I remember Richard Dawkins saying that group selection is a lie. Maybe we shoud look past it now? It seems like a problem.
On 8/29/08, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> OK. How about this . . . . Ethics is that behavior that, >>> when shown by you, >>> makes me believe that I should facilitate your survival. >>> Obviously, it is >>> then to your (evolutionary) benefit to behave ethically. >> >> Ethics can't be explained simply by examining interactions between >> individuals. It's an emergent dynamic that requires explanation at the >> group level. It's a set of culture-wide rules and taboos - how did they >> get there? > > I wasn't explaining ethics with that statement. I was identifying how > "evolution operates in social groups in such a way that I can derive ethics" > (in direct response to your question). > > Ethics is a system. The *definition of ethical behavior* for a given group > is "an emergent dynamic that requires explanation at the group level" > because it includes what the group believes and values -- but ethics (the > system) does not require belief history (except insofar as it affects > current belief). History, circumstances, and understanding what a culture > has the rules and taboos that they have is certainly useful for deriving > more effective rules and taboos -- but it doesn't alter the underlying > system which is quite simple . . . . being perceived as helpful generally > improves your survival chances, being perceived as harmful generally > decreases your survival chances (unless you are able to overpower the > effect). > >> Really? I must be out of date too then, since I agree with his explanation >> >> of ethics. I haven't read Hauser yet though, so maybe you're right. > > The specific phrase you cited was "human collectives with certain taboos > make the group as a whole more likely to persist". The correct term of art > for this is "group selection" and it has pretty much *NOT* been supported by > scientific evidence and has fallen out of favor. > > Matt also tends to conflate a number of ideas which should be separate which > you seem to be doing as well. There need to be distinctions between ethical > systems, ethical rules, cultural variables, and evaluations of ethical > behavior within a specific cultural context (i.e. the results of the system > given certain rules -- which at the first-level seem to be reasonably > standard -- with certain cultural variables as input). Hauser's work > identifies some of the common first-level rules and how cultural variables > affect the results of those rules (and the derivation of secondary rules). > It's good detailed, experiment-based stuff rather than the vague hand-waving > that you're getting from armchair philosophers. > >> I fail to see how your above explanation is anything but an elaboration of >> >> the idea that ethics is due to group selection. The following statements >> all support it: >> - "memes [rational or otherwise] when adopted by a group can enhance group >> >> survival" >> - "Ethics is first and foremost what society wants you to do." >> - "ethics turns into a matter of determining what is the behavior that is >> best for society" > > I think we're stumbling over your use of the term "group selection" and > what you mean by "ethics is due to group selection". Yes, the group > "selects" the cultural variables that affect the results of the common > ethical rules. But "group selection" as a term of art in evolution > generally meaning that the group itself is being selected or co-evolved -- > in this case, presumably by ethics -- which is *NOT* correct by current > scientific understanding. The first phrase that you quoted was intended to > point out that both good and bad memes can positively affect survival -- so > co-evolution doesn't work. The second phrase that you quoted deals with the > results of the system applying common ethical rules with cultural variables. > The third phrase that you quoted talks about determining what the best > cultural variables (and maybe secondary rules) are for a given set of > circumstances -- and should have been better phrased as "Improving ethical > evaluations turns into a matter of determining . . . " > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
