You have got to be kidding!

Ted

I'm not kidding...

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

Ted, In the chapter "The Evolution of AUO: Awareness" from book 1 of the trilogy, On the first page, 205, Tom talks about the evolution of AUO and uses DNA as an example of how it evolved. The (3.) under the definition of selfish uses DNA as an example of being selfish. They are both selfish in a positive sense. You guys seem to all assume selfishness is only a negative thing; It is not.

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

Then I suggest you think that through again. The key word is context. Or perhaps you can relate it to the old saw 'what has that got to do with the price of tea in China?'.

Ted

I don't get what you're disagreeing with me on? What am I not seeing about the context?

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

What has this to do with Consciousness? The context of this particular definition is biology and DNA and specifically as stated "genetic material solely concerned with its own replication <selfish genes>". Where does this intersect in any way with the context of Consciousness?

Ted

1. They both fundamentally evolved the same way.

2. Consciousness is solely concerned with it's own replication, because consciousness is all there is. It's not like there are separate consciousnesses; All parts of consciousness are one thing.

Or are you saying the biology definition of selfish is not the same as the other ones? Because I say it is. All of the examples under the definition of selfish fit in with what I am trying to point out.

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

Saying that Consciousness is like so called selfish DNA because they both evolved is like saying that zebras are like American flags since they both have stripes. From Wikipedia:This correlates with Consciousness, implying thus that Consciousness is 'selfish' in no logical way that I can see.

Try on saying that Consciousness Space is like a prison because they both have cells as an equally non logical non sequitur.

And the common definitions of selfish as definitions one and two have no relationship with the third definition.

You are trying to twist words in non logical ways to say what you want to say as if they mean what you want to mean. Are you channeling Claudio?

Ted

That is just one use of the word. Genetics are not necessarily selfish. There are examples in nature of selfless behaviours in animals where many individuals sacrifice themselves for the few. Look at insects and hives, for example.

You might argue, because their genes are copies of the genes in the surviving individuals, that helping a few survive is selfish. Actually it is not selfish, it is "geneish". You have to decide what "self" is before you talk about "selfish".

_________________
Johan

That "biology definition" of selfish is only to be found at Merriam Webster and nowhere else it seems.

There is a book "The selfish gene" if I recall correctly - maybe it's inspired from there.

Taking the example of genes as a reference for defining "selfish" on basis of the very limited understanding of what genes do and how they do what they seem to do - and if it is really only the genes
(B. H. Lipton's "Biology of belief" for example)
is simply an unjust projection but not an accurate application of the word. It could be used for this only in a metaphorical sense.
Some parts seem to have no function, yet get replicated. What does that allow us to say other than "we don't know"?

... the context is here, previous page

Why does selfish have to be a negative thing when it can go both ways?

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

All the uses of the word(by definition) work with how I am thinking. I don't look at being selfish as always a negative. If an animal acts selflessly it would really be acting selfishly because it would be taking the love route of lowering entropy(which is more efficient). For example, A bee in a hive act's in a selfless way because it knows that is better for the whole hive, including itself. "Self" is consciousness, because that is all there is. You could even say "Self" is an IUOC, but it wouldn't mean that other IUOCs are not self also. Nothing is separate.

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

A gene is a little program with no free will, I think. It's like an instinct, we don't look at instincts as selfish, or do we?
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

I thought genes have decision space? If that is the case wouldn't it have some kind of free will to make a choice, very limited or not?

I'm not sure if I am correct on that but I seem to remember something about that.

Instincts could be selfish, in both a positive or negative way.

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

Genes are part of the rule set. The physical body has a rule-set genes are a part of. They have specific and limited choices if the options can be considered a choice. I don't think it can be considered a free will choice but I could be wrong.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.