Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 136 of 438 (505660)
04-14-2009 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Cedre
04-14-2009 9:11 AM


Awareness
Hi, Cedre.
You are still pushing the consciousness issue, when the argument against you has nothing to do with what a person is consciously aware of.
-----
When studying biology, there are a number of scales at which phenomena can be studied. For now, let’s consider proximate and ultimate reasons for behaviors.
Let’s consider the example of my dinner last night. Why did I eat dinner last night?
The proximate reason why I ate dinner was because I was hungry.
The ultimate reason why I ate dinner was because my body needs food to develop and function properly.
So, what is the real reason why I ate dinner? Was it because my body needed the protein? Or, was it because I was hungry?
Actually, it’s both. But, I was only consciously aware of one of the two: the proximate cause---hunger. The ultimate cause---nutritional requirements and deficiencies---requires specific training and education to understand, and, since I do not have that expertise, I cannot claim to be aware of those deficiencies within myself.
-----
Morality is exactly identical to that. Proximately, you do unselfish service to people because you perceive their need, or because you feel that it’s the right thing to do. You are completely unaware that this pattern of behavior also has an ultimate reason, and that ultimate reason is community stability, which breeds an environment where you and your offspring can thrive.
That you cannot consciously make the connection between your selflessness and the community’s stability with your individual reasoning is as inconsequential as the fact that you are not aware of the connection between your hunger and your body’s deficiency in vitamin K.
-----
In short, it doesn't matter one bit what a person is thinking at the moment they are acting, because individuals are not programmed to be intuitively aware of things that happen on an evolutionary scale.
Ask a sage grouse rooster why he and all the other males are lekking, and he will not explain to you the concepts of preservation of the species, but the concepts of "I want some lovin'!"
Ask a spider why she builds a web, and she will not explain that this is her niche in her ecological community, but that she is hungry.
Ask a zebra why it runs away when a pack of wild dogs approaches, and it will not say that it must carry on in order to keep its genealogy alive, but it will say, "I don't want to die!"
-----
Get out of your proximate, conscious world and understand that the universe is not solely about what you perceive in the moment, nor is it about what results from your personal feelings, choices and behaviors.
Christians claim to be good at recognizing that there is more to us than we know, yet, strangely enough, you're the one stuck within the confines of "what you know," while atheists are trying to explain the transcendant wonders of a universe greater than what is immediately before you.
How is that for irony?

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Cedre, posted 04-14-2009 9:11 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Cedre, posted 04-20-2009 8:23 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 137 of 438 (505929)
04-20-2009 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Blue Jay
04-14-2009 6:25 PM


