From: "Phil Roberts, Jr." 




Owleye wrote:
> 
> "Phil Roberts, Jr." wrote:
> 
> > Not sure what you mean here.  The central objective is simply to "explain"
> > the role of 'feelings of worthlessness' in the evolutionary scheme of
> > things, and from which it is assumed that one would then have insight
> > into such things as needs for love, acceptance, etc. and would indeed
> > be able to go a long way in synthesizing natural science and the
> > humanities.  To the extent you believe that needs for purpose, meaning,
> > moral integrity, etc. have nothing to do with maintaining or attaining
> > self-worth, then the explanatory pay-off would be much less, naturally.
> > But that doesn't seem like a particularly reasonable position to take,
> > if you don't mind my saying so.
> 
> I was troubled by your "synthesis of biology with humanity."  If you merely 
> mean by this a reductionism with respect to human behavior then we are back 
> to problem of arriving at an evolutionary account of human behavior.  If this 
> is not your project then I will have to understand what platform you are 
> standing on in order to synthesize these two perspectives.
> 

My project is "explaining" the role of 'feelings of worthlessness' within 
an evolutionary scheme.  To the extent I succeed in this endavor, I am 
supposing that I will be well on my way to constructing a synthesis 
between natural science and the humanities, particularly given my own
belief that the NEED TO AVOID feelings of worthlessness can probably 
acount for about 90% of everything human beings think and do.  As I 
said, if you don't agree with this, then the explanatory payoff will
be a good deal less.  An evolutionary account of human behavior and
a synthesis of natural science and the humanities are just different
ways of saying the same thing for me.

> >
> > Feelings of worthlessness are an intersubjectively reproducible feature of
> > nature, and therefore entirely appropriate as a matter of scientific
> > sepculation, IMHO.  Indeed, to the extent you regard them as irrelevant
> > to an understanding of human nature, I would say you are being foolish.
> 
> It may be appropriate though I'm not entirely sure why you pick this feature 
> out for special consideration.  

  1. Because, based on years of observing my own thought and behavior and
     analyzing the motivations which underlie it, I believe that the pursuit
     of self-worth/ the need to avoid feelings of worthlessness etc. lies at 
     the core of about 90% of everything I think and do.  And, assuming 
     I am not a freak of nature, I believe this is likely to be true about
     most other folks as well (e.g., those not in a subsistence mode).  
  2. Because, like Kuhn, I believe that science is driven by the addressing
     of anomalies, and I believe that 'feelings of worthlessness' look 
     pretty unbiological, and very hard to understand from an evolutionary
     perspective, and as such, just might hold the keys to the kingdom 
     (pschology, a scientific humanities, etc.).  IOW, I believe that 
     science is more a matter of having an eye for epistemic beauty and
     ugliness, and 'feelings of worthlessness' just look completely out
     of place within my own understanding of how natural selection works.
     Natural selection is a PHYSICAL THEORY about PHYSICAL BEHAVIOR.  From
     this perspective, nature inflicting one of her species with 'feelings
     of worthlessness' is sheer madness.  It makes absolutely no sense.
     And which is precisely why they are so fascinating.
  3. Because 'feelings of worthlessness' have gone almost completely over 
     looked in scientific circles, probably for reasons having more to
     do with scientism than science.  Eg., check out Gleitman's humungous 
     'Psychology', the gospel according to cognitive science.  800 pages
     on everything from acquisition curves to zygotes.  Not a single 
     word about the most central motivational factor I find in my own
     mind.  A boo boo of biblical proportions, as they say, at least 
     from where I'm sittin'.


> Is there some evolutionary advantage to my feeling unworthy?

According to my theory, no.  They are maladaptive.  Nature is doing everything
in her power to eliminate them.  Of course, the PAIN of feelings of worthlessness
is adaptive, in that it encourages organisms to take remedial action (find a lover
seek a promotion, obtain self-significating data, etc.).

> Does it serve some function?  

According to my theory, they are a maladaptive by-product of the cultural/memetic 
evolution of rationality itself.  IOW, in much the manner the needs of the immediate
self were relativized within a more comprehensive context in order to acquire 
prudent intentions, and where it is almost certainly adaptive, this same mechanism
has now begun to relativize the significance of the self within the more comprehensive
context of society as a whole.  Feelings of worthlessness (depression, suicide, etc.)
are part of the price we pay for "seeing" too much for our own good, at least from
the perspective of what is in our overall best interest.  We are increasingly in
danger of becoming a little too objective which, when we are talking values, is
detrimental to our placing paramount importance on our own wnats and needs as
nature "intended" us.

Another way of saying it (mentioned earlier) is, nature instills her creatures with
a sense of their own importance (or of their needs) which is RATIONALLY INORDINATE,
and that as a species reaches a certain stage in its cultural/memetic development
its members increasingly come to question this inordinancy, and increasingly come
to require REASONS for maintaining it.  IOW, their survival is no longer determined,
and robotic, but increasingly more conditional, increasingly less determined by
natural selection.  When the reasons fall a little short in the rationality 
department, voila, feelings of worthlessness, suicide, depression, a reduction
in the "will" to survive.

> If it is a disadvantage or dysfunctional, how can it be
> explained from an evolutionary account? 

As a maladaptive by-product of some other adaptation (an increase in epistemic
objectivity which FACILITATES our survival) which is itself sufficiently
adaptive to warrant a considerable downside.  This is because being rational
is not a matter of following rules, as I believe Kant would maintain, but 
rather a matter of TRANSCENDING rulues/algorithms, when and if it is, as we
say, rational.  IOW, mother nature is running into the same problem Kurt 
Godel ran into in his attempt to reduce mathematical reasoning to an algorithm.
Eventually, you end up with creatures which are increasingly capable of 
"standing outside the system" (Lucas, 1961), wanting to have rational whys
for surviving, questioning not only the means to the end, but the end itself. 
Paradoxically this would mean we have become LESS DETERMINED by natural 
selection (valuatively/conatively) as a result of natural selection.

> You mention in a prior post anomolies -- a
> kind of toleration for the dysfunctional.  Of what significance is this 
> to someone who is feeling unworthy?
> 

The 'toleration' is a metaphor for the assumption that natural selection 
still finds the cost benefit equations coming out on the plus side.
The loss in the will to survive is offset by the increase in the 
facility of surviving.  After all, what are a few self-incinerating
Buddhist monks now and then when the pay off is printing, the scientific
method, and global disaster relief, eh?

> 
> I don't object to the concept of self-worth.  Indeed when I was much 
> younger it seemed to have some significance.  However, in so far as 
> we are thinking of it as some kind of supreme principle, I have significant 
> doubts.  I'm thinking this is not unlike believing that all of humanity 
> can be seen through the lens of a concept I happened to find useful in a 
> therapeutic setting.
> 

Think of something you have thought or done in the past several years 
which did NOT have self-worth as a significant motivational component.
My guess is this will be much harder to do than you realize once you
actually spend some time thinking about it, at least
it has been for me.   It has everything to do with why I am typing
on this keyboard right now.   

> > The correlation between the presence of rationality and the presence
> > of emotional instability in a species is something I assume you agree
> > with.
> 
> No.  In fact to the extent to which I can keep my emotions under control 
> so also I am most rational.  However, see my remarks of a prior post 
> regarding the sex drive.
> 

The INTERSPECIES CORRELATION is what I was referring to.  Your and my
opinions about our own rationality may not be sufficiently reliable to
build a scientific theory on, particularly given the likelyhood that
our ascriptions of rationality are probably almost always comparative
with respect to the norm.  

> 
> I confess having a great deal of difficulty with degrees of rationality 
> as it might be aligned to degrees os "sight."  Presumably this means that 
> the self is extended in scope in some way.  Are you thinking of humans 
> falling within this extent.  How about animals or sentient creatures, the 
> environment, aliens, neighbors, the dead, children, "etc." or are you 
> thinking along a completely different axis?
> 

I believe you are sincere here, but I must confess I haven't had this
degree of difficulty on this point previously.  For most of us, yourself
included, I would suppose, 'being objective' means getting outside of your
skin to get at the way things really "are".  Metaphorically, "seeing" 
the way things really "are".   Of course, I don't suppose
any of us can do this, but I assume that a human has a closer approximation
than a giraffe.  For example, we still experience the level of "seeing" 
nature employs to get us to procreate.  This is the only level available
to a giraffe.  Probably humans are the only ones who are aware of the 
purpose this behavior serves, and as such, "see" a great deal more than
giraffes with regard to sexual behavior.  OUr beliefs about sex are 
more complete and correct, i.e., more objective, we are more aware 
of what it is and what it does, we "see" more.

Similarly, before you were sufficiently prudent to volunteer for the 
dentist chair, I assume you simply didn't "see" the long range consequences
of placing so much value on your immediate present.  You "see" value in
a much more comprehensive and coherent fashion than you did when you
were a child.  Your immeidate present was your world back then, and
what happened to your future self was of little if any concern.  You
"see" more now.  Your perspective is more holistic, more global, and
more valuatively coherent.

But then, that's what the word 'objective' means to most of us, doesn't
it?


-- 

                  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/



/PRE>