Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jazzns' History of Belief
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 46 of 140 (637145)
10-13-2011 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by hooah212002
10-13-2011 2:32 PM


Re: What is truth?
hooah212002 writes:
Altruism has nothing to do with fitness. Moreover, altrusim has nothing to do with benefitting or not. You could be altruistic and get a reward, however, if you expect a reward, that's not considered altruistic.
I read over what I said and you are right. The less fit could just as easily behave altruistically towards the more fit as the other way around. Good point! The last part of your statement though is consistent with the point I was trying to make.
hooah212002 writes:
Also, how does altruism not help the group?
Instead of group I could have used the word tribe I suppose. If I as an individual or as part of a tribe, (for example I as a Canadian), take from my supplies and send them to the third world, it only decreases the supplies for me or my tribe with no benefit in return. I would actually be further ahead if those in the third world were to cease to exist so that I could have unfettered access to their supplies. That is the reason I'm saying that altruism is contrary to the concept of "survival of the fittest". It is one reason I believe there is more to life than just our evolutionary roots. JMHO
Cheers

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2011 2:32 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2011 7:43 PM GDR has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 47 of 140 (637148)
10-13-2011 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by GDR
10-13-2011 7:12 PM


Re: What is truth?
Instead of group I could have used the word tribe I suppose. If I as an individual or as part of a tribe, (for example I as a Canadian), take from my supplies and send them to the third world, it only decreases the supplies for me or my tribe with no benefit in return.
The point you tried to make doesn't follow. If you were in "tribal times", you'd have no access to the "third world". Altruism doesn't mean "here, take everything I have". It is simply a matter of helping others without expecting to be helped in return. If you, as a "tribe", are able to help, then you would do so unquestionably.
I was actually listening to a podcast today that mentioned the finding of some altruistic gene, the referenced material can be found
here.
article writes:
Volvox cells have a division of labor. All but 16 permanently renounce reproducing themselves to take on other jobs, such as moving the group around by swimming. A similar division occurs in most multi-cellular creatures: their cells are either germ cellsreproducers such as sperm and eggsor somatic cells, all the others, which leave no heirs after the individual dies.
(Here is an even better representation, just more technical)
Talk about taking one for the team. If that's not altruism, I don't know what is.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by GDR, posted 10-13-2011 7:12 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by GDR, posted 10-13-2011 8:11 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 48 of 140 (637149)
10-13-2011 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by hooah212002
10-13-2011 7:43 PM


Re: What is truth?
Hooah212002 writes:
The point you tried to make doesn't follow. If you were in "tribal times", you'd have no access to the "third world". Altruism doesn't mean "here, take everything I have". It is simply a matter of helping others without expecting to be helped in return. If you, as a "tribe", are able to help, then you would do so unquestionably.
We don't seem to be connecting some how. I did point out that my tribe might be the Canadian tribe. We are all still tribal. I agree with your definition of altruism, I'm just saying that it doesn't fit the mold of the idea of survival of the fittest.
hooah212002 writes:
I was actually listening to a podcast today that mentioned the finding of some altruistic gene, the referenced material can be found
here.
There may well be an "altruism" gene. I have no problem with that. I'm just not sure how it's germaine to this discussion. If such a gene exists it tells us nothing about whether it is by design or by nothing but material evolutionary origins.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2011 7:43 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2011 8:15 PM GDR has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 49 of 140 (637150)
10-13-2011 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by GDR
10-13-2011 8:11 PM


Re: What is truth?
I'm just saying that it doesn't fit the mold of the idea of survival of the fittest.
Then there's your problem, right there. "Survival of the fittest" means nothing in terms of evolutionary theory, and you've been told this a million times. It's an oft touted creationist misnomer.
There may well be an "altruism" gene. I have no problem with that. I'm just not sure how it's germaine to this discussion. If such a gene exists it tells us nothing about whether it is by design or by nothing but material evolutionary origins.
You didn't bother to read the links, did you?

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by GDR, posted 10-13-2011 8:11 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by GDR, posted 10-13-2011 8:56 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 50 of 140 (637153)
10-13-2011 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by hooah212002
10-13-2011 8:15 PM


Re: What is truth?
Hooah212002 writes:
Then there's your problem, right there. "Survival of the fittest" means nothing in terms of evolutionary theory, and you've been told this a million times. It's an oft touted creationist misnomer.
Well Darwin used it but let's go with natural selection then. Altruism doesn't fit with the concept of natural selection. Natural selection means that we develop traits that help our descendents survive and prosper. Altruistic habits don't fit the mold.
hooah212002 writes:
You didn't bother to read the links, did you?
Read the first one and ok have now read the second one. They say the same thing and I have no problem with either. They are theorizing about an altrusitic gene and suggesting the reasons why such a gene might evolve.
Incidently though as a disclaimer here is one quote:
quote:
Although the selective conditions favoring altruism are being increasingly understood, the evolutionary origins of the genetic basis for this behavior remain elusive.
However let's say they do find an altruistic gene. As a theist it is just what I would expect. As God IMHO seems to have used an evolutionary process to bring life to the point that we know it, I would expect that as part of the evolutionary process a gene such as the one they are talking about would evolve as well.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2011 8:15 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Theodoric, posted 10-13-2011 9:10 PM GDR has replied
 Message 52 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2011 9:16 PM GDR has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 51 of 140 (637154)
10-13-2011 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by GDR
10-13-2011 8:56 PM


Survival of the fittest explained
Well Darwin used it
Really, basic research is not that difficult. All you have to do is look at Wikipedia. If you don't believe them then follow the footnotes to the sources.
quote:
Herbert Spencer first used the phrase — after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species — in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones, writing, "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1]
Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for natural selection in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.[2][3] Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape".[4] Hence, it is not a scientific description
Source
I know that a number of the posters here pooh pooh the use of sources and evidence, but it isn't really that hard.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by GDR, posted 10-13-2011 8:56 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by GDR, posted 10-13-2011 9:43 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 52 of 140 (637155)
10-13-2011 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by GDR
10-13-2011 8:56 PM


Re: What is truth?
Natural selection means that we develop traits that help our descendents survive and prosper.
Are you sure that is what NS means?
Altruistic habits don't fit the mold.
As the studies I pointed out show, it absolutely DOES help the species. You've done nothing to convince me other than your sayso otherwise.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by GDR, posted 10-13-2011 8:56 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 53 of 140 (637156)
10-13-2011 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Theodoric
10-13-2011 9:10 PM


Re: Survival of the fittest explained
Theodoric writes:
Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for natural selection in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.[2][3] Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape".[4] Hence, it is not a scientific description
As I said. Darwin used the phrase.He used it as a synonym for natural slection. I have never intended it to mean in the best physical shape. Being most fit includes intelligence, adaptabilty fitness etc.
As a matter of fact I did go to this particular source to confirm what I thought was the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Theodoric, posted 10-13-2011 9:10 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 54 of 140 (637216)
10-14-2011 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by GDR
10-13-2011 1:26 PM


Altruism
But reciprocal altruism is a pretty well established component of evolutionary biology isn't it?
The world is a complex, volatile and unpredictable place. And fitness is a relative and situation dependent term. Unless one can guarantee to always be the fittest at all times and in all situations it pays to altruise if one is part of an interdependent social species.
Also — Given our discussions on Robert Wright previously — It is worth pointing out that the entire basis of his objective morality argument is based on evolved altruism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by GDR, posted 10-13-2011 1:26 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 10-14-2011 10:53 AM Straggler has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 55 of 140 (637247)
10-14-2011 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Straggler
10-14-2011 6:25 AM


Re: Altruism
Straggler writes:
But reciprocal altruism is a pretty well established component of evolutionary biology isn't it?
Frankly I have no idea so I’ll have to take your word for it, but it would make sense. However, I can’t see where reciprocal altruism is altruism at all. Here is the definition of altruism.
quote:
The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
Behaviour of an animal that benefits another at its own expense.
Here is a quote from your link.
quote:
The concept of reciprocal altruism, as introduced by Trivers, suggests that altruism, defined as an act of helping someone else although incurring some cost for this act, could have evolved since it might be beneficial to incur this cost if there is a chance of being in a reverse situation where the person whom I helped before may perform an altruistic act towards me.
The definition of reciprocal altruism original benefactor is hoping for an eventual reward. It is no longer a selfless act, so it isn’t altruism at all.
Straggler writes:
The world is a complex, volatile and unpredictable place. And fitness is a relative and situation dependent term. Unless one can guarantee to always be the fittest at all times and in all situations it pays to altruise if one is part of an interdependent social species.
Once again though what you are talking about isn’t altruism. In your line of thinking you are considering that the one who temporarily weakens himself is thinking of the possibility that some day he will be the weaker being and is looking for an insurance policy, (reciprocal altruism), in case that happens.
Straggler writes:
Also — Given our discussions on Robert Wright previously — It is worth pointing out that the entire basis of his objective morality argument is based on evolved altruism.
I don’t have a problem with evolved altruism, from a theistic point of view. If God chooses to use an evolutionary process to cause or help to cause to continually be more altruistic then I’m fine with that. I suppose that we have evolved physically so why not spiritually. However, I think we would objectively agree that if a parent behaves altruistically it is more likely that their children would behave altruistically than the children of parents who behave selfishly. There are always social influences that will impact our lives. This fact could also explain evolutionary progress for altruism as opposed to some genetic process.
However, based on what Wright says it appears that whatever the process, world society is gradually going in the right, (how do we know it’s right?), direction. Considering either genetic or social evolutionary forces I think we could assume that the process could have gone in either direction. You might not agree but I think that if we are simply products of some non-intelligent non-moral material process then I think that the most likely result would be our evolving towards selfishness as opposed to unselfishness.
Edited by GDR, : poor proof reading

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2011 6:25 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2011 12:21 PM GDR has replied
 Message 60 by Omnivorous, posted 10-14-2011 10:03 PM GDR has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 56 of 140 (637256)
10-14-2011 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by GDR
10-14-2011 10:53 AM


Re: Altruism
I am now unclear as to whether you agree that altruism is something that has evolved or whether you still consider it to be something that cannot evolve.....?
GDR writes:
Once again though what you are talking about isn’t altruism. In your line of thinking you are considering that the one who temporarily weakens himself is thinking of the possibility that some day he will be the weaker being and is looking for an insurance policy, (reciprocal altruism), in case that happens.
Yes - That is the root of it. Instinctive altruism. But like our propensity to seek out fat and sugar it doesn't really have the evolved-for effect in modern society. Our altruistic tendencies apply in ways that don't really make sense in a modern society because they evolved in a small hunter gathere community. But that doesn't make us any less altruistic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 10-14-2011 10:53 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by GDR, posted 10-14-2011 1:43 PM Straggler has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 57 of 140 (637272)
10-14-2011 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Straggler
10-14-2011 12:21 PM


Re: Altruism
Straggler writes:
I am now unclear as to whether you agree that altruism is something that has evolved or whether you still consider it to be something that cannot evolve.....?
You're probably unclear as I'm not completely clear myself. There may be a genetic component to our understanding of good and evil but I'm inclined to doubt it. However, I do believe that altruism is contagious and so in that sense we can evolve socially. Actually IMHO that is the job that Christians are called to, which is to infect the world with unselfish love and justice.
Straggler writes:
Yes - That is the root of it. Instinctive altruism. But like our propensity to seek out fat and sugar it doesn't really have the evolved-for effect in modern society. Our altruistic tendencies apply in ways that don't really make sense in a modern society because they evolved in a small hunter gathere community. But that doesn't make us any less altruistic.
I think in a way that's my point. From a strictly evolutionary sense, pure altruism, (never expecting any return for ones self, family or tribe), doesn't make sense. Those that provide support anonymously without any thought of reward in this life or the next are choosing to weaken themselves to their own detriment. I just don't see that as being consistent with evolution from a mindless source. If however the source for evolution is intelligent and moral then the whole idea of evolving altruism or unselfish love makes sense. IMHO.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2011 12:21 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2011 1:51 PM GDR has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 58 of 140 (637276)
10-14-2011 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by GDR
10-14-2011 1:43 PM


Re: Altruism
You now seem to be applying a fairly unique definition of "altruism" to make it sound like something that requires exactly the sort of God you believe in.
The sort of altruism we actually observe is well accounted for in evolutionary terms. In fact the altruism we observe is absolutely at the root of the sort of arguments (as espoused by Robert Wright) that you have previously advocated as leading to some sort of non-zero-sum objective morality.
Take away evolved altruism and any mathematical notion of morality of the sort you have championed previously goes out the window too.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by GDR, posted 10-14-2011 1:43 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by GDR, posted 10-14-2011 2:46 PM Straggler has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 59 of 140 (637290)
10-14-2011 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Straggler
10-14-2011 1:51 PM