Re: Awareness
Your post is a wonderful presentation demonstrating the shortsightedness of human beings and nothing more. indeed it is too much for us to be consciously aware of every single reason for all our daily actions, that is it’s enough to know that we eat because we feel hungry, and to be consciously aware of the underlying biological reason would be plain boring and wasteful, so being shortsighted in this regard may actually be good for us as it makes our lives significantly simplistic and unsophisticated. This is truly clever design if you ask me.
Morality is exactly identical to that. Proximately,
This is probably true. but Then I don't think that morality can be brought down to a biological reason. For instance If we take hunger, we see that it can be reduced to a biological reason, why I ate dinner was because I was hungry and the ultimate reason is why I ate dinner was because my body needs food to develop and function properly
Now applying the same logic to morality we get, why we help others is because we care this is the proximate reason as determined by your line of reasoning, why we care is because by not caring we will endanger our genes including our own lives. This then is the ultimate reason. But Morality started out as a concept and is suddenly brought down to the molecular level, while it should have a conceptual ultimate reason.
Furthermore if we look at the ultimate reason for being helpful and for caring it is at odds with morality, altruism or morality cannot be reduced to selfishness, because they are averse to selfishness and eggs on selflessness. The ultimate reason as per your reasoning causes us to make this ludicrous statement: I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish.
Selflessness is when we sacrifice our welfare, happiness and interests knowingly to promote another person’s wellbeing, happiness and interests and in extreme cases we might even die as a result. This is against the principles of selfishness which is stinginess resulting from a concern for your own welfare and a disregard of others. The two are mutually exclusive.
Reasoning that morality is reducible to selfishness completely takes away from what it means to be truly moral, then everyone is inherently selfish no matter how many times you deny yourself you are still being selfish. Now the question is then raised why not just be selfish immediately instead of having to abnegate oneself in the process, even endangering oneself? I mean if the goal is a selfish one, to survive, then why should I put myself through all the self denial that comes with being altruistic.
It’s like I am in a position to make instant cash, but then I choose to rather undergo a schooling first and only then obtain my cash. Who in their right mind would choose that? It doesn’t make any sense to reduce morality to selfishness and it only ushers in unwanted complications.
Another interesting point worthy of mention is that if morality boils down to the survival of the individual, then it kind of demonstrates further that natural selection and ultimately evolution works on an individual basis and not on a group basis. So the idea that morality an abstract idea is apparently a mechanism of natural selection is not true.
Get out of your proximate, conscious world and understand that the universe is not solely about what you perceive in the moment, nor is it about what results from your personal feelings, choices and behaviors.
Maybe you should get out of your inconsistent reasoning, and try applying logic and common sense in your way of thinking.
Christians claim to be good at recognizing that there is more to us than we know, yet, strangely enough, you're the one stuck within the confines of "what you know," while atheists are trying to explain the transcendant wonders of a universe greater than what is immediately before you.
You’re trying to stereotype Christians here, maybe you have met Christians stuck within the confines of what you know as you put it, but I have also met many atheist who do the same thing even do it better than Christians sometimes. For example many atheist are too scared to even put forward the notion of a creator, they out rightly deny existence of such a being based upon the confines of what they know while theists have understood the transcendent Wonder of the universe than what is immediately before you that is God.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Blue Jay, posted 04-14-2009 6:25 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by bluescat48, posted 04-20-2009 8:51 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 142 by Granny Magda, posted 04-20-2009 11:35 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 144 by Blue Jay, posted 04-20-2009 11:43 AM Cedre has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 138 of 438 (505932)
04-20-2009 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Cedre
04-20-2009 8:23 AM


Re: Awareness
For example many atheist are too scared to even put forward the notion of a creator, they out rightly deny existence of such a being based upon the confines of what they know while theists have understood the transcendent Wonder of the universe than what is immediately before you that is God.
Wrong we are not "scared" to put forth the notion of a creator. We disavow a creator due to the fact that there is no evidence of such.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Cedre, posted 04-20-2009 8:23 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Cedre, posted 04-20-2009 9:05 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 139 of 438 (505933)
04-20-2009 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by bluescat48
04-20-2009 8:51 AM


Re: Awareness
Wrong we are not "scared" to put forth the notion of a creator. We disavow a creator due to the fact that there is no evidence of such.
Your disavowing must issue from somewhere, be it from fear or lack of evidence as you put, though I like to think that it is mainly rooted in fear.
We disavow a creator due to the fact that there is no evidence of such.
This is an off-the-cuff statement. What kind of evidence do atheist demand? There is ample evidence to conclude that a creator exists, Anthony Flew and the bulk of ex-evolutionists/ex-atheist concluded that a creator exists because there is evidence out there enough of it to persuade. Your refusal of the evidence does not equal lack of evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by bluescat48, posted 04-20-2009 8:51 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by lyx2no, posted 04-20-2009 9:27 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 141 by Coragyps, posted 04-20-2009 10:07 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 143 by SammyJean, posted 04-20-2009 11:37 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 147 by bluescat48, posted 04-20-2009 3:23 PM Cedre has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 140 of 438 (505935)
04-20-2009 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Cedre
04-20-2009 9:05 AM


Re: Awareness
What kind of evidence do atheist demand?
Some.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Cedre, posted 04-20-2009 9:05 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 141 of 438 (505937)
04-20-2009 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Cedre
04-20-2009 9:05 AM


Re: Awareness
though I like to think that it is mainly rooted in fear.
You can like to think that all you want without affecting reality even a little, tiny bit, Cedre. You're the one that thinks people can be punished eternally for things they didn't do.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Cedre, posted 04-20-2009 9:05 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 142 of 438 (505943)
04-20-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Cedre
04-20-2009 8:23 AM


Re: Awareness
quote:
But Morality started out as a concept and is suddenly brought down to the molecular level, while it should have a conceptual ultimate reason.
Er... why? If morality is evolved, it would not have a "conceptual ultimate reason". You are putting the cart before the horse and using your preferred answer as proof of itself. This is sloppy logic.
quote:
Furthermore if we look at the ultimate reason for being helpful and for caring it is at odds with morality, altruism or morality cannot be reduced to selfishness, because they are averse to selfishness and eggs on selflessness. The ultimate reason as per your reasoning causes us to make this ludicrous statement: I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish.
Welcome to the world Cedre.
There is no moral act which can claim to be uninfluenced by selfishness, as I have already demonstrated up-thread. Morality is commonly mixed with selfishness. That is an everyday reality, so it is no surprise that it should be reflected at the evolutionary level.
Pure unselfishness and pure selfishness are, like much of your argument, simply fantasy; they are platonic ideals, not realities.
quote:
Selflessness is when we sacrifice our welfare, happiness and interests knowingly to promote another person’s wellbeing, happiness and interests and in extreme cases we might even die as a result. This is against the principles of selfishness which is stinginess resulting from a concern for your own welfare and a disregard of others. The two are mutually exclusive.
In other words, you still haven't bothered to pick up a copy of The Selfish Gene, which addresses this precise issue.
Why are you so keen to remain ignorant of the subject you claim to desire to understand?
quote:
Reasoning that morality is reducible to selfishness completely takes away from what it means to be truly moral, then everyone is inherently selfish no matter how many times you deny yourself you are still being selfish.
True morality is the morality that actually exists. Your fantasy version of morality falls down at this fence. It exists only as a self-indulgent pipe-dream. I'll stick with the morality that exits. It may not be perfect, but then, nothing in the real world is.
quote:
I mean if the goal is a selfish one, to survive, then why should I put myself through all the self denial that comes with being altruistic.
So that others can survive.
quote:
It’s like I am in a position to make instant cash, but then I choose to rather undergo a schooling first and only then obtain my cash. Who in their right mind would choose that?
You really should stop trying to argue by example; you aren't very good at it.
This latest example is as flawed as the rest. If you get schooling, your earning potential increases, thus providing a selfish motivation and a rather obvious one at that. Do you bother to think these things through before you write them?
Of course, if you valued knowledge at all, you would realise that the desire to learn would itself provide sufficient motivation for your example. But you aren't actually interested in learning, so you see it as some sort of ordeal. Sad.
quote:
Another interesting point worthy of mention is that if morality boils down to the survival of the individual, then it kind of demonstrates further that natural selection and ultimately evolution works on an individual basis and not on a group basis.
For God's sake, read The Selfish Gene. Evolution works by favouring different genes within a population. Individuals cannot evolve and nothing that has been said here contradicts that. Morality is all about the survival of the group. That is why self-sacrifice can be a positive thing; it can benefit the group. You seem to be unwilling or unable to engage with what others are actually saying to you, preferring instead to flog the same dead horse that you have been attacking since the start of this thread. You need to pay more attention to what people are saying to you.
quote:
Maybe you should get out of your inconsistent reasoning, and try applying logic and common sense in your way of thinking.
Cedre, common sense is the opposite of logic. You usually can't have both. Indeed. this may explain why you are having such trouble with these relatively simple concepts. Ditch the common sense. It isn't sensible.
quote:
For example many atheist are too scared to even put forward the notion of a creator, they out rightly deny existence of such a being based upon the confines of what they know
If you have any interest in understanding the views of others, you are going to have to stop imagining their beliefs for them. It is always going to lead you astray and into the realm of the straw-man argument, as seen here.
You could try asking atheists why they believe or disbelieve in the way they do. You are likely to get a different answer.
For now, you might like to ponder this; do you reject Shiva because you are too scared to put forward the notion of Saivism?
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Cedre, posted 04-20-2009 8:23 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Percy, posted 04-20-2009 11:56 AM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 148 by Cedre, posted 04-21-2009 6:45 AM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 151 by Stile, posted 04-21-2009 11:06 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
SammyJean
Member (Idle past 4073 days)
Posts: 87
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 03-28-2009


