On Karma, Probabilities and The Game. - Page 7 - Science, Math and Philosophy Forum

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Science, Math, and Philosophy

On Karma, Probabilities and The Game.

Closed Subscribe

...

Page 7 of 15

First

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Last

Page 7 of 15

First

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Last

10-19-2015 , 05:22 AM

#151

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,441

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

Doubtful. You're probably over-valuing something contingent.

Reality being the contingency, of course. I'd say "correctly valuing," but that is quibbling.

10-19-2015 , 09:20 AM

#152

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 48,886

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

Reality being the contingency, of course. I'd say "correctly valuing," but that is quibbling.

Results oriented is the usual expression.

Although I suspect a different mistake may be going on. Even if caring has been selected for because of the selfish interests of our genes it doesn't mean that caring will turn out to be in the best interests of the species or even good for the species. Once selected for it takes on a life of its own.

10-19-2015 , 01:17 PM

#153

Zeno

Le Misanthrope

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 22,617

Dawkin's mixes justice with politics. Plato made the same fundamental mistake. The idiot Irish mix justice with politics with religion with drink. Apparently that resolves some of the cognitive dissonance. James Joyce put this into words at the end of one of his supposed great novels. Complete gibberish. Which is what being Irish is all about in a nutshell.

10-19-2015 , 07:16 PM

#154

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,441

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

His entire bit was on what level selection takes place. He was simply wrong.

Err, rather, he claimed that a deck of cards is made up of aces (a fine and noble claim). Then to back this up, he dug through the deck looking for the aces and upon finding four, he was pleased. This is exactly why we don't let theoreticians touch the research or engineering.

10-19-2015 , 07:32 PM

#155

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 48,886

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

His entire bit was on what level selection takes place. He was simply wrong.

I think you misunderstand it.

Quote:

A good deal of objection to The Selfish Gene stemmed from its failure to be always clear about "selection" and "replication". As pointed out in the subsection Units of selection, Dawkins says the gene is the fundamental unit of selection, and then points out that selection doesn't act directly upon the gene, but upon 'vehicles' or 'extended phenotypes'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Se...hoice_of_words

10-19-2015 , 07:35 PM

#156

VeeDDzz`

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,384

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

His entire bit was on what level selection takes place. He was simply wrong.

I'm not sure why selection wouldn't take place at every level: it just depends what you want to explain with it. If its species diversity that you're interested in, then sexual selection and natural selection may be more appropriate. However,if its questions such as - why is it that we're far more likely to kill those whose DNA is different to ours (whether in people or other species)? - then Dawkins' narrative excels. If that is indeed what you're talking about.

10-19-2015 , 07:50 PM

#157

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,441

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

I think you misunderstand it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Se...hoice_of_words

Nah. My objection is a bit further down the page. He was proven to be wrong.

10-19-2015 , 07:53 PM

#158

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,441

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`

At that level, his newer narrative is exactly the same narrative as the old narrative.

10-19-2015 , 08:03 PM

#159

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 48,886

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

Nah. My objection is a bit further down the page. He was proven to be wrong.

You will have to be more specific but I don't think he has ever claimed to be perfect (very close but not quite).

10-19-2015 , 08:07 PM

#160

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,441

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

You will have to be more specific but I don't think he has ever claimed to be perfect (very close but not quite).

You might be in the place I was when I thought that D. Adams created philosophy.

10-19-2015 , 08:10 PM

#161

VeeDDzz`

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,384

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

At that level, his newer narrative is exactly the same narrative as the old narrative.

I'm not sure about this.

Surviving in tribes, as humans have required throughout our evolution, would predict that the choice of whether you kill someone of your own blood (e.g., family member) or someone who is simply of your tribe, would be equally favourable. Yet, in reality, we would almost always be less likely to kill someone of our own blood.

10-19-2015 , 08:15 PM

#162

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 48,886

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

You might be in the place I was when I thought that D. Adams created philosophy.

Today might see The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief but I wouldn't bet on it.

