hi, John, i find, in the 'spunk' of your discourse, 'kindred' stuff. it
reflects what's in Abe Lincoln's comment, "I shall try to correct errors
when shown to be errors, and I shall adopt new views so fast as they appear
to be true views... and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed
personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."
so, in the vein, you've opened-up (at least within me :-), i'll state,
plain, that evolution does =not= derive in 'survival of the fittest', but,
rather, in the efforts of everything that Lives to 'climb' the energy
gradient that is what's described by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T]. the 'survival of
the fittest' notion is 'just' a short-shrift 'view' on the WDB2T thing.
i go out late at night to Pray the Rosary. sometimes, it's raining, and like
your friend who rescues cats, i rescue earth worms that've strayed onto the
driveway at my Father's Home.
there's 'selfishness' in-it, 'cause i'm thinking, "Now, go, and do your work
in the soil.", and that'll help grow whatever it is that grows where the
rescued worms will do their work.
but there's more to it. in taking this action, i'm 'climbing' the WDB2T
gradient, myself.
"altruistic"?
yes, in terms of the fact that i'll probably not receive any return on my
'investment' of energy-expended, but, in the Same-Stuff, applied in general,
surely some of the energy i expend comes-back-to-me, and surely, some of it
with 'compound-interest'.
the worth, inherent, becomes most-obvious when one studies cases in which
the correlated stuff is 'absent'. such usually occurs at 'boundaries'
that're created with respect to groups' familiar stuff.
folks 'move away from' doing the WDB2T-correlated thing across such
experientially-defined 'boundaries'. the 'rationale', inherent, is
short-sighted. it 'senses' the energy gradient that is WDB2T as being
Precious, but Mis-takes such in behaviors manifested, and, thereby, moves
itself down on the WDB2T gradient, rather than up, be-cause, in 'moving away
from' assisting folks on the other 'side' of the experientially-defined
borders in =their= 'climb' of the WDB2T gradient, they induce those others
to 'move away from' rendering assistance in their [fisrt group] own climb of
the WDB2T gradient. when this happens, what could otherwise be, is
'devoured'. practically all the energy available for expenditure is wasted
in 'just' maintaining the status quo in which the artificial [with respect
to WDB2T] 'boundaries' are Erroneously 'honored' more than the stuff of
Life, which is the 'climbing' of the energy gradient that is WDB2T.
that's why i save the worms.
the =generalized= approach is the only one that works.
Cheers, John, ken [k. p. collins]
John H. wrote in message ...
>Do you really think that this bland atavistic reductionism is sufficient to
>explain the panorama of human behaviour? This is akin to believing that
>evolution, the most complex known process, can be seen through a cliche:
>survival of the fittest. Sure, evolution explains everything, I like to see
>it explain the bombardier beetle but anyway back to altruism ... .
>>I have no idea why the evolutionary principle of self preservation excludes
>once and for all the possibility of altruism. Yes, it does suggest we act
>primarily for our own good and the survival of the species but why
>specifically does that exclude the possibility of altruism?
>Eg. If you prove that evolution, by simple extrapolation, can determine all
>possible human behaviours then I might be inclined to believe you . There
is
>no warrant in the argument:- evolution is about survival of the
>species-therefore altruism cannot exist.
>>Evidence of altruistic behaviour is usually dismissed on the grounds of
>psychobabble. ie, one imputes that the person performed altruistically for
>some hidden motive, some 'real' reason for their actions. That may well be
>true but until such time that such hidden motives can be unequivocally
>demonstrated there is no argument, merely the possibility. The whole
>approach reminds me of that dreadful psycho history, interpreting human
>behaviour in terms of Freudian analysis, now its evolutionary psychology,
>and in between, Adler, Jung, Watson, Skinner, Maslow, Wilbur, ... . They
>were all wrong in their extrapolations but I am now expected to believe
that
>evolutionary psychology has got the psychobabble right. The fun part of
this
>is watching someone with their precious all-embracing theory of human
nature
>go into any number of conceptual contortions to prove their daft argument.
>We see that a bit round here.
>>My neighbour, wealthily retired, spends her time saving injured animals
that
>she knows are doomed in this neighbourhood anyway. She keeps trying to save
>other species, no group selection principle there. Evolutionary theory
>suggests she should spend her time caring for her grandchildren, making
more
>money to secure their future, but she wastes her time and money saving
>animals rather than obeying her genes. (As Pinker notes in "How the Mind
>Works": I decided long ago I didn't want children and if my genes don't
like
>that too bad.) She does it because she likes animals. Before I start
>imputing other motives to her, I just have to remember all those other
>models of human behaviour that claimed to be able to explain everything.
>(eg. you really just want to fuck your mother) Evolution is real but there
>are plenty of things it still cannot explain, altruism included. Dammit
last
>I heard they were still arguing about Group or phenotype or genotype as the
>loci of selection.
>>I have never been able to understand why so many people have helped me, and
>I can assure you they were well aware there was no kickback and I aint got
>kids either nor do I contribute so where's the evolutionary argument there,
>wasting their resources on an essentially no return investment? Gee, maybe
>its because people can be kind, no other reason than that. Look around,
>you'll see that everyday. If you can't then that's something very sad about
>your culture.
>>>>John H.
>>>><johnkusch at charter.net> wrote in message
>news:ujc4m7pketf611 at corp.supernews.com...>> > "Our study shows, for the first time, that social cooperation is
>> > intrinsically rewarding to the human brain, even in the face of
>> > pressures to the contrary," said Gregory S. Berns, M.D., Ph.D.,
>> > co-investigator and associate professor of psychiatry in the Emory
>> > University School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry and
>> > Behavioral Sciences and member of the CBN. "It suggests that the
>> > altruistic drive to cooperate is biologically embedded-- either
>> > genetically programmed or acquired through socialization during
>> > childhood and adolescence."
>>>> This statement is made from the common, flawed perspective that altruism
>> exists and that cooperation is not in the individual's best interest.
>It's
>> fascinating to see that, in humans, cooperation is rewarding on a
>> physiologic basis, but this does not prove that true altruism even
exists.
>> Survival of the species is in the interest of the individual.
>>>>>>>>>>
