Larry Moran wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 05:33:01 +0000 (UTC), 
> Phil Roberts, Jr.  wrote:
> 
>>
>>I don't think Tim is disagreeing.  Nor am I.  What I am saying
>>however, is that there is no reason to assume that everything
>>produced by natural selection is adaptive .....
> 
> 
> This is nonsense. Any characteristic that is the end result of
> natural selection is adaptive, by definition.
> 
> Perhaps you meant to say that not everything produced by *evolution*
> is adaptive? 
> 

Perhaps.  I guess I don't draw all that much of a distinction.
The basis for my statement was my belief that in the course
of selecting for intelligence (cognitive objectivity),
which I presume IS adaptive, nature has "inadvertently" begun
to pick up what is, for the most part, an "unwanted"
(maladaptive) increase in valuative objectivity (increased
concern for non-related others juxtaposed with an increased
volatility in self-value).

I'm attempting to explain why there is a species of
naturally selected organism in which dignity is of
more value than life itself, and my answer was simply that
our dignity, i.e., our self-worth, IS our 'will to survive',
one which has become increasingly more volatile as a result
of our species having become a little too rational (too
objective) for its own good.  As such, the evidence of
indeterminism many have wondered about is not to be found
the violation of some Humean constant conjunction (e.g.,
changing one's mind about what to have for desert) as
in the fact that we appear to be a species increasingly
in need of JUSTIFICATION for the rationally inordinate sense
of inportance nature would like us to attach to ourselves in
order to assure our survival.

-- 

  PR
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 5/20/04 6:09:32 AM