human sexual selection

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Moderator: MagsJ

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Calrid » Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:32 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Calrid wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:What does that even mean?

It means that everything can be accounted for by the evolutionary theory or human evolution more precisely.

Ie we weren't put here by God 6000 years ago more like our distant unicellular ancestors spawned ~3 billion years ago.

This in no way contradicts what I said about the greatest part of our brain being in the first place a fitness indicator (i.e., as opposed to a tool). So, yes, being wiser and smarter has evolutionary advantages, but not necessarily survival advantages (as you seem to think).


Ok so being able to learn from mistakes and be smarter and hence able to think forward about things confers no survival advantages. That's a pretty moronic idea.
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:40 pm

jonquil wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Calrid wrote:It means that everything can be accounted for by the evolutionary theory or human evolution more precisely.

Ie we weren't put here by God 6000 years ago more like our distant unicellular ancestors spawned ~3 billion years ago.

This in no way contradicts what I said about the greatest part of our brain being in the first place a fitness indicator (i.e., as opposed to a tool). So, yes, being wiser and smarter has evolutionary advantages, but not necessarily survival advantages (as you seem to think).

Ermm... evolutionary advantage IS survival advantage.

Wrong. Sexual selection does not mean that the opposite sex lets you live; it means it lets you mate with them.

I must say it a thousand times: evolution is about the survival of genes (codes), not the survival of organisms.
"In man, creature and creator are united: in man there is matter, fragment, excess, clay, mud, nonsense, chaos; but in man there is also creator, sculptor, hammer-hardness, spectator's-divinity and seventh day:—do you understand this antithesis? And that your compassion is for the 'creature in man', for that which must be formed, broken, forged, torn, burnt, made incandescent, purified,—that which must suffer and shall suffer? And our compassion—do you not grasp whom our reverse compassion is for when it defends itself against your compassion as against the worst of all pamperings and weaknesses?" (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 225. Compare The Will to Power, Kaufmann edition, section 367.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6344
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:43 pm

Calrid wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Calrid wrote:It means that everything can be accounted for by the evolutionary theory or human evolution more precisely.

Ie we weren't put here by God 6000 years ago more like our distant unicellular ancestors spawned ~3 billion years ago.

This in no way contradicts what I said about the greatest part of our brain being in the first place a fitness indicator (i.e., as opposed to a tool). So, yes, being wiser and smarter has evolutionary advantages, but not necessarily survival advantages (as you seem to think).

Ok so being able to learn from mistakes and be smarter and hence able to think forward about things confers no survival advantages. That's a pretty moronic idea.

It may or may not confer survival advantages; it may even confer survival disadvantages. As long as its reproductive advantages are greater than the reproductive disadvantages springing from such survival disadvantages, however, it's still evolutionarily advantageous.

I repeat: check out The Mating Mind (if this seriously interests you).
"In man, creature and creator are united: in man there is matter, fragment, excess, clay, mud, nonsense, chaos; but in man there is also creator, sculptor, hammer-hardness, spectator's-divinity and seventh day:—do you understand this antithesis? And that your compassion is for the 'creature in man', for that which must be formed, broken, forged, torn, burnt, made incandescent, purified,—that which must suffer and shall suffer? And our compassion—do you not grasp whom our reverse compassion is for when it defends itself against your compassion as against the worst of all pamperings and weaknesses?" (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 225. Compare The Will to Power, Kaufmann edition, section 367.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6344
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby jonquil » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:16 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
jonquil wrote:Ermm... evolutionary advantage IS survival advantage.

Wrong. Sexual selection does not mean that the opposite sex lets you live; it means it lets you mate with them.

I must say it a thousand times: evolution is about the survival of genes (codes), not the survival of organisms.


Newsflash, Sauwelios ... if organisms don't survive, they don't reproduce.
User avatar
jonquil
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3487
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Greenest city in the world!