Re: Altruism
Straggler writes:
You now seem to be applying a fairly unique definition of "altruism" to make it sound like something that requires exactly the sort of God you believe in.
Not at all.
Here again is the definition I used in post 55 taken from wiki I think it was..
quote:
The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
Behaviour of an animal that benefits another at its own expense.
Yes, I agree that definition does agree with the sort of God I believe in but it isn’t a definition I made up.
Straggler writes:
The sort of altruism we actually observe is well accounted for in evolutionary terms. In fact the altruism we observe is absolutely at the root of the sort of arguments (as espoused by Robert Wright) that you have previously advocated as leading to some sort of non-zero-sum objective reality.
Sure but what does Wright, a materialist agnostic say about that? Here is a quote from page 434 of The Evolution of God
quote:
The fact that there’s a moral order out there doesn’t mean there’s a God. On the other hand, it’s evidence in favour of the God hypothesis and evidence against Weinberg’s worldview. In the great divide of current thought — between those, including the Abrahamics, who see a higher purpose, a transcendent source of meaning, and those, like Weinberg, who don’t — the manifest existence of a moral order comes down clearly on one side.
He carries on from there in the same vein.
Straggler writes:
Take away evolved altruism and any mathematical notion of morality of the sort you have championed previously goes out the window too.
I’m afraid this time you’ve gone well over my head which isn’t really much of a challenge.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Straggler, posted 10-14-2011 1:51 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2011 10:32 AM GDR has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 60 of 140 (637325)
10-14-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by GDR
10-14-2011 10:53 AM


Re: Altruism
GDR writes:
The definition of reciprocal altruism original benefactor is hoping for an eventual reward. It is no longer a selfless act, so it isn’t altruism at all.
Straggler writes:
The world is a complex, volatile and unpredictable place. And fitness is a relative and situation dependent term. Unless one can guarantee to always be the fittest at all times and in all situations it pays to altruise if one is part of an interdependent social species.
Once again though what you are talking about isn’t altruism. In your line of thinking you are considering that the one who temporarily weakens himself is thinking of the possibility that some day he will be the weaker being and is looking for an insurance policy, (reciprocal altruism), in case that happens.
At the risk of provoking Straggler to reply with a link to his own posts let me point something out.
You have repeatedly rejected reciprocal altruism as being genuine altruism because the benefactor "thinks" he may benefit later or "hopes" for an eventual return.
In fact, that is not an evolutionary perspective on reciprocal altruism. The benefactor does not calculate future reciprocity but rather has evolved to act in a manner you would consider genuinely altruistic--spontaneously engaging in actions that entail risk or cost without any thought of future return. We often speak of strategies or pay-offs in an evolutionary context, but by that we don't actually mean the individual is employing a strategy or weighing a pay-off; rather, we use that as shorthand to describe how an inherited trait could succeed at increasing reproductive fitness.
The evolutionary perspective on altruism is not one of conscious calculation but rather one that posits that altruistic acts improve the reproductive fitness of the benefactor in one or both of two ways. One is the kin altruism notion, where the genes you share with those in your small hunter-gatherer group benefit from your altruism, albeit in another carrier; the other is reciprocity, where the individual benefactor benefits from the group dynamic of reciprocity. Obviously these are not exclusive, and the plethora of theories is much more complex than I've suggested here.
But, in any event, we are discussing a spontaneous behavior, not a reasoned one. I have engaged in and benefited from apparently altruistic actions, and I can assure you there is no calculation involved, especially in the more dramatic examples.
The definition you seem to desire is one which requires a conscious decision to benefit another at expense to one's self without any expectation of reciprocity or gain. You are describing a theological or ideological altruism, which I see as a cultural appendage of our evolved altruism.
As Straggler suggested, we have an evolved tendency to consume high calorie, high fat meals. This made sense when food was scarce or calorically expensive to obtain. We don't consciously decide to do that--to the contrary, our scientific culture increasingly urges us to act consciously against our instincts for own coronary good. Similarly, I don't slug people who disagree with me--but the fight-or-flight adrenaline makes me type faster.
Personally, I find the kin explanation of altruism most persuasive. In our ancestral social/breeding groups, the genes you saved really were your own, and the mirror neuron system we share as social animals reinforces the tendency to act because we really can feel each other's pain. As our numbers swell and the globe shrinks, the ranks of those we recognize as "kin" increases from hunter-gatherer band, to tribe, eventually to nation, and, hopefully, to species.
I find my moral order in the good of my kind.
BTW, your notion that the absence of a higher or absolute moral order should have led to the evolution of selfishness instead of altruism doesn't hold up, partly because social creatures punish cheaters and partly because it's bad game theory.
In any event, my main point is that your focus on a conscious calculation is leading you astray. That may well apply to a Christian determined to live out the maxims or ways of Christ, but that's not why people run into burning buildings to save strangers.
Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.
Edited by Omnivorous, : error, error

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 10-14-2011 10:53 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by GDR, posted 10-15-2011 2:44 AM Omnivorous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024