Egoism and Evolution
I have a pet theory that i'd like to discuss here.
1. Panpsychism is true.
2. All sufficiently evolved species have a predisposition to act in self interest. This is known as psychological egoism.
3. Even though we see acts of altruism and sacrifice, one can argue that it's ultimately for one's own contentment/ satisfaction or ego. They're still doing these things for their own self, in a way. So I'd say psychological egoism is trivially true . Note that this tendency does NOT imply all acts of kindness are worthless.
4. Psychological egoism is what drives us to do pleasurable activities, basically anything that makes us happy and avoid pain, includes will to suffer in the short term if it means the pleasure felt afterwards more than offsets the pain.
5. But this tendency has no real advantage from an evolutionary perspective. Evolution is only concerned with the ability to pass on your genes, biological fitness, survival etc.
6. Sure, most activities that are pleasurable (good food, winning something, sex, music, exercise etc) are also absolutely necessary for survival, but there are a lots of things too, which are really pleasurable, but offer no real advantage to the survival of the individual's species in terms of evolution.
7. All activities that have the feel-good factor are not necessarily activities that are beneficial to one's evolutionary fitness. But organisms keep doing them anyways.
8. From (7), it follows that organisms have had this tendency to pursue pleasurable activities and minimise pain even before these activities gave them evolutionary advantages.
9. Organisms, acting in their self interests, were simply pursuing activities that were euphoric without any regards to one's fitness, passing of their genes and their species' survival. Species for which these activities aligned with the activities beneficial for their survival were successful. We may also imagine that millions of years of mutations/ selective elimination of genes turned these activities necessary for survival more intense (including pain and punishment, intense pain=more incentive to do/avoid something) , so organisms adhere to these rules strictly, thus improving their efficiency.
10. From all of this we can deduce that evolution cannot offer an explanation to why species would turn psychologically egoistic, evolution itself assumes the predisposition of organisms to behave egotistically, and uses this fact to eliminate (or propagate) individuals from a gene pool.
11. In other words, species are successful if their acts of self interest align with the interests of their group's as well as their own survival, and fail if their acts of self interest don't coincide with their group's survival (and their own, to some extent). Nothing wrong this, but what evolution doesn't tell us is why, in the first place, organisms are acting in self interest.
12. My guess is that organisms are intrinsically egoist, as a micro quality derived from the panpsychist "stuff" itself.
13. The "Arrow B" in this article is tangential to what I mean in (12).
14. The problem is, how in the first place could the 'physical stuff' have (read primitive form of the CNS) begun to learn what states of qualia its 'pansychist stuff' is in?
To avoid misunderstanding , I'll rephrase (14) in clearer language.
Your brain(the physical) knows what a certain experience feels like, if its a positive or negative one, and takes an action either to do it again or not, depending on whether the qualia was positive or negative, so there's a definitive physical influence caused by the panpsychistic substance. But how could these two things, the brain and the substance, possibly learn to communicate, so the brain can favour activities leading to positive qualia over those leading to negative qualia?
1. Panpsychism is true.
2. All sufficiently evolved species have a predisposition to act in self interest. This is known as psychological egoism.
3. Even though we see acts of altruism and sacrifice, one can argue that it's ultimately for one's own contentment/ satisfaction or ego. They're still doing these things for their own self, in a way. So I'd say psychological egoism is trivially true . Note that this tendency does NOT imply all acts of kindness are worthless.
4. Psychological egoism is what drives us to do pleasurable activities, basically anything that makes us happy and avoid pain, includes will to suffer in the short term if it means the pleasure felt afterwards more than offsets the pain.
5. But this tendency has no real advantage from an evolutionary perspective. Evolution is only concerned with the ability to pass on your genes, biological fitness, survival etc.
6. Sure, most activities that are pleasurable (good food, winning something, sex, music, exercise etc) are also absolutely necessary for survival, but there are a lots of things too, which are really pleasurable, but offer no real advantage to the survival of the individual's species in terms of evolution.
7. All activities that have the feel-good factor are not necessarily activities that are beneficial to one's evolutionary fitness. But organisms keep doing them anyways.
8. From (7), it follows that organisms have had this tendency to pursue pleasurable activities and minimise pain even before these activities gave them evolutionary advantages.
9. Organisms, acting in their self interests, were simply pursuing activities that were euphoric without any regards to one's fitness, passing of their genes and their species' survival. Species for which these activities aligned with the activities beneficial for their survival were successful. We may also imagine that millions of years of mutations/ selective elimination of genes turned these activities necessary for survival more intense (including pain and punishment, intense pain=more incentive to do/avoid something) , so organisms adhere to these rules strictly, thus improving their efficiency.
10. From all of this we can deduce that evolution cannot offer an explanation to why species would turn psychologically egoistic, evolution itself assumes the predisposition of organisms to behave egotistically, and uses this fact to eliminate (or propagate) individuals from a gene pool.
11. In other words, species are successful if their acts of self interest align with the interests of their group's as well as their own survival, and fail if their acts of self interest don't coincide with their group's survival (and their own, to some extent). Nothing wrong this, but what evolution doesn't tell us is why, in the first place, organisms are acting in self interest.
12. My guess is that organisms are intrinsically egoist, as a micro quality derived from the panpsychist "stuff" itself.
13. The "Arrow B" in this article is tangential to what I mean in (12).
14. The problem is, how in the first place could the 'physical stuff' have (read primitive form of the CNS) begun to learn what states of qualia its 'pansychist stuff' is in?
To avoid misunderstanding , I'll rephrase (14) in clearer language.
Your brain(the physical) knows what a certain experience feels like, if its a positive or negative one, and takes an action either to do it again or not, depending on whether the qualia was positive or negative, so there's a definitive physical influence caused by the panpsychistic substance. But how could these two things, the brain and the substance, possibly learn to communicate, so the brain can favour activities leading to positive qualia over those leading to negative qualia?
Comments (40)
No it isn't. I guess that'\s the end of that then!
I think you're seeking resolution to two or maybe three difficult and related issues, one, 'why altruism', if the evolutionary processes are entirely driven by the Darwinian 'war, shortage and strife'; and second, how is it that inert matter became able to differentiate sensations in the first place.
I think the underlying problem is that, in common with a great many people nowadays, you're asking a biological theory to answer a philosophical question for which it is neither suited nor intended. So it's typical of 'neo-darwinian reasoning' which believes that evolutionary biology is literally a 'theory of everything', when it comes to living things.
And I think that tendency is actually a product of the historical circumstances in which it originated, namely, the abandonment of religion for science, and ergo the substitution of what is seen to be a scientific account in place of the superseded religious view of creation.
So such a view has to account for some basic facts of human existence which have hitherto been traditionally the domain of religion, philosophy or metaphysics. it does this by trying to frame the issues in terms which are apparently amenable to a scientific analysis.
Panpsychism does this in its own way as well, by seeking to define 'mind' as something that can be understood as an attribute or latency within matter itself. It seems like a kind of sleight-of-hand way to restore dualism. I think there are other ways to recognize the primacy of consciousness other than by objectifying it in this way.
But in respect of such large questions as these, I think reductionist efforts are usually doomed to fail, in trying to explain ethical and metaphysical questions in scientific terms.
That is a very high-level and general response but I can provide some further reading along these lines if there is interest.
'Even though we see acts of altruism and sacrifice, one can argue that it's ultimately for one's own contentment/ satisfaction or ego. They're still doing these things for their own self, in a way.'
You can argue it, but I don't think it's true. There are genuinely selfless acts, and altruism is a real attribute, it's not simply egotism in disguise, nor does it fit very neatly into evolutionary theory, as Darwin himself recognised (although there's been a lot of work done on it since.)
I think this is a fallacious form of reasoning. I say that it's fallacious because when you perform the same sort of argument, but for opposing conclusions, it works just as well.
Consider:
"even though we are self-interested and seek pleasure and avoid pain for ourselves, one can argue that it's ultimately for altruistic motives. They are still doing these things for the good of the species, in a way. So I'd say that psychological altruism is trivially true. Note that this tendency does NOT imply that all acts of selfishness are praiseworthy"
Where is the argument in there? Aren't you just restating the case throughout by reinterpreting the counter-example as, at bottom, in support of your idea?
