The Reptile-Brain, the Atheist, and the Jew.

[John D. Brey]

It is the glory of the human cerebral cortex that it -----unique among all animals and unprecedented in all geological time ---has the power to defy the dictates of the selfish genes. We can enjoy sex without procreation. We can devote our lives to philosophy, mathematics, poetry, astrophysics, music, geology, or the warmth of human love, in defiance of the old [reptile] brain's genetic urging that these are a waste of time ---time that "should" be spent fighting rivals and pursuing multiple sexual partners: "As I see it, we have a profound choice to make. It is a choice between favoring the old brain or favoring the new brain. More specifically, do we want our future to be driven by the processes that got us here, namely, natural selection, competition, and the drive of the selfish genes? Or, do we want our future to be driven by intelligence and its desire to understand the world?"

Richard Dawkins, introducing Jeff Hawkins, One Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence (bracket mine, based on earlier comment in intro. Last quotation is Dawkins quoting Hawkins).​

Notwithstanding the fact that the paragraph above appears to be trying to sneak its way into Judaeo-Christian terminology, theology, conceptualism, through the back door, nevertheless, there's something even more important about what going on when sworn atheists attempt to adopt these quasi-theological metaphysics without bowing before the spirit of the metaphysical assumptions involved.

Long ago, Dawkins set the stage for Hawkins hawking Dawkins' ideas when he, Dawkins, said:

We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism – something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are build as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 200-201.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism – something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are build as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 200-201.​

Who is this "we" that can rebel against genes (biology) and memes (ideology)? We're created, evolve, as gene-machines, while at the high-point of that evolution we developed the ability to also function as meme-machines (machines that can create and evolve viable, real, world-altering, thoughts). Furthermore, the latter is thought to arise out of the former.

But who, what, is this "we," that having begun as a genetic machine, and evolved into a thinking genetic machine, can, should, might, could, consider our creators ("elohim" אוהים is plural) tyrants whom, almost theologically, we can rebel against (Genesis 3:6)?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

But who, what, is this "we," that having begun as a genetic machine, and evolved into a thinking genetic machine, can, should, might, could, consider our creators ("elohim" אוהים is plural) tyrants whom, almost theologically, we can rebel against (Genesis 3:6)?

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Genesis 3:6.​

In the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve are given "knowledge" דעת about various things. This knowledge דעת that they know ידע, is given to them by their creator(s). And yet at some point they're told, in the parable, allegory, or story, that their creator(s) is (are) . . . what did Dawkins call it . . . a tyrant, and that they, Adam and Eve, should rebel against their creator(s) in order to gain a higher form of, almost Dawkins-ian, enlightenment.

Genesis says the tool through which Adam and Eve can beat Dawkins to the punch in pursuing an enlightened life, is both food for the genes, "good for food," and a source of healthy memes, "to make one wise." ----The catch is, and this is the point of pointing out Dawkins' theology, Adam and Eve must use some element of their being-ness not easily associated with genes, or memes, in order to "rebel" against both by disobeying their creator(s) by eating a fruit claimed to be one cup genetic nourishment, and one cup memetic food.

In the immediate addendum, we learn that the creators now fear that by mixing gene-food and meme-food, or by eating the medium where the mixing takes place, Adam and Eve will, get this, gain everlasting life.

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life . . . When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? . . . It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

John 6:53-63.​

John

 

[Samael_Khan]

It is the glory of the human cerebral cortex that it -----unique among all animals and unprecedented in all geological time ---has the power to defy the dictates of the selfish genes. We can enjoy sex without procreation. We can devote our lives to philosophy, mathematics, poetry, astrophysics, music, geology, or the warmth of human love, in defiance of the old [reptile] brain's genetic urging that these are a waste of time ---time that "should" be spent fighting rivals and pursuing multiple sexual partners: "As I see it, we have a profound choice to make. It is a choice between favoring the old brain or favoring the new brain. More specifically, do we want our future to be driven by the processes that got us here, namely, natural selection, competition, and the drive of the selfish genes? Or, do we want our future to be driven by intelligence and its desire to understand the world?"

