My current profile is Dan Dennett, so I’m rereading his books, and once more filled with irritation at the idea of memes. I really don’t see how it adds anything except a specious impression of precision to what we already know. And then there is the active voice, which goes all the way back as far as The Selfish Gene: genes are called ‘replicators’. Now, I have done this myself, but I now think this may be the beginning of the whole confusion. The point about genes — and their ancestors — is that they are replicatees — they don’t copy themselves: they have qualities which cause their environments to copy them.
This is what makes the ‘replicator/vehicle’ terminology so misleading. I make a point of using David Hull’s terms, ‘replicator’ and ‘interactor’. But even this probably makes us overestimate the role of the gene in the whole thing.
With that said, I think that Dennett on consciousness and ‘the place of value in a world of facts’ is admirably clear and instructive. I am appreciating Consciousness Explained much more than when I first read it, 15 years ago, which has to be a test of value in a book. He’s quite right about Zombies, for instance.
you write extemely well.
My (spirtually) beautiful AND V INTELLIGENT Romanian friend read the words “At a reasonable estimate, 50% of the American priesthood is gay” and was shocked. When I told her no-one knows and probably the figure is a fraction she replied, ‘No it says so.’
I like your site but don’t u8nderstand where you are coming from re religion. are you an unbeliever and if so why do you care about ecclesiastical politics?
Paul Wood
Don’t know what this has to do with replicators and all that, but still …
I am an unbeliever, for a variety of reasons dotted around the cutting section of the site. I care about ecclesiastical politics — to the extent that I do — because I think that religion is important and interesting irrespective of its truth claims. I think this more than I feel it, but I was employed for many years to write about the religious world, which I did damn well. It’s hard to feel that anything you understand is wholly worthless.
As for the 50% figure, what sort of evidence do you want? I got it from the reported remarks of a man who ran a seminary there (can’t remember the exact source), but it is backed up by the research of Richard Sipe, the remarks of Eamon Duffy (a very loyal Catholic) on my Radio Four programme, and the fact that the Aids rate among American priests is about six times higher than the national average. That figure was established by the Kansas City Star in the late Nineties. All the other people I have quoted are Catholics; two have official positions.