faetal on 6/2/2012 at 12:50

---

I'm sure next time I try to submit a paper, that I won't be able to get away with saying how I imagine skin proteins are modified rather than using actual data. Your imaginary scenario is a thought experiment which is tailored to strengthening one of your notions. It is not in any way, shape or form, exemplary of ordinary human behaviour with regards to altruism. A more ordinary scenario would be something like "what happens if you lend someone some money and then realise that you don't have enough for your rent?". Evolved behaviour tends to favour the averages, not the extremes.



Then why the resistance to the idea that we are wholly natural and that our every plan, reaction, thought, action, whim, dream, etc is nothing more than neurological activity?



You can not assert that it exists either. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.



Yes, the god of the gaps. As I said god conveniently lives in the parts we don't perceive. Which makes one wonder how he had any influence on the writings of bronze age scholars. What, so he was able to be perceived, but only before any form of reliable recording techniques came into existence? Also very convenient. On a purely logical basis, this has to be called out for being suspect.



As is any attempt to keep one alive. For the exact same reasons. I am saying that in terms of information, god vs. no god are identical, thus why introduce an entity which requires additional information to explain? Surely neater to go with no god right? Unless there is a personal psychological need...



What if the flying spaghetti monster only came into humans' imaginations recently because it has been hiding in the nether since it created the universe? What is the FSM is actually god and the meme is in fact his true manifestation?

If you suspend reason, ANYTHING goes, and thus everything is equally plausible and equally ridiculous. God could well be that invisible marmoset riding a komodo dragon in my garage. Sounds ridiculous now, but how about I write a bunch of books about it and see what people think in a few centuries' time after a cataclysm or two.

jay pettitt on 6/2/2012 at 13:04

---

My four pennies worth.

1. The idea that altruism is a genetically inherited trait is a neat idea that fits incredibly nicely both with things that we know about how stuff gets inherited and behaviour we observe in the real world. But it is, as yet, untested. We've not (as far as this lay person knows) identified altruistic genes or tried tweaking them to see if we can engineer more or less altruistic behaviours. (Neither have we tried very hard to do so.)

2. Instincts are (not always, but often) tendencies. We tend to breathe automatically. But we can also choose to control our breathing voluntarily - at any time we can choose to take deep breaths, or we can choose hold our breath. Instinct doesn't imply that we don't also have a capacity for free will.

3. The various iterative, multi generation 'games' from game theory show us that even though there are losses in individual rounds of a game, over several generations a capacity for altruistic behaviour carries real evolutionary advantages and is thus likely to be naturally selected. The most successful paradigms are often those that can exhibit both doveish and hawkish behaviours - they behave as doves for the first round, but from then on copy whatever their 'opponent' does. As long as this sort of tit-for-tat strategy can meet with other tit-for-tats or doves it can quickly dominate Hawks.

4. None of this prevents anyone, Christian or otherwise, from doing something not entirely logical (according to game theory) by being more or less altruistic than might be considered strictly advantageous. Neither does any of this suggest people are preprogrammed with infallible operating instructions. It would be a surprise if people were immutably bound to perfectly logical behaviour. Natural selection is decidedly clumsy.

And absolutely none of this says anything at all about the existence or otherwise of fancy gods.

faetal on 6/2/2012 at 13:35

---

Here's a tip - when you are trying to make an argument for something being a part of human nature (your ineffable altruism of conscious deferral to a non-beneficial situation with no tangible reward), try to make it something which is a normal facet of human behaviour. Otherwise we can waste all day asking "why do people commit suicide?" "why do people mutilate themselves?" and a variety of other extreme behaviours which run contrary to your overly simplified view of evolved human behaviour.



What? What Muzman said is basically an extension of evolutionary behavioural theories. There is no "new" per se way of dealing with decision making in social systems in terms of our evolved behaviour, we have just adapted to a changing environment using the same 80-100,000+ year old equipment we came with. By "more balanced discussion" do you mean one which gives your ideas greater weighting? That sounds like commercial media's idea of balance, where you have a highly qualified immunologist talking about vaccines followed by an anti-vaccine advocate, just to give the illusion that there are two sides to the coin, when in fact sometimes, one of the sides is lacking substance. If you want to shift the focus away from your notion that there is an aspect of human altruism and morality that is not natural in origin, then by all means, we can talk about something else, but don't claim it has anything to do with adding balance to the discussion.

[EDIT] If this were facebook, I'd "like" Jay's comment above.

DDL on 6/2/2012 at 14:23

---

I think I've finally figured out what Beleg is getting at (it was the christians vs. romans example that did it, incidentally).

We've been essentially demonstrating how altruism can be perfectly explained by natural selection (since it can), we've also provided examples by which perfectly sensibly evolved responses can be highly inappropriate under certain circumstances, but because we've been doing this in a general sense (i.e. with thought experiments, and examples of altruism distributed through the natural world wherever cooperative animals can be found), we haven't been addressing the mechanics of altruism specifically as they apply to humans, and even more specifically, fairly modern humans. Conversely, I think this is the only context within which Beleg is interested.

