Comments on: The Moral Animal http://blog.tasuki.org/the-moral-animal/ blog of Vit Brunner Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:01:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: Keo http://blog.tasuki.org/the-moral-animal/#comment-58783 Keo Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:16:13 +0000 http://blog.tasuki.org/the-moral-animal/#comment-58783 As Drc has already written, everything is explainable in evolutionary terms. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact -- a phenomenon. AFAIK there is not any theory about how would the natural selection prefer some mental facilities over other. So evolutionary psychology is hardly any theory in a strict sense. But there is more to it. The only way of propagating successful traits onto descendants is via genes. Some trivial mental traits has been mapped to genes, but these are mostly very specific cognitive deficiencies. For every other mental product (behaviour, emotion etc.) there are two options: 1) It is a function of many genes. In that case, genetics shows that these traits are more a product of an environment -- not the genes. They only provide a range of capabilities/possibilities. 2) The trait is not a function of genes, but rather an acquired or developed one. I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on it. But I think I would not like it. The reason is that it is probably in a line with the traditional science thinking that claims our mind is only a byproduct of some physical system (brain). I can't agree with that. To add something constructive, I recommend watching the following video, which talks about this subject in length and I could not express myself better. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=983112177262602885&q=type%3Agoogle+engEDU As Drc has already written, everything is explainable in evolutionary terms. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact — a phenomenon. AFAIK there is not any theory about how would the natural selection prefer some mental facilities over other. So evolutionary psychology is hardly any theory in a strict sense.

But there is more to it. The only way of propagating successful traits onto descendants is via genes. Some trivial mental traits has been mapped to genes, but these are mostly very specific cognitive deficiencies. For every other mental product (behaviour, emotion etc.)
there are two options:

1) It is a function of many genes. In that case, genetics shows that these traits are more a product of an environment — not the genes. They only provide a range of capabilities/possibilities.

2) The trait is not a function of genes, but rather an acquired or developed one.

I haven’t read the book, so I can’t comment on it. But I think I would not like it. The reason is that it is probably in a line with the traditional science thinking that claims our mind is only a byproduct of some physical system (brain). I can’t agree with that. To add something constructive, I recommend watching the following video, which talks about this subject in length and I could not express myself better.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=983112177262602885&q=type%3Agoogle+engEDU

]]> By: Drc http://blog.tasuki.org/the-moral-animal/#comment-58747 Drc Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:29:47 +0000 http://blog.tasuki.org/the-moral-animal/#comment-58747 Mno... tuhle knihu jsem necetl, ale cetl jsem neco z podobneho ranku (tim ti to doporucuji): Edward O. Wilson: O lidské přirozenosti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Osborne_Wilson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Human_Nature -> prijde mi, ze na kazdou vec na svete lze vymyslet "evolucni pribeh" - tedy jak to muze (mohlo) byt, aby se to dalo vysvetlit evoluci (vyhodnosti pro druh,...) Jestli je to tak ovsem doopravdy nikdo nevi (zvlaste u sofistikovanejsich procesu). Cetl jsem i docela pekne kritiky tohoto pristupu, napriklad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giddens Jak to je doopravdy? Netusim... -> "And no, evolution doesn’t function very well for humans right now. It is way too slow. Most of our evolution occured when we were berry gatherers." A co treba evoluce psychickych vlastnosti? Pokud tvuj vyber partnera na pareni neni dnes urcen ze 100% fyzickymi parametry potom to znamena, ze jako druh preferujeme vyvoj psychickych parametru. Mam pocit, ze ty se od te doby preci jenom zmenily :-) -> "The “free will” is imho a bit questionable. The actions we take should maximize the profit of our gene pool over the long run..." Jsem potesen, ze se z tebe stava mainstreamový ekonom jak ma byt :-D. BTW i kdyz to muze byt pravda tak to jenom dokazuje to co jsem psal o "evolucnich pribezich" - VZDY se da neco vymyslet. Pápá Drc Mno… tuhle knihu jsem necetl, ale cetl jsem neco z podobneho ranku (tim ti to doporucuji):
Edward O. Wilson: O lidské přirozenosti
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Osborne_Wilson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Human_Nature

-> prijde mi, ze na kazdou vec na svete lze vymyslet “evolucni pribeh” - tedy jak to muze (mohlo) byt, aby se to dalo vysvetlit evoluci (vyhodnosti pro druh,…) Jestli je to tak ovsem doopravdy nikdo nevi (zvlaste u sofistikovanejsich procesu). Cetl jsem i docela pekne kritiky tohoto pristupu, napriklad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giddens Jak to je doopravdy? Netusim…

-> “And no, evolution doesn’t function very well for humans right now. It is way too slow. Most of our evolution occured when we were berry gatherers.”
A co treba evoluce psychickych vlastnosti? Pokud tvuj vyber partnera na pareni neni dnes urcen ze 100% fyzickymi parametry potom to znamena, ze jako druh preferujeme vyvoj psychickych parametru. Mam pocit, ze ty se od te doby preci jenom zmenily :-)

-> “The “free will” is imho a bit questionable. The actions we take should maximize the profit of our gene pool over the long run…”
Jsem potesen, ze se z tebe stava mainstreamový ekonom jak ma byt :-D. BTW i kdyz to muze byt pravda tak to jenom dokazuje to co jsem psal o “evolucnich pribezich” - VZDY se da neco vymyslet.

Pápá Drc

]]> By: tasuki http://blog.tasuki.org/the-moral-animal/#comment-58742 tasuki Thu, 07 Jun 2007 07:37:44 +0000 http://blog.tasuki.org/the-moral-animal/#comment-58742 The book mentions suicide - it says that suicide can be explained when it helps our close relatives (which is usually not the case, so you are right that the book doesn't explain it). Do you have any idea why mother nature endowed us with the possibility of suicide? The "free will" is imho a bit questionable. The actions we take should maximize the profit of our gene pool over the long run (yes, suicide usually doesn't, but people with suicidal tendencies will usually have less offsprings and their genes will spread less; over a sufficient time period, we would probably get rid of them). And no, evolution doesn't function very well for humans right now. It is way too slow. Most of our evolution occured when we were berry gatherers. The book mentions suicide - it says that suicide can be explained when it helps our close relatives (which is usually not the case, so you are right that the book doesn’t explain it). Do you have any idea why mother nature endowed us with the possibility of suicide?

The “free will” is imho a bit questionable. The actions we take should maximize the profit of our gene pool over the long run (yes, suicide usually doesn’t, but people with suicidal tendencies will usually have less offsprings and their genes will spread less; over a sufficient time period, we would probably get rid of them).

And no, evolution doesn’t function very well for humans right now. It is way too slow. Most of our evolution occured when we were berry gatherers.

]]> By: Ondra http://blog.tasuki.org/the-moral-animal/#comment-58740 Ondra Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:03:38 +0000 http://blog.tasuki.org/the-moral-animal/#comment-58740 <blockquote cite=""> mother nature probably would not have endowed us with the possibility of suicide… </blockquote> It's interesting. I have been thinking about it a while. 1. Sometimes the suicide is obviously an effect of evolution. For example a mass suicide of Lemmus to avoid overpopulating. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemmus -- there is written, that it's a myth but acually it is not -- I saw them in a TV document jumping into the sea and dying). 2. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide#Reasons_for_suicide -- a person who is facing poorly any of the listed problems is not probably interesting for the evolution enough. So his death is even "useful" for the evolution. 3. I think, that the number of suiciders is quite inconsiderable. <blockquote cite=""> We have a free will and can consciously take actions which do not immediately profit the “gene-pool” </blockquote> Your're right, no immediately, it's long time process. And about the monogamy... I just recommend to read the book, it's explained there enough. One of the advantages is that the real monogamy is not "real" enough (_most_ partners were unfaithful) so it works :o) According Sigmund Freud the most activities or decisions are stronly influenced by our subconscious and it's often impossible to differ "the free will" and the will of our subconscious (called as id). According the book the subconscious is made by the evolution... <blockquote cite=""> if evolution still functions the same way for humans, since we drastically change </blockquote> I'm affraid it doesn't because of the invention of birth-control pills and the center of human developement has moved from genetics to memetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics ..which is, in my point of view, better... to be unbouded by the biology and having our "evolution" better controlled.

mother nature probably would not have endowed us with the possibility of suicide…

It’s interesting. I have been thinking about it a while.

1. Sometimes the suicide is obviously an effect of evolution. For example a mass suicide of Lemmus to avoid overpopulating. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemmus — there is written, that it’s a myth but acually it is not — I saw them in a TV document jumping into the sea and dying).
2. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide#Reasons_for_suicide — a person who is facing poorly any of the listed problems is not probably
interesting for the evolution enough. So his death is even “useful” for the evolution.
3. I think, that the number of suiciders is quite inconsiderable.

We have a free will and can consciously take actions which do not immediately profit the “gene-pool”

Your’re right, no immediately, it’s long time process. And about the monogamy… I just recommend to read the book, it’s explained there enough. One of the advantages is that the real monogamy is not “real” enough (_most_ partners were unfaithful) so it works :o)

According Sigmund Freud the most activities or decisions are stronly influenced by our subconscious and it’s often impossible to differ “the free will” and the will of our subconscious (called as id). According the book the subconscious is made by the evolution…

if evolution still functions the same way for humans, since we drastically change

I’m affraid it doesn’t because of the invention of birth-control pills and the center of human developement has moved from genetics to
memetics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

..which is, in my point of view, better… to be unbouded by the biology and having our “evolution” better controlled.

]]> By: ignus http://blog.tasuki.org/the-moral-animal/#comment-58736 ignus Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:04:44 +0000 http://blog.tasuki.org/the-moral-animal/#comment-58736 Not an unproblematic statement this book makes... If all of our functions would have as "goal" the survival of genes, mother nature probably would not have endowed us with the possibility of suicide... We have a free will and can consciously take actions which do not immediately profit the "gene-pool" (i.e., out cultural tradition os one of monogamy). Free will may be a "side-effect" of other evolutionary processes, but then again, it might not :] Also, it's not clear, I think, if evolution still functions the same way for humans, since we drastically change our living environment (and essential to evolution is the elimination of those individuals which are not adapted to their environment). Not an unproblematic statement this book makes… If all of our functions would have as “goal” the survival of genes, mother nature probably would not have endowed us with the possibility of suicide…

We have a free will and can consciously take actions which do not immediately profit the “gene-pool” (i.e., out cultural tradition os one of monogamy). Free will may be a “side-effect” of other evolutionary processes, but then again, it might not :]

Also, it’s not clear, I think, if evolution still functions the same way for humans, since we drastically change our living environment (and essential to evolution is the elimination of those individuals which are not adapted to their environment).

]]>