Good and Evil

[Cirdan]

I'm still trying to get the hang of those pom-pom things. Maybe Edward Scissorhands could help out.

Besides, right now I'm trying to grow the world's most costly vegatables, though I did put iris all 'round the bed.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
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.

It still breaks down. The program is designed to process all possible chess moves by design(Are you arguing for ID?). The gene is an accounting program with a virus that happens to make itable to play chess. (There, an analogy... happy?) Of course, it takes millions of viruses before the program becomes very pproficient at chess. It cannot become prefectly adept at chess as soon as a chess program is marketable. It can't adapt instantaneously to new strategies. It can't, without new viruses, start playing checkers as well.

The aspect of genes being code that has polymorphic and adaptable characteristics is applicable in some cases, but it is still limited and does not fully reflect the true nature of the genetic process as a whole.

When are we going to start with the puns?

how 'bout: My wife and I reproduced after I broke my genes.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Cirdan
When are we going to start with the puns?

how 'bout: My wife and I reproduced after I broke my genes.

*laugh* dont get me started. sounds like your wife wanted you to make change in your relationship but it turns out they were in your jeans afterall.....


*groan*

[Cirdan]

uh-oh...

A couple I know couldn't have children so they had to adapt.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Gray Mouser
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.

One thing you might want to note about the kinship selection is really that it seems to me more a matter of love. Evidence shows that it plainly isn't all genes. For example, a person might grow up separate from his parents and hate his parents as a consequence, because he thought his parents didn't care about him. It might seem possible that someone has genetic tendencies to love one's relations, because of the natural instinct that is often the case with the mother. However, it also sometimes happens that the person doesn't love his or her children.

It seems to me that although genes might give a natural tendency, what protection of child really is is a matter of love. The genes might inspire love, but it really is love that causes someone to be willing to sacrifice their life for another individual. It's not just reproduction, because a male is often just as willing to sacrifice his life for another male as he is for a female. It's really a matter of love, or perhaps here's a better word because it's more all encompassing of the various situations: "Caring". If you care very, very strongly about something, then that causes you to be willing to sacrifice your life for it. I think that caring is the primary thing that causes an individual to be willing to give up their life. Misery is the primary cause of suicide, but that also has its root in caring, caring for self.

I don't think that one sacrifices one's life ever so that one's genes might survive. The examples to the counter of that are just way, way too numerous. If someone is in a close proximity to someone else, generally they're able to get along, become friends and come to love each other. Most likely not in a romantic love, though that sometimes can be an effect as well. Relations are in close proximity to each other, which causes them to care. If it was genetics, then one would care extremely strongly about one's relatives, but I don't think that if someone has relatives they know practically nothing about, they generally care much more about them than they do for other people.

I know you'll come back with "Caring is just a function of the brain, and the brain comes from genetics," but there still is one big opposing factor in this whole argument. A factor that Insidious Rex has only recently taken into account in his reasoning for me to see, and which I'll soon get to. That is how it is that people can choose other than the way their genetics do. Caring breaks many of the natural instincts for survival of and reproduction of the genes.

[Lief Erikson]

Well, I personally like analogies as well. I used them very, very extensively in my arguing on the "Did Ilúvatar create Melkor evil?" thread about predestination, which might be why Cirdan and I fell into disagreement .

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
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.

Thanks for the more advanced version of your theory, Insidious Rex . It is very useful for me to know more what your theory is and how it takes things into account. The difficulties are the same fundamental difficulties that I already pointed out.

I think everything that you've said works very, very well in describing animal behavior. Everything that I've heard you say, without exceptions, has fitted very well for what is observable in animals. The difficulty is that the same behavior in animals isn't observable in humans.

The chess analogy I do think is a very good one for what you've been trying to convey. The difficulty isn't with your example, as far as I can see, but with the implications.

The programer forms some of the basic chess strategies and designs the program to take every possibility into account. He doesn't design the different possibilities, but he makes the system capable of coping with them. This is his creating something more intelligent then he is (the brain) so that he can win the game (Pass on the genes). Now, based upon your premise, let's start playing the game.

You move your pieces in an attempt to checkmate your foe (Pass on your genes). The opponent does some things you didn't expect, but that's fine, your system has taken those things into account. You have the perfect system for passing on the genes. A great computer program. You are willing to sacrifice pieces in order to accomplish your goal (Mother jumping in front of the bullet to save child). You have a good system; not perfect, but good. And as you practice the game you always become better and better at it (evolution).

Here comes the catch though. You're assuming that there is such a system as this in your theory, and the evidence shows that the visible system is anything but this.

People jump in front of bullets to save their friends, not just their relations. People who they care about often are relations, but they come to care about people who have no genes connection to them. It's like sacrificing one of your chess pieces to save someone else's chess pieces, and that's something you never do in chess.

At the same time, some people choose never to have sex. It's like getting a pawn to the end of the other player's board and deciding not to have that pawn become a queen.

Not going by genetics rules isn't just going against a strategy because that strategy doesn't work for the situation, and taking a better one instead to accomplish the goal. These are basic purposes of the game that are being ignored.

[Lief Erikson]

Not only do memes mirror genetics, but they probably were spawned by genetics as structures grew more complex. Like Insidious Rex is saying. That also would provide an explanation for why they mirror genetics.

An additional difficulty is found where these genetics apparently have spawned the memes to "be the brains." I'm assuming that they are what Insidious Rex was talking about, the part of intelligence that genetics programmed but don't have direct control over. As I said earlier, I don't think the genes creating memes causes the memes to have free will. We have to assume that I'm wrong in that opinion though, and that genes have indeed created free will in order to create memes. Memes go against genetics very frequently though, and often win. So it seems very strange that genetics would have created them.

Unless we think that memes weren't opted for by genetics.


Another problem I have with the idea of memes being the explanation for free will, then, is the same as I have with genetics. They don't create the observable pattern of human behavior; they merely fit part of it.

With memes, it's not just a matter of survival or not survival. Some ideas people choose to keep to themselves. Some people think everyone's religion is one's own affair. They refuse to follow the basic rules of reproduction, then, for the memes. Their opinion is weak enough that it likely won't affect anyone else, but it's strong enough to likely avoid other people breaking.

Meanwhile, some people die nobley to protect a friend. That's not a previously created opinion or plan, so it's not one of those brief memes. If someone dies to protect someone else, no meme is being benefited except perhaps one very short one that overwhelms all the other memes that wouldn't want the individual to die. They wouldn't want the host to expire because it would eliminate their ability to reproduce. Like genetics, memes shouldn't want their host to die.

The only way a host should die (Of his or her own will) should be for them. The same as with genetics. The death of the host limits the ability of the genes to reproduce except in very rare circumstances. Such as Jesus' dying on the cross, if you're an unbeliever.

There's still no explanation for someone's sacrificing their life. If you're saying morality is created by human intelligence and is a bunch of strong memes in almost everyone, which can overwhelm the genetic survival instincts and all other opposing memes, likewise using the host, that want to survive, that's probably the only way to get through the statement. If you want to go there, I'd probably want to bring back C.S. Lewis's argument on that subject, which I posted earlier to Lizra.

A difficulty I have with the thought genes or memes are responsible for what we perceive to be "free will" is the fact that both seem so willing to forgo following their basic survival instincts. This just seems very, very strange, unless you assume influenced free will. Then we simply have to label the influences.

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Also, here's a point where this meme idea goes pretty plainly against the genetics. The genetics are selfish, and the memes apparently consider the individual whose philosophy they are to be expendable. They are willing to sacrifice the individual for their cause, instead of considering the individual important. Meanwhile, other memes (Opinions) don't think that they're worth sacrificing the individual for their cause. And still others are perfectly content not to propogate, but to remain the individual's own personal opinion, without being spread around at all. I've met people who think everyone's religion is that person's own affair. Religions are one group of memes. Some people think that a group or an individual is worth sacrificing himself to protect and others don't. Is this a war between the memes and the genetics?

So some memes consider themselves expendable, some of them don't, some of them want to propogate, some of them don't. They don't seem very much like genetics, which are the same for most everybody. These differ from person to person, and the fact that some of the mirror genetics seems to be a matter of luck than the rule, because there are so many exceptions. I must confess myself very skeptical of them indeed.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Well, I personally like analogies as well. I used them very, very extensively in my arguing on the "Did Ilúvatar create Melkor evil?" thread about predestination, which might be why Cirdan and I fell into disagreement .

so what was your opinion in a nut shell on that?

The difficulty is that the same behavior in animals isn't observable in humans.

Ill ignore the fact that homo sapiens are mammals and therefore animals for now. But all behavior is behavior. And its different from animal to animal. So human behavior is definable on a species level just as zebra behavior is definable for the zebra species or panda behavior for the panda species or yellow bellied sap sucker behavior…. etc.

Here comes the catch though. You're assuming that there is such a system as this in your theory, and the evidence shows that the visible system is anything but this.

People jump in front of bullets to save their friends, not just their relations. People who they care about often are relations, but they come to care about people who have no genes connection to them. It's like sacrificing one of your chess pieces to save someone else's chess pieces, and that's something you never do in chess.

Actually I think it would be more like using a pawn to save another piece of my own. Which is fine. Someone elses’ piece would be the enemy. And the prey never sacrifices itself for the predator in nature. It has to take it by force. But ok basically you are asking about how to explain altruism among non related individuals. This has been done many times in a variety of different ways. It comes down basically to the fact that we are a grouping species. We live together in groups. If we had armor plating and big spikes all over us or 6 legs and poison fangs or something then we could probably get away with being solitary. But we are slow hairless pink soft dough balls with limited sense organs. So we BETTER work together or we die. So basically what Im saying is if animals live together in groups then their genes must get more benefit out of the association then they put in. If we are friends and members of the same tribe then we share the same resources and we defend against the same hostile outside forces in our environment. If we are both adults then we may both have mates and offspring that also share our resources and who, as male adults, we are responsible for defending. Now lets say someone is about to shoot you. Because we are “group bonded” it would be to my detriment to have you killed. Why? Well because as I said we share the same resources and we defend against the same hostile outside forces and we cooperate with each other to lead to a better life then we could achieve individually. So I am going to want to try to keep you from getting killed if it all possible. The first thing I would probably do is overcome my instinct to run from the gun wielding “predator” and A) alert you of the situation by yelling B) if I was close enough even go after the “predator” with a display of hostility so as to distract him or incapacitate him from doing you fatal harm C) actually physically attempt to remove you from the situation where the bullet is aimed directly at your brain/heart so that fatal injury is less likely. C is the most dangerous situation but lets analyze it since it’s the one we are talking about. (By the way who actually jumps in the way of a bullet for the sake of killing themselves? Nobody. Bullets travel faster then you can possibly imagine. You could never actually time that. So the worst case scenerio is actually getting in the path of the bullet when you are attempting to save your friend form getting hurt). So if in doing C I end up directly in the path of the gun then I have chosen to RISK my life to attempt to save yours. This is fine genetically because the possibilities are as follows:

1. Your certain death which means not having you in our tribe any longer and thus making life harder for me and my genes to survive.

2. The lessened chance of ME being killed thus keeping you from being hurt and keeping you as part of the tribe at which point you would feel especially indebted to me and would most likely put extra effort into taking care of my mate and offspring. You would do that for me Lief right? Of course you would. Youd feel it was the right thing to do right? How convenient for my genes.

3. As above but me OR you injured because of my “heroic” attempt at keeping you from the path of the bullet.

4. Successfully getting you out of the way of the bullet and successfully avoiding it myself. The ideal situation. Where we both survive unharmed. No net loss.

[Insidious Rex]

So what would nature favor here?

1. If I do nothing I survive but you die guaranteed. The loss to our (tiny little) tribe is 50%. That’s a serious blow in a social group where we depend on each other.

2. If scenario 2 happens and I am killed the loss to our tribe is 50% as well but this isn’t guaranteed as scenario 1 is so between just these two its always better to try to save you and risk death then to let you die guaranteed. so the cost of trying is less then 50% PLUS my genes are better off because youll help out from a feeling of obligation and “moral rightiousness” if I do die so the cost drops even more. Just for arguments sake lets call it 40%.

3. If scenario 3 happens and one of us is injured (chances are the bullet wont actually pass through BOTH of us) then the loss to the tribe would be the injury of one individual and not death so lets say 25% rather then 50%.

4. And of course the 4th scenario is no loss at all.

So what do I do? Doing nothing guarantees me a 50% loss to the survivability of our tribe. Attempting something leads to either 40%, 25% or 0% loss. That’s an average of 21.7%. The genetic choice is obvious.

Not convinced? Well wait! Theres even more reinforcement that this comes down to genetics in the end. And that is that its MUCH more likely for self sacrifice to occur in adults then in non-adults. A grown man risking his life for another grown man makes sense to us. A 10 year old taking death for a grown man seems much less likely. This is because the 10 year old most certainly hasn’t mated yet. His genes have not been passed on yet. But the adult may have a couple kids already and a mate who takes care of them AND his best buddy who he just saved who will feel obligated to help out with the kids. Now which situation is better for the dead persons genes? And which situation is more common in nature? That’s right. You guessed it.

Not going by genetics rules isn't just going against a strategy because that strategy doesn't work for the situation, and taking a better one instead to accomplish the goal. These are basic purposes of the game that are being ignored.

Ill try to get to the sex thing in another post. That may take even more typing then I did here on this. And nothing is being ignored. Its just sometimes things don’t appear as they are. Sometimes the obvious thing isn’t. and theres an underlying reason for it. Altruism is a perfect example of this. Oh! That reminds me. I almost forgot that you said that theres nothing in nature like the example above of humans sacrificing themselves for another non-immediate relative. But just look at bees. The soldiers commit suicide when they sting. They only sting to defend the hive. Not to save themselves. Perfect example of self destruction to save the social group that the others (including gene sharers) are dependent on. Of course bees are colonial creatures so it’s a little different but hey its still an example. Same with ants.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
so what was your opinion in a nut shell on that?

We were discussing predestination in the Silmarillion, which is basically the same as in Christianity. I didn't believe in predestination, and I was explaining how God's knowing all things doesn't imply his controlling all things. I gave multiple analogies for how that could be true, but Cirdan thought that prophesies determined the future, rather than that the future determined prophesies. We debated prophesy a lot too.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
1. If I do nothing I survive but you die guaranteed. The loss to our (tiny little) tribe is 50%. That’s a serious blow in a social group where we depend on each other.

2. If scenario 2 happens and I am killed the loss to our tribe is 50% as well but this isn’t guaranteed as scenario 1 is so between just these two its always better to try to save you and risk death then to let you die guaranteed. so the cost of trying is less then 50% PLUS my genes are better off because youll help out from a feeling of obligation and “moral rightiousness” if I do die so the cost drops even more. Just for arguments sake lets call it 40%.

3. If scenario 3 happens and one of us is injured (chances are the bullet wont actually pass through BOTH of us) then the loss to the tribe would be the injury of one individual and not death so lets say 25% rather then 50%.

4. And of course the 4th scenario is no loss at all.

So what do I do? Doing nothing guarantees me a 50% loss to the survivability of our tribe. Attempting something leads to either 40%, 25% or 0% loss. That’s an average of 21.7%. The genetic choice is obvious.

Once again, this works perfectly with all animal species except humans, and you're ignoring the scenario I laid out. You're saying that people never do sacrifice their lives for other, except perhaps when they've got offspring and are thus more expendable.

People do lay down their lives for each other. Even if the bullet is too fast, so that example is imperfect, people do step willingly into situations where the likelihood of death is certain, to help a friend. We see this behavior in movies frequently, and it doesn't make any difference whether someone is married or unmarried. Acts of heroism are equally common among both, though I agree that they probably aren't as common among children. Though in a few cases, they have laid down their lives for others as well. I have no offspring yet, but I would be just as willing to lay down my life as a married man would. It's not just genetics.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Oh! That reminds me. I almost forgot that you said that theres nothing in nature like the example above of humans sacrificing themselves for another non-immediate relative. But just look at bees. The soldiers commit suicide when they sting. They only sting to defend the hive. Not to save themselves. Perfect example of self destruction to save the social group that the others (including gene sharers) are dependent on. Of course bees are colonial creatures so it’s a little different but hey its still an example. Same with ants.

Good examples. What do you think of people who aren't willing to risk themselves for others, then? Some people are willing to go and expose themselves to extreme danger, even lay down their lives for others. Whether they're married or unmarried. But then others are cowards, and wouldn't do it. Some wouldn't even feel any urge to save the person.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
We were discussing predestination in the Silmarillion, which is basically the same as in Christianity. I didn't believe in predestination, and I was explaining how God's knowing all things doesn't imply his controlling all things. I gave multiple analogies for how that could be true, but Cirdan thought that prophesies determined the future, rather than that the future determined prophesies. We debated prophesy a lot too.

Hm interesting. I was under the impression in the Silmarillion that Iluvitar purposefully allowed the music (including the competing music made by melkor) to play out in the form of world creation. And that he did this to prove the point that although you may think you have control over the situation think not that in the end all that I have forseen comes to pass despite your medling and conscious choices. Which is of course an interesting way of looking at things in the vein of free will I think…..

Once again, this works perfectly with all animal species except humans, and you're ignoring the scenario I laid out. You're saying that people never do sacrifice their lives for other, except perhaps when they've got offspring and are thus more expendable.

What I was saying was that we are a social species and we are better off in the long run by being altruistic and selfless with each other even to the extreme. Genetically speaking we are better off as individuals (and collections of genes) if we risk danger to keep ourselves safer than if we all simply did things only for ourselves. I think this is obvious personally. Its rare you face life and death situations. Usually its not that bad. Usually being sociable and selfless isn’t fatal and can be passed on because it especially benefits us more so then living among people who would never do anything for anyone else. Those people would be selected against because the cooperative species would excel. Even if one or two individuals lost their lives in horrible tragedies involving trying to help others.

People do lay down their lives for each other. Even if the bullet is too fast, so that example is imperfect, people do step willingly into situations where the likelihood of death is certain, to help a friend. We see this behavior in movies frequently,

movies? You are taking your ideas on human behavior from Hollywood? I dare say that’s just a bit scary. As fun as Die Hard or Lethal Weapon are I really don’t think they represent reality as far as standard human behavior goes. Usually life is much more normal. Usually you don’t get shot at or chased by cars during your average day. That’s where the normal social behavior of homo sapiens operates best. Because it helps us thrive in a community where we need to cooperate with each other. And on these very rare occasions when life and death decisions are necessary our genes lead us to the best decision considering all the circumstances like I worked out in the last post.

Good examples. What do you think of people who aren't willing to risk themselves for others, then? Some people are willing to go and expose themselves to extreme danger, even lay down their lives for others. Whether they're married or unmarried. But then others are cowards, and wouldn't do it. Some wouldn't even feel any urge to save the person.

I would submit that most humans would feel some urge to help another human because of our social altruistic nature. BUT certainly if a situation is close to hopeless of course the self sustaining part of us could kick in and tell us don’t bother the risk is too great. Its no use. Those that would actually feel no urge at all to help a fellow human are rare creatures in our species because if everyone was like that we would be worse off. However Im sure there are environments in which being more selfish and helping others less is better for the genes of the survival machine in question. Perhaps in a very impoverished place where the competition for resources is incredible and disease and death is common. Remember the genes have given us the means to set our behavior based on basic rules and algorithems (do whatever you feel is best to keep us alive). This means we are one of the most adaptive species on the face of the earth. This also means our behavior can fluctuate with our environment. And THIS can often be confused with absolute free will.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Hm interesting. I was under the impression in the Silmarillion that Iluvitar purposefully allowed the music (including the competing music made by melkor) to play out in the form of world creation. And that he did this to prove the point that although you may think you have control over the situation think not that in the end all that I have forseen comes to pass despite your medling and conscious choices. Which is of course an interesting way of looking at things in the vein of free will I think…..

Hmmm. Well, I'm not going to get back into that topic, if you don't mind . . .

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
What I was saying was that we are a social species and we are better off in the long run by being altruistic and selfless with each other even to the extreme. Genetically speaking we are better off as individuals (and collections of genes) if we risk danger to keep ourselves safer than if we all simply did things only for ourselves. I think this is obvious personally.

I agree with you thus far. I just don't think that the genes model covers nearly all of human behavior. Here I'm talking about the sexual inconsistency, and the sacrificing of self inconsistency. I agree that in the situation you've described it's possible that there isn't any inconsistency; a herd instinct does make sense for the benefit of everyone in the group. The creature would have a lesser chance of survival if it didn't go and help; I agree thus far.

However, it doesn't cover nearly all the possibilities. For one, sometimes it would be to a very great benefit for the group if an individual did risk his life to help them, but he doesn't do it. It really depends upon the individual rather than upon the situation, though the situation does have some effect on the individual's action, certainly. Notice that people who are cowardly are consistently cowardly. It is something within them, not something that happens only in response to the situation. A hero is likely to be heroic again, but a coward is likely to be cowardly again. It's their personality, the way they are. It sometimes changes with the amount of danger that is happening, and you can call that genes. I call it prudence, but you can call it gene inspired prudence if you like . However it is true that the herd instinct, though it is there for almost everyone, only is strong enough to conquer prudence in the cases of specific individuals. Things depend upon the circumstances, but they depend far more to the individual who's in that circumstance.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Its rare you face life and death situations. Usually its not that bad. Usually being sociable and selfless isn’t fatal and can be passed on because it especially benefits us more so then living among people who would never do anything for anyone else. Those people would be selected against because the cooperative species would excel. Even if one or two individuals lost their lives in horrible tragedies involving trying to help others.

I'll not debate that point.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
movies? You are taking your ideas on human behavior from Hollywood? I dare say that’s just a bit scary. As fun as Die Hard or Lethal Weapon are I really don’t think they represent reality as far as standard human behavior goes. Usually life is much more normal. Usually you don’t get shot at or chased by cars during your average day. That’s where the normal social behavior of homo sapiens operates best. Because it helps us thrive in a community where we need to cooperate with each other. And on these very rare occasions when life and death decisions are necessary our genes lead us to the best decision considering all the circumstances like I worked out in the last post.

LOL! Oh, gosh, no! (Thinks to himself: what must Insidious Rex think of me? I've really put my foot in my mouth this time ) No, I probably shouldn't have brought up movies. I was using them as an example, not as something I base my beliefs of human behavior on. The reason I was using them as an example is because the characters in a lot of those movies are realistic characters. I was using them as a reference because they could easily be real (Granted, depending upon which movie ), but I probably shouldn't have brought that up .

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
I would submit that most humans would feel some urge to help another human because of our social altruistic nature. BUT certainly if a situation is close to hopeless of course the self sustaining part of us could kick in and tell us don’t bother the risk is too great. Its no use. Those that would actually feel no urge at all to help a fellow human are rare creatures in our species because if everyone was like that we would be worse off.

I agree with you.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
However Im sure there are environments in which being more selfish and helping others less is better for the genes of the survival machine in question. Perhaps in a very impoverished place where the competition for resources is incredible and disease and death is common. Remember the genes have given us the means to set our behavior based on basic rules and algorithems (do whatever you feel is best to keep us alive). This means we are one of the most adaptive species on the face of the earth. This also means our behavior can fluctuate with our environment. And THIS can often be confused with absolute free will.

