Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 46 of 438 (504612)
03-31-2009 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by kuresu
03-31-2009 6:24 AM


Re: I Call BS, Plain and Simple
I'm only aware of stating that if anything we (the world) are becoming more aggressive.
So we're killing the same number of people, just doing it more often.
So who are the most efficient killers?
It seems to me that really, the frequency with which we kill is not a result of more aggression, but really just a result of the efficiency with which we can go places to kill people. Technology has no only made it easier to kill more people at once, it has also made it easier to move around the world and do it. If you had given anyone in the ancient world some cars, I'm sure they would've used them to conquer more people more often.
Basically, my point is that as a whole, I think we are neither more nor less aggressive, the way we do things has simply changed do to the delimiting nature of technology.

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by kuresu, posted 03-31-2009 6:24 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by onifre, posted 03-31-2009 5:02 PM Stagamancer has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 47 of 438 (504622)
03-31-2009 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Stagamancer
03-31-2009 2:19 PM


Re: I Call BS, Plain and Simple
Basically, my point is that as a whole, I think we are neither more nor less aggressive, the way we do things has simply changed do to the delimiting nature of technology.
Political powers continue as they have always done, force themselves on weaker nations.
As a whole our society is clearly a less aggressive society, at least at what is acceptable and not acceptable.
Example: If you see someone getting stoned in the middle of the street today, no matter what they did, even if they just killed someone, would you not intervene and tell the stoner - (no pun intended) - to call the proper authorities to handle the situation in a less aggressive but still just, manner?
I would wager that most of us would intervene - (given of course that we do not put ourselves in danger in the process).
Ask that same question 1000 years ago and what do you think would be the answer? - "stone the sinner!" - would it not?
Society as a whole demands a less aggressive living condition, that was my only point.
Governments, political forces, deranged megalomaniacs will always try to conquer as they have in the past. This however is not reflective of what the average citizen deems proper behaviour. In fact, we usual object to such military actions, however, the power to rally people behind a false cause is also the strength of the oppressor/governing body/political force. Just because we rally behind a cause to invade another country under false pretenses does not make us, the gullable citizen, aggressive/non-aggressive, we are simply being lied to a follow blindly.
We are stupid and easily convinced of bullshit, yes, but we are not naturaly aggressive - in general.
- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Stagamancer, posted 03-31-2009 2:19 PM Stagamancer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Taz, posted 03-31-2009 5:13 PM onifre has replied
 Message 52 by Stagamancer, posted 03-31-2009 7:48 PM onifre has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 48 of 438 (504624)
03-31-2009 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by anglagard
03-31-2009 4:32 AM


Re: I Call BS, Plain and Simple
anglagard writes:
You sure make it difficult to agree with when you intentionally misspell. But I realize from your previous posts, there is some difficulty in conveying when to be taken lightly and when to be taken seriously.
Why are you prejudice aganst peeple who cant spel?
All I was trying to say was Oni's got a point when he was saying that people in societies that are more prosperous tend to be less aggressive toward each other. Why? Because these people have a lot to lose. On the other hand, people who are in unstable societies don't put that much value on human life. There's nothing to lose!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by anglagard, posted 03-31-2009 4:32 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by dronestar, posted 04-01-2009 9:14 AM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 49 of 438 (504625)
03-31-2009 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by onifre
03-31-2009 5:02 PM


Re: I Call BS, Plain and Simple
onifre writes:
Example: If you see someone getting stoned in the middle of the street today, no matter what they did, even if they just killed someone, would you not intervene and tell the stoner - (no pun intended) - to call the proper authorities to handle the situation in a less aggressive but still just, manner?
I would wager that most of us would intervene - (given of course that we do not put ourselves in danger in the process).
Actually, have you ever heard of the bystander effect?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by onifre, posted 03-31-2009 5:02 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by onifre, posted 03-31-2009 6:02 PM Taz has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 50 of 438 (504627)
03-31-2009 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Taz
03-31-2009 5:13 PM


Re: I Call BS, Plain and Simple
Hi Taz,
Actually, have you ever heard of the bystander effect?
Yes, but that would require there be many people around. The greater the number the less people are likely to react.
My example was one-on-one.
quote:
When an emergency situation occurs, observers are more likely to take action if there are few or no other witnesses.
That is why in CPR class you are instructed to point to a specific person and say "You, call 911", because of the bystander effect.
-Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Taz, posted 03-31-2009 5:13 PM Taz has not replied

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


Message 51 of 438 (504630)
03-31-2009 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Cedre
03-31-2009 10:10 AM


Re: Defining Altruism
quote:
I have shown that these creatures are in fact selfish at heart.
How can they be selfish? If you define altruism as requiring concious choice, of a kind that is clearly restricted to humanity, how can lions and hyenas be considered guilty of the reverse?
quote:
You'll have to present me with counter examples wherein a hyena or a lion is observed giving away an entire carcass to a weaker or less significant member of the group out of compassion or love.
No. part of my position is that altruism can be found in the animal kingdom. I need only provide one example of this to demonstrate that it is correct. I have done this with both the rabbit and the hunting dog examples. You seem to accept that the hunting dogs are behaving altruistically. Is this correct? Are the hunting dogs being altruistic?
quote:
This {African hunting dogs} was not a part of the behaviors that I concluded is not altruistic if you read me carefully I made sure I didn't include this in my argument.
I am reading you carefully. Given that you referred to the argument for which I used the hunting dog example as "not a true one for the most part", you can see why I am somewhat confused as to what you mean.
Do the dogs behave altruistically or not?
quote:
But as for the rabbit scenerio, I wouldn't let it easily slight as an example of altruism. As altruism has to be a conscious choice by the doer, it is not something that should be automated by instinct, which is what the rabbit behavior seems like an instinct that all rabbits will respond by in times of danger. It's almost as if the rabbit has no control over its altruism this is better described an in born behavior.
Paulk is quite right. You cannot say that true altruism requires concious decision making and then ask how it evolved. If it purely a concious decision, it did not evolve directly; you should rather be asking the ability to make concious, instinct-defying decisions evolved, since morality would be an emergent effect of this ability.
I am trying to explain to you how other animals display altruistic behaviours akin to our own morality. No-one is saying that the altruism of a rabbit is identical to the altruism of a person. They are comparable though. Altruistic behaviour in animals provides us with a window to explore the evolution of our own morality. Drawing an arbitrary line and saying that anything below that line is not altruism is missing the point. True human altruism is a more complex form of animal altruism. There exists a clear continuum. That we can make more complex and conscious moral choices than a dog or rabbit is a function of our more advanced intelligence and its interaction with our ancient moral instincts.
Cedre writes:
Granny writes:
Is defence of the social group altruistic in your view?
Not in the slightest...
So A lion if he wants to proliferate has to stick to other lions. So you see protecting your pride isn't actually altruistic
So you are arguing that if any self-serving urge is present, an action cannot be considered altruistic?
quote:
Genuine morality is a choice because it is a choice we have moral people and immoral/amoral people existing at the same time, proving that our altruism isn't instinct based like is the case with the rabbits in your example.
Not true. Just because a behaviour can be consciously modified, does not mean that it is not instinctive. Instinct can be very difficult to overcome, but it is still possible to do so.
Instinct is the foundation stone of human morality. It is not the last word, but it is the starting point.
quote:
Remember God...
Allow me to stop you there. Forget God. This is a science thread and he doesn't belong here. You said you wanted to talk about evolution, not mythology.
quote:
I'll just take it that you didn't think ahead before making this grand pretentious claim.
Think whatever you like my dear.
quote:
Imagine a mother and her three children not babies, living on a farm, this mother isn't really in the spotlight perse and by taking care of her children will not really be rewarded for being good to her children she could just as well be an evil mom.
False. When the mother treats her children well, she is rewarded, whether anyone else knows of her actions or not. First there is the fact that the children may one day grow to thank her, a clear self-serving motive. Then there is the matter of conscience.
The mother will be rewarded for altruistic actions toward her offspring by an inner feeling of pleasure at having done the right thing. This inner reward is ever present. What's more, if she had treated her children badly, she would have been punished, again by an inner mechanism. her conscience. With the exception of psychopaths, all of us have this inner reward/punishment mechanism. You can't escape it. By this means we are rewarded or punished for our moral choices whether others know of them or not. Thus, any moral choice will, by necessity, contain an element of selfishness; we are after the feel-good reward that our conscience provides.
Is this a conscious decision? No. It is an instinct. It is innate and cannot easily be consciously overcome. This is a clear indication that, whilst it is in some ways more complex than in animals, human morality is still founded in instinct. In this, we are just like the rabbit, just like the hunting dog.
quote:
In normal human situations people don't usually get rewarded for tossing a dollar in someone's hat or basket
False again and for the same reason. The act of giving to the needy will cause a feeling of pleasure at one's actions, the internal reward that mentioned above. This is, again, a self-serving motivation for doing good. It is an admixture of altruism and selfishness, just as is every human moral choice.
quote:
And in fact when somebody that you've helped returns the favor we usually decline with the excuse that they need it more, thus denying our would have been reward, adding to our list of charitable acts.
And gain a double reward. We get to feel pride at our act of charity and then again at our generosity in refusing recompense.
Please understand, that I am not saying that this selfish motivation for altruism negates the goodness of the act or that this feeling of pride in one's actions is anything to be ashamed of. I simply think that it is an inevitable part of our psychological make-up and our instinctive sense of morality. It goes hand-in-hand with what SammyJean has been telling you about mirror neurons.
quote:
This may well be because humans have some goodness in them being made in God's...
Whoops, there's that name again. This is a science thread. We don't do God.
quote:
Mention this range {of altruistic behaviour in animals}.
Sure. I've already shown you an example of a clearly very instinct based variety of altruism in rabbits. Then I showed you a more ambiguous example in the pack unity of hunting dogs. Let's take a look at another example from a little higher up the evolutionary tree.
BBC News writes:
Infants as young as 18 months show altruistic behaviour, suggesting humans have a natural tendency to be helpful, German researchers have discovered.
In experiments reported in the journal Science, toddlers helped strangers complete tasks such as stacking books.
Young chimps did the same, providing the first direct evidence of altruism in non-human primates.
Chimps and infant humans show similarity in their moral behaviour, indeed chimps are often compared to human infants in terms of their intellectual abilities.
The pair went on to investigate more complicated tasks, such as retrieving an object from a box with a flap.
When the scientists accidentally dropped a spoon inside, and pretended they did not know about the flap, the children helped retrieve it. They only did this if they believed the spoon had not been dropped deliberately.
The tasks were repeated with three young chimpanzees that had been raised in captivity. The chimps did not help in more complex tasks such as the box experiment, but did assist the human looking after them in simple tasks such as reaching for a lost object.
"Children and chimpanzees are both willing to help, but they appear to differ in their ability to interpret the other's need for help in different situations," the two researchers write in Science.
Source here.
Both the children and the chimps displayed the same instinctive urge to help others. It doesn't matter what motivates this behaviour. The point is that humans and chimps show similarities in their moral behaviour. This is clear evidence that humanity is instinctively moral and that we share some of this moral instinct with chimps. it would have been present in our most recent common ancestor.
Note that the chimps did not show identical behaviour to the children; there are still big differences between our moral sensibilities and theirs, but there is a clear link. If you are really interested in learning about the evolutionary origins of morality, this is where you need to look (you did pick up a copy of The Selfish Gene, right?).
quote:
What about the explanation given by the bible certainly it shouldn't be ignored as a viable explanation, seeing that the bible on the whole has been successful at satisfying millions already with its answers on not just this issue but many more other issues.
I almost stopped at the word "Bible", but your following argument was so ridiculous, that it just has to be answered.
It doesn't matter how many people like the Bible. That doesn't make it true. It matters even less how satisfying you find it. You are making an especially poor argument from popularity and following it up with... what would you call it? Appeal to personal satisfaction?
Whatever. It's still ridiculous. Reality doesn't care how satisfying you find your Bible nor is it impressed with how many others feel the same way, just as it is not impressed with how many people are satisfied by the Quran.
quote:
Does the mention of Satan ring a bell? Knew it would.
It does indeed. It rings my Oh-crap-I'm-taking-to-someone-who-lives-in-the-twenty-first-century-and-yet-still-believes-in-bloody-Satan-bell. Get a grip.
Oh, and, this is a science thread. No Satan here please. This is a Satan-free-zone.
Mutate and Survive