10-19-2015 , 08:27 PM

#163

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,441

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`

That is precisely where he went wrong. The social animal revolution trumps genes anthroporphic genes.

I'll take care of the family dog over you. (No offense intended, of course - you are in the top 15% of Internet dudes I'd totally save if it weren't a bother)

10-19-2015 , 08:35 PM

#164

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 48,886

'Social animal' is part of the same story.

10-19-2015 , 08:49 PM

#165

VeeDDzz`

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,384

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

Sure.

Or... as mentioned by Chezlaw, 'the social animal' is only as such, due to selfish gene influences. For example, negotiating whether to kill the family dog, because he is too loud at night, or whether to kill the tribe idiot because he's doing weird things with the dog, would likely necessitate some sort of social interaction.

Its perhaps more a matter of preference, when both narratives arrive at the same conclusions.

I'm just hesitant to quickly dismiss the work of someone whose thought about these issues far longer than we have.

10-19-2015 , 09:02 PM

#166

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 48,886

I think possibly BTM is pointing out that some morality is cooperation without caring about the other party.

This is of course true but not in contradiction to the why we care about others issue.

10-19-2015 , 10:07 PM

#167

PairTheBoard

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 10,144

If selfish Gene knows what's good for him he will learn to work well with others.

PairTheBoard

10-20-2015 , 06:43 AM

#168

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,441

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

I think possibly BTM is pointing out that some morality is cooperation without caring about the other party.

This is of course true but not in contradiction to the why we care about others issue.

It is multi-level selection. What Dawkins proposed is that selection ONLY takes place at the level of genes (which are oddly anthropomorphic).

10-20-2015 , 08:33 AM

#169

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 48,886

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

It is multi-level selection. What Dawkins proposed is that selection ONLY takes place at the level of genes (which are oddly anthropomorphic).

Dawkin's recognizes selection at every level. He explicitly talks of it being at levels other than genes.

Getting back to the original point. We are moral creatures because we have evolved to care about others. That distinguishes us from other hypothetical intelligent creatures who will only be moral because cooperation is beneficial to all parties. In both cases it's purely selfish but in the case of moral creatures our self interest is in part about the interests of others.

10-20-2015 , 08:50 AM

#170

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,441

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

Dawkin's recognizes selection at every level. He explicitly talks of it being at levels other than genes.

He talks of vehicles, which is entirely different.

Quote:

Getting back to the original point. We are moral creatures because we have evolved to care about others. That distinguishes us from other hypothetical intelligent creatures who will only be moral because cooperation is beneficial to all parties. In both cases it's purely selfish but in the case of moral creatures our self interest is in part about the interests of others.

There is only one benefit that counts in evolution. Having a pleasant life isn't it.

10-20-2015 , 09:13 AM

#171

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 48,886

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

There is only one benefit that counts in evolution. Having a pleasant life isn't it.

The desire for a pleasant life has evolved in the same way the desire for sex has. if it turns out to be unfit then the species will do badly. That's evolution.

10-20-2015 , 09:39 AM

#172

Kristofero

banned

Join Date: Sep 2015 Posts: 1,317

Nature and nurture.

Quote:

Having a pleasant life isn't it.

No. Mama wolves and baby cubs and killing play. Comfort rather than bliss, both derivatives of the latter applying.

Consider what a concept like psychokinetic pain would undertake and you're well there.

10-20-2015 , 10:40 AM

#173

BrianTheMick2

Long way to go and a short time to get there.

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 19,441

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

The desire for a pleasant life has evolved in the same way the desire for sex has. if it turns out to be unfit then the species will do badly. That's evolution.

The interesting part of my post was the other bit.

10-20-2015 , 10:53 AM

#174

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 48,886

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

The interesting part of my post was the other bit.

That's stretching it a bit

The vehicles have characteristics like wanting to eat, have sex, have a pleasant life, pretending to like olives, not die etc etc. These vehicles do not generally give a monkies about the genes.

The fact evolution happens at many levels doesn't make any difference to the fact that if the vehicles end up not doing a good job at persisting the genes through time then the species will be unfit.