From: gts (gts@optexinc.com)
Date: Wed Aug 07 2002 - 14:47:43 MDT
Lee wrote:
gts wrote:
>> I explain both behaviors as being motivated by the desire
>> for the subjective experience of reward that accompanies
>> socially constructive behavior.
Lee challenged...
> This is almost "reasoning by tautology", in my opinion.
No tautology here.
In order to see things clearly, I think we need first to rid ourselves of
any value judgements we might make about "altruistic" behavior. I do not
even like that term because in my view "altruism" is a false concept.
Altruists exist in the same way that unicorns exist.
In my view, for the purposes of this discussion, there are really only types
of behavior: those that serve to perpetuate genes, and those that do not.
So-called "altruistic" behavior is of the first type. In social species like
homo sapiens, "altruistic" behavior serves to perpetuate genes even if
sometimes at the expense of the individual who expresses the behavior.
> So the hijackers sacrificed themselves for the fleeting feeling
> of joy as they crashed their planes into the buildings?
The experience of reward is not necessarily "fleeting", nor is it identical
to the experience of "joy." However, yes, probably they did experience
rewarding feelings of some knid. I imagine they were happily praising Allah
even as they crashed into the WTC.
> Here is the problem with that: the brain is a machine, and nature
> will find the simplest ways to get the organism to achieve
> some end.
I don't see that as the "problem." I see it as the answer. Yes, we humans
are machines, and we are driven by genetic predisposition to behave in ways
that increase the probability that our genes will replicate and propagate.
The genes to which I refer here are not only those that exist in our own
personal DNA. Included among the genes that we seek to serve are those that
exist in others of our species or tribe or family. Our behavior appears
"altruistic" when we behave in ways that serve to perpetuate the replicas of
our own genes that exist in others of our kind.
> Now, since everything is driven by this mechanical feature, we lose
> explanatory power by appealing to it.
Not at all. We lose only the romantic notion of "altruism."
> Yes, but it doesn't *explain* the emergence of altruistic
> behavior.
On the contrary, it explains it perfectly. You and I act charitably toward
others for essentially the same reason that we eat, sleep and mate. These
behaviors of ours all serve to perpetuate our genes, even if not always our
own personal copies of them. We might fancy ourselves to be "altruists" but
in reality we are merely the slaves of selfish genes.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:57 MST