This concept you advance, that memes (ideas) are just "floating in the wind" is very strange. Ideas
come from the physical process of human minds. Some human advances an idea and it either catches on
(by humans repeating it) or it dies out (by humans failing to repeat it). It doesn't persist if humans don't
repeat it somehow. That is why Asians and Westerners have such different worldviews. The Asian
memes, which have uniquely interacted with Eastern people through history, don't translate in the West
because unique historical ideas here have served to shape developing Western brains for thousands of
years. But of course the world is changing and new memes come our way all the time from Asia, and we
have contributed a lot to their thought as well.
It is clear that philosophers are not going to surprise biologists with some overlooked item in
biologists' worldview. Whether the philosophers concern themselves with environment or genetics or
development or behavior, they are dealing with issues that biologists have been trained to think about for
a long time. The really good biologists have no difficulty destroying the philosophers' weak foundation
for rebuttal.
Face it. People need to study more biology. Then they can make better claims about human nature and,
more importantly, reject the bogus claims made by bad biologists!
Here are some specific responses to things you wrote:PJ: To say that behavior is just the stuff of biology can't be correct.
GG: I agree.
PJ: If biology alone explained all of human behavior, then wouldn't one expect people everywhere to be
basi cally the same since human biology is the same?
GG: No, because environment varies for every living creature.
PJ: If behavior only bubbled upward from biology, and if New Yorkers' and Singaporeans' biology is the
same, then one would expect the memes to be the same.
GG: No, this is not correct. In a society that has strict rules governing behavior (like prison sentences for
incorrect behavior) it is no surprise to see "correct" behavior. This doesn't mean they don't desire to
behave differently, but they are scared. Again, environment (cultural and environmental) plays a crucial
role.
PJ: The subway behavior you described exemplifies a rejection of an earlier meme-at one time,
NewYork's subways weren't so disgusting.
GG: Right-when people were afraid to spit or litter because of social rejection. The cultural environment
changed and a new behavior emerged (based on the meme of "freedom").
PJ: Here's what makes no sense to me about your position: Let's assume that you're right, that humans are
basically highly sophisticated "robots," and they are that way just because that's the way they (are as a
result of purely materialistic evolution). Then, logically, it wouldn't make sense for people to want to
resist this idea.
GG: This is where you go wrong. The difference between what's logical and what actually happens