On 02 Sep 2012, at 19:32, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, September 2, 2012 12:59:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/2/2012 5:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:43:50 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona
wrote:
Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and
shaming...the deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not
found in the banal evils of game theory.
In the book I referred, it is described the evolutionary role of
sentiments. Sentiments are the result of mostly unconscious
processing. See for example the cheating detection mechanism in
this book, which has been subject to an extensive set of test. and
there are many papers about cheater detection. cheater detection is
a module of logical reasoning specialized for situations where a
deal can be broken. It exist because cheater detection is critical
in some situations and it must necessary to react quickly. Its
effect is perceived by the conscious as anger of fear, depending on
the situation.
That's not the point. It doesn't matter how tightly the incidence
of sentiment or emotion is bound with evolutionary function, I
would expect that given the fact of emotion's existence. The
problem that needs to be answered is given a universe of nothing
but evolutionary functions, why would or how could anything like an
emotion arise?
When an amoeba detects a gradient of salinity and moves in the less
saline direction does it have a feeling?
I imagine that it does. Not much like a feeling we could relate to
as human beings, but there is an experience there and it has more
qualitative depth to it than when a steel needle interacts with a
gradient of salinity, but less depth than when an animal's tongue
encounters salinity.
I am kind of OK with this, but I tend to consider that amoeba have a
tongue; a one cell tongue which is itself. The amoeba has only one
cell, so that cell is simultaneously a muscle, a tongue, a neuron, a
liver, a digestive cells, even a sort of bone when the conditions are
bad and that the amoeba solidifies for a while. The amoebas lost
universality and freedom when they developed the collectivist quasi
communist pluricellular organisations, known as pluricellular
organism, somehow. They even lost their potential immortality except
for some gamete cells.
Obviously, pluricellularity has strong local advantages, and you can't
stop evolution which takes advantage of any improvement of the economy.
Note that the unicellular organism have not disappeared, they are as
much successful with respect to evolution than us, and they have still
some big advantage for possible future environmental changes. If all
mammals disappear, the bacteria and amoebas will not care at all. If
bacteria and amoebas disappear, we disappear immediately.
Bruno
Craig
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/P1BsfrVWQZIJ
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