It's the behavior that doesn't correspond with this design you've proposed that I'm siting as evidence for free will at the moment. Or at least a will that is unfettered by genes; merely influenced by them.

You still haven't addressed many of the primary difficulties with your theory. Some people are extremely brave and others are extremely cowardly. Even a situation that isn't desperate might not convince someone who's cowardly to go in and help, while the brave person would be fine with doing so.

An individual's upbringing might cause them not to reproduce, because it becomes his theology that chastity is good. People who believe in various religions don't ever reproduce, and that's got to be just maddening for their genes. They wouldn't be using their host to good advantage.

I have one question also. If an individual's genes are responsible for them being good or bad, and if it's good for genes to be involved in a good, selfless exchange, how come there are murderers? It's plainly not that it's all a measuring act: how much will killing benefit me, how much risk is there, etc. because while one person might be a murderer, another person wouldn't be. One person might murder a person given their circumstance, while another person would restrain himself. Different personalities cause different behaviors in that given circumstance. However, since it's in everyone's best interest not to do any such thing except in very extreme circumstances, why do we have murderers at all? Mistakes among the genes? I know you said it's to the overall benefit of the genes to have a careful balance between the murderers and nonmurderers, but that doesn't explain where the choice is made. What genes would decide to become the victim, by becoming a murderer, to support all the other genes? Is this herd instinct? I should think it would be the opposite of herd instinct, for this isn't protection but is destruction. The instinct is to slaughter to benefit the species. But that is far from the instinct that a person feels when he's motivated to kill. He isn't acting because it would be better for everyone(I'm talking about murder here, not wars. And wars aren't always for land gains either), but because he has personal motive or incentive to kill. Something that happened in life. Random murderers murder because of insanity, mental instability or weird viewpoints. None of those is benefit for the species, and no genes have reason to take that course for themselves. They'd wish someone else would do it for them, but they'd be destroying themselves to take such a course of action, and you said genes are selfish. Meaningless, cruel behaviors or tortures also are illogical.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
However, it doesn't cover nearly all the possibilities. For one, sometimes it would be to a very great benefit for the group if an individual did risk his life to help them, but he doesn't do it. It really depends upon the individual rather than upon the situation, though the situation does have some effect on the individual's action, certainly. Notice that people who are cowardly are consistently cowardly. It is something within them, not something that happens only in response to the situation. A hero is likely to be heroic again, but a coward is likely to be cowardly again.

Ok what you are getting at here is behavior variation within same species which is normal not abnormal. In any given species of animal (in our case humans) you never have individuals with all the same genes of course. Therefore you never have all individuals with the exact same behavior since the behavior is dictated by their genes (unless it’s a species that reproduces asexually). There is always a balance within a given population. Variation allows for a species to evolve when environment changes take place. If they all had the same behavior and that behavior suddenly was selected against then goodbye species. If however a set of genes that allowed for a certain variation in behavior existed in a population on a small scale (say 8% of the population had them) then suddenly the environment changes so that this previously minority gene pattern becomes much more highly successful it will suddenly blossom and become the dominant mode of behavior within the population. And the previously dominant one may drop down to 8% or so. Until the environment changes again…

Ok this is hard to conceptualize so let me give some examples. Aggression. A species can react in various ways in aggressive situations. Lets say theres a given species that has some individuals that are considered HAWKS who never back down from confrontation unless injured. And the same population has some individuals who because of their genes would be called DOVES who always back down when faced with confrontation. Now why would there be two different strategies in the same species? Well because the ideal situation for the genes of all the species members over all is to have a specific balance between the hawks and the doves. If you had all hawks every confrontation is going to end in injury or death to at least one individual and genetic success for the other (gain of territory/mate/food/etc). If you had all doves then all confrontations would end in both parties backing down but neither party would ever be hurt or killed. So theres benefit in that strategy too. But the ideal would be a mix of the two (in this case 5/12 doves and 7/12 hawks. I wont bore you with the math on that but it works out.). This is the STABLE RATIO. That’s how things work in nature. In any given environment theres always a stable ratio of behavior that of course comes straight from our genes. This stable ratio of behavior variation allows the population over all to be most successful (and a successful population means successful individuals which of course means… successful genes).

Now of course in the real world it gets much more complicated because there may be many more then two different behavior variants. You may also have a CONDITIONAL STRATEGIST whose behavior strategy depends on the actions of his opponent. Against a dove hes a dove. Against a hawk hes a hawk. That throws a monkey wrench into things. You may also have a BULLY who behaves like a hawk lets say until someone bites back then he runs away. And theres other strategies toward aggression in nature but you get the picture. And all of these will have a stable ratio such that any given population will contain some of each of these individuals.

(cont.)

[Insidious Rex]

And this takes us to the examples you gave us. You gave us HEROES who tend to always be heroes. And you gave us COWARDS who tend to always be cowards. In a given population of these individuals the heroes dominate. Because its best for the genes of the individuals in the species if there are a higher ration of heroes to cowards. However, if there were ALL heroes then the population wouldn’t be stable. Perhaps there would be too much self sacrificing or something and this would be detrimental to the population. A population of all cowards would have problems as well since no one would help anyone. So we are left with a balance. A nice neat balance which nature is always seeking. Nature doesn’t like it when the scales tip one way too much. They need a balance for a stable situation. So maybe we have 80% heroes and 20% cowards. Maybe that’s the best ratio. And that would be reflected in the genes of the population. Which is why cowards are still bred in a population when it seems being a hero is the best way to go. Because genetically speaking the ratio of one to the other is better.

Now lets say the environment changes. You go from a stable social situation to anarchy because of some massive natural event that shakes up the local resources and social network (war in iraq?). Suddenly being a hero all the time is a liability. And the cowards become more dominant. And the ratio is shuffled until it becomes stable again. This is evolution at work. And this is simply a reflection of whats best for the genes.

Drat. Out of time. Ill get to your second post Sunday night or monday.

[Lief Erikson]

What genes, then, would decide to become the sacraficial lamb? In other words, what genes would decide to do something for themselves that's against what the current environment dictates they should do? Sure, you might say it's best for the species that there be a balance, but it seems to me that the genes that are least likely to enable the creature to survive well would logically be turned off. However, these genes seem to make the decision that it's best that they take their worse options so that the species will benefit. They select for themselves things that work against them, to benefit the rest of the species. Does this make sense?

And if you bring back your answer to that:

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
So maybe we have 80% heroes and 20% cowards. Maybe that’s the best ratio. And that would be reflected in the genes of the population. Which is why cowards are still bred in a population when it seems being a hero is the best way to go. Because genetically speaking the ratio of one to the other is better.

Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. You say genes are selfish, but they would be forced to collaborate in order to make some sort of a decision on who is going to be stupid. On who is going to select the bad genes and get culled, for the good of the population. No gene group would make that decision for itself, deciding to select the genes that are worse for its survival in order to cause the others to remain. None would choose to be the 20% cowards. You said that they're selfish- now you seem to be saying that they're under a law of what's best for the species as a whole. Rather than approaching that goal through selfishness, they approach that goal through selflessness. Selflessness that is utterly against their nature, for it doesn't benefit themselves at all. That protection it gives benefits others, but it does nothing but hurt the individual itself. That, from the beginning of this debate, has been my primary argument against this theory of genetics causing everything. And that has constantly been ignored. Self sacrifice doesn't figure into your theory, so you're ignoring it. Now you're reverting to explaining it by saying herd instinct is stronger. How can herd instinct be stronger if selfishness is the key to creature and species survival? And why do the genes of specific individuals choose to become the victim?


Hmm, this is strange. Here I am calling the murderer the sacraficial lamb, and the victim. First time I've ever done that .

[Lief Erikson]

What genes, then, would decide to become the sacraficial lamb? In other words, what genes would decide to do something for themselves that's against what the current environment dictates they should do? Sure, you might say it's best for the species that there be a balance, but it seems to me that the genes that are least likely to enable the creature to survive well would logically be turned off. However, these genes seem to make the decision that it's best that they take their worse options so that the species will benefit. They select for themselves things that work against them, to benefit the rest of the species. Does this make sense?

And if you bring back your answer to that:

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Drat. Out of time. Ill get to your second post Sunday night or monday.

I hope I don't distract you too much with my most recent post. I'll try to be good and not respond again till you've responded to both .

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
What genes, then, would decide to become the sacraficial lamb? In other words, what genes would decide to do something for themselves that's against what the current environment dictates they should do? Sure, you might say it's best for the species that there be a balance, but it seems to me that the genes that are least likely to enable the creature to survive well would logically be turned off. However, these genes seem to make the decision that it's best that they take their worse options so that the species will benefit. They select for themselves things that work against them, to benefit the rest of the species. Does this make sense?

And if you bring back your answer to that:

I hope I don't distract you too much with my most recent post. I'll try to be good and not respond again till you've responded to both .

How do you guys manage to post this much???

Of course your objection against species level selection is valid- the advantages have to go to the individual.

So in the hero/coward case how could that work?

Say you have a species that follows the very common pattern of polygyny- one male tries to mate with many females, and keep other males away.

There is a very simple check on how polygynous a species is, called dimorphism- the difference in size between the male and female. The bigger the male compared to the female, the more polygynous, because the male has to fight off other males to keep his harem. Male gorillas are about twice the size of females, whereas chimpanzees and gibbons are roughly equal.By this rule, humans are slightly polygynous (about 10% difference)

In a species like this, the 'heroes' would battle each other, while the 'cowards' would slink away, showing signs of deference.

