Because i am by nature a polite and conformist person, i will follow your suggestion copasetic and continue this debate in a new thread. I will leave it in this section because personally i believe that ;ethics, morality, the capacity for logic, reason, emotion, and religious/ spiritual belief are all part of human nature and that they do not exist independent of each other.'

The forum wont let me use all the quoted blocks of text so i have done my best with what i was allowed and split this over 2 posts






You see i do think we have a fundamental difference in terminology To me there is no such thing. Altruism is something which only exists as a human constructed concept. It thus requires human intent and value judgement to perform. No animal can perform an act of altruism intentionally, because it would not understand the concept or the choices open to it. The best it could do is perform an act which resembles something a human might do for altruistic purposes, but which in the animals case is a behaviour learned or programmed to produce beneficial results, thus not altruistic.





I am doing so constantly but so far have found no knowledge base which would cause me to alter my deductions/reasoning in this area.

I used the term eclectic knowledge deliberately because, like a Renaissance man, while i may not have a huge depth of specialised knowledge in one particular area, i have a consuming interest in a wide range of human endeavours. I worked out last week, that i read over 1 million words each wek. This includes 5 or 6 books, 11 or 12 newspapers, a number of journals and magazines and several hundred thousand words of an academic nature. This does not include the mateial i read on line, which while interesting is often of dubious scientific value(there are of course many notable exceptions abut they can be difficult to find among the dross.)






Sleazy is a rather perjorative word. you were happy to continue debating even though you did not feel our discussion fit the thread. on the other hand, i do fel it was appropriate , but have kindly agreed to start this thread. In either case i dont accept sleazy as an accurate appellation
Intelligence does not free us from anything --Its either delusion or you dont understand evolution.

Must beg to disagree. i have read and understoood some of the arguments that evolution predetermines our behaviours. I dont accept that proposition which i think is driven by belief rather than the evidence (and i understand why you would disagree with this)

While, admittedly, we only have human sentience to judge by ,it would appear that when humans gained sentient self awareness they also stepped outside the basic evolutionary process. Again i can see why many biologists and esp evolutionary biologists would not want to accept ths ,but many other disciplines and people do.
Instead of being tied to, and forced to respond to environmental pressures, and to a lesser extent genetic and biologiocal pressures ( which do retain some validity), purely through the nature of their sentience humans became something unique.
Despite biologists attempts to retie us to the rest of the animal kingdom; human nature, and our present abilities, in themselves simply do not make this possible. It is entirely likely, indeed quite probable, that eventually other animals will make this break too, particularly given human tutelage/ interference( see it as you will) in their evolutionary development.

However, at the moment, humans are the only species not bound to many responses, from simple flight or fight reactions to the more complex issues of population control, fertility and food supplies.We do not need to respond in evolutionary terms or with biological responses to such issues. We can create and choose from a variety of alternative options.

Eventually we will move off earth and our very physiology/biology will adapt, or be adapted, to suit a multitude of new environments. This wil lillustrate even more clearly how we are no longer tied to evolutionary/biological pressure from our past.

So will the transerence, in the next couple of decades, of human intelligence/ awareness, from its dependence on a purely human organic body, into a range of forms. But, even if you cant see it, that process began when humans first develoed a self aware intelligence and the ability first to dream, and then to do, such things.






As you said to me it doesnt matter what you think. This is something i know, and have experienced since early child hood. It doesnt require esoteric eastern practices, just an understanding of emotions, and how to control/ manipulate them. I am sure that you may be correct about the relevant electrical discharges, but that is precisely my point. It doesnt matter what our biological imperatives instruct us to do, our conscious minds can quite simply and effectively override this.

I appreciate that few humans are awareof, or bother to use this ability, and it has always made me different from most of those around me, but it is a demonstrable innate human ability ( i remember as a 10 year old being greeted with derision in class when i explained that i never felt fear.) A lot of people went to a lot of trouble to make me afraid.

I perhaps had not explained myself very well, but even then i understood that fear was simply a biochemical reaction which could be controlled. There is absolutely no need for fear to enter the conscious mind, although it can be a useful survival mechanism. Just as you can control fear in the subconscious dream world, you can control it in the real world.


You may be correct. As ive said, this is not an area of expertise of mine. What i do know from experience, and practice, is that i can easily fool a lie detector through creating false responses, so the feelings are not transmitted spontaneously that far through the central nervous system, but are capable of being controlled.




Actually i think yours is a typical reaction of a biologist or biophysicist who feels that disciplines such as philosophy or perhaps even psychology are only pseudo scientific. The article i quoted in my earlier post illustrates an ongoing debate in this area between these disciplines



I was refering to the physical responses programmed into us as a response at an emotional level, o not the physiological and neural networks which make us breath autonomously etc I thought this was clear from context but if not i apologise. Certainly, these are controlled within the brain, although it is actuallly here that intensive training and discipline can alter the autonomous levels of control, slowing breathing and heartrate for example but this is not what i was referring to.

