Is there a "sixth sense"? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/26/2008 05:38:16 PM · #301

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
2) They ( morality and compassion ) do not have their origin in any holy book.
They have their ORIGIN in God. The holy book is merely one method of recording and communicating God's moral imperatives.

Uh huh. And how do you divine God's moral imperatives? Your holy book.

No, not the holy book. God's moral imperative is innate. We divine it innately. But we are creatures of the flesh, and so are wont to rebel against those things that would put limits on fleshly thoughts and deeds. The innate morality is called "conscience", and everyone gets one. Some obey their conscience to a large degree - failures create within them a feeling of "guilt"; some "struggle" with their conscience with varying degrees of success and failure - they, too, experience "guilt"; still others ignore or override their conscience for so long, and for so often, that they become oblivious to it - they feel no remorse, and no guilt.

So do you assume that slaveholders feel guilty?

Guilt is (like morals) mainly created by society. If it is normal to have slaves, nobody will feel guilt for doing so.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

08/26/2008 05:49:10 PM · #302

Originally posted by RonB:

Here's a question for you?

Can you think of any act that God could perform that would be immoral?

What I'm getting at is how do you judge the morality of God? (I know, I know - we can't judge God by our morality, but that's an obvious dodge and hokum. Stop peddling it.)

You can approach this question one of two ways:

1) Morality is what God says it is - God defines morality and whatever he says is the moral choice. There is no act that God could perform which would be immoral, because he defines morality. This means that there is no way to discover what is "moral" outside of reference to God. This also means that without perfect knowledge of what God believes is moral, there is no way to act morally.

2) God is the exemplar of morality - God provides a perfect example of morality and commands that all of his creation follow the objective morality. There are acts that God could perform which would be immoral, but he would never do any of those acts because he is the perfect example of morality. This means that morality is objective and exists outside of God's whim. This also means that morality is discoverable without reference to God, since it would whether he exists or not.

Neither of these choices are acceptable to religious believers. The first means that morality has no meaning other than to obey a god. It does not compel a god to be "good" or "moral" in the sense that we think of such things. The most horrid world you could think of might be "moral" if that god wishes it so. Note that the first approach is where you end up if you try and take the tack that we (as mere humans) can't judge the morality of God. If that is so, then you are right back to morality being whatever god says it is.

The second means that a god isn't necessary. One can be good and moral without a god. And indeed, it opens up the possibility that a god might not necessarily be moral just because he/she/it was God. This also is the traditional view of gods through the ages - our ancestors were pretty okay with the idea that gods could act either morally or immorally, depending on their whim.

Message edited by author 2008-08-26 17:54:46.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/26/2008 05:55:11 PM · #303

Originally posted by RonB:

1) "Morality and compassion are innate conditions."
They are innate in both Man and animals, because...get ready...BOTH were created by God, and BOTH were given a divine degree of morality and compassion compatible with their ability to appropriate and exhibit it.

Or humans and other mammals evolved from common ancestors, they share common genetic material, and some of them share common environmental pressures that manifest themselves in similar behaviour patterns that are effective for survival.

That would explain the multiple types of animal behaviour on earth (not all animals share human "divinely inspired" morality). It is observable, evidenced, and intellectually coherent. But it is more complicated than saying "god made it so".

Message edited by author 2008-08-26 17:56:06.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

08/26/2008 05:58:03 PM · #304

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by raish:
I think this is demonstrably the case (that morality is learned through social interaction). There was a rather unfortunate example of orphans in Ceaucescu's Romania

Whereas I do think that mores are socially learned, I still think that morality, if defined as altruism, compassion, a desire to limit human suffering, is biologically innate. Dawkins does service to this idea in "The God Delusion". We may refine our sense of morality by the culture we live in and the company we keep, and our moral sense may be disfigured by biologically impacting environmental factors or other deficiencies.

