3 ms·

I never affirmed or attacked or recognized your "everything can be simplified to genetic fitness" hypothesis, no clarification needed. If you insist on pursuing

I never affirmed or attacked or recognized your "everything can be simplified to genetic fitness" hypothesis, no clarification needed. If you insist on pursuing this strawman and broadening the debate to new, unrelated philosophical heights, so be it. I will say now that it is childish argument. You give no explanation for why a "gene" should be considered the base unit of evolution rather than an "idea". Especially when natural selection stopped applying to suburban humans with access to healthcare a long time ago. By all indicators, human evolution is now occurring through technology, not genes. Technology and debate over how to use it is the most likely cause of humans diverging into multiple species, not genetics. Genetic biological reproduction seems to be your God. It is the planner and predeterminer, and can be said to have causative power over all actions. The gene is arbitrary. The gene is ambiguous. The gene is defined by man. Genes and genetic reproduction is but one method for the continued existence of things through time. Humans have defeated the gene. We don't need to die and reproduce several times to store and communicate survival information to our descendent's. We have invented language and can write it in a book. You are stuck in genetic determinism, denying any idea of free will. Not to say free will is a suitable answer either. Both are a naive treatment of the subject of causality.

ckuehne 16y ago
I did not argue that "everything can be simplified to genetic fitness". So please, for the second time, stop putting words into my mouth. It is my understanding, that your argument is: 1) Article assumes people discuss ideas to signal social standing. But: 2) People discuss ideas because the enjoy it, 3) and not because they want to signal social standing. Therefore the article is faulty. All I am saying is: 1) and 2) may both be right. The contradiction between 2) and 3) does not arise if people are not aware of the underlying motivations for their behavior. See also rdtsc's comment.
- metamemetics 16y ago
  >I did not argue that Hey, that's MY point :) Still, in the end of your FIRST line you stated: the ultimate cause for the enjoyment is increase in genetic fitness. >my understanding, that your argument is: 1) ... 2) ... 3) ... All wrong. At no point was a talking about the set "people". I was disagreeing with the traits specific to the "top of the pyramid" proposed by the article within the domain of intellectual debate. Which is a small subset of the set "people" in a very small subset of the domain of possible actions people can perform. I'll have to make sure to rigorously pair any hypothesis with its counter-hypothesis when I risk posting on HN in the future.

ckuehne 16y ago

I did not argue that "everything can be simplified to genetic fitness". So please, for the second time, stop putting words into my mouth. It is my understanding, that your argument is: 1) Article assumes people discuss ideas to signal social standing. But: 2) People discuss ideas because the enjoy it, 3) and not because they want to signal social standing. Therefore the article is faulty. All I am saying is: 1) and 2) may both be right. The contradiction between 2) and 3) does not arise if people are not aware of the underlying motivations for their behavior. See also rdtsc's comment.

metamemetics 16y ago
>I did not argue that Hey, that's MY point :) Still, in the end of your FIRST line you stated: the ultimate cause for the enjoyment is increase in genetic fitness. >my understanding, that your argument is: 1) ... 2) ... 3) ... All wrong. At no point was a talking about the set "people". I was disagreeing with the traits specific to the "top of the pyramid" proposed by the article within the domain of intellectual debate. Which is a small subset of the set "people" in a very small subset of the domain of possible actions people can perform. I'll have to make sure to rigorously pair any hypothesis with its counter-hypothesis when I risk posting on HN in the future.