Any feeling, no matter how it is generated, can be controlled and overidden once it is identified. Many people do not like to admit this, because they see it as non human. In my opinion it is what makes us human and an ability all humans should be educated to utilise to maximum potential.
Not only does your comment above include a pseudo scientific belief about the harm of bottling up emotions, it is again really irrelevant. Even if i could not manipulate the bodies physical reaction (and i believe that largely humans can) what do you define as the feeling of anger? Anger is an emotion, and of course humans can manipulate their emotions consciously. It is just that very few are aware of this, or the techniques involved.

As a counsellor one of the things we were taught was actually recognising what anger is ,and then how to manipulate it consciously. It is precisely this uniquely human ability which allows the formulation of ethics and morality.You cant create a law like, "love your fellow man" if you first cannot recognise the elements and components of love ,and secondly control your emotional state so that you are capable of creating that emotion on demand (or at the very least creating a believable simalcrum of it)
. What would be the point of having such ethical rules if we were incapable of recognising them, or consciously willing our bodies to obey them? Again these are things animals cannot do, and further indications of the fact that animals cannot create or live by ethical/moral standards.






The difference is this humans understand intellectually the consequences of their behaviour and still choose. Animals do not. I was just pointing out that neither our intelligence, our abilities, or our ethical moral sense, always stops us from acting in counterproductive ways)

You cant blame a lion for killing its young, or say it was doing something morally/ ethically wrong, but you can ,if a human kills its young depending on a variety of circumstances. The difference here is at the heart of what morality and ethics mean for humanity, and how they differentiate us from animals



Thats a value judgement albeit a reasonable one. If survival is your bottom line then bacteria may eventually be deemed more successful than humans. If you use any other criteria, starting with creativity, perhaps then humans come out on top. Its like those arguments about how, many animals are superior to humans in many areas. This is only true if you discount human technology. Even then humans are more succesful BECAUSE they adapt, rather than specialise. Thus humans do many things well while animals excell in a limited range determined by their evolutionary requirements.

When earth bacteria leaves our planet for the first tme, i suspect it will be thanks to humans that it does so (yes i am aware of the possibility of bacteria travelling independently through space perhaps attached to comets) Actually bacteria has already left our planet at the hands of humans, but i meant as a sort of bacterial colonisation of space.




And so i have.
As i indicated earlier, fear is an unknown to me


Nor I, but perhaps this will generate some debate, although most may find it too esoteric for their tastes (shouldnt make presumptions i suppose)

As I understand it the potential for any human is a result of a wide collection of factors. There are physical factors from parents and the enviorment into which we birth ourself. There are also energetic implants and imprints that are impressed on our DNA. The choices we make with the belief systems we expose ourself to, creates energietc intentions that reside in our subconscious.

When we recognize that we have been molded to fit a parttern of behavior, we can change the pattern to fit a more desireable behavior. The choice to follow the herd or become self empowered is always present. If we do not like the results of our choices, we can choose differently or we can accept our circumstances.

I do not think there is one pattern that applies to all. Each of the different factors have a way of influencing the conscious choices a person will/could make.

John

I agree John there are a plethora of factors and to claim any one of them holds a monopoly in creating ethics and morals at the exclusion of the others is a gross oversight at the whole picture. You are also correct that the same pattern is not universal. Someone with a television versus someone with only tribal elders to hear stories will certainly fall into different camps. Someone who is in the boy scouts will certainly have a slightly different pattern than someone who joined a gang when it comes to developing ethics and morals.

I think the ultimate question though is what are ethics and morals and where do they come from? If they come from life experiences and parents and tradition, then ethics and morals sound very subjective to me. But maybe there is a universal moral law, in which case morality is objective. Problem is, how do we show that morality is subjective or objective?

Well Mr. Walker, you are free to your belief. However reality disagrees with you.

Let’s get down to it I suppose. I strongly believe when people debate or discuss ideas and concepts that definitions should come first as that can quickly eliminate any discrepancies in the following discussion.

So first lets define, what is altruism? Oxford’s dictionary (a much more academically credible dictionary than some of the others people post) defines altruism as; Devotion to the welfare of others, regard for others, as a principle of action; opposed to egoism or selfishness (1). I would argue that this is an incomplete definition, at least how we term altruism in biology. I would say altruism is the act(s) of an organism (human or otherwise), which benefit others, in apparent detriment to itself (8).

With this definition, altruism would seem counter-productive to evolution. Let’s take an example from the work of Dawkins for a moment. There is a species of bird that is regularly attacked by ticks. The birds are able to remove all the ticks from their own bodies save for their heads. Birds groom each other by removing ticks for each other, thus the behavior has reciprocal benefits. But, the world is not a perfect place and cheaters arise in the system.

Allow me to take a quick moment to define cheaters as individuals who take advantage of the altruistic individuals. Con-men if you will.

Ok back to the example, the cheaters have more time available to hunt for food and other survival necessities, because they are not obligated to reciprocate the behavior (2). This then, according to Dawkins, would give the cheaters an evolutionary advantage. Eventually the predisposition to altruistic behavior would be removed. But, without the aid of the altruists, the cheater populations quickly go extinct because of tick parasitism.

So how then, does a system evolve in which cheaters constantly over throw altruists and both die out? The answer is surprisingly simple –Cheater/altruist equilibrium emerges in any social group (5). For instance, a con man may roam into a small town where the “folks all trust each other”. The con man can only make so many cons before the townsfolk get wise to his games and run him out of town, or worse. The con man is forced to stay on the move to search for new victims. Interestingly, human populations are great examples of this sort of equilibrium –As there are many amoral people who take advantage of the altruistic type folk, but many people still altruistic. Running through the math (and there is lots of supportive math as well as real world examples) we see that cooperation is advantageous, in an evolutionary sense (4). This means that selection favors individuals who act in cooperative manners, it also means these individual’s genes are favored, making a successful social population an agglomeration of genes predisposed to altruistic and cooperative behavior.

Opinion incoming! I think that this probably where you will see the next major adjustment to the modern synthesis. I think it is likely that multigenerational epigenetic inheritance plays a key role in the modified cooperative behaviors of organisms. For instance, genes that predispose and organism to cooperative social behavior would be passed on in an “environment/context” active state. The advantage to epigenetic inheritance of such traits becomes obvious when one looks at the constantly shifting equilibriums associated with behavior. It makes far more evolutionary sense to bequeath to your offspring, in this regard, genes that are “tuned to the current feel of things”, and by this I mean if your social group is in a state of collapse –It would be wise to return to your egoist ways, if your environment dictates the activation and expression of these dispositions then your offspring born in a state of egoism will be more successful. Conversely, if your social group seems to be doing well with cooperation, it would behoove your offspring to be born with genes already environmentally tailored to cooperation and altruism. /Opinion off!


Let’s talk for a moment of types of altruism that arise in nature and human culture. Reciprocal altruism is the basis for many social interactions in the natural world. The altruist places himself in harms way to benefit another unrelated individual, but in return expects (maybe not consciously) that such behaviors will be returned to them (8). For example; you happen to be in your back yard working and see your neighbor’s child drowning. What do you do? Jumping in could mean that you drown as well. But being the good person you are you jump in and save the child. By doing that though, you may have secured reciprocal behavior form other members of your social group. You don’t think about this consciously as you are predispositioned to act in this manner, but the important thing is that the act itself (in the long run of things) increases the likeliness of one’s survival (8). It should be noted however, that while individuals may have a disposition to such actions –They can and often do opt out of them (3).

We can use a game to describe the actions involved here. Let’s go back to the prisoner’s dilemma for a moment, if anyone needs refreshing on the rules I’ll repost but have skipped them here to save time. In this scenario the best solutions to the game are not blind cooperation, but a method termed “Tit for Tat”. Tit for Tat (TFT) works on a 4 simple premises:
1. Unless provoked, cooperate
2. If provoked retaliate
3. Be quick to forgive
4. Only play with players you have a good chance of playing with again
This strategy to the game and its payoff matrix (which if you take the time to write out, you’ll be astonished how successful it is) then can be used to explain the evolutionary basis for reciprocal altruism (7).

Reciprocal altruism however, can only get you so far. As there is a good chance, you take these risks and never receive a return on them from initial receiver. So what then would be the point in endangering one’s self for such small payoffs? Social personas. That is what we see with indirect reciprocity. Participating individuals are willing to help someone, even at no return to themselves, so long as the act is noticed in the group. This creates a reputation in the social group for the indirect reciprocity giver. It has been found individuals in social groups, both animal and human ones, are more likely to perform an altruistic act on an individual with a good reputation (6).

When the history of an individual is taken into consideration in a game, that is carried from round to round in games and relives anonymity: cooperation and altruistic behaviors increase vastly (9).


I am going to have to break here as its late and I need to get some sleep. I will continue with rewards and punishment later, which can explain large-scale social behaviors of both animals and humans. Hopefully I can go more into some math behind it like payoff matrices, but its hard to do matrix math on this forum. I just got a new project started at work, so I'll have less time for UM , but I will continue the first chance I get.

~Copasetic

1. Oxford English Dictionary. (1989).
2. Dawkins, R. in The selfish gene 224 (Oxford University Press, New York, 1976).
3. Hauert, C., De Monte, S., Hofbauer, J. & Sigmund, K. Volunteering as Red Queen mechanism for cooperation in public goods games. Science 296, 1129-1132 (2002).
4. Henrich, J. Social science. Cooperation, punishment, and the evolution of human institutions. Science 312, 60-61 (2006).
5. Koella, J. C. The spatial spread of altruism versus the evolutionary response of egoists. Proc. Biol. Sci. 267, 1979-1985 (2000).
6. Moll, J. et al. Human fronto-mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 103, 15623-15628 (2006).
7. Szabo, G. & Hauert, C. Evolutionary prisoner's dilemma games with voluntary participation. Phys. Rev. E. Stat. Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 66, 062903 (2002).
8. Trivers, R. L. The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology 46, 35-57 (1971).
9. Vogel, G. Behavioral evolution. The evolution of the golden rule. Science 303, 1128-1131 (2004).