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Cedre, posted 03-31-2009 10:10 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Cedre, posted 04-01-2009 4:08 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 52 of 438 (504631)
03-31-2009 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by onifre
03-31-2009 5:02 PM


Re: I Call BS, Plain and Simple
As a whole our society is clearly a less aggressive society, at least at what is acceptable and not acceptable.
But you cannot say that this is true for all civilizations. In fact your whole point is that this is only true of prosperous societies, but these are hardly the norm.
Just because we rally behind a cause to invade another country under false pretenses does not make us, the gullable citizen, aggressive/non-aggressive, we are simply being lied to a follow blindly.
But we only object to military action when we, either (a) don't really feel threatened, or (b) identify with the enemy. Whether you're rallying people with a false or true cause is not the issue, your still playing on people's desire to divide the world into "Us-es" and "Thems". So whether or not people are gullible, it doesn't matter, your still playing on their aggression to get them to agree to war.
Governments, political forces, deranged megalomaniacs will always try to conquer as they have in the past. This however is not reflective of what the average citizen deems proper behaviour.
But I doubt you'll find any different going back in history. On a day to day basis, most people treat their neighbors and kin well, and this is true for pretty much all social animals, so I can't see how it would've been different back in the day.
If you see someone getting stoned in the middle of the street today, no matter what they did, even if they just killed someone, would you not intervene and tell the stoner - (no pun intended) - to call the proper authorities to handle the situation in a less aggressive but still just, manner?
Most stonings in the past were simply the punishment dolled out after a judgement by a recognized authority. Just because people were allowed to take part in the punishments doesn't mean they were more aggressive. I'm sure you could find plenty of people in our society who would participate in capital punishment if given the chance.

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by onifre, posted 03-31-2009 5:02 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by onifre, posted 04-01-2009 9:21 AM Stagamancer has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 53 of 438 (504643)
04-01-2009 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Granny Magda
03-31-2009 7:37 PM


