What is love within the theory of darwinism?
21 Jun 2011, 10:29 am
ruveyn wrote:
Philologos wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
love is an ill-defined concept therefore it is not succeptable to a scientific analysis.
ruveyn
ruveyn
WHICH is why I have said we need to define the concepts. "red" is an ill defined concept until you do the work of getting subjects from various cultures to draw lines on the spectrum.
"red" can be defined by example. Point to an object you think is red. Keep a record on what people regard as "red". Eventually a spectrum analysis will pin it down pretty well.
ruveyn
Which is what needs to be done with the behaviors and mental / physiological states that people associate with one or more of the several loves.
21 Jun 2011, 11:54 am
jojobean wrote:
It seems almost alien to the laws of nature...but stands out there like the one exeption to the darwin rule?
what is it really, and how did it come to be?
Any ideas??
Jojo
what is it really, and how did it come to be?
Any ideas??
Jojo
Its called Altruism. You find it among species that have some sort of communal division of labor as part of their survival skills.
For example, a pack of wolves or lions or tigers are not altruistic. If the mother of a newborn dies the other mothers in the group will refuse to nourish or raise the orphan. Same happens on almost all prey species that herd. Note this doesnt happen ALL the time there are some odd individual exceptions..but as a rule it doesnt happen.
On the other hand, some communal rodents, marsupials and apes will almost always adopt orphaned members or care for the offspring of others because they divide the labor required for survival among the group.
21 Jun 2011, 12:02 pm
Dantac wrote:
Its called Altruism. You find it among species that have some sort of communal division of labor as part of their survival skills.
.
.
Reciprocal altruism is a survival characteristic in many species. It promotes reproductive success for the species (if not the individual). And that is all that counts.
ruveyn
21 Jun 2011, 1:52 pm
MarketAndChurch wrote:
aghogday wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
what about taking on the burden of protecting someone despite them being a drain on food and resources - and they are paralyzed? Or, during wwII, taking in a jew with a baby when your basement is at capacity which increases your risk of getting caught because of the complications that come with a baby? What is the evolutionary benefit to preserving life at the cost of greatly increasing the possibility of you and those you love getting killed? Especially when you are very certain of the possibility of the associated risks happening? And also if you know that, by not helping them, you don't loose anything.
what is the evolutionary benefit of allowing people with sever defects or retardation to reproduce? Especially if their survival is a drain on public dollars? What is the evolutionary benefit of keeping someone on life support, especially if the condition they will return in will not be beneficial to you, be it finances, or their inability to help you with daily chores - and them staying on life-extending equipment goes against what should have been a natural death.
I can assure you that love was in some way present with much of the above, so like happiness, do not conform it to limited darwinian definitions. Rather, evolve darwin to fit the uniqueness of the human experience.
what is the evolutionary benefit of allowing people with sever defects or retardation to reproduce? Especially if their survival is a drain on public dollars? What is the evolutionary benefit of keeping someone on life support, especially if the condition they will return in will not be beneficial to you, be it finances, or their inability to help you with daily chores - and them staying on life-extending equipment goes against what should have been a natural death.
I can assure you that love was in some way present with much of the above, so like happiness, do not conform it to limited darwinian definitions. Rather, evolve darwin to fit the uniqueness of the human experience.
We have civilization and moral code driven by cognitive discipline or cognitive desire, curbing or enhancing instinct, an ability that other animals don't likely possess. If left to our instincts and natural world, the cruel reality of life would be more obvious.
However, children reaching puberty have the instinctual drive for competition that often displays itself beyond civilization, moral code, and the discipline of cognitive effort. Not unlike fish in a tank that destroy the weak and sick; children reaching puberty often seek out to challenge the weak or those in competition for resources, until the hormones level off and they have greater cognitive control of their behavior.
Some continue to compete and eliminate competition as required and some seek to cooperate influenced by hormones, environment, culture, and cognitive discipline.
Moral code is important in this in cognitive control over instinct when no one is looking. While not soley responsible for the examples your present, it has an impact on behavior and legal code.
We are born with the ability to experience intrinsic rewards for successful social behavior, but moral code goes a step beyond, and is established on a cognitive basis, through family, culture, religion, and what ever other source one is exposed to. Sometimes it disclipines instinct and sometimes it drives instinct, but we are all subject to this influence.
Despite holding that most functions of gender are a societal construct, I don't discount the role of instinct in shaping behavior. Instinct or ethical traditions to curb or control them play a role, but crazy un-necessary altruism that puts you in un-necessary danger a function of instinct? Why does a code of ethics as extensive as ours exist only among us? Why are we so rotten (no species compares) that we adopted awareness of our rotten condition and then tried to construct ethical codes to deal with it? If we eventually evolved to construct such codes of ethics to stem our failings, why or how did we survive long enough to construct such ethics considering the potential cruelty and rottenness of the human being?
An Offshoot: What is the evolutionary benefit of evil?