Richard Dawkins, introducing Jeff Hawkins, One Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence (bracket mine, based on earlier comment in intro. Last quotation is Dawkins quoting Hawkins).​

Notwithstanding the fact that the paragraph above appears to be trying to sneak its way into Judaeo-Christian terminology, theology, conceptualism, through the back door, nevertheless, there's something even more important about what going on when sworn atheists attempt to adopt these quasi-theological metaphysics without bowing before the spirit of the metaphysical assumptions involved.

Long ago, Dawkins set the stage for Hawkins hawking Dawkins' ideas when he, Dawkins, said:

We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism – something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are build as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 200-201.​

John

I fail to see the use Judaeo-Christian terminology, theology and conceptualism in the referenced paragraph of Dawkins.

Even if it is the case I see it as only natural that an atheist such as him would be using Judaeo Christian terms and concepts because western culture was shaped for centuries by Christianity, especially in literature (such as Paradise Lost, Frankenstein, the KJV, Dungeons and Dragons, Lord of the Rings) and to this day the Christian worldview shapes the west, whether non Christians want to accept that or not.

I would find it very strange if a westerner doesn't display that cultural influence.

 

[Sheldon]

It is the glory of the human cerebral cortex that it -----unique among all animals and unprecedented in all geological time ---has the power to defy the dictates of the selfish genes. We can enjoy sex without procreation.

I'm not sure either claim is entirely true, and we are not the only species who have mastered masturbation.

 

[Sheldon]

We can devote our lives to philosophy, mathematics, poetry, astrophysics, music, geology, or the warmth of human love, in defiance of the old [reptile] #1brain's genetic urging that these are a waste of time

#1 Would it be insane to ask how you claim to know this?

 

[Left Coast]

Who is this "we" that can rebel against genes (biology) and memes (ideology)? We're created, evolve, as gene-machines, while at the high-point of that evolution we developed the ability to also function as meme-machines (machines that can create and evolve viable, real, world-altering, thoughts). Furthermore, the latter is thought to arise out of the former.

But who, what, is this "we," that having begun as a genetic machine, and evolved into a thinking genetic machine, can, should, might, could, consider our creators ("elohim" אוהים is plural) tyrants whom, almost theologically, we can rebel against (Genesis 3:6)?



John

I disagree with the whole premise that altruism is biological "rebellion." We're a social species. Like other social species, we can and do put the needs of the group, and especially of offspring or mates or others in our social unit, above our individual needs.

 

[Sheldon]

As I see it, we have a profound choice to make. It is a choice between favoring the old brain or favoring the new brain.​

Any chance you can demonstrate anything beyond your unevidenced claims for this choice? Or for why you claim it is a profound choice?
​

Notwithstanding the fact that the paragraph above appears to be trying to sneak its way into Judaeo-Christian terminology, theology, conceptualism, through the back door, nevertheless, there's something even more important about what going on when sworn atheists attempt to adopt these quasi-theological metaphysics without bowing before the spirit of the metaphysical assumptions involved.

"Sworn atheist" fnarr....

When do I get sworn in?

 

[Sheldon]

I disagree with the whole premise that altruism is biological "rebellion." We're a social species. Like other social species, we can and do put the needs of the group, and especially of offspring or mates or others in our social unit, above our individual needs.

Exactly, altruism has a survival benefit to all animals that have evolved to live in societal groups.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I disagree with the whole premise that altruism is biological "rebellion." We're a social species. Like other social species, we can and do put the needs of the group, and especially of offspring or mates or others in our social unit, above our individual needs.