Message 143 of 438 (505944)
04-20-2009 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Cedre
04-20-2009 9:05 AM


Re: Awareness
Cedre writes:
There is ample evidence to conclude that a creator exists, Anthony Flew and the bulk of ex-evolutionists/ex-atheist concluded that a creator exists because there is evidence out there enough of it to persuade. Your refusal of the evidence does not equal lack of evidence.
Ample evidence? Where? You say "Anthony Flew and the bulk of ex-evolutionist/ex-atheist concluded that a creator exists because there is evidence" but you don't state the evidence? So Cedre, where's the evidence?

"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts." -Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Cedre, posted 04-20-2009 9:05 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 144 of 438 (505945)
04-20-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Cedre
04-20-2009 8:23 AM


Re: Awareness
Hi, Cedre.
Cedre writes:
The ultimate reason as per your reasoning causes us to make this ludicrous statement: I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish.
No! You are still mischaracterizing my position.
You seem to be conflating me with everybody else. I do not share the views of everybody else in this forum, so I would appreciate it if you didn't treat my argument as a clone or spin-off of theirs.
The argument does not boil down to, I will personally benefit from this action, but to, The group that is founded on the principles behind this action will be more stable than the group that is not. As I have now repeated half a dozen times, the argument is not made on a conscious level: it is not made by the individual, for the individual, but is made by the population, for the population; and the population enforces the argument with negative feedback against individuals that do not conform.
The entire point of altruism is that it benefits the entire group. As such, the reason it is favored by natural selection can only be resolved at the level of the group, and not at the level of the individual: the entire group succeeds (and, thus, the individuals within the group succeed), so the traits to contribute to the group persist.
You cannot reduce it to an individual decision or rationale. I have not employed such reasoning in my arguments, yet you have consistently characterized my argument as if I have been. This is the epitome of a straw-man argument.
Please do not mischaracterize my argument again.
Once again, when discussing group selection, the ultimate reason for the behavior has absolutely nothing to do with the benefits to an individual, but with the benefits to an entire group, and the benefits the individual gains are incidental to the process.
There is no individual, selfish reasoning involved in the ultimate reason. Do you understand this, or will you once again insist that I am still arguing for selfishness?
-----
Cedre writes:
You’re trying to stereotype Christians here, maybe you have met Christians stuck within the confines of what you know as you put it, but I have also met many atheist who do the same thing even do it better than Christians sometimes.
By the way, I am a Christian myself. A member of a clergy, in fact: I am an elder. I believe that I am as intimately familiar with the mindset of Christians as you are. I was not stereotyping, but commenting only on you, personally, and your contributions to this thread. I did not say that all Christians suffer from the same problems of perspective as you do.
Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Cedre, posted 04-20-2009 8:23 AM Cedre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Percy, posted 04-20-2009 12:01 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 145 of 438 (505946)
04-20-2009 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Granny Magda
04-20-2009 11:35 AM


Re: Awareness
Granny Magda writes:
Cedre, common sense is the opposite of logic. You usually can't have both. Indeed. this may explain why you are having such trouble with these relatively simple concepts. Ditch the common sense. It isn't sensible.
One of the definitions of common:
Common: Of mediocre or inferior quality; second-rate
While that isn't the intended meaning in the phrase "common sense", when we see that phrase used around here it sure seems like it should be.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Granny Magda, posted 04-20-2009 11:35 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 146 of 438 (505947)
04-20-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Blue Jay
04-20-2009 11:43 AM


