My Beliefs- GDR

I read through the whole article from The Standard Encyclopedia that you linked. Here is the last segment in the article.

quote:

---

5. But is it ‘Real’ Altruism?

​

The evolutionary theories described above, in particular kin selection, go a long way towards reconciling the existence of altruism in nature with Darwinian principles. However, some people have felt these theories in a way devalue altruism, and that the behaviours they explain are not ‘really’ altruistic. The grounds for this view are easy to see. Ordinarily we think of altruistic actions as disinterested, done with the interests of the recipient, rather than our own interests, in mind. But kin selection theory explains altruistic behaviour as a clever strategy devised by selfish genes as a way of increasing their representation in the gene-pool, at the expense of other genes. Surely this means that the behaviours in question are only ‘apparently’ altruistic, for they are ultimately the result of genic self-interest? Reciprocal altruism theory also seems to ‘take the altruism out of altruism’. Behaving nicely to someone in order to procure return benefits from them in the future seems in a way the antithesis of ‘real’ altruismit is just delayed self-interest.

​

This is a tempting line of argument. Indeed Trivers (1971) and, arguably, Dawkins (1976) were themselves tempted by it. But it should not convince. The key point to remember is that biological altruism cannot be equated with altruism in the everyday vernacular sense. Biological altruism is defined in terms of fitness consequences, not motivating intentions. If by ‘real’ altruism we mean altruism done with the conscious intention to help, then the vast majority of living creatures are not capable of ‘real’ altruism nor therefore of ‘real’ selfishness either. Ants and termites, for example, presumably do not have conscious intentions, hence their behaviour cannot be done with the intention of promoting their own self-interest, nor the interests of others. Thus the assertion that the evolutionary theories reviewed above show that the altruism in nature is only apparent makes little sense. The contrast between ‘real’ altruism and merely apparent altruism simply does not apply to most animal species.

​

To some extent, the idea that kin-directed altruism is not ‘real’ altruism has been fostered by the use of the ‘selfish gene’ terminology of Dawkins (1976). As we have seen, the gene's-eye perspective is heuristically useful for understanding the evolution of altruistic behaviours, especially those that evolve by kin selection. But talking about ‘selfish’ genes trying to increase their representation in the gene-pool is of course just a metaphor (as Dawkins fully admits); there is no literal sense in which genes ‘try’ to do anything. Any evolutionary explanation of how a phenotypic trait evolves must ultimately show that the trait leads to an increase in frequency of the genes that code for it (presuming the trait is transmitted genetically.) Therefore, a ‘selfish gene’ story can by definition be told about any trait, including a behavioural trait, that evolves by Darwinian natural selection. To say that kin selection interprets altruistic behaviour as a strategy designed by ‘selfish’ genes to aid their propagation is not wrong; but it is just another way of saying that a Darwinian explanation for the evolution of altruism has been found. As Sober and Wilson (1998) note, if one insists on saying that behaviours which evolve by kin selection / donor-recipient correlation are ‘really selfish’, one ends up reserving the word ‘altruistic’ for behaviours which cannot evolve by natural selection at all.

​

Do theories of the evolution of biological altruism apply to humans? This is part of the broader question of whether ideas about the evolution of animal behaviour can be extrapolated to humans, a question that fuelled the sociobiology controversy of the 1980s and is still actively debated today (cf. Boyd and Richerson 2006, Bowles and Gintis 2011, Sterelny 2012). All biologists accept that Homo sapiens is an evolved species, and thus that general evolutionary principles apply to it. However, human behaviour is obviously influenced by culture to a far greater extent than that of other animals, and is often the product of conscious beliefs and desires (though this does not necessarily mean that genetics has no influence.) Nonetheless, at least some human behaviour does seem to fit the predictions of the evolutionary theories reviewed above. In general, humans behave more altruistically (in the biological sense) towards their close kin than towards non-relatives, e.g. by helping relatives raise their children, just as kin selection theory would predict. It is also true that we tend to help those who have helped us out in the past, just as reciprocal altruism theory would predict. On the other hand, humans are unique in that we co-operate extensively with our non-kin; and more generally, numerous human behaviours seem anomalous from the point of view of biological fitness. Think for example of adoption. Parents who adopt children instead of having their own reduce their biological fitness, obviously, so adoption is an altruistic behaviour. But it is does not benefit kinfor parents are generally unrelated to the infants they adoptand nor do the parents stand to gain much in the form of reciprocal benefits. So although evolutionary considerations can help us understand some human behaviours, they must be applied judiciously.

