Evolutionary Reductionism

[Received]

I use this term to refer to the tendency to "undermine" each and every behavior (overt or covert) by appealing to its adaptive function. This, to me, can be a very humbling feeling, in that it gives me a sense that everything I do is rewarded or punished by biological mechanisms that were originally very brutish in their raison d'etre. That's fine. What I have extreme difficulty with is the idea that my very intentions, despite having subjectively good ends, are also ultimately undermined by payoffs I have that I may not intend at all. Anything applies. Our good works toward another person may appear altruistic within the realm of subjectivity, but objectively there's a payoff that reinforces this behavior: the pleasureable feeling I get when I do a good act.

I don't like this idea. It means that all our actions have ulterior motives -- albeit it's important to distinguish having conscious ulterior motives and having unconscious ulterior motives. Just writing that, though, makes the blow a lot more softened. But it still makes a purely naturalistic evolutionary perspective very easily reducible to a type of pessimism, if not nihilism. If everything we do is reducible to a survival instinct, what is the real meaning of everything we do? We work on the assumption that we really are altruistic in our intentions, but if it turns out that our so-called altruism is really a cloaked egoism, what then? Should we embrace our egoism? Or is altruism really the subjective sense of having good intentions, despite the fact that objectively (i.e., evolutionarily) we don't really have good intentions for their own sakes?

Most interestingly, if the facade is that we're propping a civilized face on a primitive essence, does this mean that the people who are least shy in expressing themselves in primitive ways are really, in some sense, more human? I know an artist friend who has an incredible spiritual side, but he's also very, let's say, sexually active. Is he in his sexual openness somehow more preferable to someone who is a prude and a voluntary virgin because this person hides his real primitive nature, albeit covered with a mask of higher ideals?

 

[Paradoxum]

Well you could try to tackle this by emphasising the role of reason and duty as Kant did. If you can justify your moral action by reason alone, and act out of duty alone (even if it harms you) then you can be justifiably be said to have a good will (the only thing of unconditional value). This has its own problems though.

The way I think about it is that one shouldn't act morally for ones own glory. We shouldn't act in love to be loved, or be altruistic to be praised. These things may in fact contradict each other. Instead we should think, "I may implicitly be acting selfishly, but I wont use this as a reason to be explicitly selfish because I act for the goodness of others, not so that I can praise myself or so that God can reward me."

The above may even be selfish in itself, but at least I recognise my own selfishness and nevertheless choose to what is good.

I don't necessarily accept that we all act selfishly all the time, but this is a reply one can give without having to disprove the opposing theory.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I would say that our learned behaviour stratergies and schemas are themselves (at least akin to) life forms. The behavioural algorithm is the life form, the emotion is the landscape. These algorithms evolve in the psychic habitat of the emotions. Basically speaking they are positively or negatively reinforced by being exposed to their consequences - simplistically put they result in either pleasure or pain, and are either rejected or reproduced accordingly. For instance to highlight the analogy with biological evolution I might have a "bull dog" attitude, but learn through experience that that is not a sustainable way to go on. So my bull dog might change into a rat, fox, dragon, phoenix or rabbit etc. So we can see our inner life, and outward behaviour as resulting form psychic evolution in the affective domain. Various attitudes, philosophies, people's attitudes etc can collectively be seen as a menagerie of adaptive stratergies and processes.

 

[Received]

Well you could try to tackle this by emphasising the role of reason and duty as Kant did. If you can justify your moral action by reason alone, and act out of duty alone (even if it harms you) then you can be justifiably be said to have a good will (the only thing of unconditional value). This has its own problems though.

The way I think about it is that one shouldn't act morally for ones own glory. We shouldn't act in love to be loved, or be altruistic to be praised. These things may in fact contradict each other. Instead we should think, "I may implicitly be acting selfishly, but I wont use this as a reason to be explicitly selfish because I act for the goodness of others, not so that I can praise myself or so that God can reward me."

The above may even be selfish in itself, but at least I recognise my own selfishness and nevertheless choose to what is good.

I don't necessarily accept that we all act selfishly all the time, but this is a reply one can give without having to disprove the opposing theory.

I agree with all of this. But what's causing me concern is how the idea of being moral, or non-selfish, or not acting for one's own glory may be subjectively true, in that the individual may not intentionally have his self in mind. But objectively there still are payoffs that explain why we would even want to act selflessly in the first place -- payoffs that benefit us. When I act selflessly toward another person, I don't have myself consciously in mind, but the good feelings I have are presumably adaptive -- an extension of group survival, or whatever. Can we then really be called selfless?

