Quake3World

p.s. hippy.

Geebs wrote:
Morality is a series of rules which serve to warn us as to the sorts of behaviours likely to get us bludgeoned to death if found out (see also that bit in the old testament where they stone everybody for pretty much anything). But no one takes that shit seriously, ESPECIALLY as far as sex is concerned.

There is a deeper connection between morality and biological regulation & survival. We experience emotional import with respect to fundamental preferences that our organism is programmed for. For instance, if we are thirsty, and happen across water, we experience an anticipation of reward. Many limbic structures, notably the hypothalamus and amygdala, are involved in this regulation and emotional experience. These are ancient evolutionary brain structures, and from what I can gather, some thinkers believe that they are the deep engine of moral behaviour (e.g. Antonio Damasio).

Cultural learning, which I think takes place on a more cortical level, can be internalized in such a way that the logic of cultural survival can be indirectly routed through these ancient limbic structures.

Here is a quote from Damasio from his book "Descartes Error (emotion, reason, and the human brain)

"In human societies there are social conventions and ethical rules over and above those that biology alreay provides. Those additional layers of control shape instinctual behaviour so that it can be adapted flexibly to a complex and rapidly changing environment and ensure survival for the individual and for others (especially if they belong to the same species) in circumstances in which a preset response from the natural repertoire would be immediately or eventually counterproductive. The perils preempted by such conventions and rules may be immediate and direct (physical or mental harm), or remote and indirect (future loss, embarrassment). Although such conventions and rules need be transmitted only through education and socialization , from generation to generation, I suspect that the neural representations of the wisdom they embody, and of the means to implement that wisdom, are inextricably linked to the neural representation of innate regulatory biological processes. I see a "trail" connecting the brain that represents one, to the brain that represents the other. Naturally, that trail is made up of connections among neurons.

For most ethical rules and social conventions, regardless of how elevated their goal, I believe one can envision a meaningful link to simpler goals and to drives and instincts. Why should this be so? Because the consequences of achieving or not achieving a rarefied social goal contribute (or are perceived as contributing), albeit indirectly, to survival and to the quality of that survival."

(pp 124-125)

Geebs wrote: I think the reason lots of people get confused about evolution is through the introduction of ethics, when ethics is a big warm fuzzy pipe dream which can pretty much be defined as the exact opposite of what actually goes on.

There is a sense, however, where a primitive definition of ethics pervades biological evolution. There was a time when there were only unicellular organisms. At some point, unicellular organisms began to mutate in such ways as to mutually aid each other, and this eventually lead to complex, multicellular organisms. This mutual aid could be described as a form of unconscious ethical action on the part of the unicellular organisms, in the same way that a societal definition of ethics would have the idea of mutual aid among humans as a basis. Competition among unicellular organisms (among "unethical" unicellular organisms), did not bring about higher and more complex systems in the world as its opposite did, cooperation among unicellular organisms (among "ethical" unicellular organisms).

If we consider a society to be an organism, we see how a code of ethics plays the better evolutionary card for it. Societies that have a strong code of ethics that bans murder, protects families, and requires all able bodied men to protect the village, will win out against societies that don't. When fights break out among villages, the tribe that is more healthy (less murder, stronger food production through ethical minded farmers) and more virtuous (strong ethical men who are willling to die for their village) will win out against a weaker tribe that lacks such virtues.

EDIT: This is the idea behind meme theory, I guess.

"group selection" = bad. If group selection's a viable theory, why is it that most murders occur within the family?

Tying tribal warfare and ethics together is also pretty dodgy. I'd see tribalism as a demonstration my postulate that, in general terms, you can only ever keep a society cohesive if there's a mutual threat of approximately the same size as the society's members.

Bringing "ethics" into symbiotic evolution is teleology, which was kind of the point of the bit you quoted above....

mjrpes wrote:

Kracus wrote:No it's glaringly obvious that I meant the exact same thing you were talking about but that the way I worded it meant I get another round of OMGWTFBBWATERMELON bullshit I always get whenever I post ANYTHING that isn't gramaticaly perfect.

Which honestly doesn't bug me as much as it used to it just goes to illustrate what a bunch of cunts you are.

"Basicly a need creates mutations"

The falseness of the statement you posted has nothing to do with grammer, and it is not glaringly obvious that you meant something else.

In the above statement you are saying that mutations are caused by needs within the organism. There is no other way to interpret this statement. You should have caught this error when you reread you post, before you pressed the submit button.

Ok at least you're clear about what you mean. However I'd argue that's not true. Why would fish have evolved lungs? Why would they have evolved from sea to land?

I understand what you're saying that in fact the need doesn't neccessarily create the mutation but only the beneficial mutations remain because of the enviroment. So indirectly the enviroment does account for mutations and evolution.

I'll give you an example.

Let's take a very old species of fish before they had lungs. When they began developing lungs it wasn't in the hopes of harvesting oxygen it was likely simply an airbag inside the body of a fish meant to keep it balanced in the water. The fact that this sac of air slowly evolved stemed from the fact that it made the creature more stable in it's enviroment.

Now let's assume there's another mutation in effect that causes one arm to be longer than the other causing fish to swim in circles. This mutation makes them pretty easy targets making it bad.

Obviously you know where this is headed

The bad mutation dies off due to being too easy prey while the other makes the fish faster causing them to spawn more often therefore promoting the mutation. It could even go as far as a mutation being attractive to the opposite sex, if such a thing existed among primitive species of fish making it even more likely of those mutations being passed on to the next generation.

So in effect, the enviroment weeds out bad mutations. Hence the enviroment is responsible for the evolution of any species.

This doesn't neccessarily disagree with what you're saying. I'm not saying the enviroment CAUSED the mutation I'm saying it decides what's going to evolve and what's not, which in essence makes it responsible for current species.

God Kracus, you are outdoing yourself here...

"Let's take a very old species of fish before they had lungs. When they began developing lungs it wasn't in the hopes of harvesting oxygen it was likely simply an airbag inside the body of a fish meant to keep it balanced in the water. The fact that this sac of air slowly evolved stemed from the fact that it made the creature more stable in it's enviroment."

I'm going to wait and see who finds the mistakes in this little nugget first.

The truth of the matter is, Kracus, you are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to think you have a fucking clue about the topic being discussed here, because it is obvious that you don't.
Well, maybe a small clue...but...you are lacking a fundamental understanding of biology, which makes it tough for you to really engage in this discussion.

It is kind of like a kid who read some shit on relativity or something, then tries to argue against a group of physicists about it while having nothing more than a 7th grade understanding of math.

yea if you read it in a book more than once its fact.

Kracus wrote:...
So in effect, the enviroment weeds out bad mutations. Hence the enviroment is responsible for the evolution of any species.

This doesn't neccessarily disagree with what you're saying. I'm not saying the enviroment CAUSED the mutation I'm saying it decides what's going to evolve and what's not, which in essence makes it responsible for current species.

Kracus, for the most part you're describing natural selection. However, in your original post, you DID say that the environment caused mutations, and that's why everyone jumped on you.

"Let's take a very old species of fish before they had lungs. When they began developing lungs it wasn't in the hopes of harvesting oxygen it was likely simply an airbag inside the body of a fish meant to keep it balanced in the water. The fact that this sac of air slowly evolved stemed from the fact that it made the creature more stable in it's enviroment."

pop quiz werdheld...

find the errror(s)

ANd, to be fair to Kracus, he is describing, to some degree, the basic tenets of natural selection. I'll give him credit where its due...despite the many errors and problems in his posts.

Yeah, what this thread really needed was a barely coherent and unnecessarily cryptic description of natural selection to bog it down when it was treatening to turn interesting. Thanks Kracus for sticking your oar in.

:lol:

Geebs wrote:Yeah, what this thread really needed was a barely coherent and unnecessarily cryptic description of natural selection to bog it down when it was treatening to turn interesting. Thanks Kracus for sticking your oar in.

He does that with a lot of topics related to science and philosophy. But you can't fault him for wanting to be involved in the 'adult discussions.' I still remember, vividly, (and I've brought this up countless times) his statement that "Einstein was full of shit."
He does like to go off on these tangents where he is taking on the entire science base of this community by himself.

Geebs - imagine my life as a teacher having to listen to similar half-baked ramblings of students who think they are going to outdebate me about this topic when I am teaching it. Same thing with parents who call to complain about me teaching their kid evolution without also giving creation science a fair shake. I have to deal with Kracuses on a daily basis.

At the very least, though, I can say that I agree with Kracus on the most important part of the discussion...that evolution is real.

tnf wrote:"Let's take a very old species of fish before they had lungs. When they began developing lungs it wasn't in the hopes of harvesting oxygen it was likely simply an airbag inside the body of a fish meant to keep it balanced in the water. The fact that this sac of air slowly evolved stemed from the fact that it made the creature more stable in it's enviroment."

pop quiz werdheld...

find the errror(s)

To be honest, I don't know enough about paleontology or ichthyology to know whether he's right or wrong about this. However, if I remember some of my undergrad classes, it's debatable whether lungs evolved from air bladders or vice versa.

I would say that he seems to suggest that lungs and air bladders were an evolutionary "end." No mutations occur "in the hopes of" doing something, and organs don't "begin" to evolve. Breathing air is simply more efficient than breathing water and all fish can already do it. Each mutation that increased the efficiency of the breathing apparatus may have given a species a better chance of surviving in low-oxygen water. These species would thus be better suited for their environment, and the efficient breathing mechanisms would be selected for.

But, like I said, I don't really know how lungs evolved, so he could be correct for all I know.

Just think of whether or not fish have lungs. Then start thinking about aquatic mammals...and if they represent a move back into the ocean from land or not...

Before any species ever walked on land the "fish" or whatever they were called, they looked like fish, did have a "lung" so to speak in their bodies. It didn't breath for them it was like a balance. I don't know the name for the term but there is one, I know it in French.

Anyway, the idea wasn't to use it to breath but rather to use it so the fish would be better suited to move around and hover underwater. I'll dig up some stuff to see if I can prove this one for you.

Geebs wrote:"group selection" = bad. If group selection's a viable theory, why is it that most murders occur within the family?

Tying tribal warfare and ethics together is also pretty dodgy. I'd see tribalism as a demonstration my postulate that, in general terms, you can only ever keep a society cohesive if there's a mutual threat of approximately the same size as the society's members.

Bringing "ethics" into symbiotic evolution is teleology, which was kind of the point of the bit you quoted above....

What's your basic point here Geebs? Are you saying ethics doesn't exist? Or that it's useless? Or that it's unnatural?

Here's what I'm talking about
Check the section evolution of swim bladders and lungs.

http://www.sonoma.edu/users/r/rank/bio3 ... ec_02.html

Oh shit they don't actualy have the lecture there..

actualy you can check google and see for yourself. I'm assuming you already know this though so I'm not sure what you're hinting at about my statement.

[xeno]Julios wrote:What's your basic point here Geebs? Are you saying ethics doesn't exist? Or that it's useless? Or that it's unnatural?

Just that it doesn't have anything to do with natural selection. Still, I find ethics funny just because it has nothing to do with the way people actually behave.

For example: why is it that people always want to be seen so be in favour of aboriginal rights when pretty much every single land/resource dispute in history has been settled by the "might is right" approach?

Kracus wrote:Before any species ever walked on land the "fish" or whatever they were called, they looked like fish, did have a "lung" so to speak in their bodies. It didn't breath for them it was like a balance. I don't know the name for the term but there is one, I know it in French.

Anyway, the idea wasn't to use it to breath but rather to use it so the fish would be better suited to move around and hover underwater. I'll dig up some stuff to see if I can prove this one for you.

You've said enough...don't worry about digging stuff up. Fish don't have lungs. That's what we were after.

But don't spend time digging stuff up. I am pretty well-versed in the evolutionary history of the kingdom Animalia.

Geebs wrote: Just that it doesn't have anything to do with natural selection. Still, I find ethics funny just because it has nothing to do with the way people actually behave.

For example: why is it that people always want to be seen so be in favour of aboriginal rights when pretty much every single land/resource dispute in history has been settled by the "might is right" approach?

there is plenty of hypocrisy, but there is still genuine ethical behaviour and internalization of moral codes. The fact that we feel outrage when someone commits a crime against a stranger on another continent proves this.

And it has everything to do with natural selection, especially if you consider a global ethic being conducive to survival.

Let's say you had a thousand planets, and one of them managed to attain world peace through a widespread cultural internalization of a global ethic. Surely this planet would be more likely to prosper longer than those that were wasting their resources in perpetual warfare.

in addition, examples of moral behaviour can be found outside of the human population.

I'm still not clear on what you're getting at Geebs. Are you saying morality is an illusion? That it isn't natural? That it emerged via unnatural means?