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:48 pm

jonquil wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
jonquil wrote:Ermm... evolutionary advantage IS survival advantage.

Wrong. Sexual selection does not mean that the opposite sex lets you live; it means it lets you mate with them.

I must say it a thousand times: evolution is about the survival of genes (codes), not the survival of organisms.

Newsflash, Sauwelios ... if organisms don't survive, they don't reproduce.

Which means that survival advantage is evolutionary advantage, not that evolutionary advantage is necessarily survival advantage. In evolution, the survival of organisms is only of value as a means to the survival of gene-codes.
"In man, creature and creator are united: in man there is matter, fragment, excess, clay, mud, nonsense, chaos; but in man there is also creator, sculptor, hammer-hardness, spectator's-divinity and seventh day:—do you understand this antithesis? And that your compassion is for the 'creature in man', for that which must be formed, broken, forged, torn, burnt, made incandescent, purified,—that which must suffer and shall suffer? And our compassion—do you not grasp whom our reverse compassion is for when it defends itself against your compassion as against the worst of all pamperings and weaknesses?" (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 225. Compare The Will to Power, Kaufmann edition, section 367.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6344
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Three Times Great » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:51 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Three Times Great wrote:This calling a gene 'selfish' is only a means of capturing the idea that genes are said to "compete" with one another. This isn't competition in the human sense, even calling it competition is an anthropomorphizing. What is going on is that genes are always changing from one generation to the next, according to the effects of reproductive habits of the species of which those genes are a part. Some genes will get selected in reproduction, some will not. And since gene expression leads to protein development and thus the entire host of phenotypic expressions in the organism, it can be said that genes contribute to their own "chances" of being passed on or not into the next generation because genes indirectly affect reproductive behavior of the larger organism. No, genes do not determine this behavior, they are one part in a much larger and more complex process. But of course they do matter.

So we say thay are "competing" because genes that lead to more beneficial developments of the larger organism in terms of successful reproductability will tend, over time, to replace genes that are less successful at this. But at no point is this process directed, meaningful, intentional or willed, it is as mechanistic as the engine in your car, and only (somewhat) less predictable because the genetic system is so immensely complex and as yet not completely mapped and derived.

Genes are not "competing" with each other, and they do not "care" about anything. They are gears in a massive clockwork machine, subject to rules of the game within this machine and within the larger machines that overdetermine the organic machine itself. Talking about these sorts of mechanistic and impersonal processes in human terms can be enlightening, due to the effect of metaphor on the potential for human comprehension, but it also becomes too easy to get lost inside this metaphor, to anthropomorphize an impersonal natural process in a way that reads meaning, purpose, intentionality or "will" into it..

This does not repudiate what I said. The gene is the basic unit of replication and selection in evolution.


Well, as "The gene is the basic unit of replication and selection in evolution" doesn't in any way mean that genes are "selfish", yes it would seem that it does in fact repudiate what you said.. unless you can demonstrate how/why a gene is "selfish".

Or why we can pick it out of the evolutionary organic process as a whole and call it the "basic" component. As I mentioned, and as you chose to ignore and not respond to, focusing on the gene as the basic or primary unit of selective evolution misses the process as a whole. There would be no gene selection without a larger environment, or without the higher organic forms of which genes are a part. Genes are not where selection begins, they are not where selection ends, they do not initiate nor complete the evolutionary process nor does that process hinge any more so on genes themselves than it does on the many complex and deep cellular and higher organic processes of which genes themselves are a part. We could just as easily call protein coding the basic component of evolution, as we could the "genes" themselves.

Calling genes the basic unit of evolution is akin to saying that blueprints are the basic unit of construction, rather than the brick and mortar.. or not even, it is rather like calling the paper on which the blueprint is written the basic unit of construction...
Three Times Great
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:04 am

Three Times Great wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Three Times Great wrote:This calling a gene 'selfish' is only a means of capturing the idea that genes are said to "compete" with one another. This isn't competition in the human sense, even calling it competition is an anthropomorphizing. What is going on is that genes are always changing from one generation to the next, according to the effects of reproductive habits of the species of which those genes are a part. Some genes will get selected in reproduction, some will not. And since gene expression leads to protein development and thus the entire host of phenotypic expressions in the organism, it can be said that genes contribute to their own "chances" of being passed on or not into the next generation because genes indirectly affect reproductive behavior of the larger organism. No, genes do not determine this behavior, they are one part in a much larger and more complex process. But of course they do matter.

So we say thay are "competing" because genes that lead to more beneficial developments of the larger organism in terms of successful reproductability will tend, over time, to replace genes that are less successful at this. But at no point is this process directed, meaningful, intentional or willed, it is as mechanistic as the engine in your car, and only (somewhat) less predictable because the genetic system is so immensely complex and as yet not completely mapped and derived.

Genes are not "competing" with each other, and they do not "care" about anything. They are gears in a massive clockwork machine, subject to rules of the game within this machine and within the larger machines that overdetermine the organic machine itself. Talking about these sorts of mechanistic and impersonal processes in human terms can be enlightening, due to the effect of metaphor on the potential for human comprehension, but it also becomes too easy to get lost inside this metaphor, to anthropomorphize an impersonal natural process in a way that reads meaning, purpose, intentionality or "will" into it..

This does not repudiate what I said. The gene is the basic unit of replication and selection in evolution.

Well, as "The gene is the basic unit of replication and selection in evolution" doesn't in any way mean that genes are "selfish", yes it would seem that it does in fact repudiate what you said.. unless you can demonstrate how/why a gene is "selfish".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene#.22Selfish.22_genes


Or why we can pick it out of the evolutionary organic process as a whole and call it the "basic" component. As I mentioned, and as you chose to ignore and not respond to, focusing on the gene as the basic or primary unit of selective evolution misses the process as a whole. There would be no gene selection without a larger environment, or without the higher organic forms of which genes are a part. Genes are not where selection begins, they are not where selection ends, they do not initiate nor complete the evolutionary process nor does that process hinge any more so on genes themselves than it does on the many complex and deep cellular and higher organic processes of which genes themselves are a part. We could just as easily call protein coding the basic component of evolution, as we could the "genes" themselves.

The bold part is wrong. It's not a matter of indifference.


Calling genes the basic unit of evolution is akin to saying that blueprints are the basic unit of construction, rather than the brick and mortar.. or not even, it is rather like calling the paper on which the blueprint is written the basic unit of construction...

If construction were analogous with evolution, it would be rather be like the former. It's about the genetic code, not the material in which it manifests.
"In man, creature and creator are united: in man there is matter, fragment, excess, clay, mud, nonsense, chaos; but in man there is also creator, sculptor, hammer-hardness, spectator's-divinity and seventh day:—do you understand this antithesis? And that your compassion is for the 'creature in man', for that which must be formed, broken, forged, torn, burnt, made incandescent, purified,—that which must suffer and shall suffer? And our compassion—do you not grasp whom our reverse compassion is for when it defends itself against your compassion as against the worst of all pamperings and weaknesses?" (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 225. Compare The Will to Power, Kaufmann edition, section 367.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6344
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby jonquil » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:14 am

Sauwelios wrote:
jonquil wrote:Newsflash, Sauwelios ... if organisms don't survive, they don't reproduce.

Which means that survival advantage is evolutionary advantage, not that evolutionary advantage is necessarily survival advantage. In evolution, the survival of organisms is only of value as a means to the survival of gene-codes.


You seem to be parroting something you read without doing your own thinking. Gene-codes cannot survive unless organisms first survive long enough to reproduce.
User avatar
jonquil
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3487
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Greenest city in the world!

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Three Times Great » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:23 am

Sauw-

You are incorrect. You cannot reduce the essence of the evolutionary process nor the mechanism of selection to one element of that process. The idea of evolution is incomplete without the likewise idea of that which evolves. Just like the idea of construction is incomplete without the notion of the constructed. Is a machine only its most basic parts? Or is it more, is it all of the parts which are necessary for its functioning? Does its essence not also rest in its higher comprehensive form and the rules of the game that determine its existence, even its coming into existence?

Bottom line, evolution is the notion of consecutive change over time, a continuity of forms. Evolution means that no one form can be fully separated from the lineage of its predecessors. Selection is the notion of the relationship between the organism and its environment, contingent upon the fact that organisms survive to reproduce only when they (sufficiently) successfully navigate the rules of this environment. Genes are part of the process that creates and sustains these organisms. They are not where this process originates, they are not where it terminates, they are not the 'end' of this process, nor even a end.

Have you been reading Dawkins? It does seem that perhaps Dawkins has gotten you confused, you wouldn't be the first..
Three Times Great
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Three Times Great » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:26 am

jonquil wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
jonquil wrote:Newsflash, Sauwelios ... if organisms don't survive, they don't reproduce.

Which means that survival advantage is evolutionary advantage, not that evolutionary advantage is necessarily survival advantage. In evolution, the survival of organisms is only of value as a means to the survival of gene-codes.


You seem to be parroting something you read without doing your own thinking. Gene-codes cannot survive unless organisms first survive long enough to reproduce.


Indeed.

Evolution is not some ontological category or Object or prior existent.. it is just a word we use to grasp the notion of continuous change. That change, that innumerably complex and intricate process has many mutually dependent parts. It is irrational to (attempt to) reduce the entire process to a single element of that process..

"the survival of organisms is only of value as a means to the survival of gene-codes" <- this reveals flawed thinking, and one reason why I suspect you have been getting drunk on too much Dawkins. There are no "ends" or "value" inherent in the process itself. It is purely natural, impersonal, mechanism...
Three Times Great
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: human sexual selection

Postby jonquil » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:28 am

Three Times Great wrote:Evolution is not some ontological category or Object or prior existent.. it is just a word we use to grasp the notion of continuous change. That change, that innumerably complex and intricate process has many mutually dependent parts. It is irrational to (attempt to) reduce the entire process to a single element of that process..


I agree. I like your point that evolution works in a nexus.

To Sauwelios: please don't let your head explode just because others have ideas and pov's that differ from the ones you parrot from your favorite cracked, neonazi, or rightwing authors.
User avatar
jonquil
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3487
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Greenest city in the world!

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:40 am

jonquil wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
jonquil wrote:Newsflash, Sauwelios ... if organisms don't survive, they don't reproduce.

Which means that survival advantage is evolutionary advantage, not that evolutionary advantage is necessarily survival advantage. In evolution, the survival of organisms is only of value as a means to the survival of gene-codes.

You seem to be parroting something you read without doing your own thinking. Gene-codes cannot survive unless organisms first survive long enough to reproduce.

No, you just don't understand. What follows are three (3) different statements:

- "Evolutionary advantage is survival advantage."
- "Survival advantage is evolutionary advantage."
- "Evolutionary advantage = survival advantage."
- "Survival advantage = evolutionary advantage."

And yes, I know that they are four statements..
"In man, creature and creator are united: in man there is matter, fragment, excess, clay, mud, nonsense, chaos; but in man there is also creator, sculptor, hammer-hardness, spectator's-divinity and seventh day:—do you understand this antithesis? And that your compassion is for the 'creature in man', for that which must be formed, broken, forged, torn, burnt, made incandescent, purified,—that which must suffer and shall suffer? And our compassion—do you not grasp whom our reverse compassion is for when it defends itself against your compassion as against the worst of all pamperings and weaknesses?" (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 225. Compare The Will to Power, Kaufmann edition, section 367.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6344
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:48 am

Sauwelios wrote:
Three Times Great wrote:Calling genes the basic unit of evolution is akin to saying that blueprints are the basic unit of construction, rather than the brick and mortar.. or not even, it is rather like calling the paper on which the blueprint is written the basic unit of construction...

If construction were analogous with evolution, it would be rather be like the former. It's about the genetic code, not the material in which it manifests.

What I mean is that, though the "blueprints" must be written on "paper", it does not matter which particular "piece of paper".

Evolution is the evolution of populations. This implies that a population is regarded as a unified whole that persists through time. However, what we're really doing is not looking at the "evolution" of a "population", but looking at which genes ("blueprints") are carried by the "population" at any particular time and then comparing different times in the life of that "population" (really as many populations as there are such different times). Then we see that some genes survive past a certain point whereas others die out at that point.
"In man, creature and creator are united: in man there is matter, fragment, excess, clay, mud, nonsense, chaos; but in man there is also creator, sculptor, hammer-hardness, spectator's-divinity and seventh day:—do you understand this antithesis? And that your compassion is for the 'creature in man', for that which must be formed, broken, forged, torn, burnt, made incandescent, purified,—that which must suffer and shall suffer? And our compassion—do you not grasp whom our reverse compassion is for when it defends itself against your compassion as against the worst of all pamperings and weaknesses?" (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 225. Compare The Will to Power, Kaufmann edition, section 367.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6344
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:53 am

Three Times Great wrote:"the survival of organisms is only of value as a means to the survival of gene-codes" <- this reveals flawed thinking, and one reason why I suspect you have been getting drunk on too much Dawkins. There are no "ends" or "value" inherent in the process itself. It is purely natural, impersonal, mechanism...

There are "ends" and "value", though no ends or value. Note the quotation marks. The "selfishness" of genes is a metaphor, as I've been trying to make clear from the start.
"In man, creature and creator are united: in man there is matter, fragment, excess, clay, mud, nonsense, chaos; but in man there is also creator, sculptor, hammer-hardness, spectator's-divinity and seventh day:—do you understand this antithesis? And that your compassion is for the 'creature in man', for that which must be formed, broken, forged, torn, burnt, made incandescent, purified,—that which must suffer and shall suffer? And our compassion—do you not grasp whom our reverse compassion is for when it defends itself against your compassion as against the worst of all pamperings and weaknesses?" (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 225. Compare The Will to Power, Kaufmann edition, section 367.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6344
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby jonquil » Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:52 am

Sauwelios wrote:
Three Times Great wrote:"the survival of organisms is only of value as a means to the survival of gene-codes" <- this reveals flawed thinking, and one reason why I suspect you have been getting drunk on too much Dawkins. There are no "ends" or "value" inherent in the process itself. It is purely natural, impersonal, mechanism...

There are "ends" and "value", though no ends or value. Note the quotation marks. The "selfishness" of genes is a metaphor, as I've been trying to make clear from the start.

Even as a metaphor, it doesn't work. As for personification, that would be another story.
User avatar
jonquil
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3487
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Greenest city in the world!

Re: human sexual selection

Postby jonquil » Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:53 am

Sauwelios wrote:What follows are three (3) different statements:

- "Evolutionary advantage is survival advantage."
- "Survival advantage is evolutionary advantage."
- "Evolutionary advantage = survival advantage."
- "Survival advantage = evolutionary advantage."

And yes, I know that they are four statements..


And none of them are different, now, are they?
User avatar
jonquil
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3487
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Greenest city in the world!

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:54 am

jonquil wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Three Times Great wrote:"the survival of organisms is only of value as a means to the survival of gene-codes" <- this reveals flawed thinking, and one reason why I suspect you have been getting drunk on too much Dawkins. There are no "ends" or "value" inherent in the process itself. It is purely natural, impersonal, mechanism...

There are "ends" and "value", though no ends or value. Note the quotation marks. The "selfishness" of genes is a metaphor, as I've been trying to make clear from the start.

