On 10/7/15 8:47 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Matt - I have some logical questions:
1) "instincts are no longer considered to work toward the probable
perpetuation of the species, but they work only toward the probable
perpetuation of their specific gene type, sometimes at the expense of
the species."
I always dislike the passive tense "no longer considered to
work'...because it leaves out the important AGENT. Who says that
instincts no longer work toward the continuity of the species"? Proof?
Or just some 'expert' (Appeal-to-Authority Fallacy).
Here's my 'expert' cued up to where he explicitly states it:
https://youtu.be/Y0Oa4Lp5fLE?t=16m21s
Instincts work only toward the perpetuation of their gene type? Ah, a
reductionist view - and how does the gene harm the species? Examples
of both privileging the gene and harming the species?
Reductionism would be the case for a theory that genes determine
behavior, but I said the opposite, that behavior (instincts) works
toward preserving a gene type.
He later mentions fish who choose mates who are bright and colorful
despite this trait making them more likely to be preyed on.
A seed beetle's aggressive mating behavior favors its gene type over its
competitor's but harms the species:
http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2011/paarungsverhalten_en.html
Matt
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
