Book about the evolution of ideas bought under the influence of interest Dawkins, who is a memach stated in 'The Selfish Gene', not wishing to restrict the notion of replicators only genes. It is proposed to read after hearing in August with Dawkins - the author is based on his theory, he writes only of a different kind of replicators. Both against the memes and genes can be said that there is variation, selection and inheritance (using this or any other mechanism). Terms of zaistniena evolution are therefore met. Biology
well and persuasively explains why we are so much like other creatures, Blackmore work aims to answer the question opposite: what makes us so diverse? Also interesting to take issues selves: what we are, where we are (ie where is the holiday selves), how and why we operate, make decisions, etc.
Contrary to the author's ambitions do not think that this job came away the foundation for the important branch of science, at most maybe some Secondary current in philosophy, and is also in favorable winds.
book actually should not be here, because it does not meet the criterion - the second time does not plan to read. But it is quite interesting thoughts unfolding Dawkins, whom I like, so I recommend it.
BTW - very irritant effect are the remarks of John arrows, pompously called the critical commentary. Ow comment is limited to only a few jednozdaniowych inclusions in the footnotes at the bottom of the page wytykajacych some minor inaccuracies that nohow, or in a really minimal impact on logic reasoning. Understood the critical article in the epilogue, for example, but here and there on the strength pushed the ordinary czepialstwo flips, which simply rash or irritation in the world.
book actually should not be here, because it does not meet the criterion - the second time does not plan to read. But it is quite interesting thoughts unfolding Dawkins, whom I like, so I recommend it.
BTW - very irritant effect are the remarks of John arrows, pompously called the critical commentary. Ow comment is limited to only a few jednozdaniowych inclusions in the footnotes at the bottom of the page wytykajacych some minor inaccuracies that nohow, or in a really minimal impact on logic reasoning. Understood the critical article in the epilogue, for example, but here and there on the strength pushed the ordinary czepialstwo flips, which simply rash or irritation in the world.