​

Where human behaviour is concerned, the distinction between biological altruism, defined in terms of fitness consequences, and ‘real’ altruism, defined in terms of the agent's conscious intentions to help others, does make sense. (Sometimes the label ‘psychological altruism’ is used instead of ‘real’ altruism.) What is the relationship between these two concepts? They appear to be independent in both directions, as Elliott Sober (1994) has argued; see also Vromen (2012) and Clavien and Chapuisat (2013). An action performed with the conscious intention of helping another human being may not affect their biological fitness at all, so would not count as altruistic in the biological sense. Conversely, an action undertaken for purely self-interested reasons, i.e., without the conscious intention of helping another, may boost their biological fitness tremendously.

​

Sober argues that, even if we accept an evolutionary approach to human behaviour, there is no particular reason to think that evolution would have made humans into egoists rather than psychological altruists (see also Schulz 2011). On the contrary, it is quite possible that natural selection would have favoured humans who genuinely do care about helping others, i.e., who are capable of ‘real’ or psychological altruism. Suppose there is an evolutionary advantage associated with taking good care of one's childrena quite plausible idea. Then, parents who really do care about their childrens' welfare, i.e., who are ‘real’ altruists, will have a higher inclusive fitness, hence spread more of their genes, than parents who only pretend to care, or who do not care. Therefore, evolution may well lead ‘real’ or psychological altruism to evolve. Contrary to what is often thought, an evolutionary approach to human behaviour does not imply that humans are likely to be motivated by self-interest alone. One strategy by which ‘selfish genes’ may increase their future representation is by causing humans to be non-selfish, in the psychological sense.

---

Through the whole article they describe the benefit to one’s gene pool by behaving co-operatively and primarily by kin selection, as we can see in this line from the above quote: Biological altruism is defined in terms of fitness consequences, not motivating intentions.They do talk in the article about behaving altruistically when there is no benefit to one’s own gene pool but it never actually mentions behaving altruistically when there is a negative impact on one’s own gene pool.As Stile said in his post maybe we have differing opinions on what is science. I read through that whole article and it is one speculation after another about how altruism could have evolved. Yes, it is based on observation of animal and human behaviour but is it science. I would say no, but maybe I’m wrong. It seems to me that it is more like biological philosophy. In reading through more of Robert Wright’s material he uses the term evolutionary psychology.You also again mentioned Wright’s The Moral Animal and you used a quote from it earlier. Here what you quoted again but in greater context.

quote:

---

Altruism, compassion, empathy, love, conscience, the sense of justice -- all of these things, the things that hold society together, the things that allow our species to think so highly of itself, can now confidently be said to have a firm genetic basis. That's the good news. The bad news is that, although these things are in some ways blessings for humanity as a whole, they didn't evolve for the "good of the species" and aren't reliably employed to that end. Quite the contrary: it is now clearer than ever (and precisely why) the moral sentiments are used with brutal flexibility, switched on and off in keeping with self interest; and how naturally oblivious we often are to this switching. In the new view, human beings are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse.

---

Here again Wright says that they are switched on and off in keeping with self interest; and how naturally oblivious we are to this switching. He isn’t talking about an altruistic act that is detrimental to the self or to one’s gene pool.In going through all of that I don’t see any explanation for someone behaving in a manner that is detrimental to the self and the gene pool of the self. There is a biological theory of how morality that is ultimately beneficial to the self or maybe to one's gene pool could have evolved. I read through everything you gave me and there was no explanation for self-sacrifice that didn't involve some form of ultimate reciprocity at least to the gene pool.