What is the intrinsic reward for anti-social behavior? What about a culturally disciplined muslim who grow up in a western context and then adopts jihadist doctrine and justifies blowing up people? What does this say about the taming of the instinct with ethics?
I can understand as you have noted the competition for resources, but what is the evolutionary benefit from maiming a fellow unarmed congolese women with a machete after you've just raped her terrible - with objects clearly not ment for sex that cause urination to flow uncontrollably down her legs whenever she feels the urge to pee - in front of her little children?
The darwinian benefit of rape is passing on your seed but what is the evolutionary benefit of raping and then killing the person raped?
What about forcing a father to commit incest with his daughter at gunpoint / sword point / pitchfork/shovel point?
What about a member of the Khmer Rouge who would kill people with a tree branch to prolong un-necessary suffering?
All of these things have happened throughout history and are even repeated in the present, so Im guessing it at one point had an evolutionary purpose, but in the future, won't? I saw an episode on Monkeys where they compared human evil to tribalistic evils between different monkey clans but it seems that no monkeys have attempted to wipe out most if not all monkeys. Or start with the rape, torture, and extermination of one group of monkeys and goes until they meet another that is even stronger. I suppose that is largely lived out today in that the strong determine the framework that the world works in(ie: The United States has the most powerful firepower on earth and most countries move into our sphere of influence or band together to oppose it) but the human experience is still different.
Luck plays a role in our case whereas lack of awareness and perhaps instinct keep - Whenever a new tool for killing is found, it is used to kill a good sum of people(for good or bad), but when in the hands of idealists or anarchists, we are lucky that the extent of the possible damage of those weapons have been limiting. A gun can kill a group. Had they been armed with several nukes, who knows what shape humanity still be in.
Like I said before:
Quote:
I can assure you that love was in some way present with much of the above, so like happiness, do not conform it to limited darwinian definitions. Rather, evolve darwin to fit the uniqueness of the human experience.
I'm not sure I was clear when I stated that moral code curbs as well as enhances instinct. Not all instinct is pleasant. And the examples you mentioned, in part, are impacted by the same language/cognition control that disciplines our instinct for pleasure and aggression. Our ability to create tools and make decisions on capricious factors, make us the kindest and the cruelest of animals, with the ability to create great beauty and compassion, or to destroy much of the world, if we decide to based on our own constructs of what is good for us.
Evolution provides potential for survival. Unfortunately we have evolved to the point where we have the "intelligence" to control our destiny and destroy ourselves as a species, if we make that "intelligent" choice. All the examples you provide, indicate our type of intelligence, makes destruction a clear and present potential.
21 Jun 2011, 3:16 pm
Regarding the OP... I think love, as in the "Love thy neighbor" kind of love, is not really love at all. It's empathy, compassion, and self-preservation.
I think way back when mankind was truly a tribal society, communal living was a necessity for safety, hunting, and longevity. We have now evolved into a society where most people don't even really know their neighbors. If, tomorrow, society were to revert back to a tribal-like lifestyle, who would you band together with? For a communal society to truly work, members need to have faith and trust in those around them. This is probably one reason we're willing to sacrifice ourselves for a stranger's child. Would you place trust in someone who let your child come to harm? Perhaps it's self-preservation through the security of tomorrow; protect the new generation who will protect and provide for you in your old age.
The OP pointed to the scenario of finding a lost child and our nature of helping that child. I don't think this is really a challenging question. There is little risk to the finder. I once found a lost toddler wandering naked in my apartment complex. I did help the child, but I wasn't stupid enough to take that child into my house. I sent my son in for a blanket for the child and my phone so I could call the police, but I stayed outside with the child. Even in this situation, I was concerned with my self-preservation.
A real scenario is someone who rushes into a burning building after the child/children of a stranger. Would I rush into the burning building and risk making my own (safe) child an orphan.......? Part of me hopes that I would be that selfless, the other half thinks that's a pretty stupid way to think and not at all responsible to my own child. I sure hope someone would do that for my son, and maybe that is what motivates us to act in these self-sacrificing situations. Hope that someone would reciprocate if the shoe was on the other foot. Again, self-serving motives.
The OP mentioned either civil or human rights activists (sorry can't remember which it was). Does this really have to do with love? Does seeing something as unjust and wanting to see the situation made right, have anything at all to do with love? I don't really think so. Morality, yes. Justice, yes. Fear, of course. When we start taking rights away, or limiting who we give rights too, it makes it that much easier to limit or take rights from others. Again, self-preservation.
21 Jun 2011, 4:16 pm
Philologos wrote:
Right - equating love - any of the things called love - with altruism or "enlightened self interest" is a simplification that skips the thought phase altogether.
Behavioralism fails once again; materialism leading the way.
_________________
"All valuation rests on an irrational bias."
-George Santayana
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
21 Jun 2011, 5:59 pm
Dantac wrote:
jojobean wrote:
It seems almost alien to the laws of nature...but stands out there like the one exeption to the darwin rule?
what is it really, and how did it come to be?