I think so. Even if we wouldn't act selflessly if we didn't get some type of endorphin kick following an act of goodness, we can still conceptualize selfishness or selflessness according to whether or not a person is conscious of himself in the sense of getting a payoff that directly benefits him.

But that right there causes a problem: if I know that objectively I'm getting a payoff when acting selflessly, it's dangerously easy to drop everything and say screw off to selflessness because, after all, we're getting a payment anyways. That, in essence, is the brain warp I'm going through in thinking of this.

 

[Received]

I would say that our learned behaviour stratergies and schemas are themselves (at least akin to) life forms. The behavioural algorithm is the life form, the emotion is the landscape. These algorithms evolve in the psychic habitat of the emotions. Basically speaking they are positively or negatively reinforced by being exposed to their consequences - simplistically either pleasure or pain. For instance I might have a "bull dog" attitude, but learn through experience that that is not a sustainable way to go on. So my bull dog might change into a rat, fox, dragon or rabbit etc. So we can see our inner life, and outward behaviour as resulting form psychic evolution. Moral attitudes, philosophies, peoples attitudes etc can collectively be seen as a menagerie of adaptive stratergies and processes.

What a wonderful thought! I'm still holding on trying to fully comprehend it. I think that -- and this may be in agreement with what you're saying -- we can use our adaptations against themselves precisely through conscious awareness of our immediate impulses in certain situations. Consciousness seems to be a quantum leap in evolutionary history (and a main reason why I'm very skeptical of accepting consciousness as just another adaptation analogous to previous adaptations). Consciousness seems to free the human being from being reducible to drives and instincts, as other animals can be. Consciousness brings possibility, the freedom to rearrange one’s values, to perceive one’s ulterior motives, and therefore to transcend them. For example, I see a sexually attractive girl and am naturally attracted to her and am inclined to have preferential treatment to this person in contrast to this not-so-attractive other person, but through consciousness I realize this is evolution pulling me toward something, which allows me to use my other, more abstract, more consciousness-flavored (i.e., likely not adaptive exclusively) ideal of justice to backhand (and ultimately, with practice, condition) my inclination to be preferential to the sexually attractive person and treat both of the individuals equally.

The above thinking is why I'm very slow to accept the idea that consciousnesss is reducible to adaptive mutations, and even down with the idea of consciousness as completely incommensurate with evolution entirely (which opens up ground for God). After all, there's something absurd in saying that language, and therefore consciousness, is simply a spandrel, as Gould has said.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What I am saying is out thought processes and behavior are like life forms in that they evolve too.

 

[Paradoxum]

I agree with all of this. But what's causing me concern is how the idea of being moral, or non-selfish, or not acting for one's own glory may be subjectively true, in that the individual may not intentionally have his self in mind. But objectively there still are payoffs that explain why we would even want to act selflessly in the first place -- payoffs that benefit us. When I act selflessly toward another person, I don't have myself consciously in mind, but the good feelings I have are presumably adaptive -- an extension of group survival, or whatever. Can we then really be called selfless?

I think so. Even if we wouldn't act selflessly if we didn't get some type of endorphin kick following an act of goodness, we can still conceptualize selfishness or selflessness according to whether or not a person is conscious of himself in the sense of getting a payoff that directly benefits him.

But that right there causes a problem: if I know that objectively I'm getting a payoff when acting selflessly, it's dangerously easy to drop everything and say screw off to selflessness because, after all, we're getting a payment anyways. That, in essence, is the brain warp I'm going through in thinking of this.

I'm not sure why this isn't answered by what I said originally. We should act selfishly because it benefits others and makes the world a better place. It is a hard issue though.

 

[Received]

I'm not sure why this isn't answered by what I said originally. We should act selfishly because it benefits others and makes the world a better place. It is a hard issue though.

I simply didn't fully read the excellent statement you had in quotes in your original reply, and I put too much weight upon your final sentence that you don't think we're acting selfishly (which I understood to mean objectively, or implicitly, selfishly) at all times. I think, if we accept the idea that all of our behaviors and functions can be reduced to adaptations (I don't necessarily think they do, including that monster of a faculty called consciousness), we're left inexorably with the idea that while we may not subjectively intend to be selfish, that we're still getting a reward from even our selfless acts, simply by getting a positive feeling that reinforces good behavior.