Interesting, and how did "culture" and "society" come about, from an Evolutionary perspective - that is how did "culture" get into our genetic makeup? Is there a "culture" gene?
And what would be the survival benefit to the one individual who got that extra protein in his DNA? Such an advantage that he would get to pass it on, in different manifestations, to the entire known world?
While "culture" is, indeed, beneficial to the survival of a SPECIES, if it WERE genetic, it would NOT have given an edge to the survival of the first INDIVIDUAL to experience the random mutation that would have brought it into existence. Quite the contrary - he would have been more inclined to try to make friends with a BEAR than to throw rocks or spears at it. It would, therefore, seem to be more of the kind of genetic change that would NOT survive past generation ONE.

Secondly, if morality is BIOLOGICALLY innate ( i.e. genetic ), how can it be REFINED through the "culture we live in" or "the company we keep" as you say?
Neither the "culture we live in" nor "the company we keep" are agents of biological change, so how can they impact a genetic trait?

I believe that our "innate" morality is God given, and our "social" and "cultural" mores are the result of conscious decisions to either accept, reject, or re-interpret God's imperatives by people who would rather give in to their lusts. Thankfully, not everyone takes advantage of all the freedoms that their society or culture find acceptable.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

08/26/2008 06:06:57 PM · #305

Originally posted by RonB:

While "culture" is, indeed, beneficial to the survival of a SPECIES, if it WERE genetic, it would NOT have given an edge to the survival of the first INDIVIDUAL to experience the random mutation that would have brought it into existence. Quite the contrary - he would have been more inclined to try to make friends with a BEAR than to throw rocks or spears at it. It would, therefore, seem to be more of the kind of genetic change that would NOT survive past generation ONE.

This is a profoundly dumb argument. I'm sorry, but it is.

Why would developing a genetic predisposition toward group identity - making individuals of one genetic group more inclined to hang out with other members of the same genetic group - make it likely that non-bears would be more likely to hang out with bears (or a member of the unnamed genetic group seek "friendship" with a member of the predatory genetic group)? Should such a straw-man mutation occur, you are right, it would quickly be purged from the range of genetic possibilities going forward.

However, a genetic variation that favored cooperation among the individual members of the same genetic group would in almost all cases be evolutionarily favorable. Those members could spend that much less time protecting themselves from each other and cooperative action might eventually enable them to figure out ways to join forces against predators or other environmental threats - the pack of hyenas beats out the single lion; every individual member of a herd of deer is safer together from the tiger than they would be on their own. A group also allows for differentiation of tasks - the lion can protect the cubs while the lioness hunts for food for the pride.

You are arguing against a range of genetic possibilities by using the most unlikely and most ridiculous manifestation of those possibilities. Such a tactic is either profoundly misguided, or deeply disingenuous and obtuse. Which is it?

Message edited by author 2008-08-26 18:15:05.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

08/26/2008 06:10:26 PM · #306

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Not all.
Some do/did, yes. Some felt so guilty that they not only set their own slaves free, they a) helped the slaves of others escape, or b) fought for laws to outlaw slavery.
Some felt a little guilty, though not guilty enough to free their slaves. Still, their guilt led them to treat their slaves kindly.
Some suppressed their guilt because they preferred the benefits of having slaves working for them.
And some did not feel guilty - because they were taught to NOT feel guilty by their society/culture/parents/etc. and rejected any feelings that crossed their mind that slavery was not perfectly OK.

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Guilt is (like morals) mainly created by society. If it is normal to have slaves, nobody will feel guilt for doing so.

Not true. It WAS normal to have slaves in Great Britain, but Wilberforce, who WAS a member of that society DID feel guilty - so guilty that he fought in Parliament for nearly 20 years to have slavery outlawed.

Louis

Nikon D800

08/26/2008 06:14:27 PM · #307

Originally posted by RonB:

How did you discover that it was God's moral imperative you were divining innately? Who told you? Unless you claim to have a supernatural connection to God and hear his voice, or unless you agree that your moral compass is built into your genetic code, your only source is your holy book. Cite me some other source that God, as you describe him, is the source of your morality.

