Hi, 2007/6/7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > On Jun 7, 3:54 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Evolution has not had a chance to take into account modern reproductive > > technologies, so we can easily defeat the goal "reproduce", and see the goal > > "feed" as only a means to the higher level goal "survive". However, *that* > > goal is very difficult to shake off. We take survival as somehow profoundly > > and self-evidently important, which it is, but only because we've been > > programmed that way (ancestors that weren't would not have been ancestors). > > Sometimes people become depressed and no longer wish to survive, but that's > > an example of neurological malfunction. Sometimes people "rationally" give > > up their own survival for the greater good, but that's just an example of > > interpreting the goal so that it has greater scope, not overthrowing it. > > > > -- > > Stathis Papaioannou > > Evolution doesn't care about the survival of individual organisms > directly, the actual goal of evolution is only to maximize > reproductive fitness. > > If you want to eat a peice of chocolate cake, evolution explains why > you like the taste, but your goals are not evolutions goals. You > (Stathis) want to the cake because it tastes nice - *your* goal is to > experience the nice taste. Evolution's goal (maximize reproductive > fitness) is quite different. Our (human) goals are not evolution's > goals. > > Cheers.
I have to disagree, if human goals were not tied to evolution goals then human should not have proliferated. Quentin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---