Actually the birds are not being altruistic because they are only doing it for the ticks. True altruism is loving and looking out for the purposes of others without any form of want in return.

'LOVE is no love which asks for a return.'

--Mahatma Gandhi

What do you make of altruism that is completely indifferent to one's own life? Non-violence and love to the point dying joyfully for one's ideal? I am curious but how would Gandhi fit with evolution?

It is not proven reality regarding the theories on altruism. It is all based on an assumption that morality is a product of evolution. Not everyone has to subscribe to that and claiming it is reality when not everyone agrees with such sociobiological perspectives is putting a bit more stock into a singular concept not readily accepted and is also having a bit of false expectations that everyone else should agree when that is not likely going to be the case.

I do not doubt that perhaps morality did evolve but it has yet to be adequately explained or proven. Those who wish to assume that science can explain everything will simply accept the first theory suggested. Not everyone has to be the same especially if they require more proof.

As far as we know so far morality is more a social construct rather than a biological one. As stated I would not be surprised if it was a blend of both but altruism hardly is convincing. The role of mirror neurons, still not widely accepted, sound more plausible to me even though that is more of a neuroscientific theory. What I have heard and read so far about mirror neurons appears highly plausible.

The few studies we have of children not being socialized speaks volumes regarding their sense of morality. Either way my understanding leans heavily towards socialization and less towards biological influences until more conclusive evidence appears.

*Shrugs*

Biological altruism is a scientific theory, there is no need to prove it and theres over a half century of support for it. If you wish to *not believe* in it then thats ok, but don't resort to attacks that creationists use on "only the theory" of evolution.



Not really, no. Biological altruism is a predisposition to altruistic and moral/ethical behavior. Its fine tuned by the environment in which one is raised or maintained in. That is why I brought up epigenetics because I believe that likely plays a major role in our social skills.

The environment controls tendencies towards social or asocial behaviors. Feral children are a great example of this. In the wild and on their own they can be considered egoists and they lack a human social structure around them. In this case we would see the "social" genes controlled by environment turned to off. However, the children have the ability to be reintegrated into social constructs. Which in my opinion suggests that predisposition "switch" is capable of being switched on.

Maybe in the near future if I can get time, I'll write up a topic on epigenetics and the role it can/could play in social behaviors. Because I think as we progress into this century you will see that epigenetics explains a lot of complex behaviors.

Actually it is more like over a century of support. Regardless do not believe that if someone does not subscribe to such a view it is based on denialism or that they are attacking it with a 'creationist' mindset. It has nothing to do about 'proving it' either, the last thing I would want you to do is attempt to 'prove it' through a forum, but it has everything to do with not enough compelling evidence. Also I have no emotional stake in the outcome of biological altruism being a fact. It will not destroy any of my beliefs just allow me to see the world and ourselves in a better perspective. So your commentary regarding those issues are definitely off the mark.

If you find the time to explain epigenetics I am sure it would be an eye opener since I have not read much into it and delving into the cellular level of our being can be quite fascinating. It puts me in the mindset of when I saw Parasite Eve the J-Horror flick. You should try and find time to watch it and tell us how much of its concepts are fiction and how much are fact. The wiki pretty much states it is not based in reality but knowing if any parts are would be great insight into that movie...a very good horror movie and well it is not good to mix fact with fiction.

I will not look into epigenetics myself for now but wait until after you do post but even if not I will eventually do so. Just want to be able to approach your post with a blank slate rather than having whatever information your present already be old hat by time you do. So hope you do soon it would be much appreciated.

Actually thats not necessarily so. What we can do is measure the amount of caloric intake for the birds and plot that against their metabolic demands. What we see when we do this, is the birds are not/do not need to utilize ticks to supplement their food intake.

So why then do the birds do it?

Because parasites cause a great many problems and diseases, their removal is important to maintaining ones fitness. By removing the ticks from other unrelated birds, they can expect behavior returned. That is what is termed "reciprocal altruism".



Human behaviors are sometimes hard to define or understand. That is what I want to go into with the post on punishments and cooperation as that aspect of altruistic motives largely plays on that aspect of human behavior.

Remember though, we are talking about evolution. And we know, for certain, in social groups cooperating animals and altruistic animals have a higher fitness than those that do not. So in the long run, those genomes with a disposition to these behaviors are going to be favored.

So that means; while we can make up conscious reasons why we make these altruistic acts, like love for man, that we are hardwired in such a way that makes many of us predisposed to following through with these behaviors.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing though, as it has obviously worked well for our species. It also works well for many other animal species which are social and social groups of mixed kinship.

