Adaptation

[Roaring Biscuit!]

The Back Story:

Goes thusly, I have a friend, a real friend, not one of those binary friends that some people have.  And we have an argument, it goes thusly:

He say, "There is objective truth and objective good, thus we should be able to devise a consistent set of moral guidelines which will always be applicable."

I say, "No.  There is no objective morality."

The argument stagnates, as arguments in this manner are want to do.



The Story:

I have been led to an idea.  An idea based upon evolution, such that, I am gonna do that thing where people draw direct parallels between genes and memes.

Many people will tell you that people are special.  Why are people special?  Because they create, and love, and maybe have free will, or are at least complicated enough to appear to have free will, and sometimes they write poetry.  And animals don't write poetry.

Therefore, humans =/= animals.

I say:  Maybe.

I would, however, suggest that the most important aspect of humanity, and the one that has allowed us to flourish in almost all regions of the planet is this (yup, you're getting there right?):

Adaptation.

While other animals are subject to slow change through natural selection, we can adapt in a behavioural manner much more quickly.

Now replace genes with memes and humans with moral codes and BOOM.  There's my idea.  The most powerful and effective memes should be the ones that promote adaptation.  I say nay to objective morality and yay to adaptable morality.  Probably.


I should also point out that this line of thinking is something that is coagulating in my brain space, so you know, show me the holes people.

uhh...  not those holes.

x

edd

[Ob_Portu]

Umm..Yes, I guess.

Oh and gods are one off memetic entities.

Would aliens study them as a species?

egads.

[BabylonHoruv]

The Back Story:

Goes thusly, I have a friend, a real friend, not one of those binary friends that some people have.  And we have an argument, it goes thusly:

He say, "There is objective truth and objective good, thus we should be able to devise a consistent set of moral guidelines which will always be applicable."

I say, "No.  There is no objective morality."

The argument stagnates, as arguments in this manner are want to do.



The Story:

I have been led to an idea.  An idea based upon evolution, such that, I am gonna do that thing where people draw direct parallels between genes and memes.

Many people will tell you that people are special.  Why are people special?  Because they create, and love, and maybe have free will, or are at least complicated enough to appear to have free will, and sometimes they write poetry.  And animals don't write poetry.

Therefore, humans =/= animals.

I say:  Maybe.

I would, however, suggest that the most important aspect of humanity, and the one that has allowed us to flourish in almost all regions of the planet is this (yup, you're getting there right?):

Adaptation.

While other animals are subject to slow change through natural selection, we can adapt in a behavioural manner much more quickly.

Now replace genes with memes and humans with moral codes and BOOM.  There's my idea.  The most powerful and effective memes should be the ones that promote adaptation.  I say nay to objective morality and yay to adaptable morality.  Probably.


I should also point out that this line of thinking is something that is coagulating in my brain space, so you know, show me the holes people.

uhh...  not those holes.

x

edd

um, memes are what allow us to adapt so quickly.  To have the metaphor work properly you'd need some sort of meta-meme that a moral code posesses, since memes make up their equivalent of their genetic code.  We don't adjust genetically, we adjust memetically.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

...To have the metaphor work properly you'd need some sort of meta-meme that a moral code posesses...

That seems as though it could be the case, no?  If you were to replace moral code with world view, it seems obvious that the memes we identify with and are subjected to make up our overall world view.  Perhaps it is best to speak in terms of world view instead of moral code, so that memes are the genes of world views, they are what code for world views, which seems sensible thus far?

x

edd

[BabylonHoruv]

...To have the metaphor work properly you'd need some sort of meta-meme that a moral code posesses...

That seems as though it could be the case, no?  If you were to replace moral code with world view, it seems obvious that the memes we identify with and are subjected to make up our overall world view.  Perhaps it is best to speak in terms of world view instead of moral code, so that memes are the genes of world views, they are what code for world views, which seems sensible thus far?

x

edd

Makes sense so far.  I think you may be overcomplicating it.  Humans are successful because we are adaptable.  We are adaptable because we can adopt differing memes based on the circumstances.  That would include the memes that make up our world views and moral codes as well as memes such as cookie recipes.  So having an adaptable world view, or moral code, is an evolutionary advantage.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

good, i may be overcomplicating it, but we're on the same page thus far.

So how about a moral code/world view with adaptability as its core meme, instead of the usual "play nice and be friends"?

x

edd

[BabylonHoruv]

good, i may be overcomplicating it, but we're on the same page thus far.

So how about a moral code/world view with adaptability as its core meme, instead of the usual "play nice and be friends"?

x

edd

I think that might be a bit too adaptable.

[The Johnny]

Adaptability to one's environment, from what i've heard is behaviourist's name for sanity.

Adaptation is only important at the survival level, and when a lot of our environment is dictated by other humans - what validity does it have?

[The Johnny]

Many people will tell you that people are special.  Why are people special?  Because they create, and love, and maybe have free will, or are at least complicated enough to appear to have free will, and sometimes they write poetry.  And animals don't write poetry.

Therefore, humans =/= animals.

Also:

Regardless of free will (which is an unfertile ground of a concept) and love (which i think better is approached as attachment, which animals have too), the creation you speak of, say, in poetry or whichever type, that "makes us not animals" maybe in other words the capability of having complex symbolic thought processes.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

Adaptation is only important at the survival level, and when a lot of our environment is dictated by other humans - what validity does it have?

I'm sorry but that is just blatantly incorrect, unless you specifically mean genetic adaptation.

Regardless of free will (which is an unfertile ground of a concept) and love (which i think better is approached as attachment, which animals have too), the creation you speak of, say, in poetry or whichever type, that "makes us not animals" maybe in other words the capability of having complex symbolic thought processes.

I thought I made it fairly clear that the humans=/=animals idea is not necessarily one I hold, but to it was mostly to make the point that, if one were to distinguish between humans and animals, I would find ti most convincing to distinguish between them based upon their adaptability.

x

edd

[Brotep]

RB, what are you talking about? Animals are highly adaptable--it's how they survive.

[The Johnny]

Bacteria, virii, flying rats pigeons, roaches and rats are way more adaptable than us.

[Kai]

Bacteria, virii, flying rats pigeons, roaches and rats are way more adaptable than us.

I'm going to get some sleep, and come back to address the misuse of "adaptation" in this thread (including what is wrong with the above statement) in the "morning".

[Cain]

At a guess, I would say the concept of metacognition is going to play a role in that answer.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

RB, what are you talking about? Animals are highly adaptable--it's how they survive.

If you put a desert lizard in the arctic wastes it dies.

If you put a desert human in the artic wastes it wears a coat.

One of these animals I would describe as being more adaptable than the other which brings us to:

I'm going to get some sleep, and come back to address the misuse of "adaptation" in this thread (including what is wrong with the above statement) in the "morning".

I'm almost certainly guilty of that, but if i could be bold enough to steer the conversation a little, I would like to get back to the "adaptable meme" concept.  I suspect it would no doubt have some parallels to rationalist and discordian thinking, as it would likely have to promote self-questioning, to avoid dogma and thus a lack of adaptability.

What I am suggesting, is (mostly cause I think this could be a fun experiment) a belief system where the central tenet it not "this is the correct way", but instead "the correct way is the way most effective in the given situation".  If it were proposed as belief/religion it may be helpful to throw on some moral failsafes, but it seems plausible to me at least that working with people is probably more effective than not.  maybe...

concept of metacognition

I'm going to look that up, but it would be nice if you elaborated too, 'cause you're normally pretty good at that.