Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: April 04, 2020 11:41AM
> COMMENT: This doesn't explain anything. A "cluster
> of genes" that is not specifically identified as
> associated with a specific trait, not to mention a
> specific environment, is nothing more than an
> assumption without substance.
So you do not think there is a genetic basis for human intelligence?
COMMENT: I do not think that human intelligence can be explained solely by genetics, or for that matter neuroscience. In the first place, human intelligence involves consciousness, thought, and reasoning; and such things are certainly NOT explained by genetics or neuroscience alone. But more importantly, there are aspects of human intelligence, for example creativity, that are not computational, which suggests that there is something more involved.
________________________________________________
----------
> Moreover, a
> statistical curve is so ubiquitous in nature, of
> itself it also has no explanatory value for a
> behavior beyond the statistical conclusion itself.
There is no evolutionary scientist or biologist or psychologist or physicist who believes this.
COMMENT: O.K. Please provide me with some statistical fact about human behavior that explains the efficient cause for such behavior. Statistics provides information about the range or extent of the behavior within a specified data set, but says nothing as to its cause. For that you need empirical evidence of causation. This is why the soft sciences--which rely more upon statistics are more speculative about the details of causation.
____________________________________________
--------------
> COMMENT: Again, NO! Altruism comes in two
> varieties, biological or evolutionary altruism,
> and psychological altruism. (See Sober and
> Wilson, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology
> of Unselfish Behavior) Only psychological
> altruism involves morality because it is
> associated with the decisions of conscious agents.
> Your assumption that evolutionary altruism, as
> found in social insects, adequately explains
> morality in humans is just false!
Your assumption being that there is a hard line between other social animals and humans. That is empirically false. These things are distributed statistically across and within species--but of course if one denies the role of statistical analysis in science, as you just did, empirical reality doesn't matter.
COMMENT: There *is* a hard line between social insects and conscious, humans. Insects are presumably not conscious, and do not make conscious decisions between alternative behaviors. They do not make moral judgments, and have no sense of right or wrong. I don't think this is controversial. And I did not deny a role for statistics in science. But you have to make a distinction between statistical conclusions from the data of some human behavior from the causes of that behavior. The fact that humans statistically are more altruistic with respect to their relatives, as opposed to strangers, does not explain the mechanisms associated with that distinction; and pointing to "evolution" does not add to the explanation one whit.
____________________________________________
--------------
> COMMENT: No. Dawkins use of the word "selfish" to
> describe selfish genes, had nothing to do with
> altruism. The gene was the unit of selection, not
> the individual or the group.
Of course Dawkin's analysis was about altruism. The only reason to resort to the gene as the unit of selection was because altruistic behavior renders the individual the wrong unit of selection. He was explaining why individuals violate their own survival imperative.
COMMENT: This is a misreading of Dawkins. Altruism--even with respect to social insects--requires some form of group selection. Thus, the group becomes the unit of selection. Dawkins emphatically denied group selection, so there is a problem here. Now, there are a lot of subtleties with respect to these issues, but the bottom line is that neither The Selfish Gene, or The Blind Watchmaker, were concerned about altruism per se; and altruism is an explanatory problem in all theories of evolution that deny group selection.
________________________________________
------------------
> In fact, Dawkins
> denied group selection, at least initially. And,
> last time I checked, no one makes a moral
> distinction, or engages in kin altruism, because
> they are concerned about propagating their genes.
That is to miss the point. People do a lot of what they do for reasons they don't understand. (Does that even need to be said?) Much of that is precisely because of genetic inclinations that are extremely powerful and yet so complex that no one comprehends how they work. Dawkins' purpose was to explain the logic behind what for the macro-organism illogical behavior.
COMMENT: To say that "People do a lot of what they do for reasons they don't understand" is to miss the point entirely. People do a lot of things purposefully, intelligently, and freely; including engaging in altruistic behavior that flies in the face of evolutionary principles. To provide a counter example of non-purposeful behavior hardly addresses this issue. Dawkins' purpose was all-encompassing. He wanted to have evolution explain all of biological behavior. That carries a heavy burden, which neither he or anyone else, has met.
_______________________________________________
-----------------
> COMMENT: I don't know the answer because there is
> none. Evolution implies that humans will engage
> in intercourse to whatever extent necessary to
> enhance reproduction.
Evolution does not imply that at all. It implies that organisms, whether COVID-19 or primates, behave in a manner that is likely to perpetuate the survival and expansion of specific genetic components. Nothing more.
COMMENT: But all of that is fundamentally based upon behavior that maximizes that goal; survival and reproduction. If then, you see behavior that does not appear to satisfy that goal, an explanation is required; some story as to how what appears to be non-adaptive behavior is in fact somehow adaptive. Sweeping statements about the scope of evolution, or wildly just-so evolutionary stories, do not meet that challenge.
_________________________________________
--------------------
> To suggest that "familial
> and social stability" *biologically* is selected
> for as an adaptation overriding this natural
> tendency is both ludicrous and desperate;
The problem disappears if you give up the nonsensical notion that the natural human tendency is to "engage in intercourse to whatever extent necessary to enhance reproduction." The unit of selection is the gene and not, as you claim, the individual.
COMMENT: See above. According to basic evolutionary principles, we would expect humans to engage in such behavior; i.e. behavior that enhances the reproduction of their genes. Now, we can see that they do not do that; there are restraints to such behavior. So, given that uncontroversial fact, what is the evolutionary explanation? If the restraint is culturally based (environmental), fine, say that. But don't tell me that there is some additional story that places the explanation in the selfish gene. And similarly, if human beings just have a moral sense that constrains such behavior, don't tell me that that is also in the genes. Geezes, at some point we have to just give a human being credit for making a moral decision that just goes against his or her biological interests. That is humanism!
______________________________________________
---------------
> regardless of whoever came up with this nonsense.
> It is a "just-so" story that is just another
> attempt to explain human behavior in evolutionary
> terms, whether it makes sense or not.
The selfish gene school is not a "just-so" story at all. It merely observes that patterns of macro behavior are better understood as the result of micro dynamics. Moreover, it states that some species will die out because the micro dynamics do not evolve fast enough to match changes in the macro environment. That insight explains tragedies as well as successes.
COMMENT: The "selfish gene school" (the Modern Synthesis) is full of evolutionary platitudes, like the example you state here. Now, some of these statements are insightful, no doubt. But they remain theoretical. A "just-so story" is an attempt to identify the evolutionary details in particular cases; like altruism in insects or humans. Some such explanations are indeed compelling; but others, particularly as applied to human behavior, and to my mind nothing more than wishful thinking.
____________________________________________
------------------
> COMMENT: Look, I agree that cultural is at work
> here. But, you started us off with a moral gene
> (or set of genes) and suggested that biology
> provided a nativist explanation for ouro moral
> sense, that was then "directed" by culture.
Perhaps you should reread what I wrote. My post was simply the application of the principles of all human behavior--witness intelligence, temperament, personality disorders, facility with a paint brush--to the question of morality. As I said more than once, behavior is a product of both genes and environment. If you see a contradiction in that, so be it. But then you might as well give up trying to understand the natural world because almost all of it is described by curves.
COMMENT: O.K. But when you say that all human behavior can be explained by the convergence of biology and culture, is a commitment that requires scientific justification. After all, there may be other factors involved that biology and culture do not encompass. Consciousness is just one rather blatant example of a phenomenon that neither biology or culture explains. Moreover, the intricacies of human thought and behavior,for example creativity, are also left unexplained. Cognitive science and neuroscience still have hardly touched such capacities. For me, such phenomena suggest that there is something fundamentally missing from materialist science; a view shared by many. But, however one views the matter, the excessive pigeonholing of human behavior into pre-established scientific paradigms is unscientific--even if we have to admit that scientific knowledge is limited.
_________________________________________________
------------
> What
> you are describing here is just the opposite; a
> biological trait that is suppressed by culture;
> i.e. where culture takes the lead in establishing
> moral dictates, genetics notwithstanding.
That only makes sense if one accepts your reductive assertion that human genetics programs people to have as much sex as possible with as many people as possible. Once one rejects that proposition on the grounds that there are countless examples of animals prioritizing things besides immediate reproduction, the paradox disappears.
COMMENT: The paradox disappears only if you have an alternative explanation.
__________________________________________
----------------
> Fine,
> but then leave evolution and biology out of it.
> The problem then, of course, is to explain how and
> why people deviate from cultural moral norms.
There is no paradox if you recognize that humans are driven by both genetics and environment, a point that seems so well-established that repeating the explanation should not be necessary.
COMMENT: Then, you have to be able to explain ALL of human behavior by an appeal to genetics and the environment. Not just by sweeping platitudes, but by real causal explanations identified with specific behavior--like the behavior of the Nazi resisters. What specifically was it about their genetic makeup (their selfish genes) and their culture (pro-Nazi, or anti-Jewish) that explains this behavior. Ergo, you have a problem! There is no explanatory account in such terms that makes any sense. What does make sense is the simple fact that these human beings were somehow able to exercise their freewill to rise above their genes and environment to act altruistically on moral grounds. Now, isn't that explanation much better--even if we have to sacrifice our pre-determined scientific dispositions on the alter of reason?
______________________________________
-----------------
> COMMENT: And that is why you make the moral
> decision not to abandon your children? Because
> your genes have dictated that behavior?
No, it is why most people in most communities exhibit the same pattern of behavior. There is a predilection, manifest in everything from ants to humans, in many situations to prioritize the survival of one's children over oneself. Genes don't dictate any complex attribute: they alter probabilities.
COMMENT: No. Genes--and all of biology--is deterministic, not probabilistic. You may have statistical data, but all such data is based upon determinism at the level of the gene, the cell, or whatever biological level you choose.
______________________________________
----------------
> COMMENT: That comment is offensive. Are you
> suggesting that those who resisted Hitler did so
> because "they are very smart social animals?"
> Well, not very smart if evolution is in charge,
> because they risked their lives, and often lost
> their lives, because of their "smarts."
Why do you insist on ignoring the biological research on altruism? Why do you persist in proffering the argument, long ago rejected by science, that the survival of the individual is the genetic imperative? No one believes that.
COMMENT: I do not ignore the biological research on altruism; or the sociological research; or my own personal experience. Give me one "study" that explains the efficient causes of human altruism strictly in terms of biology and culture--JUST ONE!
_____________________________________
-------------
> Why is it
> so hard to just say that human beings are
> conscious moral agents, having freewill to follow
> the dictates of their moral sense--evolution and
> culture notwithstanding?
Again, you are putting words into my mouth. There is nothing incompatible between genetic inclinations and cultural/conscious choice. You are the only intelligent person I've ever met who insists on viewing these things as binary.
COMMENT: Well, "genetic inclinations" whatever that means, are deterministic. Whatever actually happens is the result of some deterministic biological process responding to some environmental stimuli. THAT IS BY DEFINITION INCOMPATIBLE WITH CONSCIOUS CHOICE (FREEWILL) It is a matter of basic logic; freewill is incompatible with determinism because determinism by definition involves causal closure of the physical, making no room for any independent, humanistic causal component.
_____________________________________________
----------------
> And, until you *show* me
> otherwise, by providing a rational explanation of
> psychological altruism, transcendent principles
> *are* necessary!
Why? I don't accept that altruism is either psychological or biological. I do not view human behavior as exclusively one or the other; I view intelligence, personality, career choice, and many other things as a mixture of genes and environment. It is you who are always asserting black-and-white alternatives for creatures whose behavior is best described by statistics and usually by one or more sumperimposed bell curves.
COMMENT: Well, you *do* accept that when you personally perform some altruistic behavior; i.e. some behavior that is against your personal interest, that somehow YOU made a conscious choice. Did you decide to do this, or did your genes and the environmental context determine this result? You cannot have it both ways. Statistics offers no help here. Your personal decision is not statistically based; and even if it were it would still be deterministic. When physicists invoke statistical mechanics to explain the behavior of a gas in some vessel, they are not claiming that the behavior of each molecule of gas is NOT deterministic; that they are each making choices.
_________________________________________________
-------------
> Let's start with the basic assumption
> that you implicitly adopt here; the assumption
> that all of human behavior must be explainable in
> materialist terms.
I did not imply that; it is not my basic assumption. I have never said that "all of human behavior must be explainable in materialist terms" and hence feel no need to defend that viewpoint.
COMMENT: But you did, indirectly. When you said that human behavior can be explained by genes (biology) and the environment, you said just that; because each of those items are at bottom materialist structures and interact with each other deterministically.
________________________________________________
-------------
> Evolution does not, and
> cannot, explain how someone like a member of the
> Nazi resistance, would willingly sacrifice their
> life for complete strangers in opposition to both
> their biological survival heritage and their
> cultural background.
This is bizarre on several levels. First, you repeat the canard that the unit of selection in evolution is the individual. No serious scientist believes that. And why do you assume that a Nazi resister is fighting both his genetics and his culture? For many people culture emphasizes the need for moral behavior even in opposition to the group. Thomas Moore was not contravening his culture: he was honoring it.
COMMENT: First, the unit of selection in evolution is still highly controversial. Many still insist that the organism is the unit of selection; but that's another debate. If you want to insist that whatever a person does is the product of his or her culture; without defining culture in specific societal terms, then you can "explain" anything. An individual's "culture" becomes disassociated with the society, and encompasses whatever is necessary to explain the behavior, including that person's personal experiences. "Culture" represents the environmental norms of the society. Thomas Moore acted within a culture that insisted upon subservience to the king, which he defied, and which was against his interest (he lost his head) Thank you for this additional reminder of transcendent moral behavior in opposition to culture and biology.
__________________________________________
----------------
> You need transcendence of
> some sort for such an explanation. But, then, as
> I have said many times, consciousness itself is a
> transcendent property of human beings;
Yes, you have said that many times. You have not proved it, however, and the proposition may well be unnecessary. I am agnostic on transcendence. I just won't join you in refusing to see the evidence, and understand the scientists, about the significant part of altruism that reflects biological imperatives.
COMMENT: I cannot prove it. But I do think that science itself points in this direction; and that this direction is irrationally resisted by science because they are more interested in maintaining the scientific process that in acknowledging what must be true given human experience.
----------------
> as is
> freewill. So, why not morality?
I don't accept free will, morality, or consciousness as "transcendent properties of humanity." They may be, but they may not. I await further empirical evidence on that point and in the meantime will not be deluded by sweeping generalizations.
COMMENT: If freewill, morality and/or consciousness exist, they are transcendent properties. The reason is that there is no scientific, materialist, paradigm that explains these "facts" even in principle. They require entirely new concepts with a new understanding of reality. Surely, after all the scientific floundering on these issues, we have learned that much.
Thank you again, LW. This thread between us I would think to be extremely important to people on the Board, and I hope that everyone here will read and consider the points made by both of us.