08/26/2008 06:30:04 PM · #308

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by RonB:
While "culture" is, indeed, beneficial to the survival of a SPECIES, if it WERE genetic, it would NOT have given an edge to the survival of the first INDIVIDUAL to experience the random mutation that would have brought it into existence. Quite the contrary - he would have been more inclined to try to make friends with a BEAR than to throw rocks or spears at it. It would, therefore, seem to be more of the kind of genetic change that would NOT survive past generation ONE.

This is a profoundly dumb argument. I'm sorry, but it is.

Why would developing a genetic predisposition toward group identity - making individuals of one genetic group more inclined to hang out with other members of the same genetic group - make it likely that non-bears would be more likely to hang out with bears (or a member of the unnamed genetic group seek "friendship" with a member of the predatory genetic group? Should such a straw-man mutation occur, you are right, it would quickly be purged from the range of genetic possibilities going forward.

You are arguing against a range of genetic possibilities by using the most unlikely and most ridiculous manifestation of those possibilities. Such a tactic is either profoundly misguided, or deeply disingenuous and obtuse. Which is it?

Neither.
Assume for a moment that I DO believe in the theory of Evolution.
So, a random genetic mutation occurs that provide ONE man a natural immunity to disease-A, a disease that kills everyone else in his tribe. He meets a woman from another tribe and they have children, half of whom inherit his immunity gene. Years later, disease-A makes its rounds and eventually comes to his new tribe and everyone dies except him and half his children. They move on and mate, have children, etc. and eventually there are many people who can survive disease-A, and perhaps, its evolutionary cousins. Obviously, this was a beneficial genetic change.

Now assume that a random genetic mutation occurs that gives ONE man a "feeling" of altruism and compassion toward his fellow tribesmen. He cannot TEACH it to others, and when he tries, they aren't buying it ( because they don't share that genetic marker ).
WHAT survival benefit would that random genetic change provide that ONE man, to the degree that HIS genes would prevail over those of men who did NOT have altruism and compassion to such a degree that ALL of mankind would inherit it?

Have you ever met a bully? I have. They have a tendency to always zero in on the kid who is MOST altruistic and MOST compassionate, and make that "gentle" kid the target of his attacks - and many times those attacks are physical in nature. If there are bullies in modern society, what do you think would have happened to the "altruistic, compassionate" kid in man's early history? I can't imagine that he would have ever survived long enough to pass on his genes. Period.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/26/2008 06:35:52 PM · #309

Originally posted by RonB:

Interesting, and how did "culture" and "society" come about, from an Evolutionary perspective - that is how did "culture" get into our genetic makeup? Is there a "culture" gene?

RonB,

No wonder you ridicule evolutionary theory. If I thought that evolutionary theory was how you describe it, I would ridicule it too. As you appear to understand it, it is laughable.

Shame that you don't demonstrate even the remotest understanding of it then. I guess thatyou never got a biology teacher as devoted as this one.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/26/2008 07:02:30 PM · #310

Originally posted by RonB:

Assume for a moment that I DO believe in the theory of Evolution.
So, a random genetic mutation occurs that provide ONE man a natural immunity to disease-A, a disease that kills everyone else in his tribe. ....

We are not talking about evolution within humanity. These kinds of traits would take many millions of years longer to evolve across steadily increasingly complex organisms.

Co-operative behaviour is a survival trait that has existed and developed over billions of years across billions of environments and species. Transposing this into a single genetic leap in human kind is utterly absurd and your example reveals either (1) extreme depths of non-comprehension or (2) a degree of intellectual dishonesty.

Start 5 billion years ago with the sustained competition for survival amongst trillions and trillions of simple cellular species and follow that though trillions of generations across geological epochs rather than single generations. The rise of improved survivability in certain environments through co-operative behaviour is completely comprehensible, predictable even.

Message edited by author 2008-08-26 19:03:41.

