This idea of selfish genes continues to puzzle me. I can't help but give genes the benefit of the doubt and believe them to simply be in existence. I don't see how they can be categorized as "selfish" when they are not capable of acting with such intentions in mind. I think ultimately what it comes down to is that these genes, which are so deemed as selfish, are in actuality the genes that are simply more fit. As we have seen in various regards, what it comes down to is who, or what, is best fit to survive and thrive. Survival of the fittest in all respects. Genes are being personified and being qualified with an ability to think and scheme. Something that is not rightly possible. I would argue that dominant and recessive genes also come into play here.

 I'd like to know more about the life of the very accomplished Michelle Obama.

In preparation for my second essay, I’ve been looking into the etymologies of words, and the ways in which words have evolved. In an earlier post of mine (one written on 2/6/2011), I delved into the subject of the ways in which words shift in meaning, but didn’t touch on the flip side of this evolutionary process: when a definition remains the same over time, but the word used to describe it is the constant that is being modified. In another class I’m taking (Female Subjects with Bethany Schneider), we’ve spoken about the eradication of the word ‘hermaphrodite’ when used in reference to intersex people.

 A few of Dennett's ideas are still confusing to me.  Despite our extensive class discussion, I still do not fully understand memes.  I am not sure if culture can be measured or divided into units.  Units are supposed to be very basic, so that measuring is easy and logical.  How can one begin to measure culture?  Memes seem so indefinable to us because culture is.  We had an easier time envisioning memes as a tune or phrase rather than a cultural movement, which makes sense because larger cultural movements are so much more complicated.  In other words, I can much better explain how a classmate ended up humming Lady Gaga than say the revolutions happening across the Middle East.

The Library of Babel ultimately means the death of creativity and originality as we know it.  With all potential books, papers, etc. all "pre-existing" on one of the seemingly infinite shelves of the library already, nothing "new" can be thought of/written.  Any thing that's written, with whatever typos or errors in it, another "copy" already exists.  It seems that only once a work is physically created in our world does it become "realized" in the Library of Babel.  

Thursday’s discussion led us to talking about the concept of substrate neutrality. When we first began discussing what this idea of Dennett’s could possibly mean, I had a difficult time wrapping my head around his belief. I took it to mean something that could be used with an algorithm because, regardless of the substrate, the same process will occur. We then applied this concept to the tennis tournament example Dennett provided. The substrate would be considered the players of the tournament and they are neutral because no matter what, there will be a winner. Even if it is a competition between a novice and an expert, it could still be considered substrate neutral. I'm not a support of this concept of substrate neutrality.

As I read Dennett's metaphor of the Library of Babel, I thought he was crazy, he did not know what he was saying.  It does not make any sense to me that everything already exists, that everything is already there, waiting patiently for someone to finally come and pick it up.  This not only goes against evolution, but is takes away credit from human beings.  It goes against evolution because in this library everything is already there; therefore, there is no room for randomness, which is part of the evolutionary process.  Everything has already been created; therefore, there are no modifications, but an entirely new book.  This is creationism instead of evolution.  By being creationism it takes away from human's ability to create.  All we do is

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE