"Phil Roberts, Jr."  wrote in
news:bsl8u2$6m3$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 

> I think its nothing but vanity through and through.  But then I think
> that's all there is to "free will" when you get right down to it,
> including my own.  What I am up to is trying to understand how you
> get from a process that selects for efficiency in perpetuating ITS
> OWN DNA to an organism such as yourself concerned with making the
> world a better place given that these objectives are more often than
> not at odds with each other (e.g., self-incinerating Buddhist monks).
> Dawkins' call for a memetics doesn't constitute an explanation
> but rather a call for one:


>> I understand your general point but 
>> it is not applicable to my statement, "Just because something is
>> natural doesn't necessarily mean it is right or should be that way
>> i.e. is biologically adaptive. I'm referring to Darwinian evolution.
>> Mr. Menegay is correct I'm using adaptive as an 'ought' word and not
>> an 'is' word. That is a topic in itself but I wanted to confirm that.


> No.  Natural selection entails an 'ought', its a mundane causal
> 'ought'. Given that natural selection is "true", we 'ought' to be
> "ruthlessly selfish", at least if our formal models have given us a
> reliable representation of the process.  The fact that many of us are
> driven by a more noble sort of 'ought', e.g., your concern to help the
> species as a whole, is yet to explained, given our current supposition
> that nature has been engaged in a relentless crusade to eliminate
> noble intentions on every occasion they have had to compete with
> "ruthless selfishness".


Here I must object. Game theory tells us that positive sum games will 
win out over zero sum games. The catch is that we must figure out how to
play positive sum games. But nature is replete with examples - lichens
is a nice one, and it would be wise to remember that humans can not
exist without numerous other symbiotes. So "ruthless selfishness" is an
untenable hypothesis in the face of the evidence. 

Now I may be carrying my argument to an extreme. The "selfish gene" is
probably a good first approximation, and some of the emotions you are
discussing do appear even in a first approximation. But Trivers and
Hamilton have demonstrated the power of selfishness to produce altruism.
As has often been noted, the "ultimate" result of the altruism may be
selfish _but the proximate emotion felt will be altruistic_. So nature
on many occasions will create rather than eliminate "noble intentions". 


 
...  My hypothesis is 'an
> increase in cognitive objectivity (knowledge, intelligence,
> rationality, wisdom, etc.) "facilitates" (Hume) an increase
> in valuative objectivity (impartiality, the moral maxim, etc.)
> IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS ADAPTIVENESS.  And, to the extent you find
> the matter of interest, I believe I can support this hypothesis
> with evidence that:
> 
>     a: the deviations from the predicted valuative profile
>        ("ruthless selfishness") in human nature have been
>        cognitively induced.
> 
>        and
> 
>     b: that at least some of this cognitively induced deviation
>        is maladpative.

Well I am interested in your hypothesis. Although as I have noted above, 
I don't think "ruthless selfishness" is necessarily predicted, the 
positive sum alternative requires an explanation - how do you get there 
from here - and your hypothesis may help.

Now as to your point (b), I am of three minds: 

1. It is often argued (and seems to be true from the success of Homo 
sapiens vs. its conspecifics) that increased intelligence (rationality, 
wisdom, etc.) is quite adaptive. But:

2. I am getting very fed up with waking up at 4 AM worrying about my 
latest project at work, And:

3. It has also been supposed that those of lower intelligence have more 
children (although I have never seen convincing genetic evidence relating 
long term allele frequencies to IQ measurements).


Of course, just because intelligence is adaptive does not require it to 
make you happier, and perhaps your argument about the cognitively induced 
deviation being maladaptive is about discomfort rather than decreased 
reproductive success. Looking at current American culture, it would 
appear that, for males,  exceptional musical or athletic prowess is more 
likely to result in high reproductive success than exceptional 
intellectual prowess. I have to say that I don't know that athletes and 
musicians are any happier on the whole than intellectuals, which may 
reflect on your hypothesis regarding the maladaptiveness of intelligence.

 
Yours,

Bill Morse
---
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 1/7/04 6:53:15 AM