Re: Awareness
I don't think Cedre is purposefully mischaracterizing or misconstruing your arguments. Once the light bulb goes on I guess the principles of group selection seem obvious, but there's a lot that has to be understood before one reaches that point.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Blue Jay, posted 04-20-2009 11:43 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 147 of 438 (505959)
04-20-2009 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Cedre
04-20-2009 9:05 AM


Re: Awareness
Your refusal of the evidence does not equal lack of evidence
What evidence? show me some.
Edited by bluescat48, : missing line

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Cedre, posted 04-20-2009 9:05 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 148 of 438 (505987)
04-21-2009 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Granny Magda
04-20-2009 11:35 AM


Re: Awareness
Er... why? If morality is evolved, it would not have a "conceptual ultimate reason". You are putting the cart before the horse and using your preferred answer as proof of itself. This is sloppy logic.
We still haven't ascertained that morality has in point of fact evolved, just because something may benefit an organism or a group of organisms at that doesn't mean that it has evolved.
Atheists are so quick to point fingers at theists for drawing on God of the gap arguments, yet amusingly, they are not themselves blameless in this regard, often they will turn to gap arguments of their own when called for. Like this next one which goes: whatever exists exists because it was favored by nature, so morality exists because it was favored, this is not solving the problem, it’s not answering anything.
Darwinists have endued unlimited power to this natural selection god of theirs, who can account for everything that exist, without any corporeal proof or sound evidence whatsoever to back it up. According to their way of thinking everything that exists exists because it was chosen. This hardly cracks the mystery as I have pointed out; they just dump natural selection with undue power that it does not deserve and claim that it is the solution for everything including concepts like morality and the like. To me this is a gap argument; we can’t explain it any other way so let’s say natural selection did it.I Think that is sloppy reasoning.
You have yet to show how morality could evolve where exactly on the chromosome the morality gene is carried. And if it is a genetic in nature than why does it seem to vary greatly from culture to culture? Certain cultures have endorsed killing while others punish killing. Also you need to invalidate may claim above not simply heap scorn on it as you have done, and in so doing thinking that you have tackled my claim. With all this unanswered questions who is the one putting the cart before the horse?
There is no moral act which can claim to be uninfluenced by selfishness,
This claim is not well grounded; I think whether an individual will be rewarded for his altruism will depend on the place and time, and the overall surrounding circumstances. For example if you die during self-defense how can you be repaid for this act? Or if you take care of your pet whose going to reward for taking care of your pet. If you were going to crush a bug underfoot but noticed it just on time who will honor you for that act of mercy. You are far from proofing that every act of compassion is influenced by selfishness. Like I said many factors are involved, like were there people around you when you performed the selfless act. Can the person to whom you have shown kindness be able to repay you later on? These are all questions you need to consider before deciding that all altruistic acts are influenced by selfishness.
Pure unselfishness and pure selfishness are, like much of your argument, simply fantasy; they are platonic ideals, not realities.
Again you’re just blowing hot air; you make claims without providing any confirmation as if these claims were suppose to be axiomatic.
In other words, you still haven't bothered to pick up a copy of The Selfish Gene, which addresses this precise issue.
If the argument presented in this book is so successful in answering this problem of morality and you have read the book then why haven’t you already laid out its central argument to me in any one of your posts up to this point? Let me have it, present me something in your next post from the Selfish Gene.
Why are you so keen to remain ignorant of the subject you claim to desire to understand?
One of the reasons why I chose a forum and not a book to discuss this issue is because a forum’s fast-paced and always on the go, a book is mind-numbing and can expend longer hours of your day, and right now I don’t have this vast amount of spare time.
I mean if the goal is a selfish one, to survive, then why should I put myself through all the self denial that comes with being altruistic.
So that others can survive.
Why should we care about the survival of others?
You really should stop trying to argue by example; you aren't very good at it.
This latest example is as flawed as the rest. If you get schooling, your earning potential increases, thus providing a selfish motivation and a rather obvious one at that. Do you bother to think these things through before you write them?
You’re pulling down a strawman this was not the example I gave. My example was if you read carefully that why will anyone opt for schooling if he/she can get the same cash now that schooling will get him in the future. If you could get all the cash to lead a decent life without requiring an education then why bother yourself with an education? This was my argument not what you’re refuting. In the same way I asked if being altruistic is going to end in selfishness then why not just choose to be selfish from the start. Why take the long painful route when there is an easy short cut.
For God's sake, read The Selfish Gene. Evolution works by favouring different genes within a population.
And these different genes belong to individuals, again evolution functions at an individual level. Mutations happen in individuals, selection chooses the fittest individuals, and that it what leads to unequal reproductive success. Natural selection doesn’t have a brain to choose a group it can only work on individuals. And to suggest that natural selection favors the survival of a species is to suggest that natural selection has a purpose, selection is a purposeless natural process, and it is not bothered if a gene survive or go extinct.
It’s just a process that occurs because it occurs; you can’t endow it with a purpose. Therefore when you declare that the group should survive so that the genes survive in turn you are suggesting that selection has a purpose namely that genes survive. This is foolishness if you ask me. Selection doesn’t possess any more brain power to be giving such purpose than a wind blowing through the city does. So why should it favor anything, much less the survival of a particular gene?
Cedre, common sense is the opposite of logic. You usually can't have both. Indeed. this may explain why you are having such trouble with these relatively simple concepts. Ditch the common sense. It isn't sensible.
Common sense according to the dictionary is sound practical judgment. You are defining something else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Granny Magda, posted 04-20-2009 11:35 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Modulous, posted 04-21-2009 9:22 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 150 by Blue Jay, posted 04-21-2009 10:52 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 153 by caffeine, posted 04-21-2009 11:53 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 156 by SammyJean, posted 04-21-2009 9:38 PM Cedre has not replied
 Message 162 by Granny Magda, posted 04-22-2009 8:44 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 149 of 438 (505992)
04-21-2009 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Cedre
04-21-2009 6:45 AM