Re: Defining Altruism
You must be content thinking that you have come up with ‘case-closed’ evidence. Well watch as I turn that very evidence back in your face. Let me start by saying that evidence is a like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say anything you‘d like it to say. In the wording of Rev. Dr Francis H. Wade. Now one thing I hate is having to repeat myself after I have been so crystal clear the first time, but let me do it anyway just in case I give you the impression that you are winning.
Granny Magda:
How can they be selfish? If you define altruism as requiring conscious choice, of a kind that is clearly restricted to humanity, how can lions and hyenas be considered guilty of the reverse?
Whether you are consciously selfish or not according to the definition of selfishness you still are which is defined as stinginess resulting from a concern for your own welfare and a disregard of others.
Let me give you a different example but which relates to the above as well. If I go into an office and mindlessly take something off the desk put it in my pocket and walk out with it. Wouldn’t that still be committing theft? For sure it would, and upon the realization that I’ve taken something that isn’t mine I will have to return it if I’m a morally correct individual, I will feel obliged pressed by my values to return that item. Just because I wasn’t conscious of the deed of stealing I still was committing a crime irregardless of my knowing about it or not.
So this would mean that an individual can also be altruistic unconsciously like the rabbits thus the rabbits are also being moral in that they are risking their lives for others even if they don’t know about it. No, because unlike the rabbits that have no choice but to exhibit this behavior humans have a choice to act morally or immorally, so morality is a conscious choice and not merely a conscious act it is also a choice. And I exhibit morality by returning the item to the office rather than just nipping it.
Now if morality was instinct based it would be something to this effect:
There is a TV show I enjoy watching called ‘The Power of One’ it is a show where a professional hypnotists makes people to do the silliest things the mind can conjure, flap like a chicken, pour alcoholic drinks down your top and so on.
Now in this show the hypnotist will usually condition the brains of his subjects to react to particular stimuli, e.g. snapping of his fingers, clapping of his hands and the like. In one of his tricks he had a subject programmed to spank himself each time he (the hypnotist) blows a whistle and to stop again at the second whistle blow, as you might expect this is exactly what happened, each time the whistle was blown once the subject began spanking himself and each time the whistle was blown for the second time the subject ended the spanking. This is how an instinct operates on and by stimuli.
An example of such instinctive responses to stimuli in nature is the fire ants of America. Fire ants are gritty little fellows almost all measures of control have failed and their (ants) numbers are out of control. This ants were originally imported from south America thus they aren’t native to America, however the weird thing is they aren’t a pest problem in their native home, this is partly due to the existence of a little tiny insect the decapitating fly, also called phorid flies. These flies are native to South America and are not found naturally on North American soil in South America they regulate the fire ant populations.
So the best number of fire ants that populate North America have never encountered a phorid fly. But now just one future encounter with this little fly is all that needed to turn a normal fearless fire ant become a hysterically unstable lunatic, that runs around like a headless chicken even before the phorid fly has attacked. This is a good example of an instinct. To be sure you cannot equate this behavior with morality that exists in human circles.
Granny Magda:
You seem to accept that the hunting dogs are behaving altruistically. Is this correct? Are the hunting dogs being altruistic?
Let us suppose that they are being altruistic, so what God created a moral universe so indeed to find goodness in and around the world shouldn’t blindside us.
But before we say that what the dogs were doing is an act of morality we have to ask were they acting out of love or out of instinct or perhaps they were full and didn’t mind sharing their food with a sick animal or they were trying to keep all members of the group alive to maintain the group. But then there are other possible reasons that could account for this seemingly altruistic behavior.
Granny Magda:
They are comparable though. Altruistic behaviour in animals provides us with a window to explore the evolution of our own morality. Drawing an arbitrary line and saying that anything below that line is not altruism is missing the point. True human altruism is a more complex form of animal altruism. There exists a clear continuum. That we can make more complex and conscious moral choices than a dog or rabbit is a function of our more advanced intelligence and its interaction with our ancient moral instincts.
How can you compare two things that are not the same, as I have shown above you cannot compare morality with instinct that the rabbits obviously display. The rest of this statement is speculative, you're just saying it for the sake of saying it.
Granny Magda:
Drawing an arbitrary line and saying that anything below that line is not altruism is missing the point
How is this missing the point if I draw the line to what should be regard as stealing and what shouldn’t am I missing the point. We need boundaries in life otherwise we would end up in a huge mess and we don’t want that.
Granny Magda:
So you are arguing that if any self-serving urge is present, an action cannot be considered altruistic?
Not necessarily because we may be doing something with a good intention and no selfish thought but we may reap by doing that good thing. However the morality I’m discussing are those in which you wouldn’t necessarily gain, why else would we call them selfless acts. But with the African pack dogs they may be helping the other which is the right thing to do but perhaps their reasons for doing so are selfish and as such are not genuine altruism. People may try to be good for a couple reasons for show, for other selfish reasons or simply out of love.
Granny Magda:
Not true. Just because a behaviour can be consciously modified, does not mean that it is not instinctive. Instinct can be very difficult to overcome, but it is still possible to do so.
First prove that we operate on instinct and then provide examples that are already happening in nature.
Granny Magda:
Instinct is the foundation stone of human morality. It is not the last word, but it is the starting point.
Baseless.
Granny Magda:
Allow me to stop you there. Forget God.
No ways morality has everything to do with God.
Granny Magda:
This is a science thread and he doesn't belong here.
No correction science doesn’t belong here.
Granny Magda:
You said you wanted to talk about evolution, not mythology.
Don’t force words into mouth.
Granny Magda:
False. When the mother treats her children well, she is rewarded, whether anyone else knows of her actions or not. First there is the fact that the children may one day grow to thank her, a clear self-serving motive. Then there is the matter of conscience.
The mother may be old and dying and the kids may still be young. The kids may even be a menace giving her grieve but no worries her goodness hasn’t been dampened by this.
Granny Magda:
The mother will be rewarded for altruistic actions toward her offspring by an inner feeling of pleasure at having done the right thing. This inner reward is ever present. What's more, if she had treated her children badly, she would have been punished, again by an inner mechanism. her conscience. With the exception of psychopaths, all of us have this inner reward/punishment mechanism. You can't escape it. By this means we are rewarded or punished for our moral choices whether others know of them or not. Thus, any moral choice will, by necessity, contain an element of selfishness; we are after the feel-good reward that our conscience provides.
Is this a conscious decision? No. It is an instinct. It is innate and cannot easily be consciously overcome. This is a clear indication that, whilst it is in some ways more complex than in animals, human morality is still founded in instinct. In this, we are just like the rabbit, just like the hunting dog.
All of this is useless for evolution; evolution is after survival not feelings. But interesting point you mention about feeling good I address this feeling a little in my opening post, do refer to that. What I say there though is that we are created in the image and likeness of God, note the word likeness, therefore since God is good we are too and we feel good when we are good to others.
Granny Magda:
Both the children and the chimps displayed the same instinctive urge to help others. It doesn't matter what motivates this behaviour. The point is that humans and chimps show similarities in their moral behaviour. This is clear evidence that humanity is instinctively moral and that we share some of this moral instinct with chimps. it would have been present in our most recent common ancestor.
The entire research you are citing can be used just as well to supports the bible’s take on human goodness; we are created in his likeness. Are you starting to see how different conclusions can be arrived at by considering the same evidence?
You talk of mirror neurons, how does this prove that humans somehow copied being good from other humans? This is a speculation as far as true operational science is concerned. But note something funny as well, the research you have cited completely goes against the neuron idea because it proves that we have altruistic characters from birth and we do copy them as such.
About neurons maryjean see this statement Wikipedia makes,
Some scientists consider mirror neurons one of the most important findings of neuroscience in the last decade. Among them is V.S. Ramachandran,[2] who believes they might be very important in imitation and language acquisition. However, despite the popularity of this field, to date no plausible neural or computational models have been put forward to describe how mirror neuron activity supports cognitive functions such as imitation.[3] The function of the mirror system is a subject of much speculation. Mirror neuron - Wikipedia
There it is in black and white, to boot they haven’t actually found mirror neurons on the human brain, they simply speculate that they are there:
However, the results of brain imaging experiments using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have shown that the human inferior frontal cortex and superior parietal lobe is active when the person performs an action and also when the person sees another individual performing an action. It has been suggested that these brain regions contain mirror neurons, and they have been defined as the human mirror neuron system.[21]. Mirror neuron - Wikipedia
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Add missing / in closing blockquote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Granny Magda, posted 03-31-2009 7:37 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 04-01-2009 5:54 AM Cedre has replied
 Message 61 by Granny Magda, posted 04-01-2009 12:24 PM Cedre has not replied
 Message 64 by SammyJean, posted 04-01-2009 5:17 PM Cedre has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 54 of 438 (504646)
04-01-2009 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Cedre
04-01-2009 4:08 AM