Quoting Weeknd
I don't think this follows from 7. I would say that you're adding a dimension of time, for one, and that activities were pleasurable prior to them influencing fitness, for two. While it is true that pleasure does not lead to evolutionary fitness, per se, and that those individuals who pursue self-interest along the lines of pleasure will seek out pleasure regardless of its impact on the species ability to survive, that does not then imply that the activities which we find pleasurable now -- and lets say, for the sake of argument, that these activities now do contribute to evolutionary fitness -- were activities which contributed to evolutionary fitness prior to them being pleasurable.
One could see, in light of the belief that our psychologies are a product of our biology, the belief following that as soon as an activity makes the species evolutionarily fit then our psychologies will follow along and make said activity pleasurable.
I'd note here that I don't believe biology implies psychology. There's an influence, but the inference from biological fact to psychological fact is a poor one in all the cases I've seen so far.
However, in spite of how "ugly" I find the egoist position, I've seen absolutely no good counter arguments, and any example of altruism can be explained away by an egoist as a counter example. This is what forced me into my current position.
I would be more than glad if you (or anyone else) can change my view :D
This perspective is also supported by Adrian Bejan's "Constructal Theory" proposed as an amendment to the second law of thermodynamics, which notes that any flow, such as a series of rivers and streams, must either adapt to efficiently accommodate any subsequent flow or be replaced altogether. Evolution can therefore be viewed as sharing our personal truth with subsequent generations and those who are more altruistic tend to thrive or endure longer as well as sharing their genes more with future generations. This was confirmed by a mathematical examination of evolution that showed that, for primitive tribal people at least, the odds of their altruism supporting someone related to them or capable of helping them in return or their own future generations were high enough to make it worth taking chances.
As I said, the mathematics indicate its about staying two punch lines ahead of the competition, yet it also requires being generous. If everybody around you is generous then you get situations such as African tribes who had to learn the hard way to teach their children not to trust everyone because slavers found they could easily convince them to follow them anywhere because they were so trusting. The issue is not merely how to use your heart, but also your head.
No you wouldn't. If you wanted to see it another way you wouldn't need someone else to persuade you.
They are the same both 6&7
Quoting Weeknd
That sounds really true. I had this problem on the other forum that crashed. I was flamed for using evolution as a term for an entity. They would have said something like "evolution doesn't assume anything". You can read it here: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/does-sperm-donation-win-at-evolution-76235.html
Quoting Weeknd
Why would pansychism derive egoist organisms? It would be more intuitive to think the opposite, that all organisms are one and therefor have no need to serve a segregated and individualized egoist motive.
such as? are you seriously saying that you know a way that can better rectify the problem of consciousness than panpsychism yet still keep a subjective/objective or purely subjective dichotomy in place?
What is the alternative?
'Reductionism' is generally the attempt to reduce something to simpler parts or components. Evolutionary reductionism is generally the attempt to explain or understand human nature in purely Darwinian terms. As science is often reductionist, generally, then Darwinian reductionism is actually very prevalent in modern secular culture, actually I think it is the de facto attitude of what I call 'the secular intelligentsia', by which I mean, the professors of most faculties of the humanities in Western universities.
Let me just clarify, do you mean inert matter as rocks and wind? Because they have no imperative to do anything. Or do you mean things like trees and algae? Because they are purely responsive to what is best for survival.
It seems "positive experience" is hard wired in to every single living thing on earth. For trees, the sunlight is positive experience because it provides energy. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? But you are the one talking about inert matter needing to have "positive inner experiences".
Yes but you quoted yourself. I asked what is the alternative to reductionism?
lol, more like self-entitled, pompous nobodies
"is a social class of people engaged in complex mental labor aimed at guiding or critiquing, or otherwise playing a leadership role in shaping a society's culture and politics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligentsia
Alternatives to reductionism, in the case of the question in this thread, would be to consider the topic in terms of moral philosophy rather than in terms of what can be explained by evolutionary theory.
It fails to do that... nevertheless, explaining why we are intrinsically egoist via a moral philosophy helps no better, especially not improving whether panpsychism is anymore valid.
I must concede though I am at a loss to find out how you would explain the egoism of all organism on earth by morality. There is no morality in the purely instinctual operations of mindless creatures.
I wonder what the evolutionary utility of irony would be?
This is a great talk about the primacy of consciousness btw:
I did ask you what a better alternative to evolutionary reductionism is in this case and you said it would be a moral philosophy, yet I said how absurd that is and you agreed and confirmed that is what you thought all along.
