From: m.l.vere@durham.ac.uk
Date: Sun May 14 2006 - 15:35:10 MDT
Quoting Keith Henson <hkhenson@rogers.com>:
> At 12:31 PM 5/13/2006 +0100, you wrote:
> >Quoting Keith Henson <hkhenson@rogers.com>:
> >
> > > At 11:16 PM 5/12/2006 +0100, m.l.vere wrote:
> > > >Crockners Rules
> > > >
> > > >I've been lurking for a while, and the one thing that has really struck
> me
> > > is
> > > >that whilst a (largely commendable) near worship of rationality exists
> on
> > > the
> > > >SL4 list, this has a huge blindspot. Everyone cleaves nearly
> > > unquestioningly
> > > >to wider societies superstitious moralism.
> > > >
> > > >Why does anyone have morals, or believe that other people/sentients
> have
> > > >intrisnic worth?
> > >
> > > We evolved this way. You have to understand Hamilton's concept of
> > > inclusive fitness, but genes have done better that cause us to consider
> > the
> > > value of copies of our genes in other people. It is a direct mathematic
> > > relation. Most of our evolution was done in tribes or small bands where
> > > the others around us were strongly related.
> >
> >No, we evolved the emotion compassion, and emotional social conformity. We
> >then built pseudo-rational, artificial, moral systems on top of this.
>
> When you use the word "evolve" in speaking of a psychological trait, you
> need to show how the "feature" would have directly improved reproductive
> success (taking into account inclusive fitness) in the EEA for those who
> had it, *or* how the psychological trait is a side effect of some trait
> that did improve reproductive success.
>
> Can you give a reasonable account of how "emotion compassion" other than
> that directed to relatives would have improved reproductive success enough
> for the genes building brain structures for it to become common?
Sure, firstly the emotion of compassion is a direct cause of cooperation.
Those who had others cooperate with them would have a survival advantage. The
compassionate would be more likely to recieve reciprocal cooperation. Also,
apparently selfless compassion may well have been an advantage in mating.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by "emotional social conformity" much less how
> *that* would have contributed to reproductive success.
When people feel an emotional need to act/think in a similar fasion to those
arround them. Doing so would a) speed up learning - survival advantage, and b)
make cooperation easier - again survival advantage.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT