Evolutionary Psychology Isn’t Any Good
The theory of evolution is the philosophy of science that denies the existence of Designers, Creators, Intelligences, Psyches, Minds, Tachyons, and Psi while at the same time claiming that evolution or natural selection is your Designer and your Maker. These conflicting claims violate the Law of Non-Contradiction. We don’t observe the non-existence of these things as the theory of evolution predicts; therefore, the theory of evolution is false. The theory of evolution is a philosophy of science which means that we can use either philosophy or science to falsify it. We falisify the theory of evolution because we can – because parts of it are demonstrably false.
Evolutionary Psychology isn’t evil. It’s just not any good. This essay is my verison of this theme. There have been others. I tried to make mine better by including physics.
https://tachyonic-ontology.org/Evolutionary-Psychology-Isnt-Any-Good
Within the book, The Spiritual Brain, Mario Beauregard has a chapter that is mostly dedicated to falsifying, debunking, and disparaging evolutionary psychology.
Evolutionary Psychology is a stupid idea in which they use the psychology of fossils or the psychology of rocks to “inform” or to “explain” human psychology. Evolutionary psychology is an oxymoron – a contradiction in terms that violates the Law of Non-Contradiction and is therefore automatically false. This scientific truth or observational truth becomes obvious once we start to apply the physics or the math to each of these concepts. You see, evolution is a tardyonic process (v < c) or an entropic process (v < c). In contrast, Consciousness (T = ∞), Psi Ψ (v >= c), and Psychology (T = ∞ or v > c) are tachyonic (v > c) in nature and origin. Evolution (v < c) and psychology (v > c) do NOT belong in the same category. They are different FORMS of energy! Therefore, Evolutionary Psychology is an oxymoron or a category error logic fallacy that violates the Law of Non-Contradiction and is consequently inherently non-sensical, self-defeating, and false.
By applying the physics or the math to their atheistic claims, their scientistic materialism, or scientific naturalism, or tardyonic ontology (0 <= v < c) is automatically falsified. The theory of evolution, and the second law of thermodynamics, cannot stand in the light of (T) Truth (T = ∞). We are always encountering something syntropic (v >= c) that is falsifying them or violating them!
Beauregard, M. (2009). The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul. New York: HarperCollins.
Are RSMEs (religious, mystical, spiritual experiences) merely a quirk of a materialist evolution (v < c)? For over a century, scientists have pondered RSMEs (v >= c) in relation to human evolution (v < c). Unfortunately, under materialist influence (0 <= v < c), the project became not so much exploring a way, but explaining away.
Evelyn Underhill noted at the turn of the twentieth century that mystical consciousness (v > c) in particular was “a puzzling circumstance for deterministic philosophers, who can only escape from the dilemma here presented to them by calling these things illusions, and dignifying their own more manageable illusions with the title of facts.” She framed the conflict between the mystic (v >= c) and the materialist (v < c) succinctly:
That there is an extreme point at which man’s nature touches the Absolute (T = ∞): that his ground, or substance, his true being (T = ∞), is penetrated by the Divine Life (T = ∞) which constitutes the underlying reality of things; this is the basis on which the whole mystic (v >= c) claim of possible union with God (T = ∞) must rest.
Underhill’s contemporary William James saw that “evolution” (v < c) was itself becoming a new religion and a rival to Christianity. James disliked the new religion, not because he doubted evolution (or the tardyonic), but because speculations about animal or early hominid sensations (v < c) seemed a poor substitute for studying the depths of contemporary human consciousness (T = ∞).
The rise of logical positivism and behaviorism in the 1920s reinforced scientism (0 <= v < c), the view that only the methods of natural sciences (v < c) such as physics and chemistry provide real knowledge (T = ∞). Relativity (v <= c) and quantum mechanics (v >= c) had hardly begun to shape thinking at that time, so, practically speaking, “natural science” (v < c) meant nineteenth-century materialism (v < c). Scientism (0 <= v < c) is the ultimate origin of the current project to account for RSMEs (v >= c) through the new discipline of evolutionary psychology, by attempting to demonstrate that RSMEs (v >= c) can be understood as outcomes of an unguided evolution (v < c).
As always in this area, the stakes are high. If RSMEs (v >= c) have an obvious materialist explanation (v < c), the mystics’ claims are irrelevant. At first blush, however, evolutionary psychology is not a promising hypothesis. Evolution depends on leaving fertile descendants, but mystics and spiritual adepts commonly vow celibacy or, at a minimum, do not view worldly success as the goal of life. But a number of alternative evolutionary psychology hypotheses have been put forward in recent years to address this difficulty: RSMEs (v >= c) were accidental (r = 0) by-products of useful mental states (T = ∞ or v > c), a “strategy” by which genes (v < c) get copied, or even an unspecified neural copying program (a meme). All these ideas have been advanced in the name of science, under the banner of evolutionary (v < c) psychology (v > c). Beauregard, The Spiritual Brain, (pp. 206-207).
What is logical positivism?
Logical positivism, later called logical empiricism, and both of which together are also known as neopositivism, was a movement in Western philosophy whose central thesis was the verification principle (also known as the verifiability criterion of meaning). This theory of knowledge asserted that only statements verifiable through direct observation or logical proof are meaningful in terms of conveying truth value, information or factual content. Starting in the late 1920s, groups of philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians formed the Berlin Circle and the Vienna Circle, which, in these two cities, would propound the ideas of logical positivism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
There would have been nothing wrong with Logical Positivism if they would have allowed ALL of the evidence into evidence. Where they went wrong is that they limited their evidence to a tardyonic ontology (0 <= v < c), or spacetime (v <= c), or classical physics (v <= c) at best. They completely rejected and denied the existence of Psi Ψ (v >= c), the supernatural (v >= c), the spiritual (v >= c), the non-local (v >= c), the tachyonic (v > c), and quantum mechanics (v >= c) before these things had been discovered and verified!
Logical positivism was flawed or incomplete because they deliberately limited it to a tardyonic ontology (0 <= v < c), classical physics (v <= c), or scientistic naturalism. The atheists and evolutionists deliberately defined “scientism” and the “theory of evolution” as materialism, naturalism, behaviorism, nihilism, a tardyonic ontology, and atheism taking it from the realm of science and physics into the realm of dogma and blind faith – so that their “science” would always be true, so that their “science” couldn’t be falsified with scientific evidence, and so that their “science” couldn’t be used to prove that God (T = ∞) or Tachyons (T = ∞) exist. After my discovery of Tachyonic Physics (v > c) and a Tachyonic Ontology (-∞ <= T <= ∞) in June 2020, logical positivism, physics, and chemistry provided me with real knowledge (T = ∞) or convincing scientific proof (T = ∞) that a tardyonic ontology (0 <= v < c) or scientistic materialism is incomplete and false. The theory of evolution is a part of a tardyonic ontology, which automatically falsifies it.
The theory of evolution is “creation by accident” or “creation by chance” or “creation ex nihilo”. Chance is represented by the Null Hypothesis in statistics, or by “No Correlation” (r = 0). Alas, chance (r = 0) cannot design (T = ∞) and create (v > c)! Once chance starts to do something, then it is no longer chance; but it has instead become some type of deliberate choice (T = ∞) or conscious choice (T = ∞). Likewise, the math makes it obvious that evolution (v < c) is NOT in the same category as Psi Ψ (v >= c) or Psychology (T = ∞). The math doesn’t lie. It is obvious that chance (r = 0) is NOT in the same category as Design (T = ∞) and Creation (v > c). Once we start applying the physics or the math to these different ideas, it becomes immediately obvious that evolution (v < c) and psychology (v > c) are different FORMS of energy which means that they don’t belong in the same category. It is a category error logic fallacy to place them into the same category! Notice how the evolutionists are constantly trying to turn evolution (v < c), or natural selection (v = 0), or chance (r = 0) into a supernatural God (v >= c).
Spiritual (v >= c) and Tachyonic (v > c) are basically the same thing! Their categories overlap. Divine Life (T = ∞) is tachyonic life (v > c) or conserved life (T = ∞). They belong in the same category. Notice that evolution (v < c) or entropy (v < c) does NOT belong in the same category as Psyches (T = ∞), Minds (T = ∞), Tachyons (T = ∞), Intelligences (T = ∞), Designers (T = ∞), Creators (v > c), or Gods (T = ∞). Consequently, evolution cannot be our Designer (T = ∞) and our Maker (v > c) as the evolutionists or atheists claim that it is.
Natural selection is death (v = 0). Natural selection doesn’t touch our genes. Natural selection doesn’t do anything except sit around and wait for us to die. Natural selection is nihilism or atheism. Natural selection is defined as “creation ex nihilo” – the creation of something from nothing by nothing. Naturalism is creation by death. Notice that the evolutionists and evolutionary psychologyists are running a bait and switch. It’s a scam that violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. What do we see from the evolutionists and evolutionary psychologists? In complete violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction we see them teleogizing, or anthropomorphizing, the theory of evolution (v < c) and claiming that evolution is your Designer (T = ∞) and Creator (v > c) while at the same time rejecting and denying the existence of Goal-Oriented Purposeful (T) Teleology (T = ∞ or v > c). It’s self-defeating because its an obvious lie or an obvious contradiction.
The evolutionists and evolutionary psychologists are trying to get teleology (T = ∞) or purpose (v > c) from evolution (v < c), entropy (v < c), chance (r = 0), or natural selection (v = 0). In the hands of the evolutionists, evolution is purpose from purposelessness. Evolution is genesis – life (v > c) from lifelessness (v = 0). It’s an oxymoron. They are trying to get the transcendent (v > c) from the tardyonic (v < c), or God (T = ∞) from evolution (v < c). Evolutionists define evolution axiomatically as purposeless (v = 0). The purposeless cannot produce anything; the purposeless (v = 0) cannot design (T = ∞) and create (v > c). Then in the same breath, the evolutionists and evolutionary psychologists declare that evolution (v < c), or natural selection (v = 0), or entropy (v < c), or chance (r = 0) is your Designer (T = ∞) and Maker (v > c). It’s self-defeating or self-falsifying because it is internally inconsistent!
In 1976, Richard Dawkins livened up the discussion with his book The Selfish Gene. He was convinced that evolution occurs because genes succeed in getting passed on; they, not we, are the true immortals. Although Dawkins has always denied attributing motive or determinism to genes in an anthropomorphic way, his language is often ambiguous. And cognitive scientist Steven Pinker recently defended Dawkins’s ambiguity in an essay in honor of The Selfish Gene’s thirtieth anniversary. Ridiculing philosopher Mary Midgley for protesting that “genes cannot be selfish or unselfish, any more than atoms can be jealous, elephants abstract, or biscuits teleological.” Of course, in fairness, Dawkins is not saying that everybody wants to spread their genes, but that everybody’s genes want to be spread. On the other hand, he insists, genes don’t really have purposes. He also concedes that humans can have purposes unrelated to reproduction. But that raises the question, what is the conceptual use of the selfish gene? What does it predict, rather than postdict? Many found the selfish gene simplistic, unfalsifiable, and — this is the big problem — unrepresentative of what we actually know of human nature. The Spiritual Brain, (pp. 215-216).
The selfish gene was a hugely attractive concept for the evolutionists and atheists because it attributed agency (T = ∞) to genes (v < c) thereby violating the Law of Non-Contradiction! It’s a payday anytime the evolutionists can violate the Law of Non-Contradiction while seeming not to do so. The selfish gene idea is limited and flawed. According to the selfish gene concept, the genes (v < c), and not the self (T = ∞), are attributed with being the Actors (T = ∞) or the Choosers (T = ∞) in every scenario or event. It’s a category error! So, how was action and choice done before evolution and genes were designed and created? The concept has limited usefulness. The selfish gene can be successfully applied to the atheists, but it has nothing to do with the altruists!
Richard Dawkins teleogizes (T = ∞) and anthropomorphizes evolution or natural selection while at the same time adamantly stating that that isn’t what he’s doing. In other words, Dawkins is lying to us and deceiving himself. According to Dawkins and his selfish gene idea, genes have minds (T = ∞) which means that they can design (T = ∞) and create (v > c). Genes (v < c) WANT (T = ∞) to be spread. Dawkins violates the Law of Non-Contradiction by teleogizing genes (T = ∞) while at the same time stating that genes are purposeless (v = 0). A selfish gene predicts teleology (T = ∞) and NOT purposlessness!
Richard Dawkins defined natural selection (v = 0) as a Blind Watchmaker (T = ∞); and in the process, Dawkins teleogized and antropomorphized the theory of evolution, turning evolution (v < c) into our Designer (T = ∞) and our Creator (v > c). Then he lies and says that he has never promoted (T) Teleology (T = ∞ or v > c) while at the same time correctly stating that “evolution is NOT purposeful and NOT deliberate design and creation”. Dawkins claims that a Blind Watchmaker is the best analogy or best metaphor for the theory of evolution and natural selection, and he is right. Just like the theory of evolution, a Blind Watchmaker is an oxymoron that can’t do the job that it is said to have done. Evolution cannot design (T = ∞) and create (v > c) even though the evolutionists claim that evolution is our Designer (T = ∞), Maker (v > c), Creator (v > c), and God (T = ∞).
So which is it?
Is evolution or natural selection blind (v = 0), stupid (v = 0), dumb (v = 0), and purposeless (v = 0)? Or is evolution our Designer (T = ∞) and our Maker (v > c) as the evolutionists and atheists claim? It can’t be both at the same time because they are mutually exclusive. Entropy (v < c) is the opposite of Syntropy (v >= c). Evolution is the opposite of design and creation! Evolution (v < c) cannot be entropy (v < c) while at the same time being our Omniscient Designer (T = ∞) and our Syntropic Maker (v > c).
It violates the Law of Non-Contradiction to claim that evolution (v < c) or natural selection (v = 0) is our Designer (T = ∞), Creator (v > c), and Maker (T = ∞ or v > c). Likewise, evolutionary (v < c) psychology (v > c) is an oxymoron or a contradiction in terms that violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. It’s obviously false. The theory of evolution is comprised of this philosophical sleight-of-hand from beginning to end. The evolutionists are promoting (T) Teleology (T = ∞), Design (T = ∞), and Creation (v > c) while at they same time claiming that they are NOT creationists or teleologists. The evolutionists are constantly claiming that evolution is your Designer (T = ∞) and your Maker (v > c) while at the same time claiming that Designers (T = ∞) and Creators (v > c) DO NOT EXIST. It’s an obvious lie! It’s inconsistent or a contradiction. It’s self-defeating or self-falsifying.
Then the other evolutionists and atheists jumped on Dawkins’ bandwagon.
We were constructed to serve the interests of our genes, not the reverse. The reason we exist is because it once served their ends to create us. — Keith E. Stanovich, The Robot’s Rebellion. [Making genes our Designer and Creator!]
Then others try to falsify it. “Constructed by whom? Who is this Omnipotent Constructor? Who designed us and created us since it obviously wasn’t our genes?”
“What Jones really wants” is what his ancestors were selected for wanting in the old days back on the savannah. The trouble is, of course, that Jones wants no such thing — not consciously or unconsciously either. — Philosopher Jerry Fodor. [The theory of evolution is an fictional ad hoc just-so story.]
Remember, anytime the materialists, naturalists, evolutionists, behaviorists, nihilists, or atheists teleogize (T = ∞) or antropomorphize the theory of evolution or the second law of thermodynamics or death or entropy, these atheists are in fact cheating, lying, and violating the Law of Non-Contradiction because they are at the same time rejecting and denying the existence of (T) Teleology (T = ∞), (T) Tachyons, Psi Ψ (v >= c), the Supernatural (v >= c), the Spiritual (v >= c), the Quantum Mechanical (v >= c), Omniscient Designers (T = ∞), and Omnipotent Creators (v > c).
Evolution (v < c) obviously exists as “genetic entropy”, “genetic drift”, “genetic change”, or “random mutations”; but that reality doesn’t mean that evolution (v < c) can design (T = ∞) and create (v > c). Evolution (v < c) and creation (v > c) are not the same!
The following quotes are found within the book, The Spiritual Brain. Notice how the evolutionists are constantly teleolgizing (T = ∞) or antropomorphizing the theory of evolution (v < c) or evolutionary psychology. Then in the same breath, the evolutionists are rejecting and denying the existence of (T) Teleology (T = ∞), Designers (T = ∞), Intelligences (T = ∞), Psyches (T = ∞), Psi Ψ (v >= c), Spirit Matter (v >= c), and Creators (v > c). The theory of evolution and evolutionary psychology end up being a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction as a result of all these internal contradictions or inconsistencies that are built into the theory of evolution and evolutionary psychology.
What then are we to make of the purposes and goals obviously chosen by human beings? They are, in Darwinian interpretation (v < c), processes evolved as adaptive devices by an otherwise purposeless natural selection (v = 0). Religious belief itself is an adaptation that has evolved because we’re hardwired to form tribalistic religions. The essence of humanity’s spiritual (v >= c) dilemma is that we evolved genetically (v < c) to accept one truth (v >= c) and discovered another (0 <= v < c). Is there a way to erase the dilemma, to solve the contradictions between the transcendentalist (v > c) and empiricist (v < c) world views? No, unfortunately, there is not. — Sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson.
Hardwired by whom? Hardwiring requires an intelligent Hardwirer! Violating the Law of Non-Contradiction, Wilson defines human choices (T = ∞) or human teleology (T = ∞) as “purposeless natural selection (v = 0)”. The evolutionists are constantly saying that we were hardwired (v > c) to believe (T = ∞) in the wrong worldview (v >= c). Notice that Edward Wilson repeatedly argues that humans (v < c) are somehow hardwired (v > c) by evolution (v < c) or natural selection (v = 0) to accept a wrong view of reality (v >= c). It’s claptrap. He’s arguing from his conclusion or begging the question! All three MAIN FORMS of energy – entropic tardyons (v < c), supernatural luxons (v = c), and omnipotent tachyons (v > c) – can be SOLVED or explained with an all-inclusive (T) Tachyonic Ontology (-∞ <= T <= ∞). The Light Cone Chart makes it obvious and clear that this science and physics is (T) True (T = ∞) while at the same time falsifying Wilson’s ideas.
Science now reveals that love is addictive, trust is gratifying and cooperation feels good. Evolution produced this reward system because it increased the survival of members of our social primate species. — Michael Shermer, Scientific American.
Violating the Law of Non-Contradiction, Shermer declares evolution (v < c) to be our teleological Designer (T = ∞) and Omnipotent Maker (v > c). I’m not making this up. I’m simply revealing what they are doing. They are lying to us, and most of us don’t even know it. The evolutionists are constantly presenting evolution as purpose (T = ∞) from purposelessness (v = 0). It’s a logic fallacy. They are trying to produce something from nothing. According to Shermer, evolution (v < c) produced our psychology (v > c).
Evolutionary psychology proposes that human brains comprise adaptations, or evolved psychological mechanisms. These adaptations evolved by natural selection to benefit the survival and reproduction of the organism. RSMEs [religious, mystical, spiritual experiences] are, according to evolutionary psychology, one of these mechanisms. Since the 1970s, evolutionary psychologists have claimed to explain not only RSMEs (v >= c), but altruism, crime, economics, emotions, group loyalty, infidelity, laughter, law, literature, love, marketing, music, number sense, obesity, patriotism, sexual orientation, violence, voting conservative, war, and why the United States does not go to war against Canada as well as why children dislike vegetables — and this is only a partial list.
Evolutionary psychology is the theoretical background of neurotheology, which “analyzes the biological basis (v < c) of spirituality (v >= c)” and “deals with the neurological and evolutionary basis (v < c) for subjective experiences traditionally categorized as spiritual (v >= c).” [Neurotheology is another oxymoron or contradiction in terms that violates the Law of Non-Contradiction by trying to turn neurons (v < c) into (T) Theology (T = ∞) or (T) Teleology (T = ∞).]
The pop science media love evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology in general has received popular attention out of all proportion to its theoretical rigor. That is especially problematic for a nonexperimental discipline based on the interpretation of prehistory, where so much is simply nontestable and nonfalsifiable. Despite the best efforts of researchers such as Dean Hamer, there is no clear link between religion and specific genes. Explanations that argue for an assumed survival value (v < c) of RSMEs (v >= c) also tend to confound mysticism (v >= c) and magic (v > c). Traditional shamans necessarily practice both, but the quests are separate: the mystic seeks enlightenment; the magician seeks power. Beauregard, The Spiritual Brain, (pp. 207-209).
Notice that evolutionary psychology is an attempt to teleogize (T = ∞) the theory of evolution and turn it into a causal agent (T = ∞). The evolutionists or atheists imbue evolution (v < c), chance (r = 0), or natural selection (v < c) with the supernatural ability to design (T = ∞) and create (v > c). That’s what they do. These atheists personify (T = ∞) and deify (T = ∞) genes (v < c) or evolution (v < c). Through evolutionary psychology and memes, the evolutionists are trying to turn the theory of evolution into infinite possibilities (T = ∞) or Tachyonic Psi (v > c). Tachyons are Omnipotent Particles of Energy (T = ∞).
Adaptation (v < c) is the gold standard against which rationality (T = ∞) must be judged, along with all other forms of thought (v > c). — Biologist and anthropologist David Sloan Wilson. Once again, D. S. Wilson is demanding that we teleogize (T = ∞) or antropomorphize adaptation (v < c) or the theory of evolution. I immediately find myself asking, “What type of Thought (T = ∞) or Mind (T = ∞) is doing the adapting (v < c) or the genetic evolution (v < c)?” It has to be some type of (T) Tachyon (T = ∞) who is doing all of this adapting (v > c) or teleology (T = ∞) of physical atoms (v < c) because energy (tachyons) is infinitely malleable or infinitely transformable.
The evolutionists are constantly saying that we were hardwired (v > c) by natural selection (v = 0) to believe in the wrong worldview or to believe in spirituality (v >= c) and God (T = ∞). It has nothing to do with the fact that spirituality (v >= c) and the Biblical God (T = ∞) have been proven to exist. Natural selection (v = 0) or evolution (v < c) simply wired us (v > c) wrong. We falsify the theory of evoltuion because we can – because parts of it are demonstrably false. It is obvious that natural selection (v = 0) or death could never have been our Designer (T = ∞) and our Creator (v > c) as the evolutionists claim that it is. The Light Cone Chart makes it obvious that everything can be traced back to (T) Tachyons (T = ∞) or Tachyonic Psi (v > c) as the Ultimate Cause of everything that exists.
Now, physicists are not nearly as ready to endorse materialism in physics as biologists are. But in any event, we must ask why humanity would evolve or be “hardwired” to accept a worldview that is incorrect. For reasons that we have looked at earlier, it is not clear how exactly humans can be hardwired to accept any worldview. But if so, why one that contradicts reality? Is “Foucault dies out in a generation, but Yahweh endures forever” the best explanation that human brains are “hardwired” wrong? Or should we look for another? “Rationality,” D. S. Wilson insists, “is not the gold standard against which all other forms of thought are to be judged.” But where does that leave science? The actual history of science barely supports D. S. Wilson’s contention that, in science, factual realism triumphs above all else. Eventually, truth prevails in science, but everything else seems to prevail first, sometimes for decades or centuries. Science is not very different in this respect from government or religion. Often change occurs only when stoutly defended systems are collapsing from their own unworkability. But what D. S. Wilson means by “science” appears to be materialism, which he treats as factual realism. Since he has defined his terms that way, there is no arguing the case with him. D. S. Wilson means by “science” the philosophy of materialism. The Spiritual Brain, (pp. 210-212). [The atheists define “science” as materialism or naturalism so that it can’t be falsified with scientific evidence. They cheat. That’s why we attack and falsify their denials, which are obviously false and easily falsified with scientific evidence or observational evidence.]
Genomes are both hardware (v < c) and software (T = ∞). So, who did the programming (T = ∞), and who MADE the hardware (v < c) or the physical atoms (v < c)? The Light Cone Chart makes it obvious that everything can be traced back to (T) Tachyons (T = ∞) or Tachyonic Psi (v > c) as the Ultimate Cause of everything that exists. The tardyons (v < c) are currently floating within or suspended within Tachyonic Psi (v > c) or the Quantum Fields (T = ∞). These omnipotent Quantum Fields are keeping the physical atoms separated while at the same time keeping the physical atoms from imploding into an infinite singularity. The idea that Yahweh is forever is an idea that is tachyonic (v > c) and conserved (T = ∞). Everytime the evolutionists or atheists say that we were hardwired to believe in spirituality and God, I find myself asking, “Hardwired by whom?” Hardware and software obviously require a Designer (T = ∞) and a Creator (v > c) in order for them to exist. So, who hardwired them and programmed them? A genome is both hardware and software, so who hardwired it and programmed it in the first place?
