Every one of the cells that make your fantastically complex, eukaryotic body
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.
(LongJohnBaldry, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:25, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

that's what all biological life is after thought isn't it?
That's what I just learnt at uni anyway. Competition and niches and what not all to ensure reproduction.
( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:26, Reply)

Yep.
And if you look at us quite pragmatically, we're not really that different.
(LongJohnBaldry, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:29, Reply)

HA HA
You're not that different from Bobby Pires!!! HA HA *points*
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:32, Reply)

That means you aren't either dear

(Applebite Uh! A cow!, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:34, Reply)

Fuck off, that's bollocks.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:36, Reply)

I don't agree
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
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:33, Reply)

One cut above
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.
( Kroney, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:41, Reply)

Ok
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.
(LongJohnBaldry, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:44, Reply)

I like mine better

( Kroney, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:45, Reply)

Yeah, I think yours gets to the point a bit quicker.

(LongJohnBaldry, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:47, Reply)

I'm a cynic
rather than a scientist.
( Kroney, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:50, Reply)

I'm both.

(LongJohnBaldry, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:56, Reply)

tl:dr
I really wanted to, but it's ten to five.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:48, Reply)

It's basically what Kroney said, but with extra words

(LongJohnBaldry, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:50, Reply)

I'm dressed for warmth
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
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:50, Reply)

You seek companionship
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.
( Kroney, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:54, Reply)

I like mine better

(LongJohnBaldry, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:56, Reply)

You know what?
So do I.

We should totally become an evolutionary tag team duo.
( Kroney, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:58, Reply)

so you're taking a sort of Occams razor viewpoint
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
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:56, Reply)

Ok, and not meaning to be arsey about this, I'm just enjoying wading in the middle of the debate
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.
(LongJohnBaldry, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:59, Reply)

Occam was a very clever man
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.
( Kroney, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 17:02, Reply)

Well, to take your counterexample
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?
(LongJohnBaldry, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:55, Reply)

I disagree
if you look at us simplistically maybe.
(PsychoChomp, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:34, Reply)

Simplistically, you can explain a lot of basic emotions from the need to reproduce
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.
(LongJohnBaldry, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:46, Reply)

You're using your subsequent arguments to back up your first statement.
We're very similar to all other life if you ignore all the differences, which is simplistic.
Anyway off home now.
(PsychoChomp, Tue 24 Aug 2010, 16:52, Reply)