I read this quote again today

"We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary,
the selfish memes of our indoctrination. . . . We are built 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."


Dawkins is to be admired for coming up with the formulation of Memetics; but he missed the
point with this comment.

Your memes allow you to think that it is possible for you to rebel. But that may be an
illusion; it's like the fallacy that what man does is fundamentally opposed to nature. It
creates an adversarial relation between us (men) and nature. But since we are part of
nature too, nothing we do is really opposed to it. It is as possible that we are merely
carrying out what nature programmed us to do.

There's a kind of hard determinism emerging from these comments; but what I am trying to
say is that we may only believe we should have an adversarial relation with 'our' memes
because memes allow us, or even intend us to have one.

We don't have memes; the memes have us.

I have this suspicion that our belief in free-will and consciousness will be revised
sustantially from our current formulation once more research is done along these lines.

I hear the screams of protest; but let me illustrate with an analogy.

Galileo was nearly burnt at the stake for challenging a consus view that the sun revolved
around the earth. It seemed such a natural and obvious phenomenon; easily accesable to
anyone with eyes. It became a doctrine which illustrated the importance (meaning) of what
it was to be human (the chosen of God). It was an important element in the morality of its
time.

But it was also wrong.

Currently the idea of free will is crucial in our society because it supports our legal
structure and our ideas of personal responsability. But the possibility exists that it may
be flat out wrong.

Just because something seems intuitively obvious does not necessarily make it right. In
fact most good science is usually when we discover something that intially seems
counter-intuitive.

Any comments?

I guess Id have to say that the more I investigate myself- my motives and reactions, the more I am coming to the conclusion that 'free will' doesnt seem to exist for me.  More and more, I am buying into determinism.

I believe that 'I' am a summation of my past experience/environment.  From the time I was born, I have had (seemingly) no choice as to the inputs I have recieved.  Cause and effect.  A happens, B is the reaction...the whole process leaves a certain impression on the organism- which in turn determines future 'choices'.  On and on it goes.

A little thought experiment: imagine you found a time-machine, once you stepped in, it would transport you to the beggining of today- with no recollection of what has happened thus far.  Everything would be the same, the variables would be exactly the same.  Would one make the same desicions throughout 'today', as before they stepped into the time machine?

I know that my history has shaped who I am.  My ego/descisions have been made based on what society has told me that someone of my worth (or at least, how I have interpreted it) SHOULD behave/act.  Even the awareness of this is just another bit of information that gets added into the 'sum of past input' pile which is the summation of 'me' (as I see it).

The only area that I see weakness within this argument- is when quantum physics comes into play.  Although I dont completly understand it all, the schrodingers cat thinggy seems to break this theory down a bit.

interesting - a friend of mine used a very similar thought experiment recently.

I said that no, it wouldn't be the same. My reason being; sensitive dependence on initial
conditions. I think that it would be impossible to get things *exactly* the same the
second time round.

Which may seem like a copout, but chaos theory goes to the heart of the structure of the
universe IMO.

Quantum theory is currently still sending shock waves through modern philosophy; crucial
is the role of the observer. Maybe observation is the meaning of our existence. But it is
dangerous to get caught up in the theory; it seeks only to explain what happens at a level
far below that of human perceptions (too small, too fast)

Quantum is incomplete; it is known to break down when trying to aggregate to the macro
level, where relativity appears to be more accurate

SomaSteve

I think you raise a good question about free will.  I find myself leaning towards hard determinism more and more.  If you are interested participating with Dawkins in a live chat, send me a message.  I am involved in a book discussion forum that is hosting Dr. Dawkins online, in about a month.  It's free and voluntary, we only ask that you actually read the book before joining the live chat so as not to waste our guests time.  In this case, the book is Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder.

If anyone else is interested and willing to read the book, send me a message and I will get you the info.

Thanks

Soma Steve,

This is what I have learned:
Dawkins-memes; Jung-archetypes; Gnostics-archons, are invisible forces that are the kernels of our habitual activities.  These activities are survival patterns learned while still young and carried over to adult life.  They dictate who we are.  These 'complexes'  dominate our lives.  The archetypes are hidden in the unconscious, called forth by triggering events and the same circuits that saved us when we were young activate once more to again save us.  Archetypes/memes/archons dominate the ego.  The ego thinks that it is master.  (Some good studies here indicate otherwise).
Archetypes are the handmaidens and henchmen of nature making sure that the next generation gets born, seeded by the fittest and strongest.  We are within the fabric of nature in this capacity.  
Fortunately, some of us also have an imbedded instruction set that, when teamed with the ego, have sufficient strength to make these archetypes conscious and make them subservient to us instead of the other way around.  This, I believe, is the new model for our next evolutionary step.
I have a sufficient knowledge and experience to know this and am going through the process which is as complicated as we are.  No easy way this, but full of many surprises.
This is the difference between 'destiny' and 'free will'

If you seek free will - know that it comes from your own DNA plus the breadth and depth of your Direct Experience of physical reality.  

Now look at your 12 years of symbolic communication from others in school. Add TV, internet, books, games, magazines, etc. Notice how even when you're not receiving symbolic info from these sources - you tend to 'wonder' about these things and your relationship to it all. We're not experiencing reality - we're reflecting on other people's reflections! How could you command a novel direction?

We're also beginning to learn that visual cues (objects) in our real environment (which should be related to their actual impact on our real life) are instead, stimulating preset knowledge in our reflective mind, causing us to act in accordance without ever fully experiencing the product/service/command and determing its actual consequence/worth.

Good conversation.
I have been toying with an idea along these lines.
It goes like this.  Whenever there is a new discovery of something it is followed by an array of new facts, rules and determinations that surround the new discovery.
The question is were those new facts, rules and determinations there in the first place before discovery?  If so, then the 'new' discovery was not there in the first place but just a piece of detective work that uncovered the pre existing condition before the uncovering process.  Then what would turn that discovery into something that really was new?  Does this question imply that our consciousness then invents the new discovery just by its penetration into the unknown, with the subsequent uncovering of new data that was not there prior to discovery?  Or is a combination of both?  Consciousness because of the act of the discovery reinventing a new set of facts.?
What is the part of free will that is not predetermined in light of this argument?  Has this been argued before?

QUOTE

Whenever there is a new discovery of something it is followed by an array of new facts, rules and determinations that surround the new discovery.

a discovery is followed by the knowledge of new facts, not new facts themselves, the facts themselves already existed

if the discovery created new facts, then the discovery would change the past.. I think it's arguable that you need intelligence, if not consciousness, to discover something, so that would give intelligence (or consciousness) this ability above other things to massively change the past, which I don't think is true

as for the rest of your post.. I can't really make sense of it.. the definition of the word discover (according to m-w.com) is to make known or obtain knowledge.. neither of these implies the creation of something new other than knowledge, which doesn't change reality (if you believe in reality)

You are absolutely right that even the idea of questioning and rebelling against memes is itself dependent upon the existence of memes that structure the ideas in the first place. But memes change and part of what Dawkins may be expressing is that we have memes for changing ideas and social conventions.

Has it occurred to anyone that most people would appear to be deterministically controlled by memes, but that others can create and control these memes without great effort? Examples: Jesus Christ; Jack Welch; Horatio Nelson; the Buddha; L Ron Hubbard...need I go on? Some comparatively small number of people may have the knack of total memetic control. Would such people be superbeings? What might motivate someone thus equipped? Perhaps this observation may generate some interest out there; if you think it's a safe topic for discussion, that is....

I like to think in those terms as well. However, it is perfectly possible also to deconstruct the argument by considering that those "superbeings" may only be either: (1) forced by their controlling genes and memes to act in certain ways, or (2) raised to fame by a "meme chain-reaction", which they did not expect or control.

Wether the outcome of each decision moment is a matter of freedom or determinism seems to be a matter of faith.

[COLOR=blue] In my opinon we can't make anything happen with out the help of God. GOd gave the richest people money to see what they would worship! Money or God. WIll they help this project and serve the lord or are they caught up in themselves.
God want''s to make you and me a millionaire too . Believe in him and you already are he makes everything happen . God bless you all.
Those you trust in the lord will walk with the lord.