Even as a metaphor, it doesn't work.

It does.


As for personification, that would be another story.

A personification is a metaphor.
"In man, creature and creator are united: in man there is matter, fragment, excess, clay, mud, nonsense, chaos; but in man there is also creator, sculptor, hammer-hardness, spectator's-divinity and seventh day:—do you understand this antithesis? And that your compassion is for the 'creature in man', for that which must be formed, broken, forged, torn, burnt, made incandescent, purified,—that which must suffer and shall suffer? And our compassion—do you not grasp whom our reverse compassion is for when it defends itself against your compassion as against the worst of all pamperings and weaknesses?" (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 225. Compare The Will to Power, Kaufmann edition, section 367.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6344
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:56 am

jonquil wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:What follows are three (3) different statements:

- "Evolutionary advantage is survival advantage."
- "Survival advantage is evolutionary advantage."
- "Evolutionary advantage = survival advantage."
- "Survival advantage = evolutionary advantage."

And yes, I know that they are four statements..

And none of them are different, now, are they?

Wrong. They are, as I said, three different statements.

- "An animal is a cow."
- "A cow is an animal."
- "An animal = a cow."
- "A cow = an animal."
"In man, creature and creator are united: in man there is matter, fragment, excess, clay, mud, nonsense, chaos; but in man there is also creator, sculptor, hammer-hardness, spectator's-divinity and seventh day:—do you understand this antithesis? And that your compassion is for the 'creature in man', for that which must be formed, broken, forged, torn, burnt, made incandescent, purified,—that which must suffer and shall suffer? And our compassion—do you not grasp whom our reverse compassion is for when it defends itself against your compassion as against the worst of all pamperings and weaknesses?" (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 225. Compare The Will to Power, Kaufmann edition, section 367.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6344
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby jonquil » Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:58 am

Sauwelios wrote:
jonquil wrote:Even as a metaphor, it doesn't work.

It does.


No it doesn't. You would have to consider a gene to be selfish in the light of a figurative comparison which has nothing to do with the gene itself.

Sauwelios wrote:
jonquil wrote:As for personification, that would be another story.

A personification is a metaphor.


Since when? Since you just decided it was just because . . . . You need to look up these terms.
User avatar
jonquil
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3487
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Greenest city in the world!

Re: human sexual selection

Postby jonquil » Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:00 am

Sauwelios wrote:What follows are three (3) different statements:

- "Evolutionary advantage is survival advantage."
- "Survival advantage is evolutionary advantage."
- "Evolutionary advantage = survival advantage."
- "Survival advantage = evolutionary advantage."

And yes, I know that they are four statements..

jonquil wrote:And none of them are different, now, are they?

Sauwelios wrote:Wrong. They are, as I said, three different statements.

- "An animal is a cow."
- "A cow is an animal."
- "An animal = a cow."
- "A cow = an animal."


It doesn't matter anyway. If that's what you want to think, knock yourself out.
User avatar
jonquil
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3487
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Greenest city in the world!

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:22 am

jonquil wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
jonquil wrote:Even as a metaphor, it doesn't work.

It does.

No it doesn't. You would have to consider a gene to be selfish in the light of a figurative comparison which has nothing to do with the gene itself.

Doesn't that go for all metaphors?..


Sauwelios wrote:
jonquil wrote:As for personification, that would be another story.

A personification is a metaphor.

Since when? Since you just decided it was just because . . . . You need to look up these terms.


This is the sense of "personification" that we're talking about here.

