An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong

Kara,

One analysis not I think mentioned on this thread is that the "self" is a dynamic social creation, not an autonomous entity. That "self" which grabbed its fellow interlocuter was created within a specific social event. Subsequent analysis tends to ignore that the consistency of "self" over time may be unfounded.

Fresco, you posit that a certain self (of more than one) is doing the acting. Are you saying that we are two selves in that we act sometimes and react others? ( Or are we medusa-minded and act within each faced situation in a totally different way?) When I meditate, am I contemplating my "self" or is my self contemplating a construct?

You comment that the consistency of a "self" may be unfounded. Is it the concept of "self" that is unfounded or its inconsistency? If we enlarge self to include every possible thought and action of a person's mental process, how could there be more than one "self"? Or are you saying that you believe in free will and that we are capable of thoughts and acts that cannot be tracked back to "causes" that would include our every action and reaction to all happenings in our lives as well as our contemplations regarding them?

If we compare self to a river...

You can look at the river now, and then again tomorrow, and we'd probably all agree that it is the same river now and then. But the the water flowing through it is not the same. That changes continously.
So while the river may be a constant, it's content is ever changing, so this constant is not made up of the same components at all times.

Kara,

At the psychological level there may be "levels of self" some of which have more control than others, (This is a well known esoteric principle). I think most of the time the "self" is a committee of argumentative elements with little cohesion. Meditative states may be "higher levels" of cohesion.

Alternatively from the sociological perspective the "self" is merely an element in a system (like cell in a body) subservient to "the whole". When we ask for explanations of "altruistic acts" we tend to ignore the difference between psychological and sociological paradigms.

Cyracuz and fresco, great comments. Cyr, I've always liked that analogy of the river. It is even better when one thinks of the river going back to its source(s.) I'm sure it limps somehow as an analogy, and someone here is sure to point that out.

fresco, uh...yeah. I'm glad, I guess, that I have a ton of houseguests arriving any minute and will have time to think about what you said and see if I understand your use of some terms and if I agree. We philosopher/queens do not always have the luxury of ponder time.

Kara

All analogies come to a point where they are no longer apt. There are, of course, many diffeences between a river and the concept of self, but as all analogies, it is meant to highlight a certain aspect of the issue, not function as a complete "drawing" of it.

Simply put, it's based on our environment in which we are brain-washed.

fresco, you said:

<<Alternatively from the sociological perspective the "self" is merely an element in a system (like cell in a body) subservient to "the whole". When we ask for explanations of "altruistic acts" we tend to ignore the difference between psychological and sociological paradigms.>>

So help me out here. If the self is only one part of a systemic whole from the perspective of sociology, then from which psychological perspective does one look at the self? Aren't there different possible perspectives, the Freudian one (Id, Ego, and Superego) being among them? An altruistic act could arise from the Unconscious and yet be "explained" differently by the conscious mind.

I'd think that sociology or evolutionary biology could more easily unearth the basis of seemingly illogical altruistic acts than could psychology, in which discipline motives are discovered only after each layer of understanding is peeled away to reveal the one underneath.

Kara,

From an epistemological viewpoint (theory of knowledge) what matters is not the "reality of the self" but what role the concept "self" has in what we call "an altruistic act".(i.e.) does "self" have (a) descriptive adequacy and (b) explanatory adequacy. All paradigms (evolutionary, psychological and sociological) contribute to (a) but the essence of (b) demands some sort of predictive validity to constitute a satisfactory "explanation". Here lies the problem because human behaviour cannot (except for simple reflexes) be reduced to "cause and effect" which "prediction" demands.
In short some version of "self" may be evoked after the fact when seeking "an explanation". The "predictable self" in such an explanatory event may bear little or no relationship to the "entity" in the original event which at the time was not yet classified as "altruistic". (Note that "events" are observer defined)

Such epistemological issues are discussed within "second order cybernetics" (the observation of observation) which plays a role in the development of the "Santiago theory of cognition". Within the theory "self awareness" has little importance since "cognition" is seen as synonymous with the general life process. These ideas go some way towards resolving your "layered systems" approach in as much that the paradigm of "general life process" is applicable to all autpoietic (self organizational)systems from "cell" to "society" and "beyond".

fresco, I am thinking about your exegesis on epistemology. I understand the difference between (a) and (b) and the difference between descriptive and predictive. More on that later.

In your second paragraph, you speak of the Santiago theory of cognition. I will explore that, but what interests me is the idea of cognition, which relates to consciousness. It seems to me that consciousness, which could be equated with self awareness although it is not the same thing, is totally different from everything else you are defining. (New word to me is autpoietic, and if that means same-old self-organizational systems then I don't need a new word.) OK, looking back, I see that I must discover S's theory of cognition even to understand your discussion that follows.

Just pulled up four pages on the Santiago Theory of Cognition. Can't wait. This is meat and drink.

Kara,

The seminal reference is Capra's "The Web of Life". In this he touches on "systems theory", using the non-linear mathematics of "organization" in which "catastrophe theory" and "fractals" are involved. These provide a metalanguage which model such phenomena as the spontaneous occurence of "structure" within "the flux" and allow levels for nested systems ("cell within body" etc..... We might metaphorically speculate here that the structure "self" may appear and disappear as spontaneously as waves on the ocean.)

You need to de-focus from a concept of "knowledge" as "prediction and control" if you are to make sense of this material. The S theory draws on the non-dualism of Piaget's "genetic epistemology" where "structure" (observer/schema) and "world"(observed) engage in mutual shifting of "states", from the point of view of a third party. "Reality" lies at the interactional interface, not "within" or "without". The non-linearity of the mathematics avoids problems of "causality" but in so doing demands a re-think on "explanatory adequacy". This dilemma is familiar to physicists involved with Quantum Mechanics where the interactional nature of "observer" and "observed" ultimately left Einstein in a backwater.

bm

Not really a Right or Wrong decision.
I don't believe that Dr. Hawses arument may not be a right or wrong situation. There may not be a right or wrong way to react. This predicament could be a moral decision. The one person separated from the other five could be the persons Father and would be inclined to save him.
Without any tangibles, common sense tells us to save the majority.

As we know, Right or Wrong is very different, depending on culture. This we learned in seventh grade. It is also a state of mind. A person with a Personality Disorder would of course have a different view.

No!!!! You should jump.

Isnt Evolution amazing !!


Do evolutionists not teach that beneficial genes are what passes on the cumulative benefits of simplicity to complexity?

So now we are to believe that "neural circuits" are doing this role!

Is there anything that this belief system cant absorb into its verbal vortex?

Re: Isnt Evolution amazing !!
Marc D. Hauser, a Harvard biologist, has built on this idea to propose that people are born with a moral grammar wired into their neural circuits by evolution

Do evolutionists not teach that beneficial genes are what passes on the cumulative benefits of simplicity to complexity?

So now we are to believe that "neural circuits" are doing this role!

Is there anything that this belief system cant absorb into its verbal vortex?


I would say that the genes that are past on are for survival, efficiency and adaptation (among others).
The cumulative benefits would be the opposite of your theory. Benefits in my mind would be complexity to simplicity. Of course it's a complex process but I believe that the result is simplicity.
Neurological circuits are resposible for all that goes on in out bodies.
Verbal vortex would be learned. Reading, writing, walking etc. Anything can be absorbed into the verbal vortex. The brain filters out anything not needed.

Re: Isnt Evolution amazing !!


I believe that. Except.....I tend to think it's an inherited trait, not one caused by evolution. Because how else is it possible to find highly moral and highly amoral siblings in the exact same family.........which happens quite often?

Re: Isnt Evolution amazing !!


Evolution is a very long term process. Hundreds of years. The family enviroment and living location determines good and bad behavior. So behavior is learned from the parents, community and how each sibling view or reacts to it. Unlikely that a gene would predispose behavior in general. There is a link to inherited genes for alcoholism. Mut still, that doesn't necessararily mean one would become an alcoholic.
The main reasons for how babies develope into adults are the Parents, enviroment and perception.

Re: Isnt Evolution amazing !!
Not so with micro-organisms and perhaps even macro-organisms under dire conditions.If so perhaps you'd like to offer an alternate explanation to the basic behavioral differentials in ant colonies.

In man, (some, many, most, all) social circumstances that appear to dictate behavioral patterns have as their roots genetic predispositions.