Good and Evil

[Lief Erikson]

(Looks back at the rest of the page) Jeepers, I sure seem to love posting on this thread .

[Cirdan]

Genes can determine that structures and capabilities can exist , not determine how they are used. There is no free-will vs genetic determinism because these things don't even operate on the same continuum. Free-will versus fatalism is a valid debate. Genetics versus environment is a valid debate. Psychological predisposition versus cognitive consciousness could even work.

This is from an article on brain genomics

Functional Genomics: The Way Inside Our Brains?
from Medscape Molecular Medicine

Conclusion
As daunting as genome-wide analysis of brain-related genes is, however, one notion seems to be pursued more and more. Complex biological systems and complex phenotypic traits, such as behavioral traits or "abnormal" behaviors, may not represent, as in the past, insurmountable obstacles. Refinement of the technologies used for genome-wide expression analysis, as well as selection of appropriate index biological systems, might help to define the molecular pathways leading to functional imbalances of the biological system itself. Better leads for treatment might follow, as well as more insight into the respective role of the intrinsic vs extrinsic factors (at a structural, functional, and regulatory level)[9] that contribute to the make-up and function of our brain and psyche.

Notice how they are careful to separate traits related to a phenotype and all the other factors that effect behavior.

Take for example the behavior of sacrificing one's live to save others. Certainly this behavior can't be selected for since the reproductive cycle is over once the behavior exhibits itself. But is it free will? What is the psychological make-up required to perform such a feat? What other behaviors are influenced by the possessing this particular phenotype that are being selected for as well? Human genetic make-up has selected for a complex thinking being, capable of adapting to extraordinary circumstance. That is potential, the rest is foam on the gene pool .

[BeardofPants]

Lief: I'm a little tired to discuss at length some of your points, but I would like to bring up a definition of meme:

• A meme is a unit of information that evolves over time through a Darwinian process of variation, selection and transmission. Memes are virtual, and have no intentions of their own, they are merely pieces of information in a feedback loop. This loop facilitates their continued replication (sometimes in the company of other memes), with their longevity being determed by their environment.

Much like genetic evolution, it is about that catch phrase: "Survival of the Fittest." That doesn't mean that all memes will be successful. Obviously some aren't. However, a lot are - Christianity being one of them.

I would also like to point out that "survival of the fittest" doesn't refer necessarily to individual organisms, but species as a whole.

Journal of Memetics.

[BeardofPants]

This is a good site for meme info:
http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Cultural/M...memecycle.html

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Genes can determine that structures and capabilities can exist , not determine how they are used. There is no free-will vs genetic determinism because these things don't even operate on the same continuum. Free-will versus fatalism is a valid debate. Genetics versus environment is a valid debate.

Thank-you very much for posting that article . If you post something similar on memes, that'll just make my day .

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Lief: I'm a little tired to discuss at length some of your points, but I would like to bring up a definition of meme:

• A meme is a unit of information that evolves over time through a Darwinian process of variation, selection and transmission. Memes are virtual, and have no intentions of their own, they are merely pieces of information in a feedback loop. This loop facilitates their continued replication (sometimes in the company of other memes), with their longevity being determed by their environment.

Thanks for the definition of meme.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Much like genetic evolution, it is about that catch phrase: "Survival of the Fittest." That doesn't mean that all memes will be successful. Obviously some aren't. However, a lot are - Christianity being one of them.

It still doesn't sound similar to genes to me; merely a scientific statement of what opinions or ideas are. As I don't know more about the subject than you've just told me, I can't make any sort of a judgment on whether I believe it or not, but it makes little difference to my beliefs. My believing that President Bush is the president is memes at work in that case; it's just an explanation. But that definition you gave doesn't say anything that implies that memes are similar to genetics.

See my other post on memes for my more full opinions.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
This is a good site for meme info:
http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Cultural/M...memecycle.html

Ah, thanks again ! I'll look at that and the other site you gave a link to when I get back online next .

[Insidious Rex]

Geez, this thread has certainly um... evolved.. in a number of different directions since I last posted. Gotta love it when threads come together in just the right way so that all the collective pieces become a single whole well functioning entity. How long till it becomes self aware?

*irony mode off*

Ok I guess I cant really respond to each and every comment and question ove the past two pages or so since I last posted so Ill take this argument back to its roots (from my perspective) which is the concept of the selfish gene and what it means to human life. A lot of what Im about to say is a reflection of the ideas of Richard Dawkins and I would encourage anyone here to dig up some of his material if you want a much better overview of these theories. If you guys still have some specific questions you wanted me to reply to that I have missed please feel free to pepper me with them because I much prefer the comment and response form of dialouge then the lecture type of approach. But for now Im gonna use the latter.

I see a lot of the discusion has come down to if its just about genes then why can humans make choices? I think Cirdan just said before me that basically that kind of question is mixing apples and oranges (correct me if Im wrong Cirdan) because the genes are independent of the choice mechanism. The genes set it up to begin with. We (and all living creatures) are the "survival machines" manufactured by the genes. Yes OF COURSE we learn from our environments and OF COURSE we learn from our parents but thats already accounted for in our genes. The genes need us to have a brain because the genes cannot directly control the muscles that operate the body. so the genes have programed the creation of this mass of nervous tissue called A Brain which contribute to the success of the survival machine by controlling and coordinating the contractions of our muscles thus allowing us to do things like run away, eat, mate and other fun stuff. The brain in turn is kept up to speed on things by a collection of sensory organs which are devices that translate patterns of physical events in the outside world into the pulse code of our nuerons (you know like ears and eyes?). Thats the basic working system created DIRECTLY by the blue prints of our genes. From there some interesting things happen that help us even further. The development of a brain was able to lead us to the evolution of A Memory. Which is really a wonderful thing because by use of a memory the timing of muscle contractions could be influenced not only by events in the immediate past but by events in the distant past as well.

Now let me stop there for a second. I want to come back to a point Ive bascially stated (if not very well) a couple times before: Genes control the behavior of their survival machines (us). But not directly like some puppet master controlling a puppet but indirectly like a computer programmer writing software to run a computer that hasnt been built yet. All they can do is set it up beforehand then the survival machine is on its own. And the genes can only sit passively inside.

[Insidious Rex]

Ok I could say a lot more about that but I wont (thank god). So lets return to where we left off. The brain. And memory. And learning. Ah yes learning. And here is where the free will thing begins to stir its head. Our genes set us up with instructions that are basically rules used to predict the best course of action in a given environment. But environments tend to be unpredictable. So one way for genes to solve the problem of making predictions in rather unpredictable environments is to build in a capacity for learning. The advantage of this sort of programming is that it greatly reduces the number of detailed rules that have to be built into the original program; and it is also capable of coping with changes in the environment that could not have been predicted in detail.

But we have taken learning one step further even. The evolution of our brain has also allowed us to utilize a process called simulation that allows us to "think over" various scenerios in a given situation so that we dont have to actually act them all out to see which one might be the best choice. Survival machines who can simulate the future are at an advantage to survival machines that can only learn on the basis of overt trial and error. The trouble with overt trial is that it takes time and energy. The trouble with overt error is that it is often fatal. Simulation is both safer and faster.

Now the evolution of this capacity to simulate seems to have culminated in subjective conciousness. What is conciousness? Who knows. Perhaps conciousness arises when the brains simulation of the world becomes so complete that it must include a model of itself. But it doesnt really matter what it is for our purposes here. So I wont get into it.

So where do we stand now? Conciousness is the culmination of an evolutionary trend towards the amincipation of survival machines (us once again) as "executive decision takers" from their ultimate masters: the genes. Not only are brains in charge of the day-to-day running of survival machine affairs, they have also aquired the ability to predict the future and act accordingly. They even have the power to rebel against the dictates of the genes (BoPs example about actively not having as many children as they are able to). Im pretty sure THIS is where the free will thing comes from. And you are probably right now jumping up and down saying Yes! you are making my point! we can choose that kind of stuff! but wait... We need to keep in mind that it is the genes plan all along to have the survival machine (us) do whatever it takes to keep the genes alive. Even if that means overriding the genes basic instructions. Like I said before the genes cannont actively control us so our advanced brain has to do the immediate day to day work of survival FOR the genes. By dictating the way survival machines and their nervous systems are built, genes exert ultimate power over behavior. But the moment to moment decisions about what to do next are taken by the nervous system according to the plans of the genes. As brains became more and more developed they took over more and more of the actual policy decisions using tricks like learning and simulation. The logical conclusion to this trend, not yet achieved by any species, would be for the genes to give the survival machines a single overall policy instruction: do whatever you think is best to keep us alive. True free will could only be achieved where we have NO tether to the gene masters. But we do and we always will even if we have active control over the survival machine. But EVERYTHING we do EVERY behavior we make is dictated ultimately with the collusion of our genes. And by this standard, free will does indeed become more or less meaningless. Because we cant escape the fact that we are an extention of our genes.