Now a meta-phor is a carrying-over of certain qualities from one concept onto some other concept. A personification, then, is a meta-phor of personal qualities from the concept "person" to another concept---for instance, the concept "gene"...
"In man, creature and creator are united: in man there is matter, fragment, excess, clay, mud, nonsense, chaos; but in man there is also creator, sculptor, hammer-hardness, spectator's-divinity and seventh day:—do you understand this antithesis? And that your compassion is for the 'creature in man', for that which must be formed, broken, forged, torn, burnt, made incandescent, purified,—that which must suffer and shall suffer? And our compassion—do you not grasp whom our reverse compassion is for when it defends itself against your compassion as against the worst of all pamperings and weaknesses?" (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 225. Compare The Will to Power, Kaufmann edition, section 367.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6344
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:26 am

jonquil wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:What follows are three (3) different statements:

- "Evolutionary advantage is survival advantage."
- "Survival advantage is evolutionary advantage."
- "Evolutionary advantage = survival advantage."
- "Survival advantage = evolutionary advantage."

And yes, I know that they are four statements..

jonquil wrote:And none of them are different, now, are they?

Sauwelios wrote:Wrong. They are, as I said, three different statements.

- "An animal is a cow."
- "A cow is an animal."
- "An animal = a cow."
- "A cow = an animal."

It doesn't matter anyway. If that's what you want to think, knock yourself out.

It does matter. When you understand this, you can finally understand this earlier post of mine: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2188987#p2188987.
"In man, creature and creator are united: in man there is matter, fragment, excess, clay, mud, nonsense, chaos; but in man there is also creator, sculptor, hammer-hardness, spectator's-divinity and seventh day:—do you understand this antithesis? And that your compassion is for the 'creature in man', for that which must be formed, broken, forged, torn, burnt, made incandescent, purified,—that which must suffer and shall suffer? And our compassion—do you not grasp whom our reverse compassion is for when it defends itself against your compassion as against the worst of all pamperings and weaknesses?" (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 225. Compare The Will to Power, Kaufmann edition, section 367.)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 6344
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Calrid » Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:53 am

Sauwelios wrote:
Ie we weren't put here by God 6000 years ago more like our distant unicellular ancestors spawned ~3 billion years ago.

This in no way contradicts what I said about the greatest part of our brain being in the first place a fitness indicator (i.e., as opposed to a tool). So, yes, being wiser and smarter has evolutionary advantages, but not necessarily survival advantages (as you seem to think).

Ok so being able to learn from mistakes and be smarter and hence able to think forward about things confers no survival advantages. That's a pretty moronic idea.[/quote]
It may or may not confer survival advantages; it may even confer survival disadvantages. As long as its reproductive advantages are greater than the reproductive disadvantages springing from such survival disadvantages, however, it's still evolutionarily advantageous.

I repeat: check out The Mating Mind (if this seriously interests you).[/quote][/QUOTE]

It is for gods sake this is just you trying to exhort something is true despite how ridiculous it is. You're not doing a very good job of selling this book no offence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ ... telligence

Might be disadvantageous in fish yeah ok.

Social brain hypothesis

The model was proposed by Robin Dunbar, who argues that human intelligence did not evolve primarily as a means to solve ecological problems, but rather intelligence evolved as a means of surviving in large and complex social groups. Some of the behaviors associated with living in large groups include reciprocal altruism, deception and coalition formation. These group dynamics relate to Theory of Mind or the ability to understand the thoughts and emotions of others, though Dunbar himself admits in the same book that it is not the flocking itself that causes intelligence to evolve (as shown by ruminants).[4]

Dunbar argues that when the size of a social group increases, the number of different relationships in the group may increase by orders of magnitude. Chimpanzees live in groups of about 50 individuals whereas humans typically have a social circle of about 150 people, which is now referred to as Dunbar's number. According to the social brain hypothesis, when hominids started living in large groups, selection favored greater intelligence. As evidence, Dunbar cites a relationship between neocortex size and group size of various mammals.[4] Howewer, meerkats have far more social relationships than their small brain capacity would suggest.[5] Another hypothesis is that it is actually intelligence that causes social relationships to become more complex, because intelligent individuals are more difficult to learn to know.[6]
[edit] Sexual selection
See also: sexual selection in human evolution