I also agree that it's not contradictory to be selfish and yet still desire the goodness of other people. I think if people really looked for their own self interest, there would be no need for explicit selfishness; i.e., to live explicitly selfishly makes you less happy than living explicitly selflessly for others (even if there's an implicit selfishness present).

 

[Received]

You know, now that I think about it, even before this evolutionary aspect came along, I was well on my way to distinguishing selfishness and selflessness according to explicit and implicit (stealing your terms, Para) forms. Evolution just provides an explanation for what has truth value independent of it. We *are* getting a reward from being good people, from being selfless people, and so this means that our selflessness is explicit, and that we can never really get away from a degree of selfishness, given that we would not act in selfless ways unless -- we got a payoff from acting selflessly.

I think it can be conceived in terms of degrees of self-interest. If I'm all about me as an individual and my actions explicitly have my self as a beneficiary in mind, this is much more selfish than the type of selfishness that doesn't involve an explicit sense of self in view of certain activities. Helping other people and creating things are two examples of activities that have a clear happiness element to them as a reward, thereby making selfishness present (implicitly, as I've said), but there still is little to no consciousness of self in these activities. Actually, a good way of encapsulating the healthy type of selfishness (explicit selflessness) is through what the positive psychologists call Flow, that is, the activity of self-transcendence when engaging with a challenging activity.

 

[Received]

And imagine if the reasoning above is sound. This would be an argument for consciousness as a qualitatively different object than anything physical, perhaps an argument against consciousness as a material process. Not necessarily spiritual in a religious sense.

 

[Paradoxum]

I simply didn't fully read the excellent statement you had in quotes in your original reply, and I put too much weight upon your final sentence that you don't think we're acting selfishly (which I understood to mean objectively, or implicitly, selfishly) at all times.

Thank you very much for saying it was an excellent statement XD

Though its in 'quotes', I meant to it be speech marks for my own words.

I think, if we accept the idea that all of our behaviors and functions can be reduced to adaptations (I don't necessarily think they do, including that monster of a faculty called consciousness), we're left inexorably with the idea that while we may not subjectively intend to be selfish, that we're still getting a reward from even our selfless acts, simply by getting a positive feeling that reinforces good behavior.

Even if we get positive feelings from being selfless, that doesn't mean we aren't being selfless. It depends if you are objectively acting because of the feelings or because you think it's right. It could be that the feelings just help you to act, or bring the need for selfless action to your awareness.

I also agree that it's not contradictory to be selfish and yet still desire the goodness of other people. I think if people really looked for their own self interest, there would be no need for explicit selfishness; i.e., to live explicitly selfishly makes you less happy than living explicitly selflessly for others (even if there's an implicit selfishness present).

Yeah, I have heard that humans are happy when they help others. Well not only heard

And, no, I don't mind you using my terms

 

[Received]

Thank you very much for saying it was an excellent statement XD

Though its in 'quotes', I meant to it be speech marks for my own words.

Haha, no doubt, had that in mind. It'd be awfully hypocritical of you to plagiarize someone else and then get on to me for plagiarizing you by stealing your words.

Even if we get positive feelings from being selfless, that doesn't mean we aren't being selfless. It depends if you are objectively acting because of the feelings or because you think it's right. It could be that the feelings just help you to act, or bring the need for selfless action to your awareness.

I agree, but I'd put this in my objective/subjective (or your implicit/explicit) division: we can act selflessly only on condition that we're doing something because we think it's right (or for its own sake), but we're still objectively selfish given that we only engage in doing right things because of the feeling feedback upon the completion of the act.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Where ios the barrier between self and others if we share 99.999% (or whatever) of our genome with other people? Does my individuality lay in my alleles? Traditionally individuality might have been attributed to a unique, immortal personal essence (soul).

 

[Received]

I think individuality is essentially found in consciousness and the ego ideal it has for itself. This ego ideal may be influenced by one's culture, but I (as a theist) think it's influenced in some way by God. Nonetheless, even if we define the individual according to his biological makeup, there's plenty of room for originality there given that every gene shuffle (with the exception of monozygotic twins) is completely unique, even if there is a huge sharing of genes with other human beings. Culture also plays a role in determining how different phenotypes engage in the world -- including which genes are accessed or not through gene expression, a process directly responsive to environmental stimuli.