And if you think about it, it is one of the few things in evolution that seem common sense (at least to me). I like to say the "two heads are better than one mentality". If you and I, all but strangers, were dropped off in some remote location in the outback --It would be to our advantage to cooperate, as that would increase our chances of surviving. So this quick and flexible social adaptability and the genotypes that are best at it, would be selected for by natural selection. As I said somewhere else in this topic, we can actually test this. And animals in social groups who display greater degrees of altruistic behaviors tend to have much higher fitnesses (this only works for social animals mind you).

Following this train of thought then, it would behoove our societies to be reward/punishment constructs in which the more moral/ethical individuals are rewarded. Whether that be with family group affection, community recognition etc.

If playing by the "golden rule" means increasing ones fitness then it would also behoove us to play by the rule. But in making the conscious choice of doing so we could think of the behavior as selfish?? Which would impose quite a little paradox . I'll touch more on it next chance I get to make another in depth post.

Like I said, I will as soon as I get time. We just moved into the next stage of our project here at work that is literally going to revolutionize biology and microbiology, as we have been carrying out bench identifications in much the same way as done in Pastures day. With the advent of the field of optical physics and a better understanding of quantum interactions carried out by photons we can use that to identify in --extremely rapid mannerisms-- organisms. Which I am sure you can fathom the advantages of that, but that is all I can say -Stupid non-disclosure agreements . I am really hoping our project lead, who came up with the idea after his son's premature birth and its complications wins a Nobel for it.

Therefore it is only done (though not consciously) to maintain fitness and so that it is returned? That isnt truly moral but just an evolutionary function. True altruism is selfless and therefore done because it is morally good.




But not favoured because they are good but favoured because there is a gain. This isnt true altruism.



This is all good for personal gain and survival. But morals are done by a true selfless person because it is moral. If it is done for any reason other than because it is a good thing then it isnt morality. I am not saying that what you say cant be an added bonus or positive effect of morality however from a truly moral perspective morals are not done for gain but because it is morally good.



No it wouldnt. Because people wouldnt be good out of goodness but good for the sake of reward.



The golden rule is a moral base line and not the highest mode of morality. It happens naturally with that which is of the highest morality which is always doing good with no thought of gain.

I really appreciate that you have had ago in fitting morality in an evolutionary way, but you still dont show how true morality is of help to evolution since those who practice it to the highest often can take up a vow of celebacy or be indifferent to survival or both combined.

Start at the beginning... Morality doesn't exist in nature. So, if morality doesn't exist in nature, how can it exist in human nature? It's learned, not innate.
And when we go against our nature aberrance is usually the end result...

Thanks for answering me graylady I sort of agree with your answer.

Id just about given up on this thread becuase i didntthink anyone was reading it. my apologies. Some interesting points since i last looked. Copasetic all i can say is i told you so.
Its all about definitions.

Im an English teacher among many things, and the Oxford dictionary is fine by me. You will note that it coincides precisely with my contention that altruism is defined by intent,
To reach any other conclusion you have to do what you have done, and change the definition. This is not your "fault" in that, as a biologist, you are just following what biologists (particularly evolutionary biologists) have been doing for about 40 years There is, and has been, great debate about this, and while biogists tend to claim they have wonthe battle many others dispute this claim.

Most of the rest of your interesting exposition only works through you specifically attributing human concepts and attributes to animal population, .or through attributing human motivations to purely biological imperatives. Just because humans have the intellectual capacity to think of and create such attiributions does not make them so or even likely to be so.

What it does do, is reinforce cultural /species stereotypes (when that dolphin rescued the drowning sailor it was both intelligent enough to know what it was doing and capable of formulating an altruistic intent then acting on it) (When that dog stayed by its master in the snow and kept him alive through body heat, it was acting with intent from motivations such as love or care or even compasion.)

There just isnt the evidence that animals can do this. The observed rare exceptions could be attributed to anything, but are most likely variations on "imprinted" animal behaviours.(most dog interactions with humans actually mimic or are adapted versions of normal pack behaviour) Any expert on dogs and small children will explain why this is significant.

This remains impossible to one who does not accept your expanded/changed definitiion of altruism, and similar words. Altruism is not an act, it is an intent Anything else is mere biological imperative. Yes evolution favours cooperation; or more precisely, cooperative endeavours as with ants, promotes individual and species survival.
This does not make them moral or ethical, and does not mean that human behaviour is driven by ,or even ttruly based on/informed by the same biological imperative.

That may have been so until we developed a certain level of sentience, but then awareness of different possibilities, and the ability to choose from those possibilities with; imagination ,creativity, logic and emotion trumped those biological and genetic imperatives.

Even if the ability is not always utilised ,i ts mere existence, and the possibilities it opens up, differentiates; us, our ethics, and our morality, from anything else found in the animal kingdom



Read this through . It says biological altruism is an idea scientists came up with to ........... Because its a theory, there's no need tp prove it. A lot of scientists(particularly evolutionary biologists) reckon its worth further study and examination.

When its put like that, of course no one is obliged to believe it.

The theory of evolution uses a lot more observable/ provable data. It makes intrinsic sense through observation of that data and it has a long established scientific validity. Personallly using a scientific framework, i would not argue with it.

But evolutionary biology (at least as you presemt it,) and i really havent found other experts in the field(in the reading you provided) making the claims you are making) is not reallly even connected to that form of evolution, and cant claim validity through association. Iit is starting with unprovable assumptions and defining its own parameters to better prove its point.It makes obervations which are absolutely correct but then attaches meaning/purpose to those observations without the slightest ability to prove a connection (according to you at least)
Something like this

An ant acts with behaviour which a human would define as altriustic

Let us say that any behaviour which benfits others perhaps to the detriment of the individual is altruistic

Humans act like ants sometimes.

Oh, they must act that way for the same environmentally evolved reasons that ants do.

DING WRONG ANSWER
Humans act as they do because they choose to do so (not always admittedly but their capability to act this way is recognised )

Ants fo not have the same capacity of choice.
Therefore it is highly likely that the reasons ants act in a cooperative endeavour, and many of the reasons humans do, is completely unrelated.

Humans evince moral patterns. Animals do not. Humany codify, evaluate, categorise and rank different ethical and moral beliefs and behaviours. Animals do not. It is again highly likely that the innate capacity to do so actually changes the nature of human morality and ethics.

This again makes it something completely different to, and many orders of magnitude more complex than, any ethical/moral evolved responses of other animals.
I dont have the time to deconstruct your whole argument, but lets just take this bit


Your argument falls apart for many reasons Some humans simply do what they feel is right because they feel its right, Many people, like us, do whats right completely independently of whether we are observed or not., or whether we see someone as more deserving. Some do what they believe is right because of an intellectual understanding of where the consequences of right behaviour and wrong behaviour will lead, not only them, but those around them and even the wider society they are a part of. Sometimes you just do things because they are right. Secondly a lot of the arguments you use, again, can only relate to humans because of the terminology you use.

Im not sure how you determine good reputation, but while an animal might hand out favours on the basis of good reputation, Humans might well decide to put in place a fair or an arbitrary method of distribution. They might even decide that a person with a good reputation gets enough rewards and thus deliberately give to the poor, the undeserving or the most needy. Rather than support the strong they may support the weak and non productive, something a bilogically based ethical system would not do because it would be counter evolutionary. Again humans are not captive to the biological sdeterminism of other animals

No it doesn't, you still haven't picked up the basic idea that we are talking about here.



There is no reason one needs to accept or not my "expanded" definition. That is the definition of biological altruism and that is the definition used by most philosophers as well. We're not attributing any human characteristics to animals. If thats what you got then I explained it poorly or you failed to understand.




Ok, your still missing this. Let me try and rephrase it in a way that may make more sense to you.

If evolution favors cooperative genomes in social groups, then those organisms who will be most successful at passing on their genomes will be predisposed to cooperative/altruistic behavior. If this happens for millions of years (selection of the most cooperative genomes) then what do you think extant populations will be like?

Ok, maybe that isn't going to help you. I'm trying to think of a way to explain it too you without using math.

Let's make up an example (my apologies for the bad art, I dont have much time)

Let's say we have some populations of animals represented by the dots below. For our population the color is representative of average genomes in the population, that is to say the combination of an individuals alleles. For our population the more "red" a genome is the greater the disposition the organism has to liking the color blue.



In the begging, there was a considerable portion of the populations which lacked the predisposition. But as time went on, evolution favored those organisms who had the greatest disposition to liking blue.

Over time one can see the evolutionary trend in representative genomes of the extant population. Eventually you get something like our last population there which is very red and composed of individuals who "like blue".

There are a few things you should understand with genetic dispositions. Namely that they are not certainties, only tendencies towards behaviors.

So if we were able to interview our extant population and ask them why they like the color blue, they could give us all sorts of creative reasons. Because liking the color blue is a gift from their god, because liking the color blue is part of loving each other, because liking the color blue is an act of moral upstanding, etc etc etc.

The reality is, they like the color blue because their extant population is the culmination of millions of years of selection favoring genomes who like the color blue.





Huh?





Look up some of my references there is no less observable data being used here. Not to mention that evolutionary game theory/psychology/biological altruism/population dynamics etc are part of evolution. That is a statement made there by one who is ignorant of the field.




Firstly, you have not looked very hard then. Just what the hell do you think population evolutionary biologists or evolutionary game theorists study? And there are no "forms" of evolution. Read up Mr. Walker, you keep claiming to be well read, but then blunder into such errors.




You simply have no idea what you are talking about, sorry I don't know how else to put it.




Again, just who the hell is saying this? There are many types and reasons for altruistic behavior. Please learn what you are talking about.




This is like arguing with a student who is failing your class, but claims an understanding of the material and wants you to pass them.




You haven't deconstructed anything....




You've put so many things wrong here I don't know where to start. Nor do I have the time now.




To the boldface:

That is incorrect, now you are just making up your own ideas on what would be counterproductive to evolution OR you don't understand evolution in the capacity you claim.

Edit: It sounds to me you are working on oversimplification of Spencer's "Survival of the fittest" understanding of evolution, Mr. Walker. If that is the case then you don't understand evolution and I am not sure what we can hope to accomplishing in conversing.

Why is it, Mr. Walker, do you think multicellularity or social groups evolved in the first place???

I understand the evolutionary theory youre talking about. You cant apply what is biologically correct evolutionary theory to intelligence and its effect on people. (well you can but its probably pointless if you really want reliable data) It doesn't matter what game theories you apply, or what evolutionary principles you apply, the existence of self aware inteligence negates them.

You are obviously intelligent and you are obviously an expert in your field, but what you are really saying is this.

Animals sometimes act on biologically determined principles which resemble what the oxford dictionary(and all humans up to some 50 years or so ago ). define in humans as altruism.
You (ev biol) then arbitrarily, and unilateraly, declare that any animal behaviour which mimics/resembles human altruism is altruistic.

I suspect that many other purely human attributes have also been redefined in this way.

You then posit that because non intelligent animals act "altruistically" through evolutionary forces, the same acts in humans are attributable to the same forces. This sounds logical enough but it totally ignores the significant fact that humans have a level of sentient awareness that no other animals possess, so that a direct comparison is dubious at best.
I dont fully understand why, but i suspect it involves disciplinary proprietaryship and the need to apply some scientific basis to human altruism in the mistaken belief that human sentience cant simply develop it as it develops, creativity, spirituality/religion and all the other intergral parts of humanity which differentiate us from animals.

The type of ethics and morality which humans possess is like creativity or logic or spirituality. It only comes through intelligence. And while animals may have enough intelligence to work out how to get food from a puzzle or maze through trial and error, they can't ;paint write a poem ,imagine or conceptualise emotions, They certainly thus, cannot possess ethics or morality

Ill make a little bet with you if we are both around to see it.

In about 20 years time we will have both organically modelled and quantum computers up and running. Once they develop sentient self awareness, they will also develop their own ethics and moral codes. Given that they have absolutely no biological heritage (and as long as their sentience is allowed to evolve rather than be programmed by humans, )we will have absolute proof one way or another.
I have absolutely no religious interest in this whatsoever.
My bet is that they will develop ethics and morality via their intelligence alone, It may well include very different values to our own, but values, ethics and morality will develop. Of course if im wrong, then humanity will be in so much trouble, neither of our opinions wil really matter.


Such ais will possess "souls" as humans do. They will paint, they will write poetry, they will have the capacity to act altruistically or selfishly, and they will never, ever, have sat around picking nits from each other.


They will come to an understanding of good and evil and they will have the capacity to choose between them (or less value laden terms if you prefer) Heck they will most probably develop their own religious beliefs.

When they do, i will be on the frontlines, in my wheel chair, fighting to give them full human rights, because humanity is not defined by our biology but by our intelligence and self awareness.
Human memories and intellectual capacities will be transferred full blown to cloned bodies within a couple of life times. (This does not entirely negate your biological basis for morals land ethics, but what about (as is happening in experimental form now) if those memories and beliefs are completely artificial constructs and are implanted into either organic or ai brains. Wont that provide a disconnection between any biological evolution and the evolution of ethics and morality by the intelligence?

A dolphin tried to save a distressed fisherman last Monday after his boat sank in heavy weather, fellow fisherman Roberto Caratao told reporters in Cadiz City. Caratao saw an adult-sized dolphin pushing and trying to carry Joseph Cesduyro, a 34-year-old fisherman from Cebu and a crewmember of the F/B Nicole Louise 2, and the dolphin were still breathing when they reached the shore on Burias Island. But both died a few minutes later and were buried on the island, Caratao said.

June 23, 2008 Monday Dolphin died while saving a human . link here

Maybe dolphins evolutionary speaking need man to survive in great numbers so that we can hunt more of them???

I actually fully agree with evolution as a process of life. However I believe there is a metaphysics involved and little surprising stories like this shows there is more to life than death and survival.

A person is self-aware, a population is not (in the sense you are using self-awareness).

Mr Walker.
I continue to admire to for your humble being.... To me this says ALOT about Ethical and Moral determing then the ego can exhibit of a self ...... Your not attaching the name to the OP says alot for your character .... Its easy to see where ego stands on the scale of balance..... Your prioritys are in the right place!