So what is a better alternative to the OP's evolutionary reductionism?
I'm not sure what you're saying with this. My closest guess is that you're saying that you can only argue about altruism from a subjective viewpoint, and so your argument is not fallacious.
But I'm just using a common standard for pointing out fallacies in informal logic -- by showing how the form of the argument can both support and refute the same conclusion. So, subjective or not, your argument would still be fallacious by that standard.
Hence why I'm not sure what you are saying.
Here again --
"However beautiful I find the altruistic position I've seen absolutely no good counter arguments, and any example of egotism can be explaiend away by an altruist as a counter example. This is what forced me into my current position"
You're basically just shifting the burden of proof to the other side of the argument.
Quoting Weeknd
A good reason for the illusion of egotism is that people perform acts of altruism. ;) But if you discount the counter-example then you won't perceive them.
I think this is a confused bundle, in truth though. For one, you're assuming that our desires today are the same as what they were, and that our desires today are related to the desires of some unknown biological past as well as to our ability to survive as a species.
But even for traits which are straightforwardly understood to be biological, such as hair color, don't fit this model. Not every trait that an individual animal has is even related to evolution, and traits which a species have are often vestigial or simply "tag-along" with other traits that were selected for.
Then what is this "we now see"? What is self reliance and isolationism that makes us see?
I would say these latter are more related to society than either psychology (desire) or biology (reproduction).
Well, I like Peter Russell! I've had the pleasure of meeting him once or twice, and interacted via email a couple of times. And that is very much what I had in mind.
On the former -- yup. It's not just for you, but evolution is about populations and not individuals :D It bottoms out at species, after all -- so even larger than populations, since a species persists over several populations.
Have to admit, "egoism" wasn't really the best term to use here, or anywhere in OP. What I really meant was hedonism (in the philosophical sense of the word), and the innate preference of beings towards stimuli that create inner "positive" sensations
The essence of panpsychism is that consciousness is an irreducible property of the universe, and I'm of the belief that everything, literally everything, in existence has some degree of qualia attached to it, and the physical complexity of beings enriches the "quality" of inner experience, so you may never know what sunlight or anything else feels to a leaf or a branch or a tree but there's a possibility its not nothing, experience of "nothing", imo is an imaginary construct, I mean, if you think about it, even in your deepest, dreamless sleeps you have some internal sensation going on, and that enables you to tell (approximately) how long you've been asleep
So positing 'mind' as a 'degree of quaiia attached to everything' is an attempt to locate that or situate it objectively. Basically it is a naturalist approach, but it seeks to extend the parameters of naturalism to include something it has designated as 'qualia'. And I am very sceptical about that effort. I have read Galen Strawson's well-known paper on panpsychism, and while I recognise that it is very cleverly argued, and also recognise that it is basically an anti-materialist argument (which makes it a good thing), I am unpersuaded by the fundamental approach. And that is because I believe we never know mind as an object of perception or cognition at all, and that whatever we say about it basically amounts to a kind of projection.
So that view, or rather, attitude, leads to a completely different way of understanding the issue, one that doesn't seek to naturalise or 'explain' the mind or subjectivity at all.
//edit// I recommend taking the time to look at the Peter Russell video above.//
The most fundamental form of altruism is the process of procreation. Females devote a lot of energy to giving birth and raising the offspring. Males devote a lot of energy to attracting mates and in the actual act of sex. If this fundamental process didn't exist, then genes, and life in general, wouldn't exist. Altruism is a fundamental aspect of the behavior of all organisms. In order for the species to continue to exist requires that they interact with other members of the species.
If panpsychism is true then we need a better explanation as to why thoughts about things, like filling a glass with water, are different yet similar to actually doing something, like filling a glass with water. Thinking about filling a glass with water isn't the same experience as actually filling a glass with water. If everything is mental, then both acts would be the same thing and be experienced the same way, but it isn't. Either words mean something, like "thinking" as opposed to "doing", and doing is something that other minds have access to, while what you think other minds don't have access to. Other people won't know you filled a glass with water with your thoughts, but they will know it if you actually do it. If panpsychism is true, then why is there any different at all? Why would thoughts, which are only mental, be private, yet actions, which aren't mental, be public?