Re: Defining Altruism
Cedre writes:
Well watch as I turn that very evidence back in your face. Let me start by saying that evidence is a like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say anything you‘d like it to say.
To the extent this is true, it is true for both sides in any debate. More telling is which side issues red herring claims like this.
Evolution encourages characteristics that improve the likelihood of contributing to the next generation. An evolutionary interpretation of morality holds that certain emotional instincts and behaviors provide survival advantages and so are more likely to be passed on. Whether you personally find this interpretation acceptable, the fact remains that it explains a great deal of behavioral phenomena.
You seem to be arguing that they are many, many behaviors that morality doesn't explain, or that run counter to morality, but no one would deny that such examples abound, indeed must abound. Morality is just one behavioral aspect among many.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Cedre, posted 04-01-2009 4:08 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Cedre, posted 04-01-2009 6:56 AM Percy has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 55 of 438 (504650)
04-01-2009 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Percy
04-01-2009 5:54 AM


Re: Defining Altruism
Evolution encourages characteristics that improve the likelihood of contributing to the next generation. An evolutionary interpretation of morality holds that certain emotional instincts and behaviors provide survival advantages and so are more likely to be passed on. Whether you personally find this interpretation acceptable, the fact remains that it explains a great deal of behavioral phenomena.
Let us analyze your first statement and tie that to morality with an example let us consider for this example the brown moth given as example of natural selection. lets say that instead of only the black moths surviving the brown ones too, eventually the two types of moth procreate together, and we assume that a new generation of moths are birthed exhibiting codominance characteristics let’s assume they have brown and black patterned wings. It would be easy for the preying birds to make out all the butterflies now. Look at how the less suited butterflies have contaminated the entire butterfly population in the area increasing predation risks and even possible extinction.
But now even worse lets take this same example a notch higher and assume that the brown butterflies, were dominant and that the black were recessive. This would be disastrous for the butterfly community in this area when the two butterflies crossmate, suddenly the gene itself is in danger. If the unfit brown butterflies had just died out in the first generation of butterflies, this disater would never have ensued.
Helping weaker members of a population to survive can result in this above scenario, because healthy humans constantly have children with disabled humans (I have nothing against the disabled, this is merely for the sake of demonstration) we cannot rid ourselves of disability. So, no being altruistic isn’t the best course of action for evolution.
Note evolution is survival of the fittest don’t take away from this definition that Charles devised, by trying to include the entire population fit and unfit. Just like the brown moth example in strict evolutionary sense altruism doesn’t exist we see that in animals that do not exhibit altruism they do just as well at surviving as those animals that are said to exhibit altruism.
Whether you personally find this interpretation acceptable, the fact remains that it explains a great deal of behavioral phenomena.
It attempts to explain a great deal of behavioral phenomena, whether or not it has been successful is a point of debate.
You seem to be arguing that they are many, many behaviors that morality doesn't explain, or that run counter to morality, but no one would deny that such examples abound, indeed must abound. Morality is just one behavioral aspect among many.
This is exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. I,m saying that evoltuion doesn't give a satisfactory answer to the question of morality. I am arguing about supposed altruism that has evolved into insticnts in certain animals. I find this to be not true because insticnt is not equal to morality.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 04-01-2009 5:54 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 04-01-2009 9:45 AM Cedre has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 56 of 438 (504665)
04-01-2009 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Taz
03-31-2009 5:12 PM


Re: I Call BS, Plain and Simple
Hi Taz,
Taz writes:
people who are in unstable societies don't put that much value on human life
Hmmm. Unless you mean nations that are currently at war, I've been to many "unstable" and especially unprosperous societies. I can say pretty confidently they love their children as much as anyone else. Also, the kinship/friendship they share with their neighbors puts many "stable" societies to shame (including hyper-capitalistic USA). I would say they have high value on human life.
Also, consider the violence and gun deaths in the USA. The US leads the industrial world in aggressive crimes and prison population. Do you not consider the USA as "stable"?
I am not saying there DEFINITELY isn't ANY correlation whatsoever to your generalization (I am no sociologist). But I think aggressive behavior might be more complex then you make it seem.
I posted the book title "Mind the Gap" by Wilkenson in a previous post. I think it does a good job in describing how society's gross inequities cause aggression/violence. Indeed, right now I want to kick an AIG executive in the mouth.
regards
Edited by dronester, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Taz, posted 03-31-2009 5:12 PM Taz has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 57 of 438 (504666)
04-01-2009 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Stagamancer
03-31-2009 7:48 PM


