At 21:14 08/05/99 -0400, SnoLep wrote:
>>It doesn't make sense. [CLIP]
>>Neither does a parent caing after a child is grown. Don't ask me!
"Nah- not making sense at the moment, better stop thinking about it." Open-minded christianity. Nice one.
>>Neither does a child playing with a gigapet.
Human DNA that gives a person the ability to predict other people's behaviour will have an advantage over human DNA that doesn't, cos its carrier-person can plan ways through social existence.
What machinery does DNA specify for us to predict other people's behaviour? How about... brain mechanisms for running little models of people's social behaviour, based on your knowledge about them and about your own reactions? Yeh, cool.
>>a child playing
What do kids do during childhood? Practise what they'll be doing for real in adulthood: running models of other people's social behaviour so they can predict their way to success.
>>playing with a gigapet
But, oh no! There's nobody around to exercise my prediction machinery on today! Ah: here's a slightly person-shaped stick. "Naughty stick telling fibs." "Nice teddy's painting me a picture." etc...
>>I'm only worthy through Christ.
...etc: "Nice man-on-cross image makes me live forever."
Attributing souls to things/ believing in gods emerges from the same machinery as playing quasi-socially with inanimate toys. This urge to model social behaviour, springing out of DNA specified machinery for predicting other people, but applied kind of scattergun if you don't mind me saying, is what underlies your belief in god: running models of people in your head. Attributing conscious, human existence where there is none HA HA HAAAAAAA.
Memetically speaking, DNA-specified machinery for predicting human social behaviour provides one of the "buttons" (in Richard Brodie's language, I'd say nucleating points myself) for the development of religious memes.
Tara fer now, sorry everyone if that should've been done offlist...