Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
jaa said:post 110353 Isn't that just tit-for-tat reciprocal altruism?
haidut said:post 110373jaa said:post 110353 Isn't that just tit-for-tat reciprocal altruism?
That's one explanation, yes. But in the study they did not observe any immediate reciprocation, so we really don't know. It's kind of like the study with rats - why would one of the rats free the trapped rat AND share some its own food with it? Clearly there is no opportunity for reciprocation there. Maybe the rat is doing it just like some humans do - do you a favor now and anticipate you'll do the same for me in the future. It would imply rats can imagine the future, which is yet another thing modern science stubbornly refuses to accept - i.e. that lower creatures can project and make plans for the future.
jaa said:post 110382haidut said:post 110373jaa said:post 110353 Isn't that just tit-for-tat reciprocal altruism?
That's one explanation, yes. But in the study they did not observe any immediate reciprocation, so we really don't know. It's kind of like the study with rats - why would one of the rats free the trapped rat AND share some its own food with it? Clearly there is no opportunity for reciprocation there. Maybe the rat is doing it just like some humans do - do you a favor now and anticipate you'll do the same for me in the future. It would imply rats can imagine the future, which is yet another thing modern science stubbornly refuses to accept - i.e. that lower creatures can project and make plans for the future.
Couldn't altruistic behaviour evolve in social creatures without individuals keeping a tally? I can see a group just hitting a balance point where like 80% are altruistic, and 20% defect occasionally. Even in tit-for-tat models the default may be to help another member of your species unless you find out they're a defector. So if you stumble upon a shared soul in need and you've never seen them before you just help anyway. I'm not saying it's one way or the other, just that it seems to me the jury is still out.
As an aside, ability to project possible futures seems like an excellent way to rank beings level of sentience.
haidut said:On the last point, I agree, and if we use that criteria birds are of the same sentience as people I know Peat would agree with that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/15536611
Actually, even roaches may be not that different from us:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/ ... 4H20150310
Why was there so much homogeneity among indigenous cultures if there were strictly enforced rules regarding reproduction and taboos against inbreeding. This is the first thing you learn about in an anthropology class, the original economic exchange being virgins for warriors. One thing that always struck me when looking at pictures and ethnographic films is the way indigenous people looked like brother and sister. Look at inuits. Why was the gene expression so stable? What I mean is why was there such little variance in how they looked even if they were not related?