The Selfish Gene

按有用程度 按页码先后 最新笔记

• 

  第110页

  Enhui (Es ist vorbei~~)

  Each selfish gene therefore has its loyalties divided between different bodies. (更多)

  Each selfish gene therefore has its loyalties divided between different bodies. (收起)

  2011-11-25 17:28:59   回应

  收藏

  推荐
• 

  第165页

  skeeter (不可挦章撦句是有道理的)

  Should we then call the original replicator molecules 'living'? Who cares? I might say to you 'Darwin was the greatest man who has ever lived', and you might say 'No, Newton was', but I hope we would not prolong the argument. The point is that no conclusion of substance would be affected whichever way our argument was resolved. The facts of the lives and achievements of Newton and Darwin remain to... (更多)

  Should we then call the original replicator molecules 'living'? Who cares? I might say to you 'Darwin was the greatest man who has ever lived', and you might say 'No, Newton was', but I hope we would not prolong the argument. The point is that no conclusion of substance would be affected whichever way our argument was resolved. The facts of the lives and achievements of Newton and Darwin remain totally unchanged whether we label them 'great' or not. Similarly, the story of the replicator molecules probably happened something like the way I am telling it, regardless of whether we choose to call them 'living'. Human suffering has been caused because too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use, and that the mere presence in the dictionary of a word like 'living' does not mean it necessarily has to refer to something definite in the real world. Whether we call the early replicators living or not, they were ancestors of life; they were our founding fathers.

  不确定纸版书的页数。这个是iphone ibook reader中电子书格式的页数。 (收起)

  2011-06-18 17:05:15   回应

  收藏

  推荐
• 

  第24页

  xxx

  1. Why are people? I do not know why the author named it, but it seems the title is irrelevant to its content. Altruism and selfishness are the products of human morality. In the natural world, these are just 2 common phenomena. A bird would risk its own life by alarming for its group that a dangerous animal is approaching. A work bee sacrifice its life to protect the nest for all by thro... (更多)

  1. Why are people?

  I do not know why the author named it, but it seems the title is irrelevant to its content.

  Altruism and selfishness are the products of human morality.

  In the natural world, these are just 2 common phenomena. A bird would risk its own life by alarming for its group that a dangerous animal is approaching. A work bee sacrifice its life to protect the nest for all by throwing out its organs with the sting...

  Are these animals altruists? They did these because their parents did that when they were young. The deeds simply because they need to preserve its offsprings, in other words, itself.

  Being "selfish" is the common basic instinct of all beings, simply because we are reliable to the material world. I cannot accept what the Bible suggests that all beings are served as the food for humans because God commands it. Why can we just simply admit that after all humans are "selfish"?

  However, human beings have far richer emtions than average animals probably because we have much more complicated nerve system in our brian and this is the result of millions of years revolution. Or shall I say since the known universe was born, all the time before was a process for such a complex organism of right now?

  2. The replicators

  "The earliest form of natural selection was simply a selection of stable forms and a rejection of unstable ones."

  "nothing actually 'wants' to evolve."

  In other words, replication as a means to preserve the bilogical being is a result of pysical action. Just as the bubble is in the form of the sphere to decrease the surface tension of itself, bilogical being tends to spend less energy to perserve its existance. Obviously, after tested by reality, the biological being does not need to recreate new orders to preserve itself, then replication is certainly their best choice.

  Evolution is a result of mistakes of replication. But some mistake result are tested to be better living than its prototype. They are easier to survive and expand, they are more competative than others, thus, they outnumbered others in the same pool.

  Replicators means that all bilogical being is "lazy".

  The question is was the mistakes of replication happened by accident or by choosing to be more competative? (收起)

  2011-02-27 15:46:59   1回应

  收藏

  推荐

• 

  第24页

  xxx

  1. Why are people? I do not know why the author named it, but it seems the title is irrelevant to its content. Altruism and selfishness are the products of human morality. In the natural world, these are just 2 common phenomena. A bird would risk its own life by alarming for its group that a dangerous animal is approaching. A work bee sacrifice its life to protect the nest for all by thro... (更多)

  1. Why are people?

  I do not know why the author named it, but it seems the title is irrelevant to its content.

  Altruism and selfishness are the products of human morality.

  In the natural world, these are just 2 common phenomena. A bird would risk its own life by alarming for its group that a dangerous animal is approaching. A work bee sacrifice its life to protect the nest for all by throwing out its organs with the sting...

  Are these animals altruists? They did these because their parents did that when they were young. The deeds simply because they need to preserve its offsprings, in other words, itself.

  Being "selfish" is the common basic instinct of all beings, simply because we are reliable to the material world. I cannot accept what the Bible suggests that all beings are served as the food for humans because God commands it. Why can we just simply admit that after all humans are "selfish"?

  However, human beings have far richer emtions than average animals probably because we have much more complicated nerve system in our brian and this is the result of millions of years revolution. Or shall I say since the known universe was born, all the time before was a process for such a complex organism of right now?

  2. The replicators

  "The earliest form of natural selection was simply a selection of stable forms and a rejection of unstable ones."

  "nothing actually 'wants' to evolve."

  In other words, replication as a means to preserve the bilogical being is a result of pysical action. Just as the bubble is in the form of the sphere to decrease the surface tension of itself, bilogical being tends to spend less energy to perserve its existance. Obviously, after tested by reality, the biological being does not need to recreate new orders to preserve itself, then replication is certainly their best choice.

  Evolution is a result of mistakes of replication. But some mistake result are tested to be better living than its prototype. They are easier to survive and expand, they are more competative than others, thus, they outnumbered others in the same pool.

  Replicators means that all bilogical being is "lazy".

  The question is was the mistakes of replication happened by accident or by choosing to be more competative? (收起)

  2011-02-27 15:46:59   1回应

  收藏

  推荐
• 

  第110页

  Enhui (Es ist vorbei~~)

  Each selfish gene therefore has its loyalties divided between different bodies. (更多)

  Each selfish gene therefore has its loyalties divided between different bodies. (收起)

  2011-11-25 17:28:59   回应

  收藏

  推荐
• 

  第165页

  skeeter (不可挦章撦句是有道理的)

  Should we then call the original replicator molecules 'living'? Who cares? I might say to you 'Darwin was the greatest man who has ever lived', and you might say 'No, Newton was', but I hope we would not prolong the argument. The point is that no conclusion of substance would be affected whichever way our argument was resolved. The facts of the lives and achievements of Newton and Darwin remain to... (更多)

  Should we then call the original replicator molecules 'living'? Who cares? I might say to you 'Darwin was the greatest man who has ever lived', and you might say 'No, Newton was', but I hope we would not prolong the argument. The point is that no conclusion of substance would be affected whichever way our argument was resolved. The facts of the lives and achievements of Newton and Darwin remain totally unchanged whether we label them 'great' or not. Similarly, the story of the replicator molecules probably happened something like the way I am telling it, regardless of whether we choose to call them 'living'. Human suffering has been caused because too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use, and that the mere presence in the dictionary of a word like 'living' does not mean it necessarily has to refer to something definite in the real world. Whether we call the early replicators living or not, they were ancestors of life; they were our founding fathers.

  不确定纸版书的页数。这个是iphone ibook reader中电子书格式的页数。 (收起)

  2011-06-18 17:05:15   回应

  收藏

  推荐

• 

  第110页

  Enhui (Es ist vorbei~~)

  Each selfish gene therefore has its loyalties divided between different bodies. (更多)

  Each selfish gene therefore has its loyalties divided between different bodies. (收起)

  2011-11-25 17:28:59   回应

  收藏

  推荐
• 

  第165页

  skeeter (不可挦章撦句是有道理的)

  Should we then call the original replicator molecules 'living'? Who cares? I might say to you 'Darwin was the greatest man who has ever lived', and you might say 'No, Newton was', but I hope we would not prolong the argument. The point is that no conclusion of substance would be affected whichever way our argument was resolved. The facts of the lives and achievements of Newton and Darwin remain to... (更多)

  Should we then call the original replicator molecules 'living'? Who cares? I might say to you 'Darwin was the greatest man who has ever lived', and you might say 'No, Newton was', but I hope we would not prolong the argument. The point is that no conclusion of substance would be affected whichever way our argument was resolved. The facts of the lives and achievements of Newton and Darwin remain totally unchanged whether we label them 'great' or not. Similarly, the story of the replicator molecules probably happened something like the way I am telling it, regardless of whether we choose to call them 'living'. Human suffering has been caused because too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use, and that the mere presence in the dictionary of a word like 'living' does not mean it necessarily has to refer to something definite in the real world. Whether we call the early replicators living or not, they were ancestors of life; they were our founding fathers.

  不确定纸版书的页数。这个是iphone ibook reader中电子书格式的页数。 (收起)

  2011-06-18 17:05:15   回应

  收藏

  推荐
• 

  第24页

  xxx

  1. Why are people? I do not know why the author named it, but it seems the title is irrelevant to its content. Altruism and selfishness are the products of human morality. In the natural world, these are just 2 common phenomena. A bird would risk its own life by alarming for its group that a dangerous animal is approaching. A work bee sacrifice its life to protect the nest for all by thro... (更多)

  1. Why are people?

  I do not know why the author named it, but it seems the title is irrelevant to its content.

  Altruism and selfishness are the products of human morality.

  In the natural world, these are just 2 common phenomena. A bird would risk its own life by alarming for its group that a dangerous animal is approaching. A work bee sacrifice its life to protect the nest for all by throwing out its organs with the sting...

  Are these animals altruists? They did these because their parents did that when they were young. The deeds simply because they need to preserve its offsprings, in other words, itself.

  Being "selfish" is the common basic instinct of all beings, simply because we are reliable to the material world. I cannot accept what the Bible suggests that all beings are served as the food for humans because God commands it. Why can we just simply admit that after all humans are "selfish"?

  However, human beings have far richer emtions than average animals probably because we have much more complicated nerve system in our brian and this is the result of millions of years revolution. Or shall I say since the known universe was born, all the time before was a process for such a complex organism of right now?

  2. The replicators

  "The earliest form of natural selection was simply a selection of stable forms and a rejection of unstable ones."

  "nothing actually 'wants' to evolve."

  In other words, replication as a means to preserve the bilogical being is a result of pysical action. Just as the bubble is in the form of the sphere to decrease the surface tension of itself, bilogical being tends to spend less energy to perserve its existance. Obviously, after tested by reality, the biological being does not need to recreate new orders to preserve itself, then replication is certainly their best choice.

  Evolution is a result of mistakes of replication. But some mistake result are tested to be better living than its prototype. They are easier to survive and expand, they are more competative than others, thus, they outnumbered others in the same pool.

  Replicators means that all bilogical being is "lazy".

  The question is was the mistakes of replication happened by accident or by choosing to be more competative? (收起)

  2011-02-27 15:46:59   1回应

  收藏

  推荐