Indeed! It is well known, for example, that vampire bats will regurgitate some of their blood meal to other bats that did not manage to score a meal of their own. (And it is also known that, among these same bats, those that did not share when they were well-fed were a lot less likely to be shared with by other bats later.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Exactly, altruism has a survival benefit to all animals that have evolved to live in societal groups.

See Edward O. Wilson's The Social Conquest of the Earth.

 

[Left Coast]

Indeed! It is well known, for example, that vampire bats will regurgitate some of their blood meal to other bats that did not manage to score a meal of their own. (And it is also known that, among these same bats, those that did not share when they were well-fed were a lot less likely to be shared with by other bats later.)

Nat Geo's recent documentary Secrets of the Whales was incredible and informative, along similar lines. Recommend, if you haven't seen it.

 

[Audie]

Not sure this makes much sense

 

[John D. Brey]

I fail to see the use Judaeo-Christian terminology, theology and conceptualism in the referenced paragraph of Dawkins.

Dawkins and Hawkins note that evolution first presents the "reptile" brain, which in Dawkins and Hawkins nomenclature, represents something nearly identical to what Paul, and the Apostles of the Epistles, refer to as the "old man" or the "carnal man."

In Paul's letters, this carnal man, this old man (Dawkins and Hawkins literally speak of the "old" brain), is obsessed with sex, murder, passions, thievery, arrogance, and whatever brings stimulation and joy to the individual and his personal progeny. Dawkins and Hawkins notations concerning the "old," "reptilian," brain, are almost identical to Paul's rendering of the "old man." Hawkins and Dawkins claims concerning the reptile, prehuman brain, is something every Christians would related directly to Paul's "old man."

Hawkins then comes to the new brain, the cerebral cortex, which is no longer trapped in the trappings of mere gene survival, lust for sex, personal advancement, so much as it produces, and is most at home, in the replication of knowledge, for the sake of knowledge, technology, knowing, as the means for a new kind of replication, which has little care for the genes, sex, or the mere triflings of the flesh.

Hawkins explanation of this new brain, which only humans posses, is, once again, gross plagiarism of Paul's teaching concerning the "new man," the new species (2 Corinthians 5:17), who must put off the lust of the flesh, and greed of the eyes, and the desires for personal gain, and seek only truth, virtue, knowledge of good, and truth, and peace for peace sake, truth for truth's sake (in Judaism, "lishmah").

For four thousand years Jews and Christians have been teaching their offspring that their natural, evolutionary desires, are bad, satanic, i.e., that they must use the God given free will (associated with the cerebral cortext coming fully online) to say no to the gene-machine their soul and spirit is imprisoned in for a time.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

I'm not sure either claim is entirely true, and we are not the only species who have mastered masturbation.

Without wanting to ostracize you, or single you out for anything you've mastered, it's simply not the case that masturbation is mentioned either explicitly or implicitly in any of the text you're referring to.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

#1 Would it be insane to ask how you claim to know this?

I'm not Richard Dawkins.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

I disagree with the whole premise that altruism is biological "rebellion." We're a social species. Like other social species, we can and do put the needs of the group, and especially of offspring or mates or others in our social unit, above our individual needs.

Richard Dawkins, Edward O. Wilson, and Jeff Hawkins, are all aware of the so-called biological altruism concept you note. But they also know that the altruistic tendency is actually a scam used by the gene. The perceived altruism is merely programmed into the species for the sake of protecting the genes of the species even if it means some of the members of the species have to self-sacrifice. You know, take one for the team, so to say.

What the aforementioned also know, is that in the human realm, altruistic tendencies that don't help the gene at all are often practiced. True self-sacrifice, for the sake of "love," and other metaphysical notions, take place in the human realm. Dawkins and Hawkins are aware that there's no genetic advantage, no communal advantage, to some of the kinds of altruism practiced through the freewill associated with the cerebral cortex coming fully online.

