Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
I would have said 'why does there need to be one?' rather than that.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:23, Reply)
contain an identical copy of a set of genes, and that copy desires only to replicate itself, that its form might continue. Plus, through the mechanism of sexual reproduction, it has the opportunity to enhance itself by combination with the genes of another, similar organism, and those benefits will hopefully be expressed in the resulting progeny.
Basically there's a strong argument for saying that you're just a vehicle for your genes, and all of your drives, instincts and emotions, and therefore probably the meaning of life itself, can be traced back to your DNA trying to improve its chances of surviving long enough that a suitable partner might spluff up your mimsy and propagate a combination of both your genotypes.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:25, Reply)
That's what I just learnt at uni anyway. Competition and niches and what not all to ensure reproduction.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:26, Reply)
And if you look at us quite pragmatically, we're not really that different.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:29, Reply)
You're not that different from Bobby Pires!!! HA HA *points*
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:32, Reply)
that may be the base impulse, but the very fact that we can think about 'the meaning of life' puts us one cut above already. And if the genetic propagation theory was entirely true, then how come there are women and men who don't want children and indeed actively dislike them. Granted they automatically breed themselves out, but still it makes very little sense if it's written into our genes
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:33, Reply)
only in that we've evolved one more tool to make sure we survive to reproduce.
Edit: but that doesn't really address your point. Which is a coincidence and an accident.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:41, Reply)
The fact that we have evolved to question the meaning of life and our own existence is, it's fair to say, something unique.
The other thing that we have achieved uniquely is to separate "sexual intercourse" and "the impulse to breed." We seek sex because it feels really really nice and makes us feel good and all that, but there's a good reason for that - if there's some sort of reward to bonking, then we're more likely to do it and therefore more likely to reproduce. Either way, you must agree that we're all still driven by a libido, albeit to different extents. What we have done differently is separated out the idea of sex purely for pleasure.
And at any rate, that base impulse is still pretty strong. Why have you dressed the way you have today - are you competing for the attention of the opposite sex? Why do you seek the comfort and security of friends - is this the same as pack acceptance and the protection from danger that comes with it? Why are your male colleagues more objectionable towards other men and more career-driven or money oriented, other than by some extension of displaying their suitability as a breeding partner?
Of course, there are things which are written into your genes which don't "make sense" from the point of view of successful reproduction. Not wanting children could be one, but then so is Huntingdon's Chorea. "Written in" is probably the wrong phrase to use, as it suggests some thought went into the genes you were lumbered with - of course, it's a fairly well randomised selection drawn from what your parents offered when they did the dirty, so some of the genes you get may prove advantageous to breeding, some may prove disadvantageous.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:44, Reply)
in jeans and t-shirt etc. And it doesn't make sense since there are other reasons for all the things you've mentioned. I seek out friends for decent conversation and fun, rather than warmth and security. Etc Etc. It simply doesn't make sense that every argument reduces what we think and feel down to basic animal emotion. Yes you can do it, but it's a massive oversimplification, and like Kroney doesn't really address the point of why
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:50, Reply)
because you're a social animal. We're not predators like lions, we're opportunists like chimps. We have need of the same security a herd provides because of our hilarious lack of natural defences. We evolved intelligence as a means to defend ourselves and to hunt. Sentience was an accidental by-product.
Yes, there are more esoteric explanations, but they don't make sense from an evolutionary viewpoint.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:54, Reply)
So do I.
We should totally become an evolutionary tag team duo.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:58, Reply)
the simplest explanation is right?
I don't think it fits. Too many bits are missing, too many assumptions made, too many exceptions elbowed out of the equation
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:56, Reply)
But which bits are missing, which assumptions are being made, and which exceptions have been elbowed out?
I admit, you have to take some rather convoluted routes to explain some of the more 'human' aspects of emotion or behaviour in these terms, but I do believe it can be done.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:59, Reply)
You are more than entitled to have that opinion of course. I'm not enough of a scientist to convincingly argue otherwise on a message board.
The fact here is that we did evolve successfully to become the dominant species on this planet. We didn't do that because sentience was useful for naval gazing and questioning our existence.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 17:02, Reply)
Aren't "decent conversation and fun" just extensions of "warmth and security"? I am, I admit, very cynical, but I don't think it is a gross oversimplification. Humans are possessed of a remarkable degree of intelligence, but I wouldn't put them on any pedestal that puts them above base drives.
As for this point of why - why what?
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:55, Reply)
But I think you can extrapolate it to a lot of the more complex emotions if you work from the basic needs for food, shelter, social acceptance and, ultimately, sex.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:46, Reply)
We're very similar to all other life if you ignore all the differences, which is simplistic.
Anyway off home now.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:52, Reply)
42
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:36, Reply)
Get the fuck over it.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:37, Reply)
I disagree with your second point although sadly there is no arguing with the first
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:39, Reply)
I liked the books. Not rabidly, but well enough, and I get bored of people proclaiming that 42 is the meaning of life and then looking all proud of themselves.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:41, Reply)
You made it apparent that people who give the response I gave above and look proud of themselves annoy you. I was illustrating that I am unlikely to have fulfilled the second half of the criteria
Oh, I SEE! You were riffing on my low self-esteem to ensure that I know my place and concede the argument! WELL done, you must be SO proud
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:51, Reply)
what I was saying wasn't even aimed at you, but justifying my empathy for Chompy's point.
Frankly, I'm slightly offended that you think I've done what you've described in your post.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 17:00, Reply)
I wouldn't believe you to be capable of such a thing, you're not Chompy or Bert. Apologies for offending you
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 17:09, Reply)
it was only slight. One of the few things that annoys or upsets me is people who should know me better (not that you necessarily fall in that category) totally not being able to predict how I might act or respond to something.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 17:12, Reply)
Then I retract my nice one. As it were.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 17:14, Reply)
I would gaz you about it rather than having it out here, annoyingly your good opinion matters to me. I did wonder about that post as I entered it. That'll learn me
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 17:21, Reply)
given as he was poking fun at people who look for a meaning to life. As I understand it, he was an proponent of evolution and therefore pretty likely to be in the "there isn't one" camp.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:44, Reply)
Douglas Adams = Iron Maiden, Simpsons Tie, Pratchett.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:50, Reply)
Just to let Monty get into his much-vaunted flow about why Bruce Dickinson is a twat
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:53, Reply)
there's some filler, but on the whole it's good.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 17:01, Reply)
But I'm not an Iron Maiden or AC/DC fan. Sure I like a few songs, but I can't sit through a whole album. I'm not much into the NWOBHM bands.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 17:03, Reply)
and not like Tool in that even if you don't like them you have to respect them
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 17:05, Reply)
Iron Maiden, Black Sabbathl, AC/DC, Motorhead etc.
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 17:07, Reply)
But nowadays I'd rather listen to a whole album by VNV Nation or Combichrist and a couple of choice tracks by Maiden or Zeppelin. Ten years ago I'd have lynched my older self for such a statement
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 17:10, Reply)
and take your Spice Girls tapes with you
Edit: that actually sounded quite angry for me. Sorry. Not been a great day
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 17:12, Reply)
no angrier than your base level anyway
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 17:17, Reply)
I think it's the asthma today, definitely given me a shorter temper
(, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 17:17, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread