RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (4) < 1 2 3 [4] >   
  Topic: On the evolution of altruism and empathy:, Why Francis Collins is wrong.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2006,20:16   

Who said he isn't a scientist? You, however...

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2006,20:28   

BWE:

funny you should mention Hauser.

check out the thead on "moral grammar" posted by PvM on PT.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2006,21:18   

I think the whole premise of Collin's book is moot from the get go.  Animals (and I include humans within that group) can perform acts that we can define as altruistic, but ultimately the distinction between altruisic or selfishness is impossible to draw clearly.  Altruism and selfishness are  convenient names we give to certain behaviors in order that we may speak about those behaviors in a way that we can approach some consensus on the topic.  In the end I think its near impossible to puzzle out all of the complicated processes that lead up to any altruistic decision or activity.   Its too hard to tell.  So I just watch the behavior.  It seems like a good enough guide.


Next, I'll be so bold as to say that empathy doesn't exist at all. Its a chimera, its a fantasy, it is magic.  

We may witness something emotionally powerful--perhaps a wailing mother cradling her dead child in her arms, say, or two people deeply love with each other interacting in that unique way lovers do.  Of course we are going to react to these scenes, and its seems likely that often our own feelings will tend to move toward the tenor of the scene we witness.  But isn't it also true that at other times our own feelings will seem very much out of step?  

I will grant that some people are more likely to have an emotional instrument that more easily aligns with whatever music the orchestra of the external world plays.  But what none of us do can do is to magically lock on and replicate the emotions of those around us.  At best we can be guided toward an emotional state.

Collins appears to be going off the deep end.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2006,22:26   

Quote (qetzal @ Nov. 09 2006,20:15)
Consider. If it's true that some higher supernatural being or consciousness (e.g. God) exists, it's easy to him/her/it as the source of morality. Fair enough.

But what if there is no such being or consciousness? Where does morality come from then? Suppose philosophical materialism is right? Then morality can only be a result of some naturalistic process. In that case, evolution seems the logical candidate, no?

This is not meant to argue that philosophical materialism is, in fact, correct, or that morality must be the result of evolutionary processes. It's merely to show that it's a logical and reasonable possibility. And, if it's correct, then morality is most certainly subject to scientific evaluation, however laughable that seems to you.

But I have no doubt you'll come up with some convoluted defense of your statement, so you can hold on to your cherished self-image of open-mindedness. Mean time, I see no further point in engaging your comments.

Very true, this is actually a very serious question and I will treat it as such.  There are a number of scenarios that could be considered and I've heard or read many of them but all at the philosophical level of inquiry.

A problem you run into when you remove a higher authority as origin is the question of absolute morality.  Who then defines what is moral and at what time in human existence.  You naturally resolve into realitivism.  If you then want to apply scientific investigation at this point it gets murky and completely subjective.

I think it might be more accurate to define the scenarios thus:

A) If God exists then God could be the origin of moral law (I say could because this makes an assumption upon the nature of God).

B) If God doesn't exist then absolute moral law is nonexistent.

either way we are stuck because the primary premise, the existence of God, can not be proven.  So where do we go from here...

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2006,22:30   

Jay Ray, I'd be careful using anecdotal evidence and plain old common sense around here.  You may not make any friends.  But I, for one, accept your ideas as valid possibilities.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2006,00:00   

Quote
either way we are stuck because the primary premise, the existence of God, can not be proven.  So where do we go from here...
To the bar.

Icthyic, Thanks for the heads up on PT. I hardly ever read it anymore.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2006,00:01   

Skep,

I love this board because I'm so outclassed.  Most of the people who post regularly here are knowledgable and marshall wide ranging facts to construct what appear to me to be well reasoned arguments.  It's why I rarely post--I have so little to contribute.  I hope that when I do post, if I post gibberish, someone will call me on it.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2006,06:49   

No, no, no, Jay Ray don't hold back.  Ideas come from all quarters and often truely original ideas come from where you least expect them.  You post to your heart's content and anyone who has a problem with that will just have to remember that this is a public board.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2006,13:37   

IOW, skeptic wants you to troll like he does in order to derail and irritate with ignorance.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2006,19:09   

Skep,

I found myself wondering something.  I appreciate the fact that you find my ideas as valid possibilities.  But after some reflection I wondered how that was possible.  In significant ways, I don't seem to be saying anything different from the folks here with whom you appear to disagree.  Either my reading comprehension sucks lately--which is a distinct possibility.  Or my post up there conveyed some message which I hadn't intended.  Or.. what?

Let me elaborate, please.

I am making a claim that altruism doesn't really exist. My claim is that it is an ideal unreachable or at least unprovable.  However, when we observe animal behavior (and remember, I count humans as animal) we may see what at first blush appears to be altruistic. I'm saying that at least in cases of apparent altruism, a behavioristic approach is sufficient to name an act thus.  This works only so long as we recognize that "altruism" is an ideal--much the same way as when Galileo realized some basic laws of motion by idealizing them--and that reality is much more complicated and gritty.  

We don't have to always know precisely why a sacrifice was made, just that it was made.

I want to stress that I'm not making the claim that behavorism is the only proper way to observe the richness of animal life.  To the contrary, I think to strip any sense of a shared emotional life between humans and non-humans for fear of anthromorphism would be a mistake, because what we lose is a more complete explanation when a similarity actually exists.

I haven't read Collin's book (  bad Jay bad!  ), but I'm gathering from this thread that Collins is equating altruism-the-ideal with altruism-the-reality.  Similarly with empathy.  That's a mistake at the foundational level of his book, and it renders the rest of his arguments moot.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2006,13:05   

This just occurred to me. An interesting experiment would be a test for ego. Awareness of self filtered through social norms. I've always considered ego a sort of a product of our being able to inhabit the dimension of time- to imagine points and occupy them in a world that isn't material. I wonder if that too isn't uncommon in at least other mammals. Obviously wouldn't work in non social creatures but I bet you could do it with elephants.

I was reading this article on the topic With chimps named Ego and Other:
Quote
Dominance (and/or prestige) is always relative: a solitary individual is in principle neither dominant nor respected. One assesses one's status relative to another by the other's behavior and physical characteristics; this assessment may or may not be conscious (Parker 1974). One's drive for dominance or prestige is then a motivation to perform those behaviors which result in submissive behavior by Other(s) toward oneself (see discussion in Hinde and Stevenson-Hinde 1976). Ego, having possession of a scarce, defendable resource, will find Other's begging rewarding; if Ego can learn, and the rewards are sufficient, she or he should learn to search/hunt for the resource and to share it with Other(s) who beg (see also Chisholm 1976). Teleki has observed that:

When I started thinking about it. It all sort of boils down to ego. When we finally get to the end of the long chain of "nope that doesn't work either" looking for the differences between the "ANIMANLS" and "HUMANS" what we have is this vague sense of "other". Obviously we can do a lot more with logic and we can execute complex plans that require a thorough grasping of the nature of time as a dimension.

Observe family units and see if you can determine corrective behavior toward children that is also "corrected" for in adults through social behavior.

Observe self-regulation and the behaviors associated with it.

Add stimuli that would trigger the "id" kind of response inappropriately and  observe if different individuals have different ways to handle it.

More later I ran outta time. :)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
skeptic griggsy



Posts: 5
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2006,07:28   

On arguments for God, Collins, Alister McGrath, Francisco Ayala and Kenneth Miller show incompetence ; on evolution they show competence . Faith leads them astray. :)    :angry:

--------------
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.

  
  101 replies since Oct. 31 2006,18:42 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (4) < 1 2 3 [4] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]