Genes Do NOT Matter (much)

OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
jaa 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
haidut said:
post 110373
jaa 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
jaa said:
post 110382
haidut said:
post 110373
jaa 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.

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
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jaa

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,035
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

That's amazing! Human's ability to dehumanize or zombify animals certainly seems analagous to racism and other forms of discrimination towards out groups.

I think my consciousness model needs a little updating to include something like emotions. If a computer can perform hyper accurate future simulations, but has no feeling one way or another if it or it's fellow supercomputers are shut off permanently, then it doesn't seem immoral to kill them.
 

frankfranks

Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
33
The vampire bat thing is totally tit for tat. There was some well publicized research where they injected bats' pouches with saline (or maybe air; don't remember). The other bats see this as a bat who had a really a good outing, and they expect help if they need it. The injected bat obviously can't contribute. The researchers showed the bats keep tabs and retaliate against cheaters exactly as simple game theory would predict.
 

LUH 3417

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
2,990
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?
 

meatbag

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
1,771
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?

Maybe in the Lamarickian sense it's that they occupied the same narrow environment for so long without reproducing with others from environments different enough to influence a phenotypic difference. It is interesting to think about and I get what you mean about the inuits, I think you can kind of see the same thing in different island peoples where they've lived on the island for a very long time
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom