America the Ignorant - DPChallenge Forums

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/25/2010 12:19:22 AM · #452

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can see where you think that, but I'm not. I'll offer an analogy. Blackjack strategy. In blackjack, statistics will tell us that for every starting hand there is a best move. If you have a pair of tens, the best move is to stand. Now, it's possible that different people or groups have felt differently and that the best move is to split or double down or even hit (the crazy fringe). We can talk about these groups and we can even talk about their origins and reasoning, but it doesn't change the fact that there is still a best move and that this move remains the same no matter what groups happen to think.

I think you are wrong, because the "best move" in your hypothetical is different depending on whether the dealer has, say, a 4 or a 9 showing, and how much you have bet and have in reserve, and how desperate you are for the potential profits. In chess, the "best move" may be different in identical situations depending on your assessment of your opponents predilictions for strategy. It's all relative ...

True, but I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that he was referring to all the variables in a given situation (ex. what the dealer has, your opponent's habits, etc).

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

09/25/2010 12:26:48 AM · #453

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
Well I think we are getting back to the notion that morality is relative, not absolute.

I can see where you think that, but I'm not. I'll offer an analogy. Blackjack strategy. In blackjack, statistics will tell us that for every starting hand there is a best move.

I truly do not believe that blackjack is the best of examples to use in this instance. Card games are governed the the elements of chance and mathematical probabilities and emotions, social strata, mores and morals do not impact on the outcome...something which occurs regularly when addressing matters such as dominance and altruism.

Ray

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/25/2010 12:57:26 AM · #454

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I continue to question the description of our altrusitic instincts as being "strong." ...you say altruism only plays a role when the self-interest is absent. Why does this matter?

If altruism were not strong and biologically inherent, toddlers would not go out of their way to help a person in need. Charity would be non-existent. Support groups, soup kitchens, pro bono doctors and volunteer firefighters would be unheard of. Nobody would EVER risk his own life to save another. These actions and institutions can only exist because we feel the need to help others. Self-interest still dominates, though. Charity comes with tax breaks, doctors get immunized, firefighters use protective gear and soup kitchen volunteers don't generally starve themselves so that others may eat. It matters in social policy because the people holding the reins of power seldom act against their own self-interests.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If we have two competing instincts, self-preservation and altruism, and one is much stronger than the other, and we assume that it is that way because the forces of survival have favored it (ie. self-preservation behavior is more apt to lead to reproduction, a la The Selfish Gene), then why do we have a moral system that praises altruism?

Evolution explains this, too. Self-preservation is obviously a powerful instinct for the individual, but saving the group is also important for survival of the species. Who among us wouldn't sacrifice his own life to save his whole family or a city of 250,000 strangers? Clearly, self-interest doesn't always rule, and sometimes we learn to accept ideas once bitterly opposed as good for ourselves, too (taxes pay for defense and infrastructure, fair labor practices ensure safety...).

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

if evolutionists are correct that morality is simply based on our instinctual tug of war between self-interest and altruism, we would expect a moral system almost exactly the opposite of what we find.

Actually, what we would expect is that the selfish necessities of hunter-gatherers would slowly give way to more and more freedoms as the social supports of civilization allow people to thrive without doing so at others' expense. It IS a tug-of-war, though, so any gains may be lost against a sufficiently powerful self-interest. The overthrow of one tyrant that allowed the development of a democratic Roman senate may be interrupted by a later dictator, but democracy doesn't perish. A charismatic German may inspire rationalization that exterminating Jews is in the self-interest of a defeated citizenship, but the world eventually tugs back and so it goes throughout the centuries. With few exceptions, the freedoms of history are won by a formerly oppressed group looking out for each other (barons forcing the Magna Carta, American colonists creating the constitution, civil rights, apartheid, etc.), and they're lost by minority elite looking out for themselves (kings, dictators, corporate and spiritual leaders).

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't think I'm making any fallacy as you've claimed and you claim so many fallacies that at this point it's a case of the boy who cried wolf. I also never got an example of where I quoted the bible to argue about biology, geology, sociology. Do you take that back?

If your fallacies were actually wolves, they wouldn't be endangered. You base so many of your arguments on them that I really don't think you grasp the difference between rationalization and reason. You use the Bible as an authority on cosmology every time you argue a Christian God as the creator. You use the Bible as an authority on sociology every time you argue morality as a Judeo-Christian institution. You use it as an authority on biology when you argue free will in terms of a Christian God, and so on. Absent the Bible, you would have no specifics, no authority to appeal, and no religious answers whatsoever.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/25/2010 01:17:13 AM · #455

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can see where you think that, but I'm not. I'll offer an analogy. Blackjack strategy. In blackjack, statistics will tell us that for every starting hand there is a best move. If you have a pair of tens, the best move is to stand. Now, it's possible that different people or groups have felt differently and that the best move is to split or double down or even hit (the crazy fringe). We can talk about these groups and we can even talk about their origins and reasoning, but it doesn't change the fact that there is still a best move and that this move remains the same no matter what groups happen to think.

I think you are wrong, because the "best move" in your hypothetical is different depending on whether the dealer has, say, a 4 or a 9 showing, and how much you have bet and have in reserve, and how desperate you are for the potential profits. In chess, the "best move" may be different in identical situations depending on your assessment of your opponents predilictions for strategy. It's all relative ...

True, but I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that he was referring to all the variables in a given situation (ex. what the dealer has, your opponent's habits, etc).

Nope -- as written above he says there is a "best" move for a given hand -- every other option is dismissed as fringe, wacko nonsense. Of course, if his example were true, casinos wouldn't have to ban card-counters ...

09/25/2010 02:13:58 AM · #456

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can see where you think that, but I'm not. I'll offer an analogy. Blackjack strategy. In blackjack, statistics will tell us that for every starting hand there is a best move. If you have a pair of tens, the best move is to stand. Now, it's possible that different people or groups have felt differently and that the best move is to split or double down or even hit (the crazy fringe). We can talk about these groups and we can even talk about their origins and reasoning, but it doesn't change the fact that there is still a best move and that this move remains the same no matter what groups happen to think.

I think you are wrong, because the "best move" in your hypothetical is different depending on whether the dealer has, say, a 4 or a 9 showing, and how much you have bet and have in reserve, and how desperate you are for the potential profits. In chess, the "best move" may be different in identical situations depending on your assessment of your opponents predilictions for strategy. It's all relative ...

True, but I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that he was referring to all the variables in a given situation (ex. what the dealer has, your opponent's habits, etc).

Nope -- as written above he says there is a "best" move for a given hand -- every other option is dismissed as fringe, wacko nonsense. Of course, if his example were true, casinos wouldn't have to ban card-counters ...

First, it's an analogy. Second, I'm ahead of you because I picked a pair of tens (on purpose) and the best move is to stand no matter what the dealer has. However, the dealer's hand matters in the game and you can just consider it another variable in the "moral code", I was just trying to keep it simple. Let's not lose the forest for the trees.

Message edited by author 2010-09-25 02:23:01.

09/25/2010 02:21:43 AM · #457

Originally posted by scalvert:

This would only be true IF morality is based on genetics, but it isn't (or only very rudimentarily). It is cultural. So we can still have all those things (charities, soup kitchens, etc) AND have altruism a weak instinct. I would also really take umbrage with the idea that people are only chartiable because it is self-serving. Certainly we do not value actions with such obvious motives as much as we value them with selfless movites. If you know your boss dontes because he wants the tax break, you don't respect him as much as your other boss who does it because he wants to help others. I am the first to admit I can by cynical, but this is beyond the pale cynicism.

Originally posted by shannon:

You can't have it both ways evolutionarily. Either self-preservation is the strategy that, in general, better leads to reproduction or it doesn't. By your own admission self-preservation is the stronger of the instincts and thus the strategy has been proven over eons to be better. Dawkins, in The Selfish Gene, shows that a truly altruistic society can be ruined by just one individual who has a selfish inclination.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/25/2010 02:52:51 AM · #458

Careful Jason. Your bordering on several more fallacies.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

09/25/2010 08:44:17 AM · #459

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

This would only be true IF morality is based on genetics, but it isn't (or only very rudimentarily). It is cultural.

Bare assertion fallacy. If it were strictly cultural, then toddlers would only offer to help in some cultures. Heroes and volunteers would be a novelty of only a few groups that had developed those values.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I would also really take umbrage with the idea that people are only chartiable because it is self-serving.

I didn't say it was only self-serving. I said self-interest comes first, then we're happy to help others. We'll gladly give to charity after we've covered the mortgage, tuition, taxes and the country club dues. A tax break provides a little extra incentive for us that would be pointless if people were equally motivated to give without one.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Dawkins, in The Selfish Gene, shows that a truly altruistic society can be ruined by just one individual who has a selfish inclination.

I said that already:

Originally posted by scalvert:

It IS a tug-of-war, though, so any gains may be lost against a sufficiently powerful self-interest. The overthrow of one tyrant that allowed the development of a democratic Roman senate may be interrupted by a later dictator, but democracy doesn't perish...

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Either self-preservation is the strategy that, in general, better leads to reproduction or it doesn't. By your own admission self-preservation is the stronger of the instincts and thus the strategy has been proven over eons to be better.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Self-preservation is obviously a powerful instinct for the individual, but saving the group is also important for survival of the species.

This is why democracy and volunteers exist.

09/25/2010 11:42:35 AM · #460

Well, we can continue to declare impasse. I disagree with your position and think it is incorrect (I won't use the "f-word" :)).

Your jumping to the toddler experiment is nice, but, again, only part of the picture. Just because a toddler picks up a dropped clothespin does not mean our morality is based on our genetic imperatives. I've never argued these imperatives do not exist, but only that they are not the exclusive source for our moral systems (and that this should be obvious because of the relative weakness of imperatives like altruism). You have kids. You know that a toddler can also be extremely selfish. The joke in behavioral and developmental medicine is that we are small at two years because the species wouldn't have survived otherwise; we would have murdered each other. If handing a clothespin to an adult means so much to you, what does a temper tantrum mean?

So insert your own adjective to the fallacy (oops, there now you made me use it) that you are employing. I feel that the cultural explanation for moral systems is far superior to a purely genetic one.

Message edited by author 2010-09-25 11:44:02.

09/25/2010 12:34:58 PM · #461

Originally posted by scalvert:

Why do you quote the Bible on matters of cosmology, biology, sociology, geology, etc. when it's really only an authority on theology?

Originally posted by scalvert:

You base so many of your arguments on them that I really don't think you grasp the difference between rationalization and reason. You use the Bible as an authority on cosmology every time you argue a Christian God as the creator. You use the Bible as an authority on sociology every time you argue morality as a Judeo-Christian institution. You use it as an authority on biology when you argue free will in terms of a Christian God, and so on. Absent the Bible, you would have no specifics, no authority to appeal, and no religious answers whatsoever.

Twice now you have said this. It is complete untruth. I consciously do not quote the Bible in these threads because I realize that to the people I'm talking to it has little value as an authority. If I ever quote the Bible it is in the context of what Christians believe. I feel unjustly wounded by this comment and would ask out of the spirit of civil discourse for you to retract it. I won't think less of you, in fact, I will think much more.

09/25/2010 02:09:36 PM · #462

Appeal to emotion fallacy. :P Your argument is informed by the bible, btw, and so you do use the bible as an authority. That you don't quote it directly is irrelevant.

09/25/2010 02:59:30 PM · #463

Originally posted by Louis:

Appeal to emotion fallacy. :P Your argument is informed by the bible, btw, and so you do use the bible as an authority. That you don't quote it directly is irrelevant.

Sigh. You think that little of me? That apart from the Bible I am incapable of making rational argument and that anything I say is meaningless outside the context of the Bible? Please point out to me, in this thread, where my argument is "informed by the Bible" other than the portion where I was talking within the context of Christianity (ie. what Christians believe). Frankly I'm getting pissed off that now two of you keep making the accusation without bothering to SHOW ME THE F'ING EVIDENCE!

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/25/2010 03:53:28 PM · #464

If you're referring to me, one of the fallacies I was referring to was the extreme example you posted from Dawkins. A) Nobody has argued for that all-altruistic society. B) It's certainly not the only result that could happen by simply allowing nature to take its course (assuming it's led by altruism) and it's certainly not the end result of simply advocating altrusim in the here and now.

FWIW, I agree that you have attempted to argue moral universalism without relying on the Bible. I personally don't think you have been very successful but that's neither here nor there. What I find odd is you feeling bruised because Louis implied your argument is informed by the Bible. Meanwhile for several pages now you've been operating as if Dawkins is the authority in which Shannon is informed by.

Message edited by author 2010-09-25 15:54:25.

09/25/2010 04:21:50 PM · #465

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:
Appeal to emotion fallacy. :P Your argument is informed by the bible, btw, and so you do use the bible as an authority. That you don't quote it directly is irrelevant.

Sigh. You think that little of me? That apart from the Bible I am incapable of making rational argument and that anything I say is meaningless outside the context of the Bible? Please point out to me, in this thread, where my argument is "informed by the Bible" other than the portion where I was talking within the context of Christianity (ie. what Christians believe). Frankly I'm getting pissed off that now two of you keep making the accusation without bothering to SHOW ME THE F'ING EVIDENCE!

You're getting indignant over something self-evident? You're arguing your face off against the position that altruism and morality are by-products of evolution and genetics. What's the alternative? An external source of morality outside our own genes, i.e., a supernatural moral authority. What persuasion are you? Christian. What is the sole source of the Christian religion? Bible.

So instead of getting agitated about being accused of exactly what you are, why don't you help me out and tell me how I'm to conclude that your arguments are NOT informed by the bible?

FireBird

09/25/2010 04:31:13 PM · #466

I'm kinda feeling like Rodney King today. "Can't we just all get along?"
I think this religion/atheist discussion is just creating a sour taste here in rant. Come on Doc, can't you just excoriate some politician or something? Louis I'd hate to see you get irritated and leave, and Scalvert, don't you realize that you're always right? Your continued posting in here accomplishes nothing because perfection can not be improved. Even though this is rant, COULD WE PLEASE JUST TERMINATE THIS THREAD? Are we so bored with photography that nothing appeals in the other forums? {You may now return to your regular scheduled programming, I just thought I'd rant a bit.}

09/25/2010 05:26:37 PM · #467

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:
Appeal to emotion fallacy. :P Your argument is informed by the bible, btw, and so you do use the bible as an authority. That you don't quote it directly is irrelevant.

Sigh. You think that little of me? That apart from the Bible I am incapable of making rational argument and that anything I say is meaningless outside the context of the Bible? Please point out to me, in this thread, where my argument is "informed by the Bible" other than the portion where I was talking within the context of Christianity (ie. what Christians believe). Frankly I'm getting pissed off that now two of you keep making the accusation without bothering to SHOW ME THE F'ING EVIDENCE!

You're getting indignant over something self-evident? You're arguing your face off against the position that altruism and morality are by-products of evolution and genetics. What's the alternative? An external source of morality outside our own genes, i.e., a supernatural moral authority. What persuasion are you? Christian. What is the sole source of the Christian religion? Bible.

So instead of getting agitated about being accused of exactly what you are, why don't you help me out and tell me how I'm to conclude that your arguments are NOT informed by the bible?

Because my exact argument could be made by a muslim, hindu, deist, cultural anthropologist or any of a dozen other systems. Your argument is as insane as me saying that all your arguments are informed by your gayness.

Thanks for the attempted return to sanity FB. I'll do my best to just let it all be, but I'll be damned if I will let such asinine accusations stand.

09/25/2010 05:29:44 PM · #468

Gayness? Who said I was gay? I certainly didn't.

Anyway, your position is that a supernatural source is a moral authority, you're Christian, and thus you must argue your philosophical position vis-a-vis the bible, unless you're just playing us for chumps.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

09/25/2010 06:52:27 PM · #469

Originally posted by Louis:

Well, you're a chump, but it has nothing to do with me. ;)

David Ey

Nikon D80

09/25/2010 06:55:46 PM · #470

Originally posted by Louis:

Gayness? Who said I was gay? I certainly didn't.

Maybe he got it from your pic.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/25/2010 07:15:02 PM · #471

Yeah, you're right, menacing Germanic male portraits in heavy chiaroscuro just scream homosexuality. What are you gassed up with?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/25/2010 11:33:55 PM · #472

Originally posted by Louis:

Yeah, you're right, menacing Germanic male portraits in heavy chiaroscuro just scream homosexuality.

