Biological existentialism

Is a cell an organism's way of propagating more organisms or is an organism a cell's way of propagating more cells?

Logically, a cell exists purely to create more of itself and an organism is just the method it utilizes to exploit a particular ecological niche.Cells vs. Organisms You could argue that the organism as a whole has more control over its cells (via processes such as apoptosis) and there isn't such a thing as cellular independance, but that's precisely what cancer is.

That being said, it's likely that emotions, "sentient thought" and other touted concepts like "love (in all forms)" are purely the manifestations or relics of biological necessity. Love serves a function in that it provides psychological stability (and dependancy), plus it increases the chance of you or your gene's continued survival. Some arguments you can make from this standpoint:

All emotions are entirely likely to be the product/result of biological necessity - and possess no innate profound significance.

Purpose beyond procreation and survival is an illusion. The meaning of life is sex.

Is everyone fundamentally a walking bag of meat and hormones?

The questions are unanswerable because they contain tacit assumptions that are not empirically supported.

Evolution is not teleological. Neither is biology. "Meaning," "purpose," and "way" are human concepts. It is what it is, and these are only labels, with little or nothing empirical to justify them other than that human beings are in the habit of thinking in such terms about the things that human beings do.

>>2
Good point, but following that argument, you could propose that nothing is teleological, because all function assumes a goal and goals are primarily human concepts. That's about as conversationally engaging, or informative as the "How do we know we know anything" series of ontological questions - the second law of thermodynamics doesn't serve any function nor goal, it merely exists.

I guess the general point is that speaking from a non-human standpoint means that meaning itself is a meaningless concept. How zen.

So let me rephrase: what does it mean to be human?

Scientifically, not philosophically.

What does it mean to be human?  Biologically, it's simple enough--46 chromosomes and, if the genitalia are functional, fertility with members of the same species.

>>1
You can say that there is no free will, and everything is just the body's biological demands and functions.  However, I prefer to say that free will was found to be a helpful adaptation by evolution, and thus is allowed to exist.

>>1 is the post of someone who needs to read The Selfish Gene.

>>6
I would, but Richard Dawkins scares me. (those eyes! It feels like he's mentally undressing you)

Also, I've heard it never addresses the consequences of the fact that the gene itself has no reason to exist other than the function that it's given itself. The general "given reason" is that genes only self-perpetuate because the ones that don't aren't around. Does that give you a purpose other than reproduction? Theoretically, no. If we define humanity by not being similiar to animals, that means the only human acts we do are ones completely unrelated to survival/procreation. Just a thought.

>>5 So, you're saying free will is genetically encoded for? That might be truly interesting. How? Random chemical interactions? Wouldn't that indicate that existence itself is an illusion, forged by your genes? Reducto ad absurdum - we are no longer responsible for our own actions because they are genetically encoded for, or a result of slight amounts of randomnity - I wonder how that defence would work in court.

>>4 46 chromosomes as a requirement for being human would mean guppies are human too. I was referring to what makes something exhibit characteristics of "human behaviour"? Which is a stupid question, come to think about it, cause it insinuates that there's an empirical quantity for humanity. Neveryoumind.

>>7

Whoever you heard that from clearly hasn't read the first paragraph of the book, which is entirely devoted to explaining the origin of the gene.

>>7

Whoever you heard that from clearly hasn't read the first paragraph of the book, which is entirely devoted to explaining the origin of the gene.

Whoever posted that clearly doesn't know how to post.

>>7
>>If we define humanity by not being similiar to animals, that means the only human acts we do are ones completely unrelated to survival/procreation.

If you believe in evolution then you must accept we were produced by the same process and therefore there is no difference. Evolution isn't something that stops or produces individuals that act altruistically that aren't doomed to failure.

The humans who's offspring succeed will have acted in the way required to survive. If a human's actions are unrelated to survival, then eventually they shall exit the genepool.

Some might say the meaning of life is to propagate, but what is the meaning of propagation?
Is it to sustain the race or is it to make oneself somewhat immortal?
This is the difference between man and beast, and it can be examined in every thing (including the act, philosophically or otherwise ) that has happened since Adam took a bite of the proverbial apple.
I know that this probably doesn't make a whole lot of since, but if you think about knowing the difference between good and bad, you can see that some ideals will eventually be formed and accepted by everyone. One of those being not dieing, even though it comes from a genetic trait. live = good, die = bad
But as mortal beings that desire can never be entirely quenched by procreation. So its easy to see where the ideals of law , building, and even art come from.
I would say there are quite a few propagators on 4chan.

>Some might say the meaning of life is to propagate, but what is the meaning of propagation?
The successful humans will be those who desire to propagate. The meaning of life for an individual isn't to sustain the race, but to satisfy whatever desires they have, and those with who are able to enact out the desires that happen to propagate their genes the most will be the most successful.

I do not believe in good and evil. The idea that everyones perception of good and evil is merging seems completely wrong to me.

I believe you're being too simplistic. It is impossible to say that dying is completely bad, because someone may view dying as a good thing if it saves their children, for example. Things aren't just black and white.

I don't know exactly why art persistantly appears through the ages, but my guess is that the desire to create art is the same desire that has led to scientific breakthroughs etc. I think is fairly easy to show from history that law has been used as a way to control a populous for security, fun, and profit.

>>13
In reply:
1.I agree that those people who are able to fulfill their desires are undoubtedly the more successful, but I disagree that people who leave their DNA behind, at this stage of human evolution, are the only ones to be thought of as such.
Survival of the fittest went out the window when the first pack of cavemen killed a mammoth.
2.You replaced bad with the word evil, evil means ill intent, or morally corrupt, which incidentally shows that people will agree on what is good or bad. Also the ideals of good and bad ARE merging, wars are fought over this stuff, and the winner gets to decide. You might argue that the winner is often the strongest, but wars are not won by might alone.
3.Perhaps the ideals of good and bad are a bit simplistic, but they are just a base that other ideals are built on. Yes I can't say that dieing is completely bad, it is the natural order of things, but I can say the end of this existence is a bit frightening, unless you are someone who has lost all hope, definitely not a successful person.
4.The desire to procreate is just one of the places art comes from ( mans need to leave something behind), it also stems from the need to communicate, and the never ending urge for approval. As to what is art I guess you are right somethings aren't black and white.
Yes law is sometimes abused, by those who seek personal gain, but it is a necessity for a society to exist and grow, and I think it is fairly easy to show that a populous will govern itself and those that wish to abuse it. Again a common ideal of good and bad.

>>14
Survival of the fittest hasn't ended with teamwork, it only means that the fittest individual is the one who works in a team. It's no different than all the cells in your body co-operating as a single organism.

Morality is completely subjective, as I may think it good that I robbed you of all your money, while you would obviously think it evil. I believe we have desires that in order to be satisfied may be viewed as evil by other people.

I think it is very bad to use something you accept is unsound as a base for ideals. A house needs a good foundation, as they say. You say an ultimate good and evil exist, but then don't justify it. A successful person might agree to die to save his children.

A populous governing itself is called anarchism. I think if you look at Greece, Rome, or whatever you will find that the majority have always been exploited by the minority. But I don't particularly want to argue this because we seem to believe in contradictory facts, and it will turn into a shouting match.

>>15
When I said survival of the fittest I was talking about how the genes are passed by those organisms that survive the best thereby changing the gene pool, and on that level, survival of the fittest ends when man uses intelligence to beat his prey.

Morality is not completely subjective, as there are some fundamentals that everyone can agree on, in that even though you might think it good to take someones money you would think it bad if I took yours.
I did not say an ultimate good or evil exists, that would be like saying there is a God or a Devil. There are however certain things, certain ideals everyone can agree upon as being either good or bad. Example your hungry you eat that's good, you stub your toe it hurts that's bad. As to weather a successful person would choose to die in order to save his children, I think most would feel morally obligated to do so, but they would only choose this option if it were a last resort, because of the fact that they value their own lives.
As to the comment about the shouting match over government you are probably right.I will say they were often exploited my a minority, but isn't this type of government always in upheaval?

>>16
I don't understand what you mean by your definition of survival of the fittest. You mean use of intelligence stops evolution?

The only reason people agree on certain ideals is because their opinions or desires happen to be the same. Good and evil is either subjective or objective; there is no in-between as I see it. I think you believe it's not completely subjective because some people share the same views, when I see it as subjective even though some people share the same views. Just because there are fundamentals that a large group of people believe in doesn't make it not subjective, it only means they share the same view or have something in common.

What do you mean by upheaval?

Look up natural selection you'll see what I mean. The use of intelligence doesn't stop evolution it just changes it. As in physical abilities no longer decides who is best.

The glass is half full or half empty, lets just say there are some things that everyone will agree on and some that none will.
Example everyone will agree there is water in the glass.

As to the question on upheaval, I'm saying there is no perfect government, but I do believe that government itself is in a state of evolution.

The use of intelligence does not change or stop evolution. Only the criteria for fitness changes; ie. intelligence becomes a more important criteria for fitness if it is used in an effective way to live and procreate and raise the progeny.

What some here were doing was misunderstanding what fitness meant. Fitness does not just have to be physical fitness. It can be mental fitness and maybe other kinds of fitness that is unknown at this moment.

Fitness means one is well-suited to the environment; be it mentally or physically.

Maybe survival of the fitness on an individual level has ended with teamwork. Like individuals sacrificing their lives to save someone close to them or and individuals going hungry to feed others who are more hungry. The people he has sacrificed for is less fit that him and if he sacrifices his life for them, his genes would not propegate but the less fit genes would.

I read somewhere that since you and your sibling shares ~100% of the same genes,it would make sense to sacrifice your life for him. Since you and your cousin shares 1/4 of the same genes you would have to save 4 of your cousins for your sacrifice to make biological sense.

Teamwork would only make biological sense if the people in your team are very close to you biologically. Most of the teamwork happening now (like say being a pirate and living in a city) happens with people not close to one. So would it really make sense to risk ones life for them? So evolution with respect to survival of the fittest might really be ending. Or maybe the criteria for survival of the fittest has changed; ie. survival of the fittest means that an invidual must only risk himself to help people biologically very close to him. Obviously spouses are excluded because they are a key to help procreate and raise the progeny.

>>20
Oh noes that would mean racial discrimination is in our genes!

>>21
If you want your genes to propagate, you have to be selfish (racial discrimination is being selfish on a societial level). It is not really in your genes or anything.

>>21
If you want your genes to propagate, you have to be selfish (racial discrimination is being selfish on a societial level). It is not really in your genes or anything though.

>>21
I think it does make sense that racial discrimination, if somehow determined at a genetic level, would spread as those who look extremely different to you will share less genes.

It is quite interesting how for a very large group of people, similar by race, under threat from some other race, to be as successful in evolutionary terms would sacrifice lives due to some shared genetics, regardless of all other difference between them. Bit of a craply worded example, but I think you can see what I am saying.

The complexity of evolution interests me. One thing I realised recently is that evolution is so efficient that the best genes for finding the best mate are not only what you find attractive, but also how parents may influence a siblings choice of mate, and I am sure there is more to it. It seems like there is more than first appears to all aspects of evolution.

>>24
You disgusting racist. You make it sound like we weren't all born to be hippies and smoke smoke weed at peace rallies.

Survival of the fittest is self-reinforcing. The fittest survive where survival makes them the fittest.

The problem with survival of the fittest is that good teamwork is definitely better than doing things on your own. So while each person acts in his own interests he ends up benefitting everyone else in the process. Oh wait, this sounds familiar, Economics 101.

 

>>24
"I think it does make sense that racial discrimination, if somehow determined at a genetic level, would spread as those who look extremely different to you will share less genes."

There's very little evidence this happens. According to some studies, personality traits like religion and political preference have higher correlation in couples than race. Biology tells us that there is very little to substantiate any fundamental difference in different races.

>>27
I find most black women to be ugly. It is highly unlikely that I will ever date a black woman or a red skin or a middle eastern woman, reguardless of how well our religion and political views correlate. I also feel more comfortable in a group of people who are white and have blond hair and blue eyes just like me.

OK well I guess some people really are just a bag of meat and hormones.

>>29
Because we find a particular race less attractive? Last time I checked, taste was a matter of taste.

>>26
So one is fit because he survives and one survives because he is fit. PARADOX!

>>31 doesn't know the meaning of paradox

>>26
Also the temptation to exploit those who consider you a teammate grows. If someone could cheat and get away with it, then doing so would make them fitter.

>>27
I think enough difference. The competition between races cannot be about what they share, but what they don't share and therefore if a species is competing with itself, it is how great the difference that will effect who an individual feels aligned to.

Religion and political preference aren't deteremined by genes but by sense data and so also whether you're a racist or not, I guess, so you are right. However, when I went to my first university lecture I was surprised how everyone sat with people who looked similar racially, and these friendships established then continued throughout the entire course. There must be some genetic influence involved.

>>33
"There must be some genetic influence involved."
There's no biological mechanism anyone knows of that has the imperative to differentiate race per se. There is the biological imperative to find people you can relate to. In other words, race is somewhat incidental. Studies show that people who grow up in communities of a different race prefer partners of that race in adulthood. Sexual selection is a predominantly cultural phenomenon. 

>>33
Game theory suggests that fairness is the best strategy. Cheaters simply don't get away with it enough.

I don't really think Survival of the Fittest and Natural Selection are mechanisms at all. There is no rule that describes what Natural Selection is going to look for. The only criteria is survival or death. That's not a good way of explaining how the world works.     

>>33

I attribute it to the fact that similar looking people are "familiar territory," if you will.

>>34
>Studies show that people who grow up in communities of a different race prefer partners of that race in adulthood.

Good point. I guess I was thinking that a human who acts in a perfect way in evolutionary terms would exibit this behaviour, but it is a case like "a human would be fitter if he had wings, but has no way to evolve them," if you see my badly made point.

>>35
My point is if probability is in the cheaters' favour then they should cheat, assuming they are perfectly evolved for their environment.

bump