The survival value of the god meme in the meme pool results from its great psychological appeal. It provides a superficially plausible answer to deep and troubling questions about existence. It suggests that injustices in this world may be rectified in the next. The “everlasting arms” hold out a cushion against our own inadequacies which, like a doctor’s placebo, is none the less effective for being imaginary. Once the genes have provided their survival machines with brains that are capable of rapid imitation, the memes will automatically take over. We do not even have to posit a genetic advantage in imitation, though that would certainly help. All that is necessary is that the brain should be capable of imitation: memes will then evolve that exploit the capacity to the full. — Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene.
Psychological appeal requires a psyche! Yet, Dawkins is constantly denying the existence of Teleology (T = ∞) or Psyche (T = ∞). Dawkins introduced the gene’s psychic correlate (T = ∞) or teleological correlate (T = ∞) – the meme! Dawkins teleogizes and anthropomorphizes the genes and the memes. The meme was all in his head and had nothing to do with genes, unless of course genes have minds (T = ∞). Yet in the next breath, Dawkins is admantly stating that he is not teleogizing genes (v < c) and evolution (v < c) even though memes (T = ∞) are teleology (T = ∞) or minds (T = ∞) in action.
We might think we humans designed all those computers and phone links for our own pleasure, but from the meme’s-eye-view we are just their copying machines, and they are using us to design a vast planet-wide system for their own propagation. Memes are stories, songs, habits, skills, inventions and ways of doing things that we copy from person to person by imitation. Human nature can be explained by evolutionary theory, but only when we consider evolving memes as well as genes. When we look at religions from a meme’s eye view we can understand why they have been so successful. These religious memes did not set out with an intention to succeed. They were just behaviours, ideas and stories that were copied from one person to another in the long history of human attempts to understand the world. They were successful because they happened to come together into mutually supportive gangs that included all the right tricks to keep them safely stored in millions of brains, books and buildings, and repeatedly passed on to more. Robert Aunger challenged us to provide an existence proof for memes, or to come up with supported, unique predictions from meme theory. I suggest that no existence proof is required because memes are defined as information that is copied from person to person. So, as long as you admit that imitation occurs, they must exist. — Susan Blackmore, Evolutionary Psychologist.
Blackmore ends by claiming that memes or the theory of evolution requires NO evidence to support it. The materialists, naturalists, nihilists, or atheists don’t require any proof in order to believe in atheism or the theory of evolution. The atheists willingly and deliberately take a blind leap of faith into nothing. In order to demonstrate that memes exist, you would have to demonstrate that pscyhes (T = ∞) or minds (T = ∞) exist – or you would have to demonstrate that memes have a physical basis (v < c) – which is something the evolutionists are unwilling and unable to do. Blackmore personifies memes turning them into people who can conserve information (T = ∞) from one generation to the next.
Memes are a fictional story. Nobody can demonstrate that a meme truly exists in the way that the gene has been demonstrated to truly exist. So, Blackmore defines a meme as information (T = ∞) or teleology (T = ∞) because it is obvious that these things exist. A memes-eye-view (T = ∞) is the same as a minds-eye-view (T = ∞). Even though it is a category error logic fallacy that violates the Law of Non-Contradiction, Blackmore is using teleology (T = ∞) to bolster or to support a tardyonic ontology (0 <= v < c) or the theory of evolution (v < c). Through memes or the memes-eye-view (T = ∞), Blackmore is using spiritual beliefs (v >= c) to convince herself that the theory of evolution is true.
