Darwinian Archaeology / Cultural Evolution

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi, I have not read through all your replies to this first post in detail, so maybe the answer to my question is there. Do you propose any possible answers to what you view as a failure of the Darwinian explantion, or is that what you are searching for via this thread?

I am suggesting that the answer is that human beings have free will. Real free will. I am also suggesting that this is a critical component of what makes us human, and makes us different to nearly all other animals.

My own view is that a proper Darwinian explanation of altruism and religion would indicate that they are not "..relegated to a psychological crutch" but are actually a "pretty damn effective" social mechanism that would have vanished a long time ago if they were not.

They clearly take on this role. I am not denying that to a certain extent religions are both social engineering and a psychological crutch. However, I am denying that this is all there is to it. I believe they are also the result of human self-conciousness and a search for the meaning of life.

Actually I would like to hear your theory (theories) of what could explain what you view the Darwinian approach fails to.

The explanation is that human beings have the capacity for co-creational free will. I am denying hard determinism and compatibilism and I am therefore rejecting purely darwinian explanations of human behaviour as being invalid (and dangerous) biological determinism. A similar theoretical mentality lay behind the idealogy of the nazis, for example.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Piggy,

Your post is a defence of the standard position - that all forms of altruism come down to self-interest via group selection. I believe that these arguments do indeed work for the examples from nature that appear in your post. I simply do not accept that the same thing is occuring in humans. I do not believe such explanations are sufficient to explain the sorts of totally selfless acts that some humans are capable of. However, I also accept that it is going to be very difficult to empirically confirm either my own hypothesis or the one that you are defending.

Ditto for donating to charity, stopping to help a stranded motorist.....

Just as an aside, my father did this once. He was an alcoholic who drank at work and drove home slowly down the country lanes. He did this for 20 years and never got caught. One day he stopped to help a stranded motorist. That motorist was an off-duty policeman who subsequently arrested him for drunk driving. He lost his licence for 18 months. I am not sure what this story demonstrates......

And we feel bad if we don't because our evolutionary past selected for that feeling.

So why is it the case that most human beings do NOT behave in this way. Most humans beings are selfish and do not behave altruistically apart from when there is something to be gained (favour, status, future help, whatever....). Basically, most people, if they think they can get away with it, behave like the products of an evolutionary process which leads to self-interest, not altruism. Why do some of us have a conscience and others have none? It seems to me that where altruistic behaviour occurs in non-human animals it always has an evolutionary explanation we can point to. This is certainly the case in all of the examples you gave. But in the case of humans, we have to claim (like you did) that the extended forms of altruism we see are simply a side-effect of the altruism we see in others - the result of group selection. It is this inductive inference I am challenging. I do not believe it is valid. I think you are forced to offer this as a proposal because it is the only darwinian explanation avaliable. However, when you take the actual examples of human altruism that we find in the real world, those inferences are not credible. To me, it just doesn't have enough explanatory power. It is "darwinism of the gaps" - an evolutionary "just so story". Human beings are nearly always self-motivated. I see no reason to believe there is a sort of generalised altruism, the result of group selection, at work. Instead, I see individual human beings being driven by a moral conviction that has nothing whatsoever to do with darwinism. Your position implies that there is self-interest at work in all forms of altruistic behaviour. I simply do not accept that this is true. We are not naturally altruistic at all. We are naturally self-interested and when we behave altruistically it is often the result of a struggle against our natural dispositions. Your position entails that no such struggle should occur. Instead, if what you were saying was correct, altruism should come easily. But it doesn't.

 

[Piggy]

As I mentioned in my post, and as the Stanford article mentions as well, the selective pressure toward altruism is not the only one active. A totally altruistic species would be as likely to die out as a totally selfish one.

Your post is a defence of the standard position - that all forms of altruism come down to self-interest via group selection.

No, this isn't the standard position. It is a distortion of the standard position which invokes the confusion I mentioned above re evolutionary reasons for the existence of behavior and psychological reasons for engaging in behavior.

The standard position, properly stated, holds that group selection pressures are largely responsible for the emergence and success of true altruism in species with the mental capacity to engage in it.

Just because true altruism emerged from the interplay of natural selective pressures doesn't mean it's not real. People really do care. We really do want help other people even if we're not related to them. Not always, but when we do, it's real. People really do engage in selfless acts of our own free will.

Your error is to attempt to use this fact to level a "philosophical attack on Darwinian theories of human cultural development". I'm not saying that no philosophical attack on Darwinian theories of human cultural development is possible, just that you've chosen the wrong weapon, because the existence of true altruism meshes perfectly well with Darwinian theory and is in no way a challenge to it.

You're free to "simply not accept" or "not believe" whatever you want. I had a conversation with a guy just the other day who simply didn't accept and didn't believe in evolution or universal expansion at all -- just couldn't imagine them, he said. He's free to do that, too.

But if you come to this forum and try to attack Darwin on this point, you will convince no one.

 

[Z]

I simply do not accept that the same thing is occuring in humans. I do not believe such explanations are sufficient to explain the sorts of totally selfless acts that some humans are capable of. However, I also accept that it is going to be very difficult to empirically confirm either my own hypothesis or the one that you are defending.

At least you realize the difficulty of your position... and are admitting that it is your own beliefs that is causing the problem. Nice.

So why is it the case that most human beings do NOT behave in this way.

Sussex must suck! Most human beings I've met in the last three and a half decades DO behave this way.

Most humans beings are selfish and do not behave altruistically apart from when there is something to be gained (favour, status, future help, whatever....). Basically, most people, if they think they can get away with it, behave like the products of an evolutionary process which leads to self-interest, not altruism.

You must have had some rotten experiences in life. I've met a lot of people in a lot of cities... and what I've found is that most people WILL do the right thing, when needed.

Why do some of us have a conscience and others have none? It seems to me that where altruistic behaviour occurs in non-human animals it always has an evolutionary explanation we can point to. This is certainly the case in all of the examples you gave. But in the case of humans, we have to claim (like you did) that the extended forms of altruism we see are simply a side-effect of the altruism we see in others - the result of group selection.

That's about right... and why wouldn't it be?

It is this inductive inference I am challenging. I do not believe it is valid. I think you are forced to offer this as a proposal because it is the only darwinian explanation avaliable. However, when you take the actual examples of human altruism that we find in the real world, those inferences are not credible.

Some examples, please? From what I can tell, human altruism fits this model rather well, taking into account the more complex cognitive abilities of the human brain.

To me, it just doesn't have enough explanatory power. It is "darwinism of the gaps" - an evolutionary "just so story".

Why? Because there's no accounting for spirit, free will, and the power of thought?

Human beings are nearly always self-motivated.

Again, I've never seen that. Humans are nearly always motivated to help their family groups. Heck, if what you said were even vaguely true, we'd never have evolved at all. Governments would fail miserably, before we ever advanced past basic tribal stages. From what I can see, humans generally work within their societies. Yes, they are often selfish; but the social/cultural impetus far outweighs/overrides the selfish motivations for actions.

Instead, if what you were saying was correct, altruism should come easily. But it doesn't.

Seems to come easily enough to most people... Seems like you've just had some bad luck with people. Well, maybe once you've left college and gotten a real life, you'll see what I mean.

Hey, I was once where you are now. I thought I knew everything. I was in college, I studied philosophical giants, I saw my fellow man as rotten and vain. Then, I grew up. I got a real life, and saw things as they really are. Those philosophical giants? Mostly silly old men, trying to make a living by NOT working. And my fellow man? Basically good, no matter what they believed or talked about. Most people will help out when they can, even risking their own lives, when necessary. I see it all the time. That you don't, makes me wonder.

Maybe you're hanging out with too many Christians?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I am suggesting that the answer is that human beings have free will. Real free will. I am also suggesting that this is a critical component of what makes us human, and makes us different to nearly all other animals.

Matter of faith, some will say. I see that it is a lot more probable that we are clouded by rationalizing our responses to the environment after decisions have been made by the organism (note that I had to introduce a "dualist" terminology to deal with the imaginary problem).

In other words, what we believe its the cause for an action is nothing but the reflection of the higher mental processes trying to figure out what happened, and then convincing itself that it was "because" the higher mental process "wanted to".

Nah, we are hardwired, an assasin, a gay, a genious, we all are coded and not free.

 

[Piggy]

But in the case of humans, we have to claim (like you did) that the extended forms of altruism we see are simply a side-effect of the altruism we see in others - the result of group selection. It is this inductive inference I am challenging. I do not believe it is valid. I think you are forced to offer this as a proposal because it is the only darwinian explanation avaliable.

The explanatory power and veridity of the current Darwinian (plus genetic) model is now established beyond any reasonable doubt.

So the question is, does human altruism pose a challenge to it?

The answer is clearly no. There is nothing about it which doesn't fit. I am not "forced to offer it as a proposal". The process doesn't work like that. Because the model is so well established, the process is to consider whether there's something here that genuinely doesn't fit. Since there is a simple, logical, coherent explanation that fits perfectly, there is no challenge presented by human altruism.

If the Darwinian+genetic model were some wild speculation, the situation would be different. If we were looking for support of the model, we might decide, well, yes, this fits, but that doesn't mean the model is correct. But what you're proposing is a challenge. And in this case, you strike out because altruism presents no challenge.

Keep in mind that the selective/genetic model does not account for any-and-everything. For example, it doesn't account for why I, in particular, hate watermelon.

However, when you take the actual examples of human altruism that we find in the real world, those inferences are not credible. To me, it just doesn't have enough explanatory power.

"To you" doesn't really matter.

What do you find "not credible", specifically?

Btw, another clarification re selfishness. The D+g model does not propose that people are altruistic in order to promote group selection. It proposes that group selection is the primary pressure which gives rise to altruism. We need to be careful not to confuse these.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The explanatory power and veridity of the current Darwinian (plus genetic) model is now established beyond any reasonable doubt.

Power for explaining what, precisely? It explains the origin of the species. It does not follow from this that it is also capable of explaining everything that human beings do.

So the question is, does human altruism pose a challenge to it?

The answer is clearly no. There is nothing about it which doesn't fit.

What doesn't fit is the fact that human altruism requires us to fight against our natural dispositions. If what you are saying is true, there should be no need to fight. Instead, altruism would come naturally.

If the Darwinian+genetic model were some wild speculation, the situation would be different.

It is not wild speculation when applied to what it was originally applied to. However, there is a long history of people attempting to apply Darwinian principles in places where it does not belong. That is what social darwinism was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

Social Darwinism was, of course, an unmitigated disaster. Therefore one cannot claim that Darwinism has a track record of being successfully applied outside its original home.

What do you find "not credible", specifically?

That we must fight against our natural dispositions in order to behave morally. If this were not the case, then there would have been no need to invent the forms of religion which are social engineering. Why, if human beings naturally behave altruistically, was there any point in threatening them with punishment in the afterlife if they did not? If your theoretical position was correct, there would have been no need for the religious carrot/stick.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Matter of faith, some will say.

It's more than that. It is also based upon rational philosophical arguments. What it is not based upon is empirical evidence, because no such evidence is available to resolve the dispute.

Nah, we are hardwired, an assasin, a gay, a genious, we all are coded and not free.

This is the inevitable conclusion if one wishes to provide a completely naturalistic explanation of human behaviour.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Sussex must suck! Most human beings I've met in the last three and a half decades DO behave this way.

Most humans are naturally altruistic????

Sorry, but I don't think you live on the same planet as me, let alone the same county.

Again, I've never seen that. Humans are nearly always motivated to help their family groups. Heck, if what you said were even vaguely true, we'd never have evolved at all. Governments would fail miserably, before we ever advanced past basic tribal stages.

The truth is that we have indeed barely advanced beyond this stage. There is only a thin veneer of civilisation at work. If the central government and law enforcement agencies were to collapse, total anarchy would ensue almost instantaneously. We are only just civilised, and could return to the law of the jungle at the drop of a hat.

As for the rest of your post, you are currently risking finding your way on to my ignore list. Lots of hyperbole, lots of accusations, lots of claims of your own brilliance, no substance. In short, you are trying to turn this into a pissing contest and if you continue to do so, I will simply ignore you.

 

[Piggy]

It explains the origin of the species. It does not follow from this that it is also capable of explaining everything that human beings do.

That's right. It explains how variation in body forms and behaviors among species arise and endure. But it does not explain why I hate watermelon.

 

[Piggy]

What doesn't fit is the fact that human altruism requires us to fight against our natural dispositions. If what you are saying is true, there should be no need to fight. Instead, altruism would come naturally.

Where do you get your definition of "our natural dispositions"?

It's quite natural for people sometimes to behave altruistically. It's quite natural for us sometimes to behave selfishly. It's quite natural for us sometimes to be in a quandry about how to behave.

This all fits very well with Darwinian theory. There's no challenge here.

 

[Piggy]

Social Darwinism was, of course, an unmitigated disaster. Therefore one cannot claim that Darwinism has a track record of being successfully applied outside its original home.

Since it has been shown that the origination and maintenance of altruism, in both the biological and psychological ("true", "real", "moral") senses, fits perfectly well within the Darwinian framework, there is no reason to argue that the application is "outside its original home", which certainly includes differentiation among species in both body type and behavior. Keep in mind that Darwin explicitly addressed this issue. That's about as original as you can get.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Since it has been shown that the origination and maintenance of altruism, in both the biological and psychological ("true", "real", "moral") senses, fits perfectly well within the Darwinian framework, there is no reason to argue that the application is "outside its original home", which certainly includes differentiation among species in both body type and behavior.

There is an inference here that because darwinism successfully explains animal behaviour, it also must therefore explain ALL human behaviour. Since the whole point in this thread is a claim that humans are significantly different to all other animals, this inference cannot be allowed to go through unchallenged. I have rejected the implicit assumption that humans are just another animal, but your argument here depends upon that assumption going unchallenged. We are products of evolution. It does not follow that we are incapable of transcending our evolutionarily-inherited instinctive behaviours.

 

[Piggy]

That we must fight against our natural dispositions in order to behave morally. If this were not the case, then there would have been no need to invent the forms of religion which are social engineering. Why, if human beings naturally behave altruistically, was there any point in threatening them with punishment in the afterlife if they did not? If your theoretical position was correct, there would have been no need for the religious carrot/stick.

Lots of assumptions packed into this argument.

As I've said, I see no evidence to support your scheme that selfishness is our "natural disposition" and that there must be a "fight against" it whenever we behave altruistically.

Also, the Darwinian model accounts perfectly well for a social species that ranges between selfish and altruistic behavior and exhibits differences among individuals in their tendencies.

Finally, the "religious carrot/stick" is not so simple, and is not always used merely to get folks to be generally altruistic. The fear of hell serves many purposes, including inducing deference to church authority, as well as inciting people to be horribly cruel. And I see no evidence to indicate that folks would stop being altruistic without this particular carrot/stick -- and plenty of evidence that people in fact don't.

So this argument also fails as a challenge to the Darwinian model.

 

[Piggy]

There is an inference here that because darwinism successfully explains animal behaviour, it also must therefore explain ALL human behaviour.

Really? Where? I don't see it. Is this your inference? If so, I reject it. Doesn't seem to make much sense. Can Darwinism explain why I hate watermelon?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Where do you get your definition of "our natural dispositions"?

It's a statement of the blindingly obvious. Our natural disposition is to be selfish. You want evidence? Turn on the news.

I repeat: If humans were generally altruistic, and not selfish, why would the carrot/stick of mainstream religion have been needed?

 

[Piggy]

I have rejected the implicit assumption that humans are just another animal, but your argument here depends upon that assumption going unchallenged.

Well if you want to challenge that idea, then get on with it, man. But you're going to need to find a better weapon than altruism because that fails completely.

 

[rocketdodger]

In the same way is meaningless.

No, it is not meaningless. I mean to distinguish between traits that evolution has produced via a feedback cycle, such as mating, and those that really are (as you say) side-effects. Since anything can be argued to be a side effect, it is only productive to argue about those that participate in feedback cycles and affect reproductive fitness.

Proving ones self, good behaviour for showing yourself to the other sex.

This may be true in some cases, but in many it is not. The simple fact is that I can list a huge number of human endeavors that the participants are undertaking for reasons that have nothing to do with the evolutionary game. In fact, I can list many that are counter-productive when it comes to evolutionary fitness.

A simple explanation is that when people reach a certain mental level, they decide to tell evolution to f--- off (at least temporarily) and do whatever they want to do.

 

[Piggy]

It's a statement of the blindingly obvious. Our natural disposition is to be selfish. You want evidence? Turn on the news.

That argument is so silly that it doesn't deserve a response. You want evidence that child abductors are a grave danger to your kids? Turn on the news! Piffle.

I repeat: If humans were generally altruistic, and not selfish, why would the carrot/stick of mainstream religion have been needed?

No need to repeat, I heard you the first time. I don't believe that humans are "generally altruistic". That's not the argument here. The question is whether people can be altruistic, and we certainly are. And we don't always have to struggle to be so. At least I don't. Nor do most folks I know.

I've also answered the question about the carrot/stick, which cannot be said to have the exclusive purpose of inducing altruism, and which cannot be credited with exclusively doing so.

People of all stripes engage in altruistic, and selfish, behavior. The threat of hell as a social engineering device likely has much more to do with power than encouraging altruism.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Really? Where? I don't see it. Is this your inference? If so, I reject it. Doesn't seem to make much sense.

It's your inference. You correctly state that darwinism can explain much (probably all) animal behaviour, including the sort of altruism which exists in social insects and social mammals. You then seemed to infer that this must also include humans, presumably on the grounds that humans are also social mammals. But we are an evolutionary anomaly, as explained in the opening post. There are many things which are common to all other evolved creatures but are different in humans.

For example, apes do not go to war with each other. They have the occasional tribal skirmish, but not a war. For most of human history, by contrast, war has been the permanent state of affairs. Another example is the vast cultural differences between different groups of humans. No such variation is true of chimps. There are variations, but on nothing like the same scale. But it is altruism and religious behaviour which is the most striking difference between humans and all other animals.

Can Darwinism explain why I hate watermelon?

Genetics might be able to. There is genetic evidence that some people can taste a chemical in brussells sprouts which others cannot taste, and that is why some people hate them and others do not.