101–110 of 140 posts
BTW Jordan Peterson's latest podcast goes deep on this issue. His podcast is here: http://jordanbpeterson.com/2016/12/podcast/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that there are doubts about some of the models, e.g. evolutionary game theory is not a model of evolution. My problem with these kinds of evolutionary arguments is different, though. It seems to me that their interpreters often assume that identifying some behavior as evolutionary advantageous to an individual or group is somehow correlated with the goodness or desirability of that behavior. That's a fallacy.…
No, I think this is wrong. Behaviours that groups exhibit will definitely be passed on from individual to individual and definitely have an effect on the ability of the group to survive. And - whether something is passed on socially or through genes, it doesn't matter. 'Evolution' is not just a function of genes, obviously. Your list of 'behaviours' is easy to describe, and I'll do it in context of your 'a' and 'b' p…
That's not obvious at all and it matters a lot. The idea that there is e.g. an 'evolution of ideas' is ill-conceived and misleading for many reasons. The same can be said about similar ideas like 'evolution of social systems', 'evolution of memes', etc.
In order to show that there is an evolutionary process that goes beyond of what is transmitted by genes you first have to show empirically that the respective information is transmitted non-genetically, then find a good model of how exactly it is transmitted and to which individuals and groups it is transmitted, and then develop and show that a concept of fitness applies to the process that is sufficiently similar to biological fitness to even be able to talk about evolution in a meaningful, non-contrived way. Then you can attempt to build an evolutionary model, and then you'd need to evaluate that model by looking at predictions. Unless the information is spread exactly like genes are spread, that model will look very different from biological evolution and each and every aspect of the model needs to be justified, in the same vein as you have to justify any analytical model.
I don't claim to be an expert in this field but have to reiterate that from what I've inferred from many talks and conversations with colleagues who work in such areas (like EGT, social dynamics, etc.), that there is no widespread consensus on such a justification. Most models of non-genetic, nonbiological 'evolution' seem to be fairly ad hoc. They just stipulate certain information transmission mechanisms and come up with fitness criteria as it suits them, without much of an empirical basis. It's Lamarck's giraffes in fine modern mathematical clothing.
From 'b' - "we are perfectly capable of behaving in ways that are not evolutionary advantageous to us" - obviously. But who cares? The species that takes up the best behaviors for it's environment will persist beyond those that do not.
In my experience, everybody cares about what's good and what's bad, even those who think they don't. Not caring about it and placing evolution higher in your value system is a bit like saying "Hey, let's blow up the earth, that's more consistent with the laws of thermodynamics anyway."
Run a little evolutionary simulation a a computer program.
With arbitrary parameters, fitness function, and information transmission mechanism, I can certainly write seemingly convincing little computer programs to show of any behavior whatsoever that it is evolutionary advantageous or disadvantageous. That's because if I can choose all parameters and the transmission mechanism as I like, I simply redefine what 'evolution' means each time, disregarding how biological evolution works. But just because you make a dynamic model with some sort of fitness function, many individuals, and some starting state doesn't mean you model evolution.
It's very simple: an organism that learns how to read and write, and to pass down it's knowledge from generation to generation will 'out survive' ones that don't - and their genes are much more likely to be passed on.
I'd like to see evidence for that. But in any case that would only explain how reading and writing evolves, not any evolution about what's written - which is what I was criticizing. The written information is not transmitted by genes, hence not subject to biological evolution. If the written information is somehow subject to some evolutionary selection process, then you may try to find an analytical model for that. I'm not saying that all of these models are wrong for some principle reason, just that many of them are fishy, based on sometimes flawed analogy to biological evolution, and in need of more foundational justification.
I also kind of disagree with many aspects of your 'easy' explanations and would like to see some evidence for them, but let's leave it at that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolut...
Full book: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4341
When I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed the emergence of altruistic behaviour. It was really really difficult. Even knowing exactly the kind of behaviour we wanted to show, it wasn't trivial to stack the dice enough to roll that outcome. I have since read a lot of arguments, a lot of post-hoc reasoning that…
I don't know if it counts for alturism, but wasn't cooperation-by-default famously shown the best strategy by the tit-for-tat program in the early 80'ies? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat
When I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed the emergence of altruistic behaviour. It was really really difficult. Even knowing exactly the kind of behaviour we wanted to show, it wasn't trivial to stack the dice enough to roll that outcome. I have since read a lot of arguments, a lot of post-hoc reasoning that…
I agree that there are doubts about some of the models, e.g. evolutionary game theory is not a model of evolution. My problem with these kinds of evolutionary arguments is different, though. It seems to me that their interpreters often assume that identifying some behavior as evolutionary advantageous to an individual or group is somehow correlated with the goodness or desirability of that behavior. That's a fallacy.…
Even if we acknowledge that some of those examples can't be explained by evolution, evolution permits aberrations. It's in the very core of the model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Show me the math. Imagine a game you play with someone where you have 40 units and you need to divide it between the two of you. The other person has the choice of accepting the deal or refusing the deal. If they refuse, both of you get nothing. How do you divide the 40 units so that the other person accepts the deal? Naive economics points that even if you offer the other only 1 unit, the other should take it beca…
You're essentially saying that "bread and circuses" counts as an altruistic action. If you're expecting a payout, isn't that by definition not altruism?
If you ask this question, you either have to have one example where there is no payout at all (note this should be an example most people agree on) or you accept there is no altruism, at least not following your definition of the word.
When I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed the emergence of altruistic behaviour. It was really really difficult. Even knowing exactly the kind of behaviour we wanted to show, it wasn't trivial to stack the dice enough to roll that outcome. I have since read a lot of arguments, a lot of post-hoc reasoning that…
That said, I do expect it to be hard. Nature created cooperating species more than once, but not that many times¹. And it had half a billion years of a simulation that was certainly much larger than yours.
1 - Counting placentarial mammals only once, what is very likely correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I understand the nature of the math correctly, altruism should be "beneficial" (from evolutionary perspective), if the number of people multiplied by closeness factor of their genes to yours ultimately translates to a larger portion of your genes propagating to later generations, than if you have expended those resources on yourself. E.g. suppose I have a loaf of lembas. I can eat it myself, and it increases my ch…
Evolutionary instinct is to create your own offspring, not your sister's/brother's. Why would there be an evolutionary reason to help your brother reproduce but not your friend.?
When I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed the emergence of altruistic behaviour. It was really really difficult. Even knowing exactly the kind of behaviour we wanted to show, it wasn't trivial to stack the dice enough to roll that outcome. I have since read a lot of arguments, a lot of post-hoc reasoning that…
> When I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed the emergence of altruistic behaviour. OK, math. There are 200 people in Group A. Each has the choice of taking 1 point for themselves or giving 2 points to the group. If everyone gives 2 points then everyone gets 2 points. If everyone keeps the 1 point then no one…
When I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed the emergence of altruistic behaviour. It was really really difficult. Even knowing exactly the kind of behaviour we wanted to show, it wasn't trivial to stack the dice enough to roll that outcome. I have since read a lot of arguments, a lot of post-hoc reasoning that…
> When I was working on evolutionary dynamics in the late 90s, a group of us from across the world were trying to build an evolutionary model that showed the emergence of altruistic behaviour. OK, math. There are 200 people in Group A. Each has the choice of taking 1 point for themselves or giving 2 points to the group. If everyone gives 2 points then everyone gets 2 points. If everyone keeps the 1 point then no one…