Any ideas??
Jojo
what is it really, and how did it come to be?
Any ideas??
Jojo
Its called Altruism. You find it among species that have some sort of communal division of labor as part of their survival skills.
For example, a pack of wolves or lions or tigers are not altruistic. If the mother of a newborn dies the other mothers in the group will refuse to nourish or raise the orphan. Same happens on almost all prey species that herd. Note this doesnt happen ALL the time there are some odd individual exceptions..but as a rule it doesnt happen.
On the other hand, some communal rodents, marsupials and apes will almost always adopt orphaned members or care for the offspring of others because they divide the labor required for survival among the group.
You are correct wrt. lions and tigers, but incorrect wrt. wolves. Wolves can and do support weak and injured members of their pack, including puppies, as far as they can while there is hope for that member to recover. I have never heard of rodents, marsupials, or apes doing this (at least outside of direct kinship with the apes); could you cite examples?
Your reasoning is correct; social animals, where individuals have a better chance of survival if they're in a group than if they're alone, tend to have very strong emotional incentives to support and remain with the group. A human alone in the wilds of Africa doesn't have good odd of long-term survival, and a human alone anywhere doesn't have good long-term odds of staying sane.
We aspies still generally have the desire to be a part of a group, but lack many of the tools to do so.
21 Jun 2011, 6:16 pm
Dantac wrote:
Its called Altruism. You find it among species that have some sort of communal division of labor as part of their survival skills.
For example, a pack of wolves or lions or tigers are not altruistic. If the mother of a newborn dies the other mothers in the group will refuse to nourish or raise the orphan. Same happens on almost all prey species that herd. Note this doesnt happen ALL the time there are some odd individual exceptions..but as a rule it doesnt happen.
On the other hand, some communal rodents, marsupials and apes will almost always adopt orphaned members or care for the offspring of others because they divide the labor required for survival among the group.
For example, a pack of wolves or lions or tigers are not altruistic. If the mother of a newborn dies the other mothers in the group will refuse to nourish or raise the orphan. Same happens on almost all prey species that herd. Note this doesnt happen ALL the time there are some odd individual exceptions..but as a rule it doesnt happen.
On the other hand, some communal rodents, marsupials and apes will almost always adopt orphaned members or care for the offspring of others because they divide the labor required for survival among the group.
Do these guys divide labor?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM[/youtube]
_________________
"All valuation rests on an irrational bias."
-George Santayana
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
21 Jun 2011, 8:16 pm
It is a puzzlement:
a baseline materialism asks and often answers what - when - where - who if humans are involved - and at times how and how much ~ many.
WHY is not available to the material - it gets you to AG's objectiuon to purpose as anthropomorphism.
So why - or should I try for whence? - so much why - because in these accounts?
22 Jun 2011, 12:08 am
dionysian wrote:
Do these guys divide labor?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM[/youtube]
It's not so much that they divide labor as that they are safer amongst many of their own kind. Being in a crowd probably makes them feel calmer, happier, and more secure. Of course, there's not much that a hoofed grazer facing a lethally armed pack of predators can do to help its fellows if they get injured or need help.
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
22 Jun 2011, 1:27 am
Philologos wrote:
Right - equating love - any of the things called love - with altruism or "enlightened self interest" is a simplification that skips the thought phase altogether.
We're talking about positive adaptive traits as motivators of human behavior,
not the individual thoughts in a strata of awareness where actual desires are felt consciously.
Do pay attention.
_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."
22 Jun 2011, 1:36 am
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Philologos wrote:
Right - equating love - any of the things called love - with altruism or "enlightened self interest" is a simplification that skips the thought phase altogether.
We're talking about positive adaptive traits as motivators of human behavior,
not the individual thoughts in a strata of awareness where actual desires are felt consciously.
Do pay attention.
Pooh. I am paying attention. And I was NOT talking about "individual thoughts in a stratUM of awareness where actual desires are felt consciously" - if that even means anything, because it does not compute as far as colorless green ideas to me.
ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw
22 Jun 2011, 1:40 am
Oh, okay, I could have sworn you mentioned "thought", which I took to mean "mental processes of which we are aware".
Apologies.
_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."
23 Jun 2011, 8:40 pm
ValentineWiggin wrote:
Oh, okay, I could have sworn you mentioned "thought", which I took to mean "mental processes of which we are aware".
Apologies.
Apologies.
What I SAID was"
[equating love - any of the things called love - with altruism or "enlightened self interest" is a simplification that skips the thought phase altogether.]
I am not talking about the "though phase of love" if that could mean anything - I am talking about thought - more accuratel, lack of thought - on the part of the person equating love with altruism.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Aspergers theory, it's a big question mark for me |
11 Feb 2024, 8:42 am |
| Falling In Love |
01 Mar 2024, 5:40 am |
| I LOVE HANDYCAM RECORDERS |
09 Apr 2024, 2:41 pm |
| Autistic Love Songs |
Yesterday, 8:29 pm |