BeeCee

Nikon D40

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

08/26/2008 07:25:48 PM · #311

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Say it with me now - no credible research has recorded any claimed human ability to read people's thoughts or emotions through telepathic means, under controlled conditions, that does not fall into the expected result range that would be generated based on mere random chance. This research has not just been done by skeptics. The U.S. government (and other governments, I'm sure) really wanted to find some evidence of telepathic ability - imagine having a telepathic spy. But anytime there appears to be someone with the ability, as soon as you put them into a controlled environment - that is, somewhere where they cannot manipulate the results - the claimed effect vanishes.

Keeping an open mind is one thing. Remaining credulous in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is just stubborn,

When I was pregnant with my second child I was going to get to hear his heartbeat for the first time. The doctor put the amplifier against my abdomen, turned it on, and we both heard a loud and clear... trumpet solo. My doctor looked very surprised and said, " I've never had THAT happen before!"

The reciever in my brain rudimentary. It is only tuned to one person's waves as far as I know (other than the one possible incident with a family member). It's weak. It only works within a distance of about half a mile. As far as I'm aware it only randomly and rarely picks up signals, though subconsciously who knows? Maybe one reason we're such good friends is that we pick up signals that tell us we're "like-minded"? She doesn't consciously send out thoughts nor do I consciously receive them. It's not something we control, hence not something we can replicate on demand. It's just always been there.

But when you KNOW something as strongly as you've ever known anything, and it's not something your usual 5 senses could tell you, you do tend to search for an explanation. And I'm not talking about thinking back afterwards and making a series of coincidences fit a certain outcome.
When your doorbell rings and you open the door you know who's on the other side, because your sense of sight tells you. But what sense tells you when you incontrovertibly KNOW while you're still 20 feet from the door?

I'm sorry, I haven't seen any "overwhelming evidence to the contrary." I admit I HAVE seen a lack of hard scientific evidence on the positive side, but I've experienced and heard enough anecdotal evidence to keep my mind questioning.

I know it's trite, but I guess you really can't understand unless you've felt it. Okay, I'm stubborn :)

Sam94720

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/26/2008 07:53:21 PM · #312

BeeCee, you keep talking about "waves". What do you mean by that and what makes you think that "waves" are involved in any of your experiences?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/26/2008 08:11:59 PM · #313

Originally posted by BeeCee:

When your doorbell rings and you open the door you know who's on the other side, because your sense of sight tells you. But what sense tells you when you incontrovertibly KNOW while you're still 20 feet from the door?

Your sense of imagination. If you answer the door and just KNOW it's a particular person from Fargo, North Dakota, then you might have something worthy of investigation. If you "know" it happens to be one of two dozen or so people likely to show up at your door, then you're dealing with chance- nothing more.

Sam94720

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/26/2008 08:13:34 PM · #314

The words and concepts you used to describe your experiences were "waves", "signals", "receiver" and "tuned". These all stem from modern means of communication, radio and cell phones, for example. Someone experiencing the same as you do 200 years ago would not have used these words. And someone 200 years from now might use words like "quantum stream".

You see, you use what you know to come up with an explanation for what you experience. It is simply a wild guess. Science would try to find out what the mechanism really is (if it even exists).

How many times did you open the door and it wasn't the person you expected? You probably forgot the experience right away. You only remember those where you were right - by coincidence.

And of course these effects are stronger for family members because these are the people you interact with most. And it only works within short distances because these are the only instances where you are likely to get feedback whether your guess was right or not.

BeeCee, if you are really interested in this start taking notes. Whenever you feel you "receive" some information write it down in detail. Keep track of what turned out to be true. Be honest with yourself.

P.S.: Many stories in this thread start with something like "Ten years ago, my brother ...". So your best example is 10 years in the past and you still claim that this is a phenomenon you experience all the time? Might it not be more likely that these are simply coincidences?

BeeCee

Nikon D40

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

08/26/2008 09:10:22 PM · #315

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by BeeCee:
When your doorbell rings and you open the door you know who's on the other side, because your sense of sight tells you. But what sense tells you when you incontrovertibly KNOW while you're still 20 feet from the door?

Your sense of imagination. If you answer the door and just KNOW it's a particular person from Fargo, North Dakota, then you might have something worthy of investigation. If you "know" it happens to be one of two dozen or so people likely to show up at your door, then you're dealing with chance- nothing more.