Re: I Call BS, Plain and Simple
But you cannot say that this is true for all civilizations.
Of course not, I have not stated that it was. But it is true that even if one lives in a civilization that is not prosperous, due to violence and aggression from their government, like Haiti, Cuba, etc, one is seeking a less aggressive society to migrate to. Like the US.
In fact your whole point is that this is only true of prosperous societies, but these are hardly the norm.
Huh?
But we only object to military action when we, either (a) don't really feel threatened, or (b) identify with the enemy.
Or when we realize that we were lied to about the reasons for going to war. Or for religious belief. Or if one is passive. People object for many reasons not just those 2. But I don't know where you're going with that.
Whether you're rallying people with a false or true cause is not the issue, your still playing on people's desire to divide the world into "Us-es" and "Thems".
You're going to have to be a bit more specific than "peoples desire to divide the world into Us-es and Thems" - I get what you mean but I don't think I recognize this desire, at least not in myself or people I know. I grant you that we are a sociel species but we also exclude those who don't share in our opinion, but I don't think this is a global desire, this is just us trying to look cool as the only memebers of a certain group; we like to fit in.
So whether or not people are gullible, it doesn't matter, your still playing on their aggression to get them to agree to war.
I have to disagree. I don't think they play to our aggression, I think they play to our desire for things to be just. We all have a sense of right and wrong, when you are told that a certain group has wronged you your first action is to retaliate; eye for an eye. But, if we realize that we were lied to about the conditions for the invasion we quickly realize that we are the ones that are in the wrong and feel shameful for having attacked.
On a day to day basis, most people treat their neighbors and kin well, and this is true for pretty much all social animals, so I can't see how it would've been different back in the day.
Easy, people are less aggressive toward one another today.
Most stonings in the past were simply the punishment dolled out after a judgement by a recognized authority. Just because people were allowed to take part in the punishments doesn't mean they were more aggressive. I'm sure you could find plenty of people in our society who would participate in capital punishment if given the chance.
Just the fact that public stonings took place then and they don't now shows a society that is less accepting of such a violent act. In fact, no execution today is shown to the public, except where? - In highly hostile and aggressive places.
I don't see how my point is being missed here???????
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Stagamancer, posted 03-31-2009 7:48 PM Stagamancer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by dronestar, posted 04-01-2009 9:42 AM onifre has replied
 Message 65 by Stagamancer, posted 04-01-2009 8:04 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 172 by jasonlang, posted 06-13-2009 6:38 AM onifre has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 58 of 438 (504668)
04-01-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by onifre
04-01-2009 9:21 AM


Re: I Call BS, Plain and Simple
In fact, no execution today is shown to the public, except where? - In highly hostile and aggressive places.
Hey Oni,
I did a paper on "entertainment in violence" way back in college (funny how many lucky hypothesis' that contained . . . )
Would you ALMOST agree that if it was legal, the USA would televise executions? On Fox News? AND get great numbers?
The USA is really unique.
regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by onifre, posted 04-01-2009 9:21 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by onifre, posted 04-01-2009 1:21 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 59 of 438 (504669)
04-01-2009 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Cedre
04-01-2009 6:56 AM


Re: Defining Altruism
Your peppered moth example is even more poorly conceived than your squirrel example. Light and dark moths already, as you say, "procreate together." What varies is the proportions of certain alleles across populations of peppered moths. And an entire generation of moth won't suddenly express the same characteristic everywhere. There will always be considerable variation, and variations not suitable for the environment will be selected against. If you could come up with a scenario that makes sense we could consider it.
You seem to be objecting to the possibility of evolutionary origins for morality and altruism on two different levels. First, you don't find evolution an acceptable framework for their origin. This objection is hard to understand, since most certainly evolution can explain them. The real question is whether this explanation is the correct one.
Which brings us to your second objection, which makes more sense, that the evidence is insufficient to justify acceptance of an evolutionary origin by the scientific community. I think you're primary complaint is that the evidence cited so far is circumstantial, a legitimate complaint. I wonder if there is any laboratory evidence, or some kind of more direct evidence, supporting the evolution of morality.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Cedre, posted 04-01-2009 6:56 AM Cedre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by dronestar, posted 04-01-2009 9:57 AM Percy has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 60 of 438 (504670)
04-01-2009 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Percy
04-01-2009 9:45 AM


Re: Defining Altruism
I wonder if there is any laboratory evidence, or some kind of more direct evidence, supporting the evolution of morality.
There are several good studies that show animal altruistic behavior. A quick google will provide many more but here's one:
Oops!
Also, early ethnographers/researchers of "primitive" hunter/gatherer societies show a correlation between egalitarian living and moral/ethical/altruistic behavior (book "Mind the Gap" Wilkenson). If I had a better memory, I could cite more specific examples from my college days, sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 04-01-2009 9:45 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 04-01-2009 2:11 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024