Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

[Tassman]

Absolutely not true.
MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection acts for the good of the species.

This link doesn’t contradict the argument. Evolution favours traits that enable individuals to survive and reproduce. It endows social species’ with qualities which include bonding, cooperation, reciprocity and awareness of the social rules of the group. These innate qualities form the basis of our morality.

Competition (and therefore natural selection) within a species tends to be much higher than between species, since they will be directly competing for all resources as well as mates.

To a degree! But generally it is between different tribes (or packs) within the same species. Otherwise the advantages of being members of a group would not obtain. For example, lack of group cohesion could make individuals more vulnerable to attack from rival tribes. Being part of group improves the chances of finding food, e.g. among animals that hunt in packs to take down large or dangerous prey.

This is true, but realize that those "morals", will not be a single set of morals, but a whole collection of different morals, many of which will be diametrically opposed to each other.

These will not be “opposed to each other” to the extent that group cohesion is threatened; this would be contrary to our instinctive nature as social animals.

That is the survival of the individual and its descendants, not the survival species though.

It’s both, but the survival of the species is a by-product.

 

[David Mo]

Correct, but primarily at the social level not at the biological level.


It’s collaboration at the socio-biology level NOT at the level of the species’ biological evolution. Sociobiology is based on the assumption that social behaviour has resulted from the existing evolutionary organism; it attempts to explain social behaviour within that existing context.


I’ve never said that...this is your straw man. My emphasis is on the enforcement of human rights over and above the primitive notion of tribalism. This is a modern concept which nonetheless requires enforcing, which is a long way from your attribution of egalitarian collaboration to me.


Moses and most of tribal humanity would also “die laughing” at the notion of equal human rights. But, unlike chimpanzees, humans have the natural intelligence to move beyond the instinctive tribal rivalries that beset humanity for so long. Hence the UDHR, which was an enlightened product of the development of this natural intelligence.


Nope! I just corrected your mistaken equating of Evolutionary Darwinism with the "Social Darwinism" of Herbert Spencer, which is a perversion of Charles Darwin’s theory.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-Darwinism

BTW: It would be polite to address me directly, NOT via another person.

I don’t understand what are you saying.

First of all, I don’t know if you realize that the UDHR defends an egalitarian system of rights. If you are defending the UDHR you are defending an egalitarian system of collaboration. You seem recognizing that such a kind of collaboration doesn’t exist among animals neither in the first millenniums of human history. This is a strong indication that egalitarian collaboration or moral is not a natural law.

If egalitarian collaboration, as the basis of moral, were a natural law it needn’t any supplementary enforcement. Natural laws execute themselves without any voluntary effort. This is a strong indication that egalitarian collaboration or moral is not a natural law.

I ask myself if you have read Darwin’s quote that I have put in my previous comment. I repeat it: “there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life”. I insist, the struggle for life exists at every level of life, species and individual included. Of course, collaboration between individuals also exists in Nature, but not at higher levels as species and not egalitarian. This is a strong indication that your egalitarian collaboration, that is to say moral, is not a biological law.

Moreover, egalitarian collaboration doesn’t exist in the contemporary world neither. The incomplete list of current conflicts that I linked in my previous comment is a strong indication that egalitarian collaboration is not a fact neither a biological law. Neither a social law, but a moral aspiration of many human beings. Of course that it is not a moral aspiration of many others.

If the evolutionary advantages of a politic/moral system would be without discussion we wouldn’t need to discuss it. In the facts, the superiority for survival of (relative) egalitarian societies is not warranted by historical facts. Thus has not only happen in the past but some current egalitarian societies have regressed towards totalitarian regimes and notwithstanding formal claims of our respected leaders there is not any guarantee that the whole humanity cannot regress under adverse circumstances. Naive confidence in linear progress has been refuted many times and everywhere.

Conclusion: moral requirements of egalitarian collaboration are not sustainable in natural laws. They are a different kind of exigences that we call moral and need a constant effort of human will to implement them. Biology has nothing to do with freedom. History do.

 

[Cheetah]

Thank you Tommy

This link doesn’t contradict the argument. Evolution favours traits that enable individuals to survive and reproduce. It endows social species’ with qualities which include bonding, cooperation, reciprocity and awareness of the social rules of the group. These innate qualities form the basis of our morality.

You left out qualities like deception, cheating, killing, stealing etc.
These are to the advantage of the individual, never the group. The good of the group only becomes relevant when it is to the advantage of the individual.
Google "tactical deception in primates". The individual will always try to cheat the group. Cheating might come at a cost, as a cheater caught at cheating will face repercussions from the group, but this only drives evolution to find a better cheater so as not to be caught.

To a degree! But generally it is between different tribes (or packs) within the same species. Otherwise the advantages of being members of a group would not obtain. For example, lack of group cohesion could make individuals more vulnerable to attack from rival tribes. Being part of group improves the chances of finding food, e.g. among animals that hunt in packs to take down large or dangerous prey.

Competition "between tribes" and the "advantages of being members of a group" arises as a secondary result due to competition and natural selection between individuals and only if it advantages the individual.

These will not be “opposed to each other” to the extent that group cohesion is threatened; this would be contrary to our instinctive nature as social animals.

Then why do social animals, more than any other, cheat and deceive each other instead of always cooperating. Cooperating will always be better for the group.

 

[Cheetah]

Evolution and natural selection in social animals will favor individuals which are better at cooperating withing sight of the group and at the same time better at concealing deception from the group.
Those are conflicting morals.

Just look at people.

 

[Cheetah]

If egalitarian collaboration, as the basis of moral, were a natural law it needn’t any supplementary enforcement. Natural laws execute themselves without any voluntary effort. This is a strong indication that egalitarian collaboration or moral is not a natural law.

Indeed, no way around this.

 

[Tassman]

You left out qualities like deception, cheating, killing, stealing etc.
These are to the advantage of the individual, never the group. The good of the group only becomes relevant when it is to the advantage of the individual.
Google "tactical deception in primates". The individual will always try to cheat the group. Cheating might come at a cost, as a cheater caught at cheating will face repercussions from the group, but this only drives evolution to find a better cheater so as not to be caught

Morality developed in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups, important because humans are social animals. We primates will always try to cheat, which is why justice systems were developed. Primarily we need the advantages of group living and place a lot of importance in law and order.

Competition "between tribes" and the "advantages of being members of a group" arises as a secondary result due to competition and natural selection between individuals and only if it advantages the individual.

No! What advantages the individual is membership of an altruistic, reciprocal group. If this were not the case we would not live in groups, we would choose to live alone.

Then why do social animals, more than any other, cheat and deceive each other instead of always cooperating. Cooperating will always be better for the group.

More importantly, social animals also cooperate and maintain functioning communities...to the extent among humans of building cities, maintaining group activities such as group sports and developing orchestras, governments and theatrical events etc.

 

[Tassman]

Conclusion: moral requirements of egalitarian collaboration are not sustainable in natural laws. They are a different kind of exigences that we call moral and need a constant effort of human will to implement them. Biology has nothing to do with freedom. History do.

And yet we have evolved naturally and developed a moral system in which we live by a code of rules designed to maintain a cohesive society. We would not do this if we were not biologically predetermined to do so. It’s a naturally selected survival mechanism.

 

[Cheetah]

Morality developed in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups, important because humans are social animals. We primates will always try to cheat, which is why justice systems were developed. Primarily we need the advantages of group living and place a lot of importance in law and order.

No, I already explained why and how, more than once.

What advantages the individual is membership of an altruistic, reciprocal group. If this were not the case we would not live in groups, we would choose to live alone.

Yes, I already explained why and how it works and how it evolved to advantage the individual, not the group.

More importantly, social animals also cooperate and maintain functioning communities...to the extent among humans of building cities, maintaining group activities such as group sports and developing orchestras, governments and theatrical events etc.

Yes, I already explained why and how it works.

Are you sure you are still talking about evolution and natural selection?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...
No! What advantages the individual is membership of an altruistic, reciprocal group. If this were not the case we would not live in groups, we would choose to live alone.
...

Not all groups are altruistic and reciprocal. The Hominidae includes gorillas and the common chimpanzee, which do not live in social groups based solely on altruistic and reciprocal behavior. The same is true of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, not all social groups are solely altruistic and reciprocal. So we don't need to live in solely altruistic and reciprocal groups to live in groups.

Here is how an authoritarian social group function:
# A leader
# A sub-group of people (in power) she/he is dependent on to maintain authority within the overall group of people.
# The majority of people who are suppressed and used in favor of the leader and the sub-group of people in power.
This dynamic can be observed in the common chimpanzee and Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

 

[Cheetah]

Altruism and cooperation evolved only because it is in the individual's self interest, nothing to do with the good of the species or tribe at all. Any selfless individual, acting for the good of the group and not itself, will be selected against and eliminated from the population.
That is true in all mammals, the exception being social insects who share the same genes.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Altruism and cooperation evolved only because it is in the individual's self interest, nothing to do with the good of the species or tribe at all. Any selfless individual, acting for the good of the group and not itself, will be selected against and eliminated from the population.
That is true in all mammals, the exception being social insects who share the same genes.

Altruism and cooperation, except for kinship altruism, is tit for tat and only works in somewhat symmetrical power relationships. The moment you have an asymmetrical power relationship altruism and cooperation can go out the window.

 

[Tassman]

Altruism and cooperation evolved only because it is in the individual's self interest, nothing to do with the good of the species or tribe at all. Any selfless individual, acting for the good of the group and not itself, will be selected against and eliminated from the population.
That is true in all mammals, the exception being social insects who share the same genes.

Sigh!

It is in "the individual's self-interest" to be a member of a functioning cohesive group, because for any social species the benefits of being part of an altruistic, reciprocal group outweigh the benefits of individualism. Those who do not conform to the acceptable mores (i.e. morality) of the group will be removed from the group or otherwise dealt with.

Where do you think morality comes from, divine revelation? LOL

 

[Tassman]

Not all groups are altruistic and reciprocal. The Hominidae includes gorillas and the common chimpanzee, which do not live in social groups based solely on altruistic and reciprocal behavior. The same is true of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, not all social groups are solely altruistic and reciprocal. So we don't need to live in solely altruistic and reciprocal groups to live in groups.

Here is how an authoritarian social group function:
# A leader
# A sub-group of people (in power) she/he is dependent on to maintain authority within the overall group of people.
# The majority of people who are suppressed and used in favor of the leader and the sub-group of people in power.
This dynamic can be observed in the common chimpanzee and Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Not all groups are altruistic and reciprocal certainly, but Homo sapiens, chimpanzees and Bonobo's are...to name three.

“Since altruism, empathy, and gratitude all underpin moral behaviour, finding them in our fellow mammals suggests that they run deep in our brain biology and did not come about because of moral reasoning or religion. In fact, probably the opposite is true—religion developed because of our innate capacities for caring”. Frans de Waal

 

[Frank Newgent]

And yet we have evolved naturally and developed a moral system in which we live by a code of rules designed to maintain a cohesive society. We would not do this if we were not biologically predetermined to do so. It’s a naturally selected survival mechanism.

I pay my bills with patriotically-themed personalized checks. Is that what you mean?

 

[Tassman]

I pay my bills with patriotically-themed personalized checks. Is that what you mean?

Yep! Provided they don't bounce.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Not all groups are altruistic and reciprocal certainly, but Homo sapiens, chimpanzees and Bonobo's are...to name three.

“Since altruism, empathy, and gratitude all underpin moral behaviour, finding them in our fellow mammals suggests that they run deep in our brain biology and did not come about because of moral reasoning or religion. In fact, probably the opposite is true—religion developed because of our innate capacities for caring”. Frans de Waal

Here is what I did, I googled Frans de Waal and followed the trial to this:
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008/01/08/book-review-chimpanzee-politic/

Ultimately, as reported by de Waal in the paper “The Brutal Elimination of a Rival Among Captive Male Chimpanzees” published in 1986, Luit was fatally injured by Nikki and Yeroen, a fact that is included in the epilouge as de Waal admits he did not want to initially end his book on a dark note.

So male chimpanzees causes the death of each other.
Now it is your turn: Explain that using science and please cite a general study of the power and group dynamics in chimpanzee groups.
In general it should answer such questions as:
Do chimpanzees only exhibit non-violent behavior?
Is the group behavior totally flat(no leader) or does a given group have a leader?
If a non-flat and non-cooperative group structure, which in part relies on violence, can be observed, then what are the benefits of being a leader in such a group and how does that relate to the theory of evolution?

Can similar group behavior be observed in humans?
Are all in-group behaviors positive or do humans also use power and authority to achieve benefit and not just punish "social misfit" behavior?
If a low ranking member of a group can do "bad" behavior within the group, can a high ranking member of a group do "bad" behavior within the group, which is not punished, but rather gives benefits?

Tassman, try to answer these questions.

 

[David Mo]

And yet we have evolved naturally and developed a moral system in which we live by a code of rules designed to maintain a cohesive society. We would not do this if we were not biologically predetermined to do so. It’s a naturally selected survival mechanism.

Not all groups are altruistic and reciprocal certainly, but Homo sapiens, chimpanzees and Bonobo's are...to name three.

“Since altruism, empathy, and gratitude all underpin moral behaviour, finding them in our fellow mammals suggests that they run deep in our brain biology and did not come about because of moral reasoning or religion. In fact, probably the opposite is true—religion developed because of our innate capacities for caring”. Frans de Waal

Asking whether animals possess morality is almost like asking if they have a culture, a policy or a language. If we take the human phenomenon as a model in its entirety, it is evident that it is not. However, if we divide the most relevant human skills into their various components, we will see that some are recognizable in other animals. (Frans de Waal: Bien natural, p. 270. Translation from Spanish is mine. I am sorry, I am not the English original.)​

Frans de Waal is one of the strongest supporters of a definite line of continuity between animals and humans. He defends that some cultural and moral elements are present in animal species, specially in big primates. Empathy and primary altruism in the case of morality. However, he emphasizes that these disperse features doesn’t constitute a true morality because other specific human features —mainly culture and language— are absent. Morality is an specific human feature linked to an abstract language and the possibility to go beyond natural determinism.
Therefore you can say that nature puts the conditions that make possible morality but not that nature “predeterminates” morality. Human altruism doesn’t exist in any other species. The UDHR is only possible in the context of history and freedom.

In the same way, nature puts some conditions to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not “predeterminates” Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a terrible outcome of human psychological, political and historical conditions.

 

[Cheetah]

Sigh!

It is in "the individual's self-interest" to be a member of a functioning cohesive group, because for any social species the benefits of being part of an altruistic, reciprocal group outweigh the benefits of individualism. Those who do not conform to the acceptable mores (i.e. morality) of the group will be removed from the group or otherwise dealt with.

Sigh²!



We have been over this, I'm not understanding you.

The interests of the group comes secondary to the individuals self interest, it is a secondary effect and arises only because the self interest of the individual alines with that of the group. The individual is exploiting the group for it's own benefit. It is not a zero sum game though, both the group and the individual benefit.
Since there is no mechanism for evolution and natural selection to operate on the group level, cooperation evolved solely for the benefit of the individual.
Since evolution operates on the individual level, not the group, any individuals putting the interests of group above their own will be selected against and removed from the population. Natural selection guarantees that the individual will cheat the group/members of the group as often as it can get away with it.

Where do you think morality comes from, divine revelation? LOL

How ridiculous, divine revelation, really? How do you come up with this?
Literally everything I have written to you explains how morals originate due to evolution and natural selection.

The mistake you are making seems to be in assuming that the interests of the group supersede those of the individual. That is impossible. It cannot happen, ever, not via evolution and natural selection, not in primates.

You are the one who mistakenly thinks you can devise a single morality based on evolution and natural selection, is this correct? Looks like you decided "cooperation with the group is good" and "putting your self interest above that of the group is bad."

If so, you are dead wrong. Science clearly and unambiguously shows that this is not true and in fact cannot be true. The individual will apply and operate under a different set of morals withing the group than it would on it's own.

This is so clearly true that I have no idea how you can even question it.

 

[David Mo]

Can similar group behavior be observed in humans?
Are all in-group behaviors positive or do humans also use power and authority to achieve benefit and not just punish "social misfit" behavior?
If a low ranking member of a group can do "bad" behavior within the group, can a high ranking member of a group do "bad" behavior within the group, which is not punished, but rather gives benefits?

Tassman, try to answer these questions.

The problem with supporters of natural morality is that they ought to accept violence and brutal relations of power in the same package. Nature is Nature for better or worse. If you choose one or another your choice is out of Nature.

 

[Tassman]

Here is what I did, I googled Frans de Waal and followed the trial to this:
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008/01/08/book-review-chimpanzee-politic/


So male chimpanzees causes the death of each other.

Male Homo sapiens also cause the death of others. So what’s your point? In neither instance does such behaviour nullify that we are social species. Nor does it eliminate the demonstrable fact that altruism, empathy, and gratitude all underpin moral behaviour. Frans de Waal and others view human morality as having grown out of primate sociality. This is evident both with regard to the observed behavior of our primate cousins and the biological fact humans and other primates possess a part of the brain known as the ‘ventromedial pre-frontal cortex’. It has been demonstrated experimentally...due to cases of brain injury to this region...that this part of the brain is the very part of the brain responsible for our capacity to engage in ethical decision making. When that part of the brain is damaged, ethical decision making is manifestly impaired. In other words, we have an organic and biological basis as well as an evolved social basis for our capacity to act as compassionate, moral beings.

Or do you prefer the view that every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin as a result of their fallen nature and only exhibits altruism as a means to a selfish end? .Is this what you believe, what DO you believe?

Now it is your turn: Explain that using science and please cite a general study of the power and group dynamics in chimpanzee groups.
In general it should answer such questions as:
Do chimpanzees only exhibit non-violent behavior?
Is the group behavior totally flat(no leader) or does a given group have a leader?
If a non-flat and non-cooperative group structure, which in part relies on violence, can be observed, then what are the benefits of being a leader in such a group and how does that relate to the theory of evolution?

Can similar group behavior be observed in humans?
Are all in-group behaviors positive or do humans also use power and authority to achieve benefit and not just punish "social misfit" behavior?
If a low ranking member of a group can do "bad" behavior within the group, can a high ranking member of a group do "bad" behavior within the group, which is not punished, but rather gives benefits?

Tassman, try to answer these questions.

What a character! LOL