Lost or Liberated?

Playboy

I saw that Zillah mentioned Evolutionary Psychology earlier in the thread and Robindch mentioned it in another thread. I don't know if ye guys are aware of the controversy that surrounds evolutionary psychology but it isnt exactly considered the most scientific of fields. Actually it is considered pseudo-science by many Psychologists and Darwinian's alike. It's probably not the best discipline to influence your worldview if it has.

Interesting article called the Seven Sins of Evolutionary Psychology if anyone wants to read.

Son Goku

robindch wrote:

> Even though evolution honed the response, your brain still chooses to
> do things for its own internal reasons rather than you having an
> evolutionary instinct to do so.

Yes, but most EP/HBE people will point out that your own "internal reasons" are frequently honed by evolutionary instinct, so you're in a catch-22 situation here. And while we might think that sentimental softiness -- warm + cuddly and all as it is -- is at the base of it all, Hamilton's Rule unfortunately suggests that there's a simple mathematical reason why we should feel this way:

http://www.brembs.net/hamilton/
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/bioanth/ch8/chap8.htm

Not that I think it's a very good idea to bring this up with one's brothers, sisters, partners, parents and kids though

I know what you mean, I'm just making the point that there isn't evolutionary protocols running in our brains. Sometimes in Evolutionary Psychology or even vanilla evolution, so as to avoid making overtly lengthy sentences, it's standard to say that you do something because it was good for your genes or because your genes are trying to survive.
Even I did it by saying evolution "honed" something, we make it sound too intelligent. Your phrase of differential reproductive success is the best way of describing it.

In other words the reason is largely a mathematical one from the self-ordering nature of complex systems.

Since we are in a society of the form "Y" then brains of type "X" which often have thoughts of type "Z" will end up composing the majority, simply because of the structure of the society.

Being a "nice guy" is the result of evolution, but more because evolution produced a brain whose own internal reasoning will lead it to being nice than your genes constantly enforcing it through instinct.

To compress it all to one sentence:
Being nice isn't an instinct created by evolution, rather it's a whole mode of thinking which is naturally most suited to mammalian* life.

(Mainly mammalian)

Son Goku

Playboy wrote:

I saw that Zillah mentioned Evolutionary Psychology earlier in the thread and Robindch mentioned it in another thread. I don't know if ye guys are aware of the controversy that surrounds evolutionary psychology but it isnt exactly considered the most scientific of fields. Actually it is considered pseudo-science by many Psychologists and Darwinian's alike. It's probably not the best discipline to influence your worldview if it has.

Interesting article called the Seven Sins of Evolutionary Psychology if anyone wants to read.

I don't think it's pseudo-science, but I've never been that fond of it because it places the hand of evolution one step closer to your mind than evidence and standard evolutionary theory suggest.

Tar.Aldarion

The Atheist wrote:

Don't mind me.

not anZillah was the OP and doesn't seem to mind the discussion drifting of course.

Coolaboola.

Zillah wrote:

Thats just silly.

I explained that it is not, as they are not mutual.

The nature of sentience is primarily a matter for philosophy, and can only harm the current debate. For now I suggest we deal in pragmatic terms.

It is very important. If we are more than the sum of our parts or if the sum of our parts creates consciousness, then EP is not an absolute.

Instinct has a reasoning older than history. Its a decision made for you tens of thousands of years before you were born. If every human who sees a tiger running at them runs away, then the most humans possible will survive. Its absolutely logical.

Instinct acts just as you say, without reasoning, it may have logic behind it but it takes reason to overcome it. We have very dtrong aggressive instincts,speaking for men anyway, and it takes reasoning to overcome this instinct. This all falls under my third main argument with EP.

All those things fall under EP.

Some people disagree.

You misunderstand. I said it "still" exists on a smaller scale, as in, you don't have to look to Israel or Iran to see tribal clashing, you can look to your neighbours and family fueds.

Because people argue is not an argument for or against EP. If EP did not exist whatsoever in our lifes or just a bit we would still argue.

Son Goku wrote:

I don't think it's pseudo-science, but I've never been that found of it because it places the hand of evolution one step closer to your mind than evidence and standard evolutionary theory suggest.

I don't think it is all pseudo-science but parts of it certainly are, in my opinion.

Son Goku wrote:

Being a "nice guy" is the result of evolution, but more because evolution produced a brain whose own internal reasoning will lead it to being nice than your genes constantly enforcing it through instinct.

This is what I would believe, I think EP gives certain things too much 'intelligence'... as you said.

Son Goku wrote:

Even though evolution honed the response, your brain still chooses to do things for its own internal reasons rather than you having an evolutionary instinct to do so. The reason this kind of brain survived is that its choices were better than other brains' choices.

This is what I have as my third main fault earlier, probably the most important to me.


It fails to understand culture itself as a wholly natural phenomenon, as physical in its basis in neural structure as genetics is in its basis in DNA.
It therefore fails to appreciate that culture itself is susceptible to a general Darwinian process of natural selection (though different, obviously, in its mechanisms) -- and that, in adapting to environmental challenges and opportunities far more rapidly than biology, culture can not only come into conflict with biology but can be a source of biological selection pressure itself.And that failure in turn leads to an under-appreciation of the idea that the most important contribution of biological evolution to human environmental fitness has been to cede psychological and social ground to culture, precisely by reducing the role of instinct and other genetic factors on human behavior.

Son Goku

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

It fails to understand culture itself as a wholly natural phenomenon, as physical in its basis in neural structure as genetics is in its basis in DNA.
It therefore fails to appreciate that culture itself is susceptible to a general Darwinian process of natural selection (though different, obviously, in its mechanisms) -- and that, in adapting to environmental challenges and opportunities far more rapidly than biology, culture can not only come into conflict with biology but can be a source of biological selection pressure itself.And that failure in turn leads to an under-appreciation of the idea that the most important contribution of biological evolution to human environmental fitness has been to cede psychological and social ground to culture, precisely by reducing the role of instinct and other genetic factors on human behavior.

That's definitely true, I just didn't want to touch culture with a ten-foot pole. It's way too complicated.