Original Sin - Scripture and Reason

What do you want here? Evidence that genes influence brains that influence behaviour? Evidence that we're not always conscious of this influence? Evidence that ideas can change behaviour? Evidence that things can influence behaviour without us being conscious of it (such as the presence of authority figures, or a crowd of people that disagree)?What? I don't claim to have figured out jar's unconscious motives, I claim to have inferred what some of them might be based on what I know about humans. I'm not even proposing that the selfish motives are necessarily jar's. They might be, in some circumstances. But like I don't have to specifically refute David Appleby's religious experience, I just have to point to the known psychological effects that can produce those kinds of experiences - I don't have to provide a complete analysis of jar's idiosyncratic motivations in order to conclude that there may well be selfish influences in jar's decision making process that he's not aware of and has not ruled out before concluding that he knows they don't exist.

Well, the point I'm making here is that genes acting in their own self interest can promote individuals who act against their self interest (ie., altruistically). The individual is not acting in their own self-interest, they are acting selflessly. The gene, is acting selfishly in promoting that kind of behaviour

Since all I am saying is that jar has not eliminated all the maybes in his claim to knowledge, that is sufficient to make my point. My point to jar exactly. He refuses to support his claim to knowledge, merely asserting the knowledge. He has not eliminated known unconscious drivers of behaviour. I am not making the claim that 'gene x' is impacting jar's behaviour - jar is making the claim that no genes whatsoever or anything else with 'selfish' motives are in play - and he uses his conscious awareness and recollection as his only support for this position. Which is inadequate when dealing with things we are almost always unconscious of. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

You and me both DNA builds brains
Brains determine behaviour.That's as thumbnail as it gets. Take this paper as an example:

quote:

---

For instance, a common polymorphism in the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene has been associated with both antisocial behavior and also reductions in the volume of the amygdala and orbitofrontal (ventral prefrontal) cortexbrain structures that are found to be compromised in antisocial individuals.

---

There's a gene, one of its jobs seems to be related to the volume of the amygdala and ventral PFC. It notes there is a link between individuals with this reduction with anti-social behaviour. Clearly then - the volume of the amygdala etc may well influence our social behaviours. Does that clear anything up?

Fortunately for you, it doesn't. The brain is also built by learning and experience. It is also built to absorb local culture and its norms. There are plenty of things that are happening when moral decisions are being made, not just the influence of the genes. The genes seem to give us only general instructions that don't take into account the local norms etc (look after family, help allies, assume the worst of non-allies etc etc). It requires a certain degree of learning to understand who family is, who our allies are and so on - as well as what it means to 'help' or what 'looking after' should be construed as.

Yes he has, and that's exactly what I said jar had done. He has asserted it, not eliminated all the possibilities in his claim to knowledge. Those are only jar's conscious motives. I happily accept them as he proposes them. Genes are unconscious drivers of behaviour. I used scare quotes because I appreciate these aren't motives in a real sense. From the wikipedia article on selfish genes:

quote:

---

In describing genes as being "selfish", the author does not intend (as he states unequivocally in the work) to imply that they are driven by any motives or willmerely that their effects can be accurately described as if they were. The contention is that the genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level.

---

Do genes have an impact on human behaviour?
Are genes conscious?
Are you conscious of the influence your genes have on your behaviour?
Do you think jar is?

If you want to explain why my position requires 'showing' you the 'specific genes' I'll be standing by.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Are you doubting that genes create brains that behave in certain ways?Because I've already given you an example of one paper that discusses a gene that influences human behaviour.Here's another one: Serotonin Transporter Genotype (5-HTTLPR) Predicts Utilitarian Moral Judgments.

quote:

---

These results may aid in understanding why people disagree about the acceptability of causing foreseen harm to meet utilitarian goals. The results of the present study suggest that judgments in response to this kind of moral dilemma may be influenced by inherited variants in a genetic polymorphism that influences serotonin neurotransmission and patterns of responding to socio-emotional stimuli. These findings thus extend previous research in two domains. First, they advance our understanding of how variations of the 5-HTTLPR influence social cognition. Second, they indicate that a genetic manipulation consistently associated with increased emotional responsiveness (the S allele) results in significantly greater reluctance to cause harm to another individual even though others will be helped, and even though harming the innocent is an unintentional aspect of helping. This helps to extend our understanding of the mechanisms underlying moral judgments.

---

(emphasis mine)
We don't presently know all the genes and all their effects in all situations. And I don't see why I would have to provide that in order to suggest that genes can be a cause of behavioural traits. After all, a detailed study of the genetic basis of human morality, would probably violate many ethics regulations (for what appears to be a thorough explanation of this and more, Genetics and human behaviour).Then there is a different kind of study: one that suggests a genetic link to moral behaviour without it necessarily being understood which genes are involved. As an example of this kind of thing there is, Evidence for substantial genetic risk for
psychopathy in 7-year-olds. And I think there is sufficient evidence to suppose that a multitude of mental health problems (which have an effect on behaviour) have a genetic component.Are you really trying to suggest that it is your position that genes do not influence human behaviour? I'm not of the position that genetics and behaviour is as simple as 'Gene X causes people to push shopping carts back'. Or even that there is a gene for being nice. There are a multitude of genes at play, their effect not always obvious. Together they work to build a brain. And its the brain that makes the decisions about how to behave.

He says he knows it is not true. I asked him to support his knowledge, and provided some reasons that his knowledge could be cast into doubt. I agree.

I don't see the problem with both believing that people are capable of doing things for irrational reasons that do not necessarily stem from the selfishness of genes while also believing that we are constrained to operate within a certain level of selfishness (and I wasn't strictly talking only about individual selfishness (although that is included), as the last sentence in that paragraph notes).For instance, one might fly a plane into a building. I would agree that the reasons for so doing are likely to be irrational, I would also agree that the reasons can be found in religion or honour or some idea other than genes. We might call them memes.And we could, in principle, explain the genetic influences that caused that brain to think those irrational ideas were worthy, and which lead to the moral imperative to fly the plane into the building (right now we're only at the level of understanding some of the cognitive structures that go into this kind of behaviour - but we're pretty sure genes are involved in building them).So, we can see selfish memes: advertising their existence in the hopes of mimicry (Die for Islam!/God is Great!)And we can see selfish genes: Male coalitionary violence against 'others' is believed to be an trait we inherited from our ancestors. Those genes are operating under the idea that male coalitionary violence can increase reproductive success. Or perhaps some other genetic trait is 'trying' to increase its replication rate. Or likely, several operating at once.We have a certain biological selfishness. We can not defeat that, we can only operate within it. We can have ideas that are irrational that do not stem necessarily or directly from genes. We might be able to be more selfless than biology would have us, but there are still biological constraints about how selfless we can be (not many would be so selfless as to work for 75 years with no pay, never have a sexual relationship, then shoot themselves in the foot just so that a little girl could have a balloon, for instance.) Well I agree that we might find a case where there is no selfish entity that is benefiting - but I'm persuaded that we'll find a selfish entity that is trying to act in its own self interest. Obviously not all genes or memes foster their own self-interest, but these ones will tend to decrease in frequency.And sure, maybe I'm completely wrong. I was, at least in one sense, disagreeing with an ethologist I think Dawkins would agree that what he was saying was that we aren't pre-destined by our genes to act in certain ways. That we can learn behaviour, and modify our behaviour. Though I believe this can only be within the constraints that biology (and in part, the genes) permits. Nor are we forever stuck with the memes we picked up as children. We can in that sense 'overcome' our genes and our memes.This was in response to GDRs general idea that Dawkins was saying that we are made selfish by our genes but that we can overcome (by will, by grace, by divine memes, whatever) this selfishness. But my view is that the process of 'overcoming' this selfishness is part of natural human development, regulated by the genes - so in one sense we're not overcoming the genes by becoming more selfless, we're doing pretty much what they 'intend'. I would also agree that we can (and have) become more selfless than the genes 'intend'. Whether this turns out to actually serve the interests of the genes in question, is a matter for time to tell.

Well it was one of the things I was saying, in my original discussion with jar that's all I was saying. With jar I was making the mere claim that unconscious motivations can exist (from the motivations of the individual through to genes) and that jar had neglected to rule them out in his claims that they didn't exist.I did also voice my opinion that lead you to think this: While I suppose that might be true, it's not what I'm saying. A closer single sentence summary might be:

quote:

---

Cooperative behaviour is made possible only by entities that are acting in their own self interests - primarily that genes, acting in their own self interests - build brains that engage in cooperative behaviour.

---

There's more to it than that, but I think you should be able to see the distinction between the view of my position you have gained and the position I am trying to put forward from that. Of course there may be other self interests that are being served in selfless behaviour - including the individual itself and the memes that they possess. I am not saying that the individuals self interest must be being (or attempting to being) served in some way when they are engaging in selfless acts.

You can always replace 'motive' with 'driving force' or something better if you'd prefer. I thought it was clear that I wasn't describing conscious preplanning coupled with intentions to act towards some desired goal. I mean its pretty obvious that genes don't have 'motives' or 'intentions', but its still perfectly standard to talk about them as if they were. It happens in physics and chemistry too - 'The electricity wants to take the path of least resistance', or 'Carbon and Oxygen want to be together, but it takes some encouragement'. I pasted a rather decent bit from the wiki article on The Selfish Gene a few posts back which sums this up:

quote:

---

In describing genes as being "selfish", the author does not intend (as he states unequivocally in the work) to imply that they are driven by any motives or willmerely that their effects can be accurately described as if they were. The contention is that the genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level.