But the chances of her showing up ranged from slim to none. It would have been more likely someone from Fargo than someone from Yellowknife :)

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/26/2008 09:41:41 PM · #316

Originally posted by BeeCee:

the chances of her showing up ranged from slim to none.

Obviously not. ;-)

BeeCee

Nikon D40

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

08/26/2008 09:43:40 PM · #317

I call them waves for lack of a more specific term. If I knew what they were I wouldn't be asking!

I don't get the strong "know" feeling normally. I've never had it and been wrong.
It's rare that I get anything at all, strong or otherwise. And since the one person that it happened with lives 1500 miles away and it only worked with her within a half mile, I haven't had any feelings, waves, whatever you prefer to call them in quite some time. I don't recall saying anywhere in the thread that I experience this "all the time".

Oh yeah, I get hunches the same as anyone, and yeah they're wrong as often as they're right (though apparently hunches ARE valid and can be explained).

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

08/26/2008 10:07:14 PM · #318

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
2) They ( morality and compassion ) do not have their origin in any holy book.
They have their ORIGIN in God. The holy book is merely one method of recording and communicating God's moral imperatives.

Uh huh. And how do you divine God's moral imperatives? Your holy book.

No, not the holy book. God's moral imperative is innate. We divine it innately. But we are creatures of the flesh, and so are wont to rebel against those things that would put limits on fleshly thoughts and deeds. The innate morality is called "conscience", and everyone gets one. Some obey their conscience to a large degree - failures create within them a feeling of "guilt"; some "struggle" with their conscience with varying degrees of success and failure - they, too, experience "guilt"; still others ignore or override their conscience for so long, and for so often, that they become oblivious to it - they feel no remorse, and no guilt.

Here's a question for you?

Can you think of any act that God could perform that would be immoral?

What I'm getting at is how do you judge the morality of God? (I know, I know - we can't judge God by our morality, but that's an obvious dodge and hokum. Stop peddling it.)

You can approach this question one of two ways:

1) Morality is what God says it is - God defines morality and whatever he says is the moral choice. There is no act that God could perform which would be immoral, because he defines morality. This means that there is no way to discover what is "moral" outside of reference to God. This also means that without perfect knowledge of what God believes is moral, there is no way to act morally.

2) God is the exemplar of morality - God provides a perfect example of morality and commands that all of his creation follow the objective morality. There are acts that God could perform which would be immoral, but he would never do any of those acts because he is the perfect example of morality. This means that morality is objective and exists outside of God's whim. This also means that morality is discoverable without reference to God, since it would whether he exists or not.

Neither of these choices are acceptable to religious believers. The first means that morality has no meaning other than to obey a god. It does not compel a god to be "good" or "moral" in the sense that we think of such things. The most horrid world you could think of might be "moral" if that god wishes it so. Note that the first approach is where you end up if you try and take the tack that we (as mere humans) can't judge the morality of God. If that is so, then you are right back to morality being whatever god says it is.

The second means that a god isn't necessary. One can be good and moral without a god. And indeed, it opens up the possibility that a god might not necessarily be moral just because he/she/it was God. This also is the traditional view of gods through the ages - our ancestors were pretty okay with the idea that gods could act either morally or immorally, depending on their whim.

You are trying to make God into a non-God by defining Him in the image of a human and that is a strawman.

God Could not do something immoral, because His nature does not allow for the possibility. God is perfect, and because he is perfect, for him to do something immoral would be logically contradictory.

To ask if God could do something immoral is like asking if a man can will his brain to stop functioning for just a few minutes. It's logically contradictory because if it were possible, the person couldn't succeed without killing himself, which would result in him failing the task.

The answer to your questions is neither of the two options you provide - because they both limit God to characteristics defined by Man. And God is NOT a man.