Now the interesting thing about humans, as I've previously noted, is our truly staggering rate of cultural evolution. Now I hesitate to bring in memetics (the 'genetics' of ideas) because it's such a buzzwordy term, but it may be necessary here. Humans are possibly unique at this present time in our ability to formulate ideas, and communicate them to others both directly (talking) and indirectly (in written form). We are a hugely fertile breeding ground for ideas.

While memes (le sigh) follow wholly different means of transmission and propagation, in terms of survival by natural selection, they are on exactly the same playing field. And of course, religion is a memetic construct. Christianity, a specific meme.


So while we can demonstrate how the evolution of altruism follows fairly straightforward sensible rules and is a desirable trait for a cooperative species, when we consider modern humans, we HAVE to take religion into account, because it's there. Indeed, on the scale of modern humans, genetic evolution can be thought to be essentially static (it's not, obviously, but it's just very sloooooow). Cultural evolution, in contrast, is firing along at turbo speed. Ideas arise, ideas fall or spread depending on natural selection. Religion is a meme, an idea, and a very powerful one -it only really needs to crop up once to rapidly spread. Remember though, that just like organisms, it is constantly subject to natural selection. In a totally unchanging world, natural selection would eventually produce an 'ideal religion' that is optimised for the mindsets of the unchanging population.
We are of course, not unchanging, and in addition, it's competing with a vast array of other ideas, all of them jostling for space in our minds.
And furthermore, like organisms in nature, as it spreads it changes. In early humans, transmission would be via oral recitation from memory, so the rate of 'mutation' would be relatively high. Add in the fact that humans would be spreading across the world and you now have "mutation + geographical separation" -this is directly analagous to how speciation (formation of new species) occurs. In this fashion a single religion could rapidly become many separate sects, and soon after become several fully-fledged separate religions.

These separate religions are then direct competitors of each other, since one highly-prevalent submeme of the religious 'idea' is the "this idea is the only TRUE one, all others are false" concept: that concept of exclusivity is a powerful positive selection trait: demand that brains only carry around YOU as an idea, and you both increase brainspace devoted to you, and drive out your competitors. So religions are in a constant state of evolution and natural selection, and are subject to exactly the same rules, and exactly the same consequences (generally, lots of 'death' - one needs only to look at the sheer number of extinct religions to see how the 'idea' of religion has adapted and changed over time, with sub-ideas -the religions themselves- falling by the wayside as the environment became unfavourable, or as more successful ideas -more popular religions- drove them out).

It's worth noting at this point that (I believe -I'm sure I read it somewhere :P) there's a relatively high correlation between the 'cemeting' of the major religions (i.e. them becoming static and relatively unchangable) and the development of reliably long-term written records. Another possible explanation for the drying up of miracles and direct divine interaction:
"Dad told me that his dad told him that his dad told him god spoke to him!!!"
"Pics or it didn't happen"

So, all of which brings us back to Beleg's example of the christians turning the other cheek, when it seems to make no sense for them to do so.

Things you have to bear in mind:

Firstly: we are an ideal breeding ground for ideas. We are altruistic social animals, we are highly communicative, and we have a rich tapestry of liguistic subtlety. Some of us are naturally imaginative and charismatic -these individuals are powerful sources of ideas, and powerful refiners and mutators of ideas. Some of us are naturally more inclined to be followers -this stems naturally from the evolved social systems communal animals tend toward, since you can't run a tribe composed exclusively of alpha males-, and these followers are powerful transmitters and repositories of ideas. We are, on the whole, almost perfect organisms for making shit up and spreading it around. We may not be unique in our concept of self-awareness or ability to entertain abstract thought, but we are streets ahead of all the other species when it comes to existential dread, making shit up and letting others run our lives. This has, of course, been highly useful for us, too.

Secondly: ideas, unlike genes, do not need sex to reproduce. They are not tied to our genetics in any real sense. In fact, the best biological equivalent for an idea is a benign virus, one that infects a host but does not kill it, allowing it to wander around infecting all its friends.

Thirdly: following from the above, since ideas do not necessarily need us to reproduce, they are under no contraints to make us behave in a manner that actually serves us best. They do not, for want of a better phrase, give two shits about us, other than as vessels. And again, like benign viruses, they sometimes accidentally kill their host.

Finally: even in light of the above, a benign virus that makes its host stupidly fertile will be more successful than one that doesn't. Similiarly, ideas that encourage production of many offspring, teaching of the idea to offspring, and actively teaching the idea to outsiders, will generally be more successful than those that don't. Ideas are often very beneficial to our survival and propagation. What works for us works for them, after all. You simply need to remember that this is NOT NECESSARILY ALWAYS THE CASE.


So when considering exteme altruism that stems from a religious decree, one has to consider it in terms of the religious meme, rather than the strict biological context. This is the point I didn't quite realise you were driving at. And it's a valid point.
Again, it's entirely explicable in terms of memetics rather than existence of an actual god (whether you consider this to be moving the goalposts or not I leave to you), but there you go.

We're not therefore asking what the advantage to the organism is in this ostensibly crazy self-sacrifice, because it's a organism infected with an idea, and no longer following strict biological rules. We have to also ask "what is the advantage to the idea"? More accurately, we're not JUST asking that, either. Human behaviour now has to be evaluated in terms of both evolutionary and memetic constraints. And it's not like there's a rulebook on that, it being currently restricted to "just us" as far as we know.

In terms of the individuals being eaten, they did it because they strongly believed in their idea. The idea came complete with explanation for "why are we here" -always a toughie, that existential dread-, an explanation for "what happens after death", and a nice set of orders for "how should I live my life?". It also came along with "have no ideas but me", "have lots of children and teach me to them", and "here is a list of basic higiene techiques" and so on. A nice set of powerfully mutually-supportive submemes wrapped into one big packet called christianity, which under most normal circumstances would benefit those carrying it.

It does not, admittedly, benefit those particular christians, but them's the breaks. Plus, christians voluntarily throwing themselves to lions because they believe in their god so strongly, and are convinced that they will live happily on in heaven...is a very very powerful message. It potentially benefits the idea enormously: "Hey, I know we basically believe in zeus and shit, but those guys just let themselves get fucking eaten coz their god promised them rewards..d'you think they know something we don't?"

So the idea wins either way.


Bringing it back to the modern day, you can actually see this memetic evolution in action, again with respect to religion: aspects of religion that become unfavourable die out, leaving the refined, evolved, honed religion that best fits the mindsets of today.
:angel:"The church hates gays!!"
:erg:"Hey, now that seems a bit harsh"
:angel:"Umm..THAT church hates gays. We love gays!"
:erg:"Coming on a little strong, dude"
:angel:"Gays are...ok?"
:erg:"There you go."

Hatred of homosexuality is gradually being dropped from some aspects of the idea, and vehemently retained in other subsets: speciation in action. And just like Ra and Zeus and burning a fuckton of meat so that god could inhale the smell, those subsets that fail to thrive will quietly vanish.

And of course it's still just an idea (a very powerful idea, but still just an idea). The steady fall in religiosity might be indicating that finally the idea has evolved itself into a corner and will gradually die out as the mental environment it needs simply becomes rarer and rarer. Most likely it will simply drift into the background ("I believe in ..something") where it will neatly address our existential dread while not simultaneously looking silly.


So: TL:DR version: Altruism etc wholly evolutionarily-aquired for genes' own entirely selfish purposes, then piggybacked by memes for essentially their own entirely selfish purposes.

SuperDR version: religion may not make sense.

jay pettitt on 6/2/2012 at 15:27

---

...so nature and nurture. Radical stuff.

What I find interesting there is trying to do some kind of qualitative assessment. Does religion lead you to behave 'better' or more altruistically. I'd argue it doesn't (at least, not reliably) - but it's not like I've done a proper study with a decent sample of data or anything.

(and it's interesting that someone noted earlier that secularists in Holland don't give as much to charity as Christians)

But witness the (http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138242) Fever dreams thread.

Some poor guy has a really nasty sleep paralysis episode complete with lucid hallucinations of beastly intruders doing nasty things to him. And he posts about it on comm-chat, as you do. The thing about sleep paralysis is that it's actually pretty common, but it can be really frightening - the brain is completely incapable of understanding which bit is dream in which bits are reality. The episodes can be recurring too.

What happens is that paralysis is a normal part of REM sleep. The neurotransmitters that send signals to move our bodies are shutdown while we have exciting dreams about disco dancing - but we're away with the fairies and unaware of it. With Sleep Paralysis the paralysis bit of REM sleep gets out of sync with the reset of the sleep cycle and there's sometimes a semi-lucid brain panic while we try and work out why we can't move.

So my interest is piqued and I do a Goolge. Straight away there's a load of (http://youtu.be/DHaL7szTKXo) Christian resources.

Instead of pointing out that this is a common sleep disorder and though unpleasant there's no actual danger and good sleep habits will fix it - Christian resources explicitly say you should reject rational explanations (on an entirely false premise) and say that this really is something nasty and that you really should be terrified. In fact, the more terrified the better. Christian resources actually try to ratchet up the terror such that they hope it becomes dominant in your life and not just a nasty sleep wake experience - and then they seek to exploit that terror.

I think that's really quite a nasty thing to do. And I think it's immoral.

But because there's a religious goal involved, the folks behind these Christian resources suspend questioning about the morality of what they're doing and just go for it. You can slap religious branding on any behaviour it seems - and that's the only thing you need to do for it to be considered 'good'.