2014-04-14 13:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]>: > Hi Alberto, > > What in my reasoning steps is wrong? >> > > I find a number of problems with your reasoning: > > 1) You assume to know what the reproductive strategy of our species is. > > Darwinian evolution is a theory on how biological complexity arrises. It > does not predict neither a single nor necessarily a simple algorithm for > reproduction. It simply states that a certain genotype that leads to some > phenotype that is more likely to have viable offspring *in a certain > environment* is more likely to be propagated into the future. In the *in a > certain environment* clause resides a universe of complexity, which is also > self-referential because the organisms expressed by the genotype can alter > the environment, constantly changing the fitness function. > > No. living beings do not optimize fitness. they execute adaptations. if the fitness function changes, this does no change the behavour unless the change has been produced on the past and it has developped an adaptation to change. For example it is true that people, or for the matter many animals try to reproduce as fast and with as much number as possible when in uncertainty conditions and the oppossite: in a ambient of security they are more selective. That is because both ambients have existed in the past. An we developped dlexible strategies. Here enter the prosperity variable that you mention below.
but what change that? these are second or third derivates that do not change the whole picture. > So who knows what our biological program looks like or how complex it is? > There are compelling reasons to think that it is very complex indeed. For > example: a counter-intuitive empirical observation is that the propensity > to procreate diminishes with prosperity. This simple observation already > falsifies the algorithm you propose. It could be that we have several modes > of operation: under scarcity try to have as much offspring as possible, > betting that some will make it -- this would be survival mode. Under > prosperity, bet on a high likelihood of survival of any offspring, and > instead avoid diluting the resources, in an attempt of maximising the > quality of the partners that your offspring can find. All of these is pure > speculation of course -- just like yours. > > Then, we also know that humans have employed different reproductive > strategies throughout the ages. Monogamy, or serial monogamy, or the > concept of "cheating" (all essential to your theory), seems to be a very > recent invention. More tellingly, changes in the social norms associated > with sex and reproduction seem to come with technological revolutions. If > we look for the "nous", then it would make more sense to learn from > pre-agriculture tribes (99.whatever% of our History as Humans), instead of > taking our clues from the catholic church. In these tribes it was very > common for a woman to be inseminated by several men. Then, they would all > believe to be fathers, and take care of the children collectively. It was > also very common to trade sex for resources. Women would reward hunters > with sex if they brought them some meat. > That is the strategy of the whore that is the less desirable for a woman. For obvious reasons. it happens when women are in very bad conditions of insecurity. Poligamy is common when big disparity of wealt, in low density coutries in harsh conditions or in societies where violence is increasing Do you thing that these conditions are in the aspirations of the civilized society?. The fact that we are towards it. > > 2) You use evolutionary explanations selectively > > You claim that we are being brainwashed into not reproducing. Surely the > brainwashers are also following their own biological programs? So they are > likely trying to protect their own clans and offspring and amass resources > for them at the expense of the majority. So you say "look at how evolution > works, you just have to follow it's simple logic". But then you also claim > that evolution needs some tweaks. > No evolution is doing its work. Many civilization have died by its own merits and men continued to survive. What need a fix is THIS civilization that I don´t want to die. > > Or instead you believe in some random "cultural virus" that infected us. > Then you have to let evolution do its work: wether we can survive it or we > are not a viable species. Because this virus is exploiting precisely the > same system that contains your biological program. If the "nous" is real, > then we'll be fine. Otherwise, your solution is to "take the matter into > your own hands". Precisely the same type of solution of the people who say > "no thanks" to having children. How can you possibly know that your "nous" > is not just another virus? > My nous is your and is the one of all the people is the commons sense, the human nature. It is the species-specific mental habilities that everyone have and include inmediate judgements: The blue sky is beatiful, It is bad to kill, . It iinclude the very same intuitions that Plato, Aristotle, Saint Thomas, etc found and everyday people find when think about something and say: "This makes sense" or "this is reasonable". > > 3) You assume that going against your simple reproductive program will > cause suffering > > This is a weird assumption. Consider this: you cannot decide to stop > breathing. Your brain literally won't let you. So evolution did not select > breathing to be an optional behaviour. But it did select breading to be an > optional behaviour. Otherwise there would be a whole lot more rape, just > like in most of the animal kingdom. Why was optional breading selected? We > can speculate. It is quite obvious that the "niche" that humans explore is > superior adaptation. We are not particularly strong nor particularly > resilient, nor can we run particularly fast. But we can adapt very quickly > to a wide range of circumstances. At some point there was a choice between > optional/non-optional in reproduction. Optional won. You ignore this. > > Yo can not adapt in any way to something that did not happened in the past. TO adapt quickly yo already need to have a adaptation ready. The flexibility in humans means that has a wide range of alternate adaptations ready for differnt circunstances, but in no way we can crate adaptations for completely new circunstances quickly. The mambo jambo of infinite flexiblility is good for winning a discussion but is not true. If you go against your nature, your nature is not yours. It goes beyond you. In the same way that the the genetic code can decide to kill the cell that hods it in a process called apoptosis, because for example the cell became malign for wathever reason, In the same way we suffer unhappiness, depression, remorse, culpability and suicide because our own nature (genes + the hormone system etc that it develops) decides that we are an obstacle for the superorganism that is the society. With your suicide, culpability or depression that stop you from hurting other people, the genetic pool is better preserver, and that is enough to select the genes that produce depression culpability and suicide. That is the price you pay. Look at the biography of all these people that promote these ideas you will find a lot of depressions suicide etc. Look at the biography of prominent radical feminists for example. The research so far seems to contradict your hypothesis. There are several > studies on this topic, but for example: > http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/7/2/131.short > > Best, > Telmo. > > >> >> That is the typical rationalist reaction. The pride of reason that >> supposes that a little quantity of neurons (created by evolution) plus the >> little experience and desires can fix the pervasive intelligence of nature. >> You are ideologically sick. >> >> What you call reason is wishful thinking. childish negation to assume the >> consequences of your acts. Negation to think in deep. pride that precludes >> to admit your ignorance and submit to the wishdom of the same nature that >> you yourself in your hypocrisy admire and want to protect. >> >> I repeat: Forget the literature. What in my reasoning steps is wrong? >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-04-14 10:25 GMT+02:00 LizR <[email protected]>: >> >> On 14 April 2014 19:40, Alberto G. Corona <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 2014-04-12 19:42 GMT+02:00 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> No doubt on this for me. Affordable, and with good user's manuals. >>>>> Most pregnant kids get pregnant before having has the sexual education >>>>> school classes according to a recent statistics. >>>>> >>>>> For people like most of you, most of you also childless, that are >>>> disconnected from your human inner sense, it is necessary to talk about >>>> very basic chains of causations. People that believe that men are machines, >>>> behave like machines. I ´m very sorry for you. >>>> >>>> You silence the inner sense, your nous that tell you: No. that is not >>>> right. >>>> >>>> And I should believe that inner sense because...? >>> >>> Well, I can answer that - or rather, I can answer it in the negative. >>> We should not believe that inner voice. Because that inner voice is the >>> result of Evolution, which has done a job that is only just good enough to >>> get by, to make us create the next generation willy-nilly. Evolution tells >>> us to get knocked up as quickly as possible, evolution tells us to stuff >>> our faces with sugary food, evolution tells us that the lines with the >>> arrowheads going opposite ways aren't the same length. It tells us to die >>> when our bile duct gets blocked, rather than have keyhole surgery. It tells >>> us to go blind rather than have our cataracts removed. It tells us to fall >>> off cliffs rather than wear glasses, to be eaten rather than create fire to >>> scare of predators, to starve to death rather than develop weapons. >>> >>> Yes, we have silenced this "nous", this voice of unreason, this voice >>> that would tell us to live with whatever handicaps chance has dealt out, >>> which tells us to have children and then die, no matter who we have them >>> with, no matter how badly they fare as a result. >>> >>> Because that's all evolution can see. A blind watchmaker is likely to >>> make defective watches that only occasionally work. We have the sense to >>> see further than that, and to say, no, THIS is wrong - the blind hand dealt >>> to us by evolution is what is wrong, and we have the nous to put it right. >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Alberto. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
