From: "Phil Roberts, Jr." 




[email protected] wrote:
> 
> In article <[email protected]>,
>   [email protected] wrote:
 
> 
> > I don't know how this feature could have
> > arisen, since from his perspective it goes against the grain of natural > > selection.

As a maladaptive by-product of an adaptation which is sufficiently
advatageous to warrant a significant down side.  The physical cost/
benefit analysis still comes out in the black, because the massive
increase in the FACILITY to survive (the epistemic component of
our rationality, e.g., printing, the scientific method, etc.) 
is sufficiently beneificial to outweigh the negative effects of
a significant reduction in THE WILL to survive (a red-shift
away from the optimal valuative profile for maximizing reproductive
success) which must be tolerated to reap those benefits.  

> > Perhaps he thinks humans did not evolve by being naturally selected.
> 

Fat chance.

> I get the impression this is exactly why he's looking hard at these
> subjects - in order to avoid that conclusion. It seems that there is
> substantial evidence for a 'selfish gene' approach to evolution, in fact
> it seems to be an essential foundation of evolutionary science, but we
> still find various things that just do not seem to fit that model - many
> sociological and psychological elements have been mentioned. Do we thus
> throw the model out? I would hope not and it seems Phil is trying to find
> ways to reconcile these anomalies.
> 

And you're the guy who was apologizing for buttin' in.  Jesus!  Why 
couldn't I have said what you've just said.  Come to think of it I did.  
But yours is so much clearer.  Thank you, thank you, thank you.

To try to put a little frosting on Mick's cake, there are three ways
you can achieve a synthesis between natural science as it stands
and the humanities.

1. You can achieve a synthesis by convincing yourself the science is 
   something other than what it is, as I believe Owleye has been
   trying to do.
2. You can achieve a synthesis by convincing yourself that human 
   nature is something other than what it is, as I believe some of the
   posters to the group that Owleye gets infuriated with are trying
   to do.
3. You can achieve a synthesis by living with the cognitive 
   disonance of two mutually exclusive truths, and allow yourself
   to endure the discomfort and the lack of security in your 
   knowledge as the price you are willing to pay for trying
   to find out WHAT IS REALLY WRONG, either with your 
   scientific hypothesis (e.g., Hamilton's kin calculus) or with
   your current understanding of human nature, or perhaps with
   some hidden assumption you just haven't yet become aware of
   (e.g., the assumption that self-interest is rational).


- - -

                  Phil Roberts, Jr.

       The Psychodynamics of Genetic Indeterminism:
Why We Turned Out Like Captain Kirk Instead of Mr. Spock
     http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/dada/90/