You have yet to show how morality could evolve where exactly on the chromosome the morality gene is carried. And if it is a genetic in nature than why does it seem to vary greatly from culture to culture?
The culture to culture question has already been addressed. Language acquisition is genetic, but languages vary from culture to culture.
There are people with no, or very little moral sense such as psychopaths. In cases where they have a twin, their twin has a very significant chance of also being a psychopath. There are brain regions that are created under the influence of genes, which if damaged, result in people with little or no moral sense.
This would indicate that the brain and morality have links.
And these different genes belong to individuals, again evolution functions at an individual level. Mutations happen in individuals, selection chooses the fittest individuals, and that it what leads to unequal reproductive success. Natural selection doesn’t have a brain to choose a group it can only work on individuals. And to suggest that natural selection favors the survival of a species is to suggest that natural selection has a purpose, selection is a purposeless natural process, and it is not bothered if a gene survive or go extinct.
It’s just a process that occurs because it occurs; you can’t endow it with a purpose. Therefore when you declare that the group should survive so that the genes survive in turn you are suggesting that selection has a purpose namely that genes survive. This is foolishness if you ask me. Selection doesn’t possess any more brain power to be giving such purpose than a wind blowing through the city does. So why should it favor anything, much less the survival of a particular gene?
This is actually an interesting point. The thing is - you've missed a trick. There are individuals who are genetically sterile, and not in a bad mutation kind of way, but in a systematic fashion. This is commonly seen in the social insect world. Certain members of the hive or nest might be born sterile, their only purpose in life seems to be to defend the nest, for example. They aren't doing it so that they can reproduce but so that their genes can reproduce through the Queen.
But this brings us to a testable hypothesis. The more related two animals are, the more we should see them helping each other out. And indeed - a definite metric might be created here. Brothers share 1/2 of the same inherited genome and cousins 1/8. Where animals are likely to interact with brothers and cousins - we might expect to find some corresponding preference for brothers over cousins...if altruism for the benfit of the gene has any weight. Naturally, there is still going to be a general preference for self in this model since the self contains 100% of one's genes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Cedre, posted 04-21-2009 6:45 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 150 of 438 (505997)
04-21-2009 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Cedre
04-21-2009 6:45 AM


