Richard Dawkins

Morphine Child · Post by **Morphine Child** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:35 pm

Has anyone ever read anything by this guy? He's a zoologist, and one of the most respected Darwinist in the field. He's written books such as "The Selfish Gene", which contained a section on 'Memes' which is an idea that has sparked quite a few other books to be written about the subject. "The Blind Watchmaker", "A River out of Eden", "A Devil's Chaplain", and "Ancestor's Tale" are others by him.

I was just curious if anyone has ever read anything by him, and if anyone has an opinion on his theory of the meme, or even knows what I'm talking about. It's something that's been rather interesting to me lately, and I want to know how others feel.

jewlee138 · Post by **jewlee138** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:40 pm

I took a critical thinking soc. class that concentrated on him in college, but honestly haven't read much since.

DELETED · Post by **DELETED** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:46 pm

DELETED

Silencio · Post by **Silencio** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:47 pm

I don't suppose that fans of Stephen Jay Gould would find anything to dislike in Dawkins work, unless they were just spoiling for a pointless fight. Of course, I haven't read every word each of them wrote... perhaps there is some underlying argument.

Dawkins's concept of the meme as a self-replicating organism that responds to changes in environment is spot on. While I think he tried a bit too hard to turn his concept into a unifying theory of evolutionary biology, his concepts are right and true, and it certainly took a kind of genius to envision them.

IMO, "The Selfish Gene" is a good step forward in understanding life as it actually is and not as our mysterious consciousness wishes it to be. If you read this along wtih "Lives Of A Cell" and "Chimpanzee Politics" in the same year, you might begin to get a real sense of who and what you are.

DELETED · Post by **DELETED** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:56 pm

DELETED

jewlee138 · Post by **jewlee138** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:36 pm

This conversation reminds me of college almost as much as ecstasy....

jewlee138 · Post by **jewlee138** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:40 pm

and don't forget the "birdman" Mayr

Morphine Child · Post by **Morphine Child** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:22 am

Arkface wrote:Dawkins is whack!

Sincerely,

Fan of Gould

PS: f#ck Dennett too!

Where is is that Dawkins and Gould are different? I haven't had a chance to read any Gould yet. Any recommendations?

As far as memes go in comparision to a genetic natural selection and propogation, it makes a lot of sense. For a quick example, let's look at Christianity compared to Judaism. Christianity has been around for 2000 years. Judaism, is quite a bit older. Though the Jews never made spreading the word of their religion a part of their doctrine, and so the main way to grow is through additional generations of offspring. Where as Christianity sprung out of the same religion cesspool, and formed a slightly different religion that is very big (in fact, thrives on) spreading the word to as many people as possible. In time, Christianity has become the dominant religion from strength in numbers. This was through the spreading and evolution of ideas within the religion. The constant adaptation in the face of trying times for the religion. Changing doctrines, science...a lot of things have caused this "idea" to "evolve". And so in time if things continue the way they are, Christians will have an even larger stranglehold on the relgion world. Other religions will (and have) perished because they were out smarted by another (look at humans and the neandertals which lived together). There will always be people (at least a billion), and they will keep the religion adapting to new times, and changing doctrine in order to survive. The same way us humans are no longer really hairy, have thumbs, and eyebrows...things adapt out of necessity, and to beat out the competition.

So when I think of Memes, and understanding them, that is how I explain them to myself. Maybe I have the concept mixed up. Thoughts, Arkface? Tear me down!

jewlee138 · Post by **jewlee138** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:25 pm

If I remember correctly, the basic difference stemmed from Dawkins being a zoologist (everything stemmed from the gene) whereas Gould was into palentology (species, kingdom, fossils n' sh*t). Then, there was Mayr who used birds to explain how species evolved/drifted.

As far as Dennett, I never got into him and don't remember much, except for when he bashed Gould (note Arkface's comment).

QWETTY · Post by **QWETTY** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 pm

arkface... do you not believe in evolution at all? if not... explain yourself please.

DELETED · Post by **DELETED** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:53 pm

DELETED

QWETTY · Post by **QWETTY** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:01 pm

understood teh first bullet of above statement/s... not much else though.

IMO - natural selection proves evolution... if you disagree with that, i clearly dont understand your reasoning even a little bit.

at the same time... the only thing that makes me think evolution is fake, is brian peppers.

DELETED · Post by **DELETED** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:35 pm

DELETED

jewlee138 · Post by **jewlee138** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:41 am

Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin

Hmmm....never read that one.

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:05 am

Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Uncle Jesse to Uncle Joey

Probably never read this one either.