Is The Enlightenment Paradigm Of Material Reductionism Beginning To Creak?

[Khandro]

Many biologists now know that genes aren't selfish (and Dawkins has become something of an embarrassment). Lamarck's theories of evolution - which pre-date Darwin- are firmly back on the table being now called epigenetics. The Genome project, though brilliant hasn't produced much in the way of benefits.
Still no one has been able to even begin to suggest how consciousness could have emerged from unconscious matter and we still know intuitively that everything we value in our lives; our loves of our partners and children remains inexplicable, and doesn't stem from reciprocal altruism.
Should we not try to re-locate to the world which was dislocated by the Enlightenment's separation of matter and soul and does man live, 'not by bread alone'?

[Hazi-Hammenuhoth]

Yes

[naomi24]

Khandro, //we still know intuitively that everything we value in our lives; our loves of our partners and children remains inexplicable, and doesn't stem from reciprocal altruism.//

Since, as you say, we know that, then clearly matter and soul haven’t been separated so what do you want us to re-locate to – and how are we to do it?

Not sure where you get that Dawkins has become something of an embarrassment. You wouldn’t be spinning again, would you? I know how much you like him. ;o)

[douglas9401]

No, but thanks for asking.

[atalanta]

"Still no one has been able to even begin to suggest how consciousness could have emerged from unconscious matter . . . "
Actually loads and loads of people have begun to suggest how consciousness could have emerged. Loads of people are quite convinced they know how it emerged, and have written swarms of books to "prove" it. Their problem is that they all have quite different convictions. But maybe one of them is right. You should read them.

[Khandro]

atalanta; I probably have, but give me a list anyway please.

[Zacs-Master]

‘Should we not try to re-locate to the world which was dislocated by the Enlightenment's separation of matter’

Yeah, let’s all go back to religious persecution and horse drawn carts whilst we’re at it.

[Old_Geezer]

Gene's don't think so selfish is a misapplied word.

I've yet to see a serious suggestion that Lamarkism is back in fashion; merely that there are other ways traits can be passed on and that maybe there is a minor method of passing on that which was an effect during one's life. Not the same thing.

The genome project seems to have done just fine to me. You don;t learn without study.

Consciousness is an emergent quality. One wouldn't expect to be able to find a simple explanation for it. It results from the mass of connections firing away.

Hiding back in the cave is of no help to anyone.

[Old_Geezer]

Dawkins is only an embarrassment when he strays from his area of expertise and tries to lecture everyone what idiots they are to believe in a spirit place and a deity.

[naomi24]

OG, I think Dawkins speaks very sensibly about religion and gods. What of his stuff have you seen or read that leads you to conclude he's an embarrassment in that area?

Khandro, any chance of answering my questions?

[Old_Geezer]

His paperback, or as much as I could cope with regarding his insults towards everyone, despite claiming he wasn't going to, and having little to back up his view on why they were all idiots. After about 1/4 or 1/3rd I had to put it down before bursting a blood vessel. I have no respect for his attitude on religion and don't intend to put myself through his writing on the subject again. Life's too short and stressful as it is.

[naomi24]

Can't say his books have ever struck me like that, OG, but rather as eminently sensible.

[Khandro]

naomi; As OG says, genes aren't selfish - nor are they unselfish or melancholy, happy, or anything, they are just, well, genes. That's why Dawkins is an embarrassment to biology

Lamarckian evolution doesn't entirely contradict Darwin -though it actually preceded him - but adds an extra exiting (my term) dimension to it, often described by giraffe's necks, but I like the analogy of the blacksmith who begins his apprenticeship with a normal boy's physique and through his work develops very strong arms and upper body, this condition can be passed on to his sons and is not connected to his genetic heredity (put simply).

My views on Dawkins' qualifications to spout on God you know well enough - though it has made him into a millionaire by denigrating his benefactor.

[jim360]

I'm pretty sure that's taking the "selfish" of "Selfish Gene" too literally.

[Khandro]

jim; Welcome, pleased to have caught your eye.
//that's taking the "selfish" of "Selfish Gene" too literally.//

Then he either used the wrong word in the title of his book, or he was mistaken in its implication?

[jim360]

As I understand it, Dawkins was using "Selfish Gene" as a metaphor that attempts to (a) describe the idea that evolution is oriented around the gene above all else, ie that evolution and competition occur mainly at the level of genes, rather than higher up, and (b) sell more books. It certainly does not, nor was it ever intended to, imbue genes with the characteristic of being literally "selfish".

[woofgang]

Douglas for best (and briefest) answer

[naomi24]

Khandro, I might have guessed. You haven't read the book. You're spinning - again.

//it has made him into a millionaire by denigrating his benefactor. //

I know nothing of his financial affairs but would question your claim that he has a supernatural benefactor.

Could you answer my other questions please?

[Khandro]

jim; Thanks for your answer, but you sound a bit like you're struggling to accommodate this populist charlatan.
Actually, my daughter-in-law is a Prof. in biology at one of Germany's top universities, - in fact she's queen bee! - I've not asked her, (though I shall) but I suspect that R. Dawkins and his Selfish Genes doesn't loom large in her department. :0)

[Theland]

Dawkins has wealth, status, and bells and whistles.
But Dawkins has no hope.
He preaches that when his miserable life is over he becomes nothing.
How Sad to live without hope?
Hope adds to the quality of life here and now.
Poor Richard.

[jim360]

I'm not trying to accommodate Dawkins -- I personally can't stand him either, to be honest -- but still, you've completely misunderstood the definition of "Selfish", and I thought I should point that out, at least.

I can't comment on the status of his theory in current biology, and will be interested to see what your DIL comes out with. I would be surprised, though, if she was inclined to dismiss his work out-of-hand.