are not synonymous
Yawn.
Disrespectful, jar, highly disrespectful. It's becoming something of a habit with you.
I have stated my position and even given examples. If you wish to refute that then you need to present evidence that a specific selfish motive drove those actions, not simply speculate about some imagined motives or causes.
You sound like a creationist. I need the exact specific selection pressures that were in play, every one of them, and each specific mutation that occurred and why - or it doesn't count as a refutation.
You claimed
quote:
It is a fact that I and others do things that are not driven by selfish motives
I have argued that this is not necessarily the case - but the burden of proof is upon you, that made the claim, to support it. To do this, you need to provide an example of an action that was driven by no selfish motivations - and rule out all possible selfish motivations.
I have already agreed that there may be some acts that really are not driven by selfish motives - but they are the exception rather than the rule. The examples you gave so far don't self-evidently suggest no selfish motivations at play, so you have to support your position that there are none.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 1:37 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 2:04 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 48 of 203 (668522)
07-22-2012 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Jon
07-22-2012 1:51 PM


Re: Discussion and debate are not synonymous
Suppose jar really does have trouble discerning selfish motives. Wouldn't it benefit the discussion if you could point some out to him for the things he mentioned in Message 35?
I thought so, so I did that in Message 42. Jar responded with
quote:
Lots of words but I see no content.
and you cheered him. Odd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 1:51 PM Jon has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 50 of 203 (668525)
07-22-2012 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
07-22-2012 2:04 PM


Re: Discussion and debate are not synonymous
Respect is earned.
I would have thought I'd have long since earned your respect jar, but that's by the by - one should show respect to other fellow members of this forum, even if you don't have respect for them. Showing contempt or disrespect as you have done is at best impolite, at worst it detracts from the goal of fostering civil discussion.
What is the selfish motive for my pushing grocery carts back into the store from the parking lot?
1) The avoidance of the negative consequences for not doing it. If someone 'catches' you not doing this, your reputation is harmed. You are acting out of the self-interest of protection of reputation. And the same 'rule of thumb' applies when nobody is watching too.
2) By pushing grocery carts back to the store, you are instantiating the meme 'push carts back' which increases the meme's chance of being replicated by observers (or even those that merely observe the consequences)
3) By helping your community, you are keeping the community strong. Since your community (From the gene's point of view) is probably composed of those closely related, this helps (but not much, obviously) the chances of the gene that promotes community helpfulness to replicate.
The list is not exhaustive, just showing selfishness operating at the level of the individual, the gene and meme. Obviously the effects are rather trivial, but it's a trivial example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 2:04 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 2:39 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 55 by nwr, posted 07-22-2012 3:22 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 57 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 3:53 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 52 of 203 (668529)
07-22-2012 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Jon
07-22-2012 2:39 PM


And who's better to tell us jar's motives than Modulous?
I'm not listing what jar's motives are. I was listing some possible selfish drivers of a certain specified behaviour. Jar is saying with absolute confidence that there are definitely no selfish drivers behind some acts. I concur that might be the case here and there, but failure to discern selfish drivers doesn't mean they aren't there - there are many non-obvious ones at play that are not always consciously available for inspection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 2:39 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 3:04 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 54 of 203 (668531)
07-22-2012 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Jon
07-22-2012 3:04 PM


A selfless act is a selfless act.
Tautologically true.
The kamikaze bee killing itself to defend the hive is engaged in a selfless act. Its behaviour driven by selfish entities (genes).
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 3:04 PM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024