Jay Hanson speaks up

bobbyald · Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:59 pm Post subject: Re: Jay Hanson speaks up

A lot has happened on this topic since my last post but I said I would reply to EnergSpin’s comments (3 points in second post) so I will.

Anyone who has a good grasp of evolution knows that Hanson is basically correct although I admit it is not the best-written piece and as a result he leaves himself open to criticism. I hope to clear up those points that have caused confusion below.

Point1.
One of the problems with presenting a simple example so that it is easily understood is that someone will jump on it and point out why it’s incomplete. Well you can’t do that if it’s a simple example designed to show one aspect of an argument only. Hanson was trying to make a very basic point about evolution and that is any trait or strategy that aids survival will become more prominent in a society than those that don’t. Did you deliberately miss the point are do you really not understand it?

Let me try to explain it better than Hanson did.

Say we have two tribes with a very similar gene pool. One tribe believes that its survival is best served by cooperation the other by killing. Why they differ in their opinions may be a very subtle differences in the gene pool or because a leader has a different mix of genes or because the environment is very slightly different or another reason but it’s clear that whoever wins survives to pass more of their genes on and these genes will become more common (Hanson’s point). Life is made up of many such struggles and each population will eventually end up with a mix of possible strategies that represent how successful each strategy has been it the past (basic statistical probability). Since different situations are best served by different strategies we will never get one strategy being totally dominant. EnergySpin seems to think that somehow this mix of strategies can somehow get so out of equilibrium and that everyone eventually kills everyone else – wrong! These are gene survival strategies and as such killing can never be the best option in every situation – under what circumstances do you kill your own children, hunting partners, mate etc?

Killing and cooperation are totally genetically determined.

Please note that I’ve been careful not to imply that one gene = one strategy. Genes control many low level aspects of behaviour and it takes a combination of genes plus environmental input to trigger a particular strategy. In the same way you will not find genes for say walking or playing football.

When Dawkins states that a gene is selfish he does not mean that any gene controls selfish behaviour (I can’t believe I’ve got to explain this) he means that each gene survival depends solely on its goodness of fit within it environment regardless of everything else (Dawkins admits that the word “selfish” was a poor choice).

Point 2
I’m not entirely clear what you are getting at here.
Are you trying to imply that the rational decision making process in humans is not genetically determined?

Point 3
As stated above you do not get an individual gene for each strategy rather it is the complex interaction of many genes plus environmental input that determines a particular strategy.

Hanson does refer to “man” but I don’t know why. He means people. Again poorly written but the general points he makes are correct.

Please restore my confidence in the system and tell me that your work really has nothing to do with genetics.
_________________
Life results from the non-random selection of randomly generated replicators

bobbyald · Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 3:04 pm Post subject: Re: Jay Hanson speaks up

Answers to other questions on this topic:

Ludi

EdF · Heavy Crude Joined: May 08, 2005 Posts: 189

EdF · Heavy Crude Joined: May 08, 2005 Posts: 189

NEOPO · Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:48 am Post subject: Re: Jay Hanson speaks up

Sometimes I think science gets lost in itself.

I do not wish to comment on the data presented here but merely state my own selfish theory which will no doubt create a small bit of dopemine (satisfaction) that may help me get through one more day on this human/rat infested parasitic petri dish we call earth.

Most of the technology that we have today has come about through war.

Student lunches were instituted in the USA during WWII because most enlistees were malnourished.

So we could say that Hitler was a humanitarian as his efforts helped get school lunches on the table.
Real farking cooperation there.........

If immune deficiency is what killed most of the native americans naturally I wonder why missionaries were passing out blankets infected with small pox.....

We are on the verge of self destruction.
Tell me how your theories apply to M.A.D
Show me how it all applies once this world is culled and we no longer have time to think of why.

Oh I am sure those of you who have your eye on the dish rather then the whole can wax long on this or that to prove whatever you want to prove until someone smarter comes along with a better theory.

Square pegs round holes where it stops nobody knows.

Somewhere therein lies the truth.

Just a barrel of monkeys - an accident - a disease - a cancer to this world.
Slither away now and brush away loose ground....yeah