At least he didn't accuse you of being a thespian ... ;-)

raish

Olympus C-2500L

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

09/26/2010 04:17:46 AM · #473

I've got an ~~allergy~~ allegory.

Grammar is cultural. You can see the insistence on split infinitives and putting prepositions at the end of sentences in US English, along with a stiff upper-lipped resistance to the same elsewhere. Then again, a whole bunch of words with no system for stringing them together would not a language make, so grammar is in fact fundamental and not culturally imposed.

We are pack animals. Pack animals look out for each other. It's a genetic trait and a survival characteristic. Dragging a slab of rock down Mt. Sinai and saying some spirit wrote on it and that the spirit is all for the common good but that some are more common than others (ie we is da chosen of the spirit in the sky), is a cultural mutation of a genetic trait.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/26/2010 09:49:36 AM · #474

It seems to me that there's confusion, or conflation, between altruism and cooperation in this thread. There are four basic types of social interaction between animals of the same species: cooperation, selfishness, altruism, and spite. The first two are by far the most common, the latter two actually quite rare.

You can't really make a case for "true" altruism as a genetically-coded survival trait, but cooperation fits the bill nicely. Where apparent altruism does evolve,many scientists consider it to be "pseudo altruism".

Discussion (condensed from several sources) here:

Originally posted by article above:

Reciprocal Altruism and Kin Selection
Despite the odds against altruism evolving, it does exist in nature. Some biologists, however, consider these instances to be examples of pseudoaltruism, and insist that true altruism has yet to be found. Pseudoaltruistic acts appear to be altruistic, but "in the long run" are actually beneficial to the actor. There are two types of pseudoaltruismâ��reciprocal altruism and kin selection.

Reciprocal Altruism.
This occurs when the actor acts altruistically in expectation of having the same done in return at a later time. Many animals that live in groups will post sentinels to watch for predators while the rest forage for food. The sentinel changes several times daily, so the animal "on duty" is assured of being protected later when it is his turn to forage. Vampire bats provide another example. If, when the group returns from hunting, one individual has not found food, a neighbor will regurgitate a portion of its meal for the hungry one. The next evening, the helpful bat may be the hungry one and need the favor returned.

Kin Selection.
This other type of pseudoaltruism, kin selection, was proposed by British scientist W. D. Hamilton in 1964. He realized that an individual could not only increase his fitness by having its own offspring, but it could also help a close relative raise its offspring, since they share genes. The combination of individual fitness and fitness through kin selection is inclusive fitness. Hamilton argued that if the benefits the actor receives by helping its relatives outweighs the cost of the action, then altruism can evolve. This concept can be expressed mathematically through Hamilton's Rule: br c, where b is the benefit to the actor, r is the relatedness of the actor to the receiver, and c is the cost to the actor. Relatedness is measured by the proportion of genes that are identical between two individuals. Because of Mendelian inheritance, half of a diploid individual's genes are shared with each of its parents, siblings, and children. Diploid grandparents share one-quarter of their genes with their grandchildren, and cousins share one-eighth of their genes with each other. An individual who helps two of its siblings, four of its grandchildren, or eight of its cousins is just as fit as the individual who helps only itself.

Kenyan bee-eaters of the bird genus Merops, have evolved behaviors by kin selection. Male bee-eaters will typically forgo reproducing when they are young, instead opting to help more mature birds raise their young. These young males help relatives more often than nonrelatives, thus raising their inclusive fitness. Young males that attempt to have their own offspring actually fare worse than helpers because their territories are too poor to raise more than one chick.

Conclusion
The classic example of altruism occurs in the eusocial bees. Honeybee workers rarely reproduce, letting the queen provide all the offspring. An unusual chromosome condition, called haplodiploidy, produces unusual relatednessamong the bees in a hive. Workers are actually more related to their sisters (eggs laid by the queen) than their own offspring! Although honeybees are considered the classic example of altruism, they really practice a form of kin selection. True altruism has not yet been found in nature, and some scientists believe that true altruism can be found only in human populations.

Matthew