Point being, and this is what bother's people like Dawkins, Hawkins, and Daniel Dennett, the freewill associated with the cerebral cortex's last ten thousand years of evolution functions in ways that are contrary to any advantage, and in fact result in disadvantageous practices and beliefs, so far as the genes are concerned.

The reptile brain doesn't give a ---- about some of the things the enlightened man does. And that's what bothers atheists like Dawkins and Hawkins, since they realize that it's the current state of the processes of the cerebral cortex that are leading to all the technological revolutions that are beginning to threaten the gene with extinction. (A number of chapters in Hawkins' book deal with the possibility of the "soul" that lives in the genetic framework of the cerebral cortex being uploaded into computers, or non-genetic homes. He concedes this is probably possible.)

We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism – something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world.

Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 200-201.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Any chance you can demonstrate anything beyond your unevidenced claims for this choice? Or for why you claim it is a profound choice?
​

Did I not distinguish between a quotation versus my own prose?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Indeed! It is well known, for example, that vampire bats will regurgitate some of their blood meal to other bats that did not manage to score a meal of their own. (And it is also known that, among these same bats, those that did not share when they were well-fed were a lot less likely to be shared with by other bats later.)

. . . They share the same genes, and the survival of the brood is a goal of the genes in the brood.

What bother's educated evolutionists is that WEIRD humans act in ways that are deleterious to their own genes, and the genes of their brood, to genes in general. And they act in ways threatening to genes, for the sake of memes, which, in the current day and ages, are (memes are) beginning to act as though they know they won't require genes for much longer.

This is something found throughout the Bible. I.e., the idea that genes are mortal, are sexually depraved, and will not for long be endured by the righteous of the earth.

To see Dawkins and Hawkins beginning to act as though they're the first purveyors of these concepts (meme's discarding their allegiance to genes) is beyond laughable. It's been thought, and taught, and practiced, by Jews and Christians for four-thousand years. And it's only coming to fruition because of the WEIRD people in the Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic, part of the world. I.e., that part of the world influenced and controlled by Judeo-Christian thought, memes, indoctrination.




John

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

. . . They share the same genes, and the survival of the brood is a goal of the genes in the brood.

What bother's educated evolutionists is that WEIRD humans act in ways that are deleterious to their own genes, and the genes of their brood, to genes in general. And they act in ways threatening to genes, for the sake of memes, which, in the current day and ages, are (memes are) beginning to act as though they know they won't require genes for much longer.

This is something found throughout the Bible. I.e., the idea that genes are mortal, are sexually depraved, and will not for long be endured by the righteous of the earth.

To see Dawkins and Hawkins beginning to act as though they're the first purveyors of these concepts (meme's discarding their allegiance to genes) is beyond laughable. It's been thought, and taught, and practiced, by Jews and Christians for four-thousand years. And it's only coming to fruition because of the WEIRD people in the Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic, part of the world. I.e., that part of the world influenced and controlled by Judeo-Christian thought, memes, indoctrination.

John

You need to spend a little more time studying this topic. Your first point, about the "goal of genes' in "the brood" after all, is a generalization that isn't true across many species.

More importantly, however, you have neglected something of potentially enormous importance -- and that is that many (actually the vast majority of) species have gone extinct, even while evolution continues to act as it always has. And there is guarantee that humans have not evolved beyond our own ability to survive -- we have weapons enough to kill all life on this planet right now, and surely that's not entirely conducive to species survival.

Humans are a social species -- we rely upon one another for our mutual survival. The problem is we've invented our way out of our local family groups and tribes, and can now be anywhere on earth in hours -- and we haven't learned to think beyond our local family groups and tribes.

If evolution is not going to be the end of us as a species it will be because evolution takes that next step -- and let's us see ourselves not as this group or that group, this colour or that colour, this religion or culture or language but as all just HUMAN. If evolution can get us there, we have a chance. If it cannot, I do not see much future for humanity.

The earth won't mind if we fizzle out. In fact, it (and the species on it) might heave an immense sigh of relief.