I applaud you sir

Off the OP I know, but.... God bless their little souls Sometimes animals have more heart then unmoral humans!

mw one of the 9 intellgences is 'self awareness' and the 'ability to adapt.....' the ability to adapt is biological.....our thinking apparatus is a tool in many ways it has caused more harm then good....

also bieng a tool it is only as good as the one using it.....


why place limitations on your understanding trying to make religion right???? give yourself a little breathing room is what i'd say....

you can have e evolution and religon biology and g?d etc etc....

I understand this. Im just not sure what relevance it has to my pov. The topic started with ethics and morality which basically copasetic said animals have because they are biologicaly/environmentally determined and evolved characteristics. My argument is that concepts like altruism cannt be applied to non sentient creatures..Thus, we as individuals, can be altruistic; a non sentient being may appear altruistic to us but cannot be so.
Im not arguing over behaviour. Im well aware evolution has made many animals with evolved responses to environments which work in what we would define as an altruistic manner. Ants do this. So do chimps. So do humans. My point was that humans have a different layer of behaviour because of their sentience. The altruism of chimps more approximates that of ants, but with growing touches of a human like awareness as they approach a level of sentience capaple of coming up with concepts like love or care.

You cannot make predictive assuptions about human behaviour if you assume they respond only on an evolved predetermined patteren of behaviour. Humans are capable of chaotic random behaviour, and also behaviour which is purely a response to theit intellectual capabilities, and you cannnpt predict how any one human will react. You might model mega scale human respons (shades of asimovs foundation trilogy and hari sheldon) but in fact humanity as a population is self aware in a way. It is like a hive mind in the nature of its communication and its awareness of other elements of its intelligence.

Because you are arguing that our self-awareness somehow invalidates game theory and the premise that our behaviour en masse is predictable once the variables affecting behavioural response are known. As my post tries to imply, this may be true (your invalidation argument) on the individual level, but it is not when looking at large groups (look up mob or herd behaviour for the predecessor to modern human behavioural modelling tools such as game theory employs.)

Altruism is a behaviour such as any other and is subject to the same influences at the individual and group levels. This concept [altruism] is applicable to any collective of organisms displaying co-operative behaviour. No one is saying these theories predict how 'one human will react' and my post illustrated that by highlighting the difference between individual self-awareness and group mentality. Theories such as herd behaviour, game theory, chaos theory etc are all about action and reaction at the larger scale.

Then i guess like cpoasetic we are arguing discussing different things/definitions. It seems evolutionary biologists have a totally different def. for altruism that the dictionary def.. which only exists via intent.

ie without consccious intent you cant have altruistic behaviour. Anyone can call behaviour which brings social benefits to more than the originator altruistiv behaviour, but it cant be altruisict behaviour unless the animal initiating the behavioir is sentient enough to be aware of altruism as a concept, and also freed enough from biological/ environmental imperatives to make an intellectual choice in how it acts.
This is the difference between sentient species at a certain level, and all other species. Im sure that one day other animals on earth will reach this point, but ai's will probably reach it first.
I dont really mind how ev biol redefine things, but if they are trying to say that non sentient animals act with altruistic INTENT, or that sentient animals acts of altruism are simple evolved responses to environmental and genetic determinism, then they are wrong. I still can't get if that is what copasetic really believes, but from my readings, that is not what even the most ardent ev biologists are actually saying.
They are simply saying that in the evolution of both man, and other species, we are programmed to certain social responses which at first appear to go against the basic tenets of evolution, but in recent years have been seen to benefit both individual and species survival through a series of processes which can be measured and game theoried. I know and accept that.

However, since the development of a certain level of sentient self awareness in humans, we have developed a different layer of ethics and morality which simply does not exist in non sentient species. I am actually amazed that there is any real argument possible with this concept and have difficulty seeing where it is coming from.

Where do you get the idea that the ability to adapt is biological. Not saying your'e wrong until i understand where you are coming from, but while other animals display minor abilities to adapt and learn from situations, humans ability to do so, is many orders of magnitude grater. There is extremely little bioogical difference between say chimps and humans, so what is the thing which differentiates us? Not our biology, but our sentient self awareness.

While our sentient self awareness is a product of our biology, once it reaches a certain level it is self sustaining and has the ability to develop, independent of biological constraints. We know this because we are reaching the point where can build ais which will have a greater intelligence and processing power than humans by an order of many millions, and these have no organic history or association.

They will be self learning, adaptive and have the potential to be creative and even ethical.

Lastly, where did you get any idea of a religious component to this argument. This has nothing to do with any religious belief as far as i can see. I held this view from the age of four or five from the many science and science fiction magazines i read. I held it through 20 years of athiesm and secular humanism.
I dont even understand how you can conclude that it has a religious or spiritual component to it (unless, as others have, you see me as one of those"christians" who believe god gave man a soul but not animals and that i think this creates some god- given superiority over animals)
. If we are "superior" it is through a coincidence of evolution which made us sentient before other species on earth. Lucky us:)

As you said , this has created as many problems as it has benefits, but through intelligence, at least we have the potential to make a difference.