Kin Selection & Altruism

but genes are also transitory if they are changing all the time due to "variations on a theme" processes.personally I have some trouble with focusing on parts of systems as the active drivers for the whole systems.I find the whole "selfish gene" approach to be false as it implies intention and direction on the part of a molecule.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yep, and as I noted that was not what the discussion was about before you entered it.but hey. enjoy a big whopping empty victory, arguing a position that is 90 degrees to the discussion in spite of repeated attempts otherwise. blow the horns and send out the dogs. whoopie. (twirls noisemaker over head, throws confetti). OR ... consider that I actually did mean something else in the first place.OR ... have another tantrum.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

who was cal discussing altruism with before you engaged him?thanks

This can only apply at a species level if the losing organisms are removed from the game. Game theory. Evolution as a computer will try sufficient solutions to find the ones that work (given sufficient resources), and the results will match what game theory predicts, just as happens in the casinos.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

But very slow and clunky. John Nash. Game theory. Altruism. google.I think you'll like:
Forbidden Well, we are talking behavior, right? and given that altruism (definition #1 - Message 18 - "Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.") as exhibited in humans (stopping to fix a tire on a dark and stormy night) is a rather temporary action, you really wouldn't see it except as a temporary condition would you? This would be expecting it to become a 'hard-wired' behavior (wouldn't this be like expecting every person to stop for every flat tire?).Why expect it to become fixed in a population? Does behavior have to have a genetic basis to be understood in the animal kingdom?This is where I find the 'zoological definition' to be rather thought restrictive, and I suspect it comes for the time before game theory when people were trying to explain how a 'mere animal' could exhibit altruism (ie observed behavior).In fact if we look at the definition this becomes rather clear:It starts with "Instinctive cooperative behavior", thus it is assuming that the only explanation can be from instinct, rather than from a (tends to a?) slight bias in overal better results from cooperative behavior.Since those early day we've seen developments in game theory (John Nash) showing that cooperative behavior, specifically choosing a cooperative approach that is lesser value than a potential individual approach on average works out to higher value result (steady win-win out weighs ave{WIN\LOSS\WIN\LOSS\...} as a strategy).Thus cooperative behavior does not need to be instinctual to be selected within a population as a mode of behavior (it would be possible for cooperation to be 'hard-wired' but that is a different issue).We also see with experiments with capucin monkeys that they are aware of and upset with being treated unfairly (cheated?)
Monkeys Show Sense Of Fairness, Study Says - National Geographic article (click) Oops there they go again ... . Now if we were talking about cooperative behavior rather than altruism, I don't think there would be much argument that it (a) doesn't really exist and (b) doesn't display an advantage for the species.You also see enforcement of cooperation and punishment for non-cooperation (ibid): Hmmm, biased selection? Doesn't that bias the results towards {more\most} cooperative behavior?The definition ends with "contributes to the survival of the species", and again, if we are talking about cooperative behavior I don't think there is much of a question that this leads to increased survival of the species, whether it is cooperation in hunting or cooperation in sharing resources ... or helping others in times of need.But is this a necessary part of the definition of altruism? When a person stops on the side of the road to assist another with changing a tire, I don't think it has any value to species survival. Nor that such a consideration even enters the minds of the altruistic stoppers.Personally I think this is a self-defeating element of the definition (as opposed to the 'begging the question" fallacy) that makes it a very difficult condition to meet.Isn't adding this element to the definition of altruism conflating it with something else? Are we really still talking about altruism, or has it shifted to species survival mechanisms?The middle of the 'zoological definition' has "detrimental to the individual" - and again, this is an element added to the definition that doesn't apply when we are talking about human altruism (definition #1). It may exist (the highway could be dangerous) but it isn't a required element of the definition.Thus to apply "altruism" to other animals the definition adds two very narrow restrictions on the kinds of behavior being considered before it even allows the possibility of such behavior to be altruistic.This is not a fair application. It smacks of human egotism and a certain species bias.Can we just apply definition #1 to other species? Yes, but the question will come down to really validating "concern" and "selfless" behavior.So what, really, is "altruistic" behavior? Isn't it really just one-way cooperative behavior by a single individual where the reciprocal element is removed?Wouldn't that apply equally to humans and other species?Of course 'Flies Only' will get on me for "changing the definition" but I think the biggest problem has not been observing altruistic behavior but in making it fit the two narrow conditions that are arbitrarily added for other species.Cooperation is shown to be a positive element in species survival, and it has been shown mathematically (game theory) to be the more productive approach to many situations, and if any behavior was going to be "fixed" in a population to the point where it was "hard-wired" (insects etcetera) then this would be a logical choice.If this were so, then I would expect that "altruism" would just be an occasional expression of this cooperative behavior where the reciprocal element is missing.Thus it would be both transitory and recurring behavior with no need for another mechanism to explain it.If we generalize it as a subset of cooperative behavrior, the it doesn't need to specifically show {enhanced species survival}, because the cooperation mechanism does that (as an overal tendency rather than based on any one action).And it doesn't need to show {individual detriment} because any action takes energy and resources, and because this is a bogus condition anyway. What we are really looking for is the absence of reciprocal action. Thus it could be neutral to the benefit of the samaritan, just not provide a direct reciprocal benefit (because that would just be regular cooperation).That's my take. Altruistic behavior is an observed phenomenom based on the common defintion. It is explained as a subset of cooperative behavior such that selection for cooperative behavior will result in occasional spontaneous acts of altruism.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I loved the irony of the webpage's first sentence being "life is a game"Read the book first, it covers a lot of things the movie didn't (by necessity of course, unless you want a 3 day movie ...)You might also want to look into von Neumann. What tends to appear to be possible spontaneous acts of altruism? I can live with that. I don't really think you can get any closer than an appearance of a "trendency" ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

check out von Neumann Machine

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Because the 'zoological' definition is making more out of it than it needs to?For humans def 1 is sufficient, selfless behavior. No major deleterious impact on individual, no improved species benefit, none of the extra conditions imposed for any other species to exhibit this behavior. Why is that? Species ego? Sapiens centrism? No, any selfless behavior would fit.But the real question is why anything needs to be made of it: it exists (humans notably demonstrate it) as a somewhat random occurance, it has a logical reason (game theory shows an incremental benefit) for existing. a little google later ... Biological Altruism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) But does it need to have an evolutionary benefit or an evolutionary cause or an evolutionary whatever, if it is a side effect of a cooperative social organisation?If the behavior of bees (especially if this was used to derive the extended zoological definition in the first place) upon further investigation is shown not to meet that definition then isn't the extended definition suspect? If the behavior that the definition was based on was not really altruism according to the definition, then making the definition try to fit it is a false concept eh?also
altruism - Everything2.com Undefined level of cost, undefined level of benefit, nothing about reproduction or species survival. All it needs is a delta to qualify. Seems reasonable eh?Feel free to use any argument.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Not quite. What I am saying is that the definition is useless as written. That a particular definition was based {x happening} when in fact it was not {x happening} is a false definition. That is what I get from the "zoological" definition and the history. A derived definition based on a false {precept\concept}. Consider it a theory that has been falsified. Move on to theory B. Please: that is a quote from a referenced article (and outside the zoological def too), not my words:
altruism - Everything2.comI quoted the whole, that you picked part out of. What I see from it is "an action which is costly to the actor, but beneficial to the recipient." period. What is watering down? You have one definition for humans and a different one for other species that is useless.To me the definitions for any other species should also default to the one used for humans or it has unneccessary additional requirements that have nothing to do with the behavior, but with artificial preconceptions of basis for behavior that may be totally invalid.I see no reason to make special conditions for other species that don't apply to humans acting altruistically as that is loading it with conditions that don't apply and rather mean that the definition can never be applied.Saying that it must have a reproductive advantage for another species is as valid as saying that altruism only applies to humans that are aliens. It's artificial. This also presumes that there must be an evolved mechanism specific to the behavior in order for it to exist.As I see it altruism -- selfless behavior of one organism towards another -- does not need to be an evolved behavior nor have a separate evolutionary mechanism to explain it: it is a result of cooperative behavior, that does have a basis, and would spontaneously appear in any cooperative social organisms behavior as a result.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Long time getting back to this ... The problem is not what the cost is or how it is defined. What makes a behavior altruistic is that there is a cost and no benefit. Any behavior that has a direct benefit cannot be altruistic, and this is the basis on which most animal behavior is classified as non-altruistic (your "other definitions have better explained the behaviors").Does it matter if {behavior} is large scale altruistic or that it just passes the bar? (What do you call the person who graduates last in his class from medical school?) Such as a lioness killing a gazelle to relieve it of the tedium of living? LOL. Need to keep an eye on benefits eh? Here the benefits outweigh the costs, as it allows the lions to keep living. Let me know what you think of this:
GMA - Good Morning America Same behavior, different species ...Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Enlightened self interest serves a purpose for the person, there is a benefit. Or do you have a more enlightened application in mind?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

No, that's a gamble, that you will get more benefit than you pay for. Those that don't buy insurance gamble that they would get less than they would have paid for. At 18 months?and how does this explain the chimps helping? Personally I believe it is a by-product of a social species behavior.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

But "ruin" is not a 'sure thing' so you are gambling that it will happen when you buy life insurance and gambling that it won't when you don't buy it. I gamble that I won't win the lottery every day I don't buy tickets. Gambling is making any choice with consequences when the outcome is uncertain eh?Offtopic? darn. They aren't pleasing a parent but a total stranger that is doing weird things. Now when I was that age I wanted to take the clothes pins apart and see how they worked (or was that my "terrible twos"?) Ah, but the species must have the (evolved?) capacity to {learn\aquire\develop\grok} the behavior. Could a totally a-social species learn it?This leans in the direction that the discussion on morals being derived from first principles (with holmes and ben) was heading for me: our morals are pretty well predicated on our being a social animal, and a moral system for an a-social species {could\would\should} be different - if it is needed at all eh?Part of being a social species is the inate {willingness\ability\need} to do things for others that are "like" you (or near enough to be recognized as an "us" versus a "them").This is where I think altruism is just a by-product of general cooperative (social) behavior where everyone benefits from combined effort to the point where helpful behavior becomes 'natural' without need of benefit.Genetically\physioligically speaking, perhaps a little endorphin is released when action is done for someone else: it feels good to help others.I get high with a little help for my friends?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Lol. Wondered if you were going to go there ...Not only does the gazelle expend great cost in this act of generosity - actually, the ultimate cost eh? - (which deflates your argument about it being just any little old inconsequential cost), but it does improve it's species in the process by eliminating the weak, infected and elderly from being a burden on the flock and improving the genetic pool.Looks like it fits your definition better? Again, why do the young chimps help the curious doctor (I don't think he was wearing a yellow hat)? How is this a symbiotic (not simbiotic) relationship? Chimps don't normally go out of their way to help people, so it is not a defining trait of the species eh?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.