OK if you like, but of course the plan is that suffering will end. I've given reasons for why things are the way they are which you don't accept. Fair enough. How is it that you know what God can and cannot do?If you look at the world, or even the Bible for that matter you can see that it is a world that is evolving. It's a philosophical argument but it seem to me that the fact that the world is evolving is indicative of evolving toward something. God is creating a world where there will be no suffering through an evolutionary process. That may not be good enough for you, but if the other choice is that life here had never come into existence then I think I'll go with the evolutionary model. I can't show you, but I still think you're are wrong. You can see activity in the brain with a scan and know that it is related to emotion but that is the result of the emotion not the emotion itself. You might think you've made me angry but actually it triggered a memory and I'm really angry about something else altogether. The anger is part of our conciousness which responds to environment through our brains.

The world is evolving, but evolution has no end purpose for organisms other than to make more of themselves. The reason we know this is because 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are extinct. It's pure hubris to consider this enormous waste to have a design behind it. That is a false choice. Any decent god would actually care for its creation, not leave it to chance and suffering. But I can show you. When you're dead you have no brain activity. Without brain activity there can be no consciousness. It's a really obvious physiological fact. It's absolutely, without question or doubt, the emotion itself. If it isn't where is it? Er, yes, it is exactly that. The emotion of anger is triggered by something in the enviroment - me or a memory, I care not - which causes our brain to react in a particular way so that we feel it. Again, if it is not our brain, then what and where is it?

From my albeit rudimentary knowledge of neuroscience, I don't see this statement as being accurate.I am not sure how memory could be the predicate for an emotional response since infants can experience emotions of fear and anger in the earliest stages of development, long before they are capable of formulating even basic memories. I can potentially see accessing a memory as having the possibility of stimulating the areas of the brain responsible for emotion, but the memory is just another form of input, not the cause of the emotion in and of itself.If I see someone mis-treating another individual for example, my emotion of anger will be triggered by virtue of the visual and auditory stimuli at that time. I don't have to reference a previous memory to invoke my emotion.From my initial searching on the subject, the area of the brain that appears to be responsible for emotion is the Amygdala. While the area of the brain responsible for memory is the Hippocampus. These areas light up differently in regards to fMRI scans when the subject is undergoing an emotional response of some sort.

I've seen you say that before and it makes no sense. It is evolution and one design leads to another through natural selection, and so of course some species get replaced by others. Life continues to abound and instead one species it is now a different one. Why is it a waste because instead of having a mammoth we have an elephant. (If that doesn't fit genetically then use an example that does.) One life is replaced by another life whether it is of the same species or not. I don't see the final outcome as one left to chance and although suffering still exists I don't see that he just leaves it alone. I believe that Tom creates and/or touches people's hearts to work at alleviating the suffering until such time as all things are renewed and suffering is no longer part of our existence. It isn't obvious at all. That is your view. Here is a link to a guy named Robert Lanza that talks about him and the book he wrote. I own and have read the book.Here is a quote from the book:

quote:

---

Now comes the biggie, the oldest question of all. Who am I/ If I am only my body, then I must die. If I am my consciousness, the sense of experience and sensations, then I cannot die for the simple reason that consciousness may be expressed in manifold fashion sequentially, but it is ultimately unconfined.

---

Here is a book by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner who talk about consciousness being fundamental to our perceived reality which makes it distinct from our perceived reality. Here is a review of theit book Quantum EnigmaIn the book they quote Martin Rees who makes this comment:

quote:

---

In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it.

---

In other words is is consciousness that is the fundamental aspect of our reality, not the other way around. It is part of our consciousness.Edited by GDR, : typos

That's the way evolution works - but it's messy, wasteful and inefficient; it's not the way any designer would work if the intended output was us. There was absolutely no guarantee that mammals would exist at all; without the mass extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs mammals as a group probably would never have risen. Did you know that 96% of all live on earth was killed in the 'mass dying' in the Permian. That's not design or intent with a purpose.The way evolution works tels us that it isn't part of a plan with and end purpose, because there's no way to predict an end product. Now if you tell me that God CAN predict it or that he nudges it so that he gets the right outcome, then I'm going ask why he just didn't do it a simpler way to start with? This is pure woo and wishful thinking. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean and I don't think you do either. Yes it is and consiousness is generated by our brain. When our brain is dead we are no longer conscious. That is what is called a non-controversial fact. There is no evidence of anything else is there?