So how could the 'cowards' possibly reproduce? By being opportunists, hanging around the outside, waiting for the hero to be distracted, then rushing in to seize a quick mating.

It wouldn't work all the time, because the heroes are on guard- but as long as it works some of the time, that's enough.

Even in a social species like baboons this strategy could work- being a hero gets you more food and mates, but it can also get you dead, facing down leopards or being the first to check out a new situation- and many aspiring heroes are going to get killed or maimed before they mate, which might leave room for a coward to sneak a little bit in.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I agree with you.

It's the behavior that doesn't correspond with this design you've proposed that I'm siting as evidence for free will at the moment. Or at least a will that is unfettered by genes; merely influenced by them.
<snip>
I have one question also. If an individual's genes are responsible for them being good or bad, and if it's good for genes to be involved in a good, selfless exchange, how come there are murderers? It's plainly not that it's all a measuring act: how much will killing benefit me, how much risk is there, etc. because while one person might be a murderer, another person wouldn't be. One person might murder a person given their circumstance, while another person would restrain himself. Different personalities cause different behaviors in that given circumstance. However, since it's in everyone's best interest not to do any such thing except in very extreme circumstances, why do we have murderers at all? Mistakes among the genes? I know you said it's to the overall benefit of the genes to have a careful balance between the murderers and nonmurderers, but that doesn't explain where the choice is made. What genes would decide to become the victim, by becoming a murderer, to support all the other genes? Is this herd instinct? I should think it would be the opposite of herd instinct, for this isn't protection but is destruction. The instinct is to slaughter to benefit the species. But that is far from the instinct that a person feels when he's motivated to kill. He isn't acting because it would be better for everyone(I'm talking about murder here, not wars. And wars aren't always for land gains either), but because he has personal motive or incentive to kill. Something that happened in life. Random murderers murder because of insanity, mental instability or weird viewpoints. None of those is benefit for the species, and no genes have reason to take that course for themselves. They'd wish someone else would do it for them, but they'd be destroying themselves to take such a course of action, and you said genes are selfish. Meaningless, cruel behaviors or tortures also are illogical.

I agree that we're not totally controlled by our genes, but they do set the limits in which we act, and those limits were not set for modern mass civilisation, but for the Ancestral Environment.

To assume that it's not in one's own best interest to commit murder is not necessarily true. The vast majority of murders are not random, but are committed for the usual motives i.e. sex and greed, both eminently suited for propagating one's genes.


Especially pertinent are "crimes of passion"; hey, you ain't substituting your genes for mine, even if I have to kill you (and my mate; it serves as a useful warning to the next one).

Random murderes are both very rare and hard to catch for precisely the reason that they don't have an obvious motive, whereas most murderers are quickly caught (not necessarily convicted) because they do.

Bear in mind that our society with its courts and police is very different from the society in which we evolved, and in which most people lived until the last few hundred years.

In a tribal society killing is not something to be engaged in lightly- there's always the risk of death or injury to yourself, as well as the threat of retribution- and a truly uncontrolled killer would be dealt with as a threat to the whole group.

But, if you are big enough, tough enough, or smart enough to gain allies, killing can often be a viable option.

Take, as a depressing example, the career of Saddam Hussein- a poor boy from a lowly social position, he made a very successful career precisely by being the biggest, meanest, sneakiest bully on the block- he actually started out as an enforcer and hitman -and he could have remained that way if not for the fickle twists of fate; too often, alas, the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
To assume that it's not in one's own best interest to commit murder is not necessarily true. The vast majority of murders are not random, but are committed for the usual motives i.e. sex and greed, both eminently suited for propagating one's genes.

But the difficulty is that a murderer is more likely to murder again. Someone who is willing to give in to those passions or desires once is much more likely to cross that bridge again than someone else is. Ultimately, that individual's genes are being put at more risk by being the type to do those things. The genes create the individual without knowing what political or other type of situation the individual will be thrust into. Also, someone who does a wicked or bad thing once I deem is more likely to do it again than someone who hasn't done that type of thing at all, yet. One person might murder for greed or sex, but another person in exactly the same situation wouldn't, because they're not willing to give in to that impulse. That shows that the genes that direct individuals aren't all willing to take risks; some individuals you can take risks with and some you can't. Murder is one way to propogate your genes, but it's a dangerous way, and there are more easy solutions, in general. Try to get a romance with someone (Within the codes of behavior that society agrees to). Doing something that endangers your individual severely sounds like a last resort to propogate genes. But then there are motives like revenge or anger or philosophical viewpoint. There are motives which benefit or won't benefit the genes at a particular time.

Bother, I can't continue any more now. I'll probably speak on this more later.