Susan Blackmore is begging the question or arguing from her conclusion by trying to turn memes or evolution into our Designer (T = ∞) and a Creator (v > c). In other words, she starts with that conclusion, and then she uses it as “scientific evidence” to prove that it is true. Blackmore is affirming the consequent, and she doesn’t know it. So long as you admit that imitation exists, then you must admit that psyches, minds, spirits, or memes exist. Tachyons (T = ∞) or Minds are at the top and control everything else! Through memes, Blackmore and Dawkins are marrying genes (v < c) or tardyons (v < c) with Psyches, Minds, Tachyons (T = ∞), Spirit Matter, or Intelligences. Quantum waves (v >= c) are the only way to transfer energy or information mind-to-mind or tachyon-to-tachyon. Blackmore is treating memes as if they are quantum waves, psyches, or minds!
According to Blackmore, memes are minds (T = ∞) who are using us as they see fit. She is promoting teleological memes (T = ∞)! Memes are tachyons (v > c), or information (v > c), or tachyonic psi (v > c), or conserved quantum information (T = ∞). Memes are our Designers (T = ∞) and Creators (v > c) according to Susan Blackmore. Blackmore is constantly using memes (T = ∞) and evolution (v < c) as the scientific explanation for religion (-∞ <= v <= ∞), spirituality (v >= c), and mysticism (v >= c). Blackmore is teleogizing (T = ∞) and athropomorphizing genes (v < c) and evolution (v < c). Blackmore makes memes (T = ∞) synonymous with minds (T = ∞), and then she pretends that they are tardyons (v < c). I know what she is doing because I have studied the Philosophy of Science and know what logic fallacies that the evolutionists use to create their case.
Who is doing the immitating? Of the three MAIN FORMS of energy, which one is most likely to be capable of doing imitation? Blackmore is talking about tachyons (T = ∞), action at a distance (T = ∞), and teleology (T = ∞); and then she is attributing the whole thing to genes (v < c) and evolution (v < c). Blackmore is violating the Law of Non-Contradiction. Blackmore is conflating evolution (v < c) and genes (v < c) with intelligence (T = ∞) or teleology (T = ∞) as memes (T = ∞). It’s obvious that she is deceiving herself and lying to us when we apply the physics or the math to these different ideas. The evolutionists personify memes (T = ∞) so they can say that memes and genes are your Omniscient Designer (T = ∞) and your Omnipotent Creator (v > c). It’s an obvious lie!
You can consciously program yourself with memes that help you with whatever you’re up to in life. That’s one of the main strategy-memes in the memetics paradigm. It goes against that strategy to believe religious dogma without having consciously chosen it as empowering to your own life. It’s also counter to the memetics paradigm to believe religious memes or any memes are True, rather than halftruth useful in a given context. – Richard Brodie.
Notice how Brodie conflates memes with consciousness (T = ∞) and then uses consciousness or teleology (T = ∞) to control those memes. Memes are an attempt to teleogize (T = ∞) evolution, or natural selection, or genes. In other words, memes are an attempt to turn evolution into Conserved Quantum Information (T = ∞) or Conserved Quantum Memories (T = ∞) that can be passed from one generation to the next. The evolutionists are trying to have their cake and eat it too – they are trying to teleogize evolution while at the same time claiming that they are NOT teleogizing evolution. It violates the Law of Non-Contradiction! It’s a con. It’s a scam. It’s philosophical sleight-of-hand. It’s a lie. I’m not the first scientist to catch them in a lie, and I won’t be the last.
Memes were an attempt to introduce teleology, intelligence, consciousness, tachyons, purpose, intention, observations, conservation, and psi into materialism and the theory of evolution. Memes are described as being psychic and as having a mind of their own. Memes are described as conserving information from one generation to the next in some sort of non-physical (v >= c) way. Memes are spirituality for atheists. The evolutionists personify memes the same way that they personify genes – by imbuing them with teleology (T = ∞), psyches (T = ∞), purpose (T = ∞), or minds (T = ∞).
I think I have successfully demonstrated my claim that the evolutionists and evolutionary psychologists are constantly trying to teleogize (T = ∞) and athropomorphize the theory of evolution and natural selection while at the same time claiming that they are NOT teleogizing and anthropomorphizing evolution and natural selection. In other words, these atheistic “scientists” are constantly deceiving themselves and constantly lying to us. They are constantly violating the Law of Non-Contradiction, and they don’t even know it because they have never studied nor understood the Philosophy of Science.
Mark My Words