So basically your theistic beliefs have forced you into a position where you need to deny that there is a scientific explanation for human moral behaviour as observed.When one's theistic beliefs require one to deny scientific findings and conclusions then the game really is up.

Straggler and I have read and commented on Robert Wright's book The Evolution of God, and he writes from a secularist's POV about how our beliefs about Tom, (our non-specific god) have evolved over the years.In the book he writes this:

quote:

---

I guess materialist is a not-very-misleading term for me. In fact, in this book I talk about the history of religion, and its future from a materialist standpoint. I think the origin and development of religion can be explained by reference to concrete, observable things in human nature, political and economic factors, technological change, and so on.
But I don’t think a materialist account of religion’s origin, history, and future — like the one I’m giving here — precludes the validity of a religious worldview. In fact, I contend that the history of religion presented in this book, materialist though it is, actually affirms the validity of a religious worldview, not a traditionally religious worldview, but a worldview that is in some meaningful sense religious.
It sounds paradoxical. On the one hand, I think gods arose as illusions, and that the subsequent history of the idea of god is, in some sense, the evolution of an illusion. On the other hand: (1) the story of this evolution itself points to the existence of something you can meaningfully call divinity; and (2) the illusion, in the course of evolving, has gotten streamlined in a way that moved it closer to plausibility. In both of these senses, the illusion has gotten less and less illusionary.

---

The point of that is that it isn't just that evolution has processed in such a way that we now have more intelligent life forms but our understanding of Tom and morality has evolved as well. I believe that it suggests that as we progress we are progressing towards some point. I understand and accept your critique of the way physical evolution has been messy but I contend that if you focus on the messy bits and look at the overall picture that progress is being made.However, even if you accept that there has been progress it doesn't prove that there is an ultimate goal to be reached. As I said, I think it suggests it, but in the end it is faith. That's fine but my point was that there are man of science who from a scientific POV believes you are wrong.Here are his credential from the back cover of his book.

quote:

---

Robert Lanza MD, is one of the most respected scientists in the world - a U.S. News and World Report cover story called him a "genius" and a "renegade thinker" and likened him to Einstein. Currently chief scientific officer at Advanced Cell Technology and adjunct professor at Wake University School of Medicine, Lanza has hundreds of publications and inventions and more than two dozen scientific books to his credit.

---

This is about the co-author of the book.

quote:

---

Bob Berman is one of the best known astronomers in the world. He is the Astronomy magazine's "Strange Universe" column as well as the former astronomy columnist fro Discover.

---

These are the guys whose view you dismiss as just being "woo". It isn't that difficult to understand. I agree with various scientists that I have read that our reality is a result of the fact that it is perceived by consciousness.I'll repeat the Martin Rees quote.

quote:

---

In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it.

---

Is that really that hard to understand?

It does, it literally goes over that very subject in what you quoted. But as has been the case in this entire thread, you're less inclined to learn something and more inclined to reject something just so you can hold on to your beliefs.Or you simply just don't understand what you read when you read it.In any case, let me show you where it covers all of that.The article says:

quote:

---

human behaviour is obviously influenced by culture to a far greater extent than that of other animals, and is often the product of conscious beliefs and desires

---

In other words, ones beliefs such as "help others so you can get into heaven", or get to valhala, or be greeted by the gods with food and women after fighting for your country, etc. influence your behavior.It goes on to explain how adoption does NOT benefit the species or gene pool:

quote:

---

Think for example of adoption. Parents who adopt children instead of having their own reduce their biological fitness, obviously, so adoption is an altruistic behaviour. But it is does not benefit kinfor parents are generally unrelated to the infants they adoptand nor do the parents stand to gain much in the form of reciprocal benefits.

---

And is further covered here:

quote:

---

...there is no particular reason to think that evolution would have made humans into egoists rather than psychological altruists. On the contrary, it is quite possible that natural selection would have favoured humans who genuinely do care about helping others, i.e., who are capable of ‘real’ or psychological altruism.

---

And it concludes with the very explanation that you say it didn't cover:

quote:

---

Therefore, evolution may well lead ‘real’ or psychological altruism to evolve. One strategy by which ‘selfish genes’ may increase their future representation is by causing humans to be non-selfish, in the psychological sense.

---

In other words, one way your genes increase their future representation is by making humans self-sacrificing. So what it's saying is, there is NO ultimate self-sacrifice that ISN"T beneficial to the gene pool.There is an extensive scientific explanation to altruism that AGAIN is both addressed at the genetic level and through human behavior that is ultimately influenced by cultural beliefs, etc. Something you said didn't exist at all.- Oni

The point goes back to what Straggler and I told you: altruism evolved when humans were still in small groups of kin.Fast forward to today, when there is 7 billion people on the planet and millions of years of cultural, religious and philosophical influence on our behavior, and you get a complex version of what was ultimately simply kin-selection. Which is the point we've been making the entire time we've been discussing altruism.Let it be noted that you have done zero to contradict this, and we continue to present scientific evidence of biological altruism. Also to note, that you have provided zero evidence to support your notion that A) Tom exists, and B) that he gave us altruism.- Oni

Yes, faith and the rationalisation of the facts to suit that faith. There are thousands of men of science that believe in Tom; so what? Correct. Newton had a whole load of weird metaphysical ideas about magic and alchemy - he was very badly wrong about them too. Bloody right it is, it makes no sense at all does it?But you haven't answered the main question - where is consciousness if it's not in the brain?

Keep in mind that the forum is Faith/Belief. You do have a valid point, though.

In my last post made some observations and asked a couple of questions to which you don't respond. You just keep making this accusation which I don't accept.Yes there is a materialistic explanation based on observation which may or may not be correct.I am not rejecting any science and yes I have my doubts about the explanation as do many like Francis Collins who have, unlike myself, the knowledge to comment on these issues from a biological and evolutionary POV.Let's however say that you are correct and there is a scientific explanation for human moral behaviour, although I believe we are talking more about pure altruism. (The idea of helping others to the detriment of the self and one's gene pool).We know that there is a huge segment of the human population with a world view based on selfishness so we know that regardless of how morality or altruism evolved there is a choice to be made. We can choose between being altruisticly driven or by being selfishly driven.So ok, there is a materialistic answer for how morality evolved but that still tells us nothing about whether or not that is part of an intelligent plan, nor does it answer the question about whether or not Tom is able to connect with us as the still small voice of our conscience.The fact that I question the explanations that are on offer has nothing to do with my theistic beliefs. I just don't see them contradicting the idea that true altruism is detrimental to the individual or the his/her gene pool and I don't buy the explanation that we are all one big happy gene pool. Again however, those beliefs are separate from my theistic beliefs. I look to science to provide answers to how Tom did it and sometimes scientists will get it right and sometimes not.

Actually, the question of choice there is somewhat up for debate.Individuals with various forms of psychopathy lack the ability to have empathy, thereby making any altruistic behavior difficult. I don't think this is a 'huge segment' of the population, as you suggest since if individuals with inherent selfishness existed in large quantities, our society would likely collapse.The concept of psychopathy and its genetic component actually gives further credence to the scientific explanation of altruism, as opposed to the 'faith based' alternatives you are suggesting.

It isn't black and white, good and evil is it? We're all both selfish and altruistic depending on circumstaces, upbringing and temperment. For some the choices are simple to make, for others they're harder and a few have no choice.All this is perfectly explicable given what we know of our history and impossible to explain if you believe in a god.(I mean a real god of course, not the crippled version you subscribe to - a flawed, impotent god can, of course, cock things up this badly.)