[Cirdan]

Umm, not like apples and oranges, more like apples and key lime pie. *mmmm pie*.

The programming analogy fails as do most analogies in that you must imprint human thought into a computer program and the target of the analogy becomes part of the analogy. (Or as Archie Bunker once said, "It ain't like a car!") Plus I hate analogies.

But I do like anecdotes. In a documentary I saw recently about volcanos and the effort to predict them, the were two scientists with competing theories. One thought seismic signatures were the way to predict eruptions while the other thought gas emissions were the key. Both had had sucess in predicting volcanic activity. During a conference near an active volcano, the second scientist had monitored the gases an determined that it would be safe to conduct a field trip to the caldera. Unfortunately the first scientist wasn't able to read the siesmic readings in time to save the trekkers from a nasty surprise. The point is that it is sometimes a mistake to focus solely on one theory and ignore all the other data.

The role of genetic make-up has in daily behavior is very much on a sliding scale. Serious defects down to muscle mass tendency have widely varying influence. Environment, also has a huge variation of effect from child abuse to day-dreaming. Senarios I like as well.

All humans have the physical capacity for speech, EXCEPT those with birth defects in that area. Our own subject has no such problem. Our subject grows up in an english speaking environment. Our subject can decide to learn German (for any number of psychological reasons). This is recrerational only as part of a vacation. The subject immerses himself in german and after a requisite period of time becomes fluent. The big trip finally comes and his hard work pays off. After a month he is immersed in the language when one day he is hurt is a terrible bratwurst accident and shouts (instinctively) in pain. Will it be English or German? English (probably) but then he needs help. Will he call for he in English or German? If he wants help it will probably be German. Is his gene telling him to switch languages or is he simply possessing the capacity (via genes) to rationalize?

The degree of the ability to transend the basic rules of the biology is free will. I don't think anyone believes in [i]unfettered[/u] free will. If that were the case I would will myself to fly like a bird. We are constrained by biology, psychology, sociology, meteorology, oceanography, you name it. But there is an aspect of consciousness that operates at a higher level that the base impulses, the over-bearing of circumstance, and the great weight of social tradition (those darn memes!). Do we often "go with the flow" and accept the path of least resistance? Definitely. Do all of our decisions reduce to survival? That would be very boring.

I must succumb to my genetically based need for sleep. After I check to scores for the day.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Bratwurst accident? Did a sausage fall on him and pin him to the ground?

[Cirdan]

Maybe it's the German version of hot-dogging.

[GrayMouser]

I like this quote from Richard Dawkins:

Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have a chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.

I think our brains have developed to a point where we are not totally controlled by our genes, though we are still strongly guided by them.

Most people want to reproduce, but many choose not to.

Sometimes that's simply wonky programming, as the case of a fetishist who becomes fixated on a shiny patent-leather shoe instead of an actual mate.

Sometimes it's voluntary, as priest or nun or soldier (or suicide bomber) who forgo their own reproduction for the sake of a greater cause.

The instincts involved in those cases originated in kinship selection (sacrificing your own life so that those who share your genes may survive), but our minds allow us to apply them to larger groups, up to and including all of humanity.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Most people want to reproduce, but many choose not to.

Most people want to have sex, instinctually. Reproduction is effected by all the aspects of instinct, environment, psychology, and very occasionally choice. Adoption satisfies the desire to parent (however derived) but doesn't further itself genetically. It is purely a meme that benefits the general population.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Cirdan
The programming analogy fails as do most analogies in that you must imprint human thought into a computer program and the target of the analogy becomes part of the analogy. (Or as Archie Bunker once said, "It ain't like a car!") Plus I hate analogies.