The Importance of Scale
Hi, Cedre.
Percy, post #146, writes:
I don't think Cedre is purposefully mischaracterizing or misconstruing your arguments. Once the light bulb goes on I guess the principles of group selection seem obvious, but there's a lot that has to be understood before one reaches that point.
Percy’s right (grumble grumble): I’ve been letting my frustration get the best of me. I apologize for making this personal when I should have stayed objective.
-----
Cedre writes:
Like this next one which goes: whatever exists exists because it was favored by nature, so morality exists because it was favored, this is not solving the problem, it’s not answering anything.
You’re absolutely right: natural selection does not explain why things exist. Sometimes we anthropomorphize natural selection because it’s easier to explain. But, rest assured that most of us do understand this principle, even if we skimp on it in informal debates like this.
Natural selection only explains why things persist, not why they exist. Natural selection did not create morality: it preserved it once it appeared because of the benefits it provides.
Things are brought into existence by means of what we call random mutations. This has always been a source of some confusion for me, because random mutations is not really a well-defined concept. We call them random because they occur in a probabilistic fashion that is extremely difficult to predict. There are many, many different chemical situations and mechanisms that can cause mutations to occur, and, as far as I can tell, they’re not really spontaneous in the strictest sense of the word: all of them happen because of the action of some physical phenomenon that is, itself, rooted in the principles underlying the function of the universe.
So, sometimes I think the term random is a bit of an oversimplification. Truth told, I cannot tell you what causes mutations, so I can’t really tell you what, exactly, causes new traits, such as moral behaviors.
But, what I can tell you is that the incidence of morality fits the pattern that everything else fits, and so, it is likely explanable by the same phenomenon that explains all other traits and behaviors.
-----
Cedre writes:
For example if you die during self-defense how can you be repaid for this act? Or if you take care of your pet whose going to reward for taking care of your pet. If you were going to crush a bug underfoot but noticed it just on time who will honor you for that act of mercy. You are far from proofing that every act of compassion is influenced by selfishness.
This is again an issue of scale. Is each individual action or type of action a unique trait that must be selected for by evolution? Or, are the actual traits just bits of a personality that govern which individual decisions and actions will be made?
Sparing the life of a bug is not an action that was, on its own, selected for because of its advantages. Rather, the general personality trait of being nice is selected for because of its advantages within society, and this general pattern resulted in the side effect of compassion toward the insect.
You cannot expect evolution to happen on the scale of individual actions and decisions, because individual actions are not coded for on individual genes. Rather, large personality patterns are encoded in the genome. Thus, a lot of superfluous acts of kindness will happen without having any direct connection to your evolutionary success, because it isn’t the individual action, but the personality pattern, that is being selected for.
This is what I meant by proximate and ultimate causes: proximately, you do something nice, not because it will benefit your personal evolutionary success, but because you perceive a need to help. But, ultimately, you perceive the need to help because human society selects for helpfulness. Since it is not you, personally, who is doing the selecting, you do not perceive the selection taking place in your actions.
Always remember to remain in context of the proper scale:
  • The molecules of your body detect and respond to specific chemical cues. They do not detect or respond to your emotions, passions, appetites, etc.
  • You do not detect nor respond to specific chemical cues, nor do you notice when individual molecular signals are transmitted between cells. You respond to emotions, passions, appetites, etc.
  • You do not respond to the pressures of natural selection. You respond to emotions, passions, appetites, etc.
  • The population responds to the pressures of natural selection. It does not respond to your emotions, passions, appetites, etc.
  • This does not mean that the pressures of natural selection do not exist for you, or that chemical reactions do not exist for you. You perception is not required for it to have a real impact on your world.
What you perceive and respond to at your individual scale of awareness is not necessarily applicable to anything that goes on at a different scale of awareness. If you apply this insight into your arguments, you will understand why I said you were missing out on the transcendant wonders of a world beyond your perception.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Cedre, posted 04-21-2009 6:45 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Cedre, posted 04-21-2009 11:19 AM Blue Jay 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