---

My argument with jar was largely that your unconscious 'psychological drives' may be selfish, and that 'I wasn't conscious of them' is not sufficient grounds to dismiss them. And even when they're not, your brain is causing you to behave nice, and it was built by genes to be nice (in certain circumstances) which were 'acting in their own self interest', or rather, they were doing what their ancestral copies did that had resulted in the next copies that would be made. But that's kind of clumsy, and its difficult to word it without making it wrong in some way.

That may be so. But that doesn't change that things acting in their own self interests are necessary for cooperative behaviour in animals. Because acting cooperatively is an evolved behavioural trait. So it has to be explained in terms of promoting in its own replication.So sure, there could be a gene that is not acting in its own self interest. But all things being equal, it'll probably get selected out.And of course, there could be a meme that is not acting in its own self interest (a well kept secret, might qualify), but it'll likewise struggle to get replicated.And naturally, a person could have completely selfless motives for doing an act of cooperative behaviour.But selfless genes don't tend to be explanation behind complex structures, usually the genes are doing things in a certain way because doing it has tended to result in bodies that promote the replication of the genes in question, which is how they are now so common within the gene pool that almost all humans have them.

I'm not sure what's circular reasoning about suggesting that evolved traits have to be explainable in terms of evolutionary forces. I mean it might be tautological, I suppose - but that just implies that its true.I'm saying that we have a behavioural trait in humans (various aspects of cooperative behaviour). And we need to explain that. Memes aren't enough, because there needs to be a reason that brains find those memes attractive enough to replicate them. So at its core, we need to look at how genes, interacting with the environment create brains that engage in those behaviours, possible under the influence of memes. One explanation is that the trait is an evolved one, just like all the other prevalent biological traits we have discovered (not for example including freak phenotypic mutations unrelated to genetics). If a trait is common to many members of a species, it is reasonable to conclude that its an inherited trait and is thus probably genetic at its origins, and has thus been subjected to evolution.So, when we find a gene (or gene complex) that is involved in fostering cooperation, it is natural to conclude that as it is evolved and has become very frequent, it must have promoted its own replication in the environment to which it was adapted.I don't see what's circular there.

That's not my view. We could be acting according to our selfless nature. We do have a selfless nature. It was built by 'selfish' genes. It is 'shaped' by memes (many of which have a 'selfish' nature). And if you want to insert faith related memes as being useful in this regard, I'll not argue the point. Since we're in Faith and Belief I can accept the position that we are partly, by divine will, selfless beings. Just as long as we can agree that we are, by nature, selfless beings too. It's the same opinion that leads me to conclude that wings are built by selfish genes, that bees engage in kamikaze attacks as a result of their selfish genes. And that opinion is that traits that are commonly found throughout a species, irrelevant of local 'customs', are likely to be inherited traits.We could do a thing that it is possible to do in any attempt to understand a behavioural trait. We could say 'its magic', and adopt some sort of dualistic stance But if we're interested in combining reason with faith to find some kind of harmony I think we can do better. I mean, I'm willing to grant that miracles do occur (divine memes or what have you), but just so long as we agree that the natural stuff occurs as well and we're good. So what's the most powerful tool for analysing the details of a biological thing, such as a genetically influenced behaviour? Evolution, of course. The Selfish Gene idea is a way of looking at evolutionary analysis.What I'm saying is that selfish genes can create selfless beings. I am not saying that selfish genes create selfish beings, who in acting selfishly appear to be acting selflessly. Though that may well happen, too - it's one of the justifications for punishing transgressors (make it in our self interest to not transgress).Take the kamikaze bee again: When it kills itself to protect the hive, that is the most selfless thing it can possibly do. It literally disregards itself. So to whose benefit? The genes that create kamikaze bees, of course. Those same genes are in the Queen, the reproducer for the colony. So by sacrificing themselves to protect the Queen, they are protecting the best chances of those same genes getting replicated by the Queen.The bees aren't secretly acting selfishly, because they have nothing to gain as individuals by being dead. Their genes have replication to gain from the sacrifice though. Time has proven that the system does indeed lead to the replication of the genes that cause that behaviour. There may be better ways, but the bees' evolutionary path simply did not lead them there if they exist.Bees don't need divine memes to behave the way they do, even if we can agree to not argue over whether or not humans benefit from them.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.