Hey well I love analogies. Analogies are fun and a great form of communication. Analogies are like art. Art is about representation and meaning. Art is never just about art. Art by definition is a symbol for something else. And yer always gonna have a subset of people like me who like analogies and awful puns and such so just put up with us. The programming analogy does not fail because program writers arent writing in human thought. They are writing in a coded language the computer understands. the coded language gives the computer basic rules and "advice" to cope with as many eventualities as they can anticipate. Like someone progamming chess playing software. They dont code in EVERY possible scenario (there are too many. Just like there are too many in the game of survival). But instead it provides general strategies and tricks of the trade all in a simple coded language. And what do you know! DNA is a code too! Coincidence? I think not. The analogy is complete. The fact that the end result may come off looking like archaic human thought is incidental and actualy makes the point about the role of the programmer (and of the genes). And anyway never analyze an anology too much. You will just kill the point. Analogies never have to be perfect.

After a month he is immersed in the language when one day he is hurt is a terrible bratwurst accident and shouts (instinctively) in pain. Will it be English or German?

Neither probably. He will more likely simply audiblize (something along the lines of AAAHHHHH!!!) which is independent of specific language and predates the evolution of language in that it allowed our non language speaking ancestors to let their peers know when someone was having a life and death struggle with a bratwurst. After this initial outburts then the gene provided brain power would kick in and he would use memory and learning (of german) and simulation (of his choices to say) and logic to quickly realize i better ask for assistance in german and not in english. However chances are that his initial non-language yelling would have done quite enough to alert the non-english speakers around him that he needed help. So instincts to the rescue once again. Uh oh did I just pop your analogy there Cirdan? Im such a hypocrit.

[GrayMouser]

And speaking of Good and Evil- well, Evil, anyway..

"30 Worst Atrocities of the Twentieth Century"

With two categories, total number of deaths :

1) WWII- 50,000,000;
2)Mao's China (1949-1976) - 48,000,000
3)Stalin (1924-1953)- 20,000,000

And, greatest percentage killed:

1)South-West Africa, 1904-1907: 37%; killed by Germany
2)Cambodia, 1975-1979: 22%; killed by Khmer Rouge
3)Congo; 1886-1908: 20%; killed by Belgium


http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm.

[Lizra]

I still say (lazily) there are too many contributing facters (genetics, brain chemicals, social conditioning, nurture, education, luck, the weather.. ), affecting each other and interacting, bouncing off each other in different combinations, over a very long period of (evolutionary) time, for me to comprehend it concisely! (and I am cautious of those who say the can! ) Our life is short, I'll spend my energy trying to be happy by doing good. (of course it took me forty plus years to figure that out! )

[Cirdan]

*stumbles in from the garden (finally)*

I agree!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Uh oh did I just pop your analogy there Cirdan? Im such a hypocrit.

No, not really since it was a senario. All was as described and did not represent something else.

Also, as a programmer I know that you do have to consider every possibility, if only to design algorithms that satisfy all the possibilities. Computers are just extensions of our minds so they don't make a good analogy for describing the mind. Is is useful to use computers to qualify human thought, but computers are not like human thought they are human thought.
My point was that analogies are useful un a small scale to describe a part of a process but are useless for defining an entire process, except possibly for the grossly uninitiated.

The important thing to remember is the difference between tendencies and absolutes. A gene that dictates eye color is fairly clear. Identifying a gene that controls favorite color would be more of a tendency. There is very little data to support genetic determinism/fatalism even though it has a scientific foundation. Some have made arguements for a universal causation based fatalism that is more comprehensive (Absolute vs. Relative thread) which are far to metaphysical and arcane for the like of me, but they are interesting in the abstract.

[Lizra]

Next time you go out to the garden, would you mind taking the clippers and shaping the shrubs? Let's try triangles this year!

[Insidious Rex]

No, not really since it was a senario. All was as described and did not represent something else.

Oh I always assume when you talk about bratwursts its actually ment to symbolize... ah nevermind I probably shouldnt go there.

Also, as a programmer I know that you do have to consider every possibility, if only to design algorithms that satisfy all the possibilities.

but if you were to write a chess program you would never spell out every possibility because there are so many that it would take until the end of time and you still woulndt be done (the same as in life). your algorithems like basic gene instruction would give the computer (us in the analogy) a base from which to opperate. would you (the genes) intervene once the programming is done? no you put it in the computer and then the computer is on its own. So I really dont see the problem with this analogy to genes. It seems to work perfectly to me.