What is moral for God, is NOT necessarily moral for Man, because morality is a function of INTENT, not RESULTS. God's intent is ALWAYS moral; man's intent is sometime moral, sometimes not. Killing another human is sometimes moral ( self defence, accident ); sometimes not ( murder ). But be assured that if God takes a man's life, his intent is perfectly moral and righteous.

One can ACT morally at times, apart from a knowledge of God, just as one can obey the speed limit without knowing what the speed limit is. But if you KNOW the speed limit, then you have a greater ability to judge whether you are speeding or not. And if you KNOW God, then you have a greater ability to judge whether you are acting outside of God's prescribed morals or not, if you attune yourself to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

08/26/2008 10:09:40 PM · #319

Originally posted by Matthew:

Start 5 billion years ago with the sustained competition for survival amongst trillions and trillions of simple cellular species and follow that though trillions of generations across geological epochs rather than single generations. The rise of improved survivability in certain environments through co-operative behaviour is completely comprehensible, predictable even.

He cannot utilize this information as fact or his baseline for existence collapses.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

08/26/2008 10:14:44 PM · #320

Originally posted by Louis:

How did you discover that your morality is the result of genetic evolution? Who told you? Unless you claim to have a supernatural connection to your DNA, your only source is your holy book - Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Cite me some other source that Evolution, as you describe it, is the source of your morality.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

08/26/2008 10:20:17 PM · #321

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Keeping an open mind is one thing. Remaining credulous in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is just stubborn,

Originally posted by BeeCee:

But when you KNOW something as strongly as you've ever known anything, and it's not something your usual 5 senses could tell you, you do tend to search for an explanation. And I'm not talking about thinking back afterwards and making a series of coincidences fit a certain outcome.
When your doorbell rings and you open the door you know who's on the other side, because your sense of sight tells you. But what sense tells you when you incontrovertibly KNOW while you're still 20 feet from the door?

I'm sorry, I haven't seen any "overwhelming evidence to the contrary." I admit I HAVE seen a lack of hard scientific evidence on the positive side, but I've experienced and heard enough anecdotal evidence to keep my mind questioning.

I know it's trite, but I guess you really can't understand unless you've felt it. Okay, I'm stubborn :)

I'm with Sheila on this one.

I've never seen evidence to the contrary either, I've never had the occasion where what happened did so in a situation where a controlled study could take place.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means its veracity wasn't scientifically verified.

I hate to go back to something like the ball lightning thing, but it has been recorded fairly often, just not scientifically documented......but you try and tell me, and a few hundred others over the years that it doesn't exist and we know you're wrong.

The same goes for a bunch of things that have happened to me over my lifetime......I'm not prone to mystical interpretations of thing......I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster or dragons, but I do believe I've seen a UFO and have had experiences that were strange enough, and consistent enough over the years for me to have enough evidence that a sixth sense is very real.

For me, the evidence and experiences overwhelmingly convince me that there IS a sixth sense. There really is no way to disprove what I've seen and experienced.

08/26/2008 10:23:54 PM · #322

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by RonB:
Interesting, and how did "culture" and "society" come about, from an Evolutionary perspective - that is how did "culture" get into our genetic makeup? Is there a "culture" gene?

RonB,

No wonder you ridicule evolutionary theory. If I thought that evolutionary theory was how you describe it, I would ridicule it too. As you appear to understand it, it is laughable.

Shame that you don't demonstrate even the remotest understanding of it then. I guess thatyou never got a biology teacher as devoted as this one.

From Wikipedia:

"There are two major mechanisms that drive evolution. The first is natural selection, a process causing heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common in a population, and harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce, so that more individuals in the next generation inherit these traits.[1][2] Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment.[3]"

Would you say that "altruism" or "compassion" would qualify as a trait "helpful for survival and reproduction", or would make it's beneficiary "more likely to reproduce", such that it would be "best-suited for their environment"?

Continued from Wikipedia:

"The second is genetic drift, an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift results from the role probability plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals survive and reproduce. Though the changes produced in any one generation by drift and selection are small, differences accumulate with each subsequent generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms".

Would you say that altruism and compassion are the result of genetic drift?

I'd be interested in your rationale.