Morality and Evolution

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But doesn't higher moral standards come from increased intelligence and a bigger brain? Like someone said previously, other pack animals also display some standards for acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

I also have questions about the role of "Intelligence and Evolution". It seems we are WAY over equipped in the intelligence department for what we need for the survival and perpetuation of our species.

[/ QUOTE ]
Brain size may also be an example of peacock's tale type runaway evolution.

One idea is that at some point we got hold of the idea that a favoured mate is one who displays creative talents (pictures, stories, etc) which then leads to a better and better ability to make such displays and hence a large brain.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, altough it may explain my attraction to members of the opposite sex that have a big head [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

Hi Midge, not sure where we draw the line on darwinian evolution but I suspect there is a large component of natural selection behind why we are moral creatures.

However the initial seed of cooperative behavior came about, it seems likely that those who chose a cooperative mate would have been more successful at reproduction. Once cooperation becomes a factor in sexual selection you get runaway evolution like with the peacocks tail leading to all these feelings about right and wrong which cause displays of extreme cooperative (moral) behavior and maybe even religon.

This could all happen even if cooperation wasn't advantageous but given we have reason to believe it is a significant advantage it makes this all the more likey.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure either chezlaw. First of all, morality is a word that can be subject to big variations in interpretations. So I find it a bit tricky to define satisfactorily a behaviour in that term. Secondly, it seems to be more an epiphenomena that could be catalogued as "culture" and thus be part of cultural eveolution and associated or similar research. And thirdly, I would say that in evoluttionary terms, human history is still of very small duration. It may be premature to come to the conclusion that we are the epitome of adaptability or the summum of evolution. Considering what I see, I have serious doubts. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But, I can't say you are wrong or right. I'll stay agnostic on this one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But doesn't higher moral standards come from increased intelligence and a bigger brain? Like someone said previously, other pack animals also display some standards for acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

I also have questions about the role of "Intelligence and Evolution". It seems we are WAY over equipped in the intelligence department for what we need for the survival and perpetuation of our species.

[/ QUOTE ]
Brain size may also be an example of peacock's tale type runaway evolution.

One idea is that at some point we got hold of the idea that a favoured mate is one who displays creative talents (pictures, stories, etc) which then leads to a better and better ability to make such displays and hence a large brain.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, altough it may explain my attraction to members of the opposite sex that have a big head [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It's definitely an idea so care to explain why its a bad one.

Here's an extract from 'the meme machine' by Susan Blackmore. first chapter here

[ QUOTE ]
My aim in this book is to show that many aspects of human nature are explained far better by a theory of memetics than by any rival theory yet available. The theory starts only with one simple mechanism - the competition between memes to get into human brains and be passed on again. From this it gives rise to explanations for such diverse phenomena as the evolution of the enormous human brain, the origins of language, our tendency to talk and think too much, human altruism, and the evolution of the internet. Looked at through the new lens of the memes, human beings look quite different.

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[ QUOTE ]
...It's definitely an idea so care to explain why its a bad one.
...

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, I like Susan Blackmore's work.

I am not saying it is a bad idea. I am saying that is an ideaa and that there are many other ideas on the subject and, afik, no definitive theory yet.

Personally, I try to avoid loading my investigations with anything remotely concerned with "right" and "wrongs" when it comes to evolution. Another idea, maybe not better, but not worse, I think, is that the cooprative aspects of human being are a by-product of that innate ability to love/empathise, which is manifested as parental love. Now, this was definitely an asset as it enabled a much longer dependence, of the young in the species, to the parents (and hence development of a body of knowledge affecting behaviour, outside of the genetic mechanism.. the birth of culture, maybe?). Altough this is useful, like many genetic characteristics, it only has a limited usefulness and may even become a problem when it is applied to the other members of the group. This may be so because, the mechanism to stop the activity of the drive, whilst needed to enable emancipation of the young, may itself be an inperfect or maldajusted drive when projected more broadly. But as I said, I am not sure. I don't know of any definitive research in the matter. Maybe we will know, maybe not. The point to remember is that an evolutionary change has to be contributing to survival in an overall manner, but may have many specific (side) effects that are not desirable.

As I said in another post, I am witholding closure on that one, and stay agnostic, but very interetested in new developments, vis-a-vis morality as an evolutionary mechanism. I worry that it may be a back door entry of meaning (or purpose) and its attendant pseudo-theories, in a scientific field.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not saying it is a bad idea. I am saying that is an ideaa and that there are many other ideas on the subject and, afik, no definitive theory yet.


[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, just mentioned it as an idea. Thought Lestat would find it interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I try to avoid loading my investigations with anything remotely concerned with "right" and "wrongs" when it comes to evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again sure, but I'm only talking about feelings of right/wrong not actual right/wrong. I think evolution has to account for why somethings are painful and other things pleasurable.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you trying to find a way to bring up the ashes, in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't but am now by responding in this thread [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

chez

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Sure, just mentioned it as an idea. Thought Lestat would find it interesting. </font>

I did thanks. And thanks for that link also.

[ctj]

See "The Evolution of Co-operation" by Axelrod (I'm on the road right now and can't provide the full citation, sorry)

He shows how co-operation is +EV and how it can become established in a population -- in an "Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma" environment it benefits an individual to punish 'cheaters'. Surprisingly, a simple 'tit-for-tat' strategy (punish once, then go back to co-operation until the next instance of cheating) was the most effective in computer simulations.

Note that he shows how co-operation can develop without resorting to 'group selection' (a no-no in evolutionary theory).

Regards,

C.T. Jackson

[atrifix]

Of course, the huge leap from cooperation to full-scale morality does not follow.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, the huge leap from cooperation to full-scale morality does not follow.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it much of a leap? Realising that cooperation is beneficial is very hard for evolution so the evolved stratagy that results in cooperation is to care about other people.

We get pleasure/pain type stimuli (I think that is morality) from how we treat others so that we will behave in a cooperative manner. In the same way we get pleasure from sex so that we will behave in a reproductive manner.

chez

[atrifix]

It is possible that morality evolves. It may even be the case that morality evolves due to cooperative influences, predicted all the while by game theory. But it certainly does not follow merely from the cooperation outlined in the iterated prisoner's dilemma. There are any number of ways that cooperation can evolve without any reference to morality. That's all I meant.