This model is proposed by Geoffrey Miller who argues that human intelligence is unnecessarily sophisticated for the needs of hunter gatherers to survive. He argues that the manifestations of intelligence such as language, music and art are of no utilitarian value to the survival of ancient hominids. Rather, intelligence may have been a fitness indicator. Hominids would have selected for intelligence as a proxy for healthy genes and a positive feedback loop leading runaway sexual selection would have led to the evolution of human intelligence in a relatively short period.[7]
[edit] Ecological dominance-social competition model

A predominant model describing human intelligence's evolution is ecological dominance-social competition (EDSC) [8] explained by Mark V. Flinn, David C. Geary and Carol V. Ward based mainly on work by Richard D. Alexander. According to the model, human intelligence was able to evolve to significant levels due to human domination over its habitat. As a result its primary competition shifted from nature to members or groups of its own species.

Only then humans were "free" to develop more advanced social skills such as communication of concepts through complex language patterns. Since competition had shifted from 'nature' to their own species, it became of relevance to outmaneuver other members of the group seeking leadership or acceptance, by means of more advanced social skills. A more social and communicative person would be more easily naturally selected.

Howewer, modern archaeological research shows that transitional early humans with gradually evolving brains (such as Homo erectus) were not ecologically dominant (indeed, big cats ate them), and they were cooperative rather than competetive, as shown by their care for their sick and disabled, eg. the Dmanisi jaw from Georgia.[9]
[edit] Intelligence as a resistance signal

Human intelligence developed to an extreme level that is not necessarily adaptive in an evolutionary sense. Firstly, larger-headed babies are more difficult to give birth and large brains are costly in terms of nutrient and oxygen requirements.[10] Thus the direct adaptive benefit of human intelligence is questionable at least in modern societies, while it is difficult to study in prehistoric societies. However, alleles coding for even larger human brains are spreading continuously even in modern societies [11][12] This suggests that cleverer humans may gain indirect selective benefits.

A recent study [13] argues that human cleverness is simply selected within the context of sexual selection as an honest signal of genetic resistance against parasites and pathogens. The number of people living with cognitive abilities seriously damaged by childhood infections is high; estimated in hundreds of millions. Even more people live with moderate mental damages, that are not classified as ‘diseases’ by medical standards, who may still be considered as inferior mates by potential sexual partners. Pathogens currently playing a major role in this global challenge against human cognitive capabilities include viral infections like meningitis, protists like Toxoplasma and Plasmodium, and animal parasites like intestinal worms and Schistosomes.[14]

Thus, widespread, virulent, and archaic infections are greatly involved. Given this situation, our sexual preferences for clever partners increase the chance that our descendants will inherit the best resistance alleles. Like some people search for mates based on their (perceived) bodily beauty, height, or social position (e.g. wealth or fame), or psychological traits such as benevolence or confidence; people are just searching for signals of good resistance genes. Intelligence appears to be one of these signals.
[edit] Group Selection and Evolvability

Group selection theory contends that organism characteristics that provide benefits to a group (clan, tribe, or larger population) can evolve despite individual disadvantages such as those cited above. The group benefits of intelligence (including language, the ability to communicate between individuals, the ability to teach others, and other cooperative aspects) have apparent utility in increasing the survival potential of a group.

Intelligence is one of a class of inherited characteristics that depend for their utility on the acquisition of something (in this case, experience or information concerning the outside world) that can be retained indefinitely by an individual but not genetically transmitted to descendents. The ability of an organism to acquire such information and then non-genetically transmit it to descendents that could then benefit from the experience of their parent without having to acquire the experience themselves appears to be a major group advantage and essentially multiplies the intelligence of an individual by allowing progressive group accumulation of experience.

Evolvability, another proposed modification to classical evolution theory suggests a connection between a purposely limited organism life span and the evolution of intelligence. The suggestion is[15] that without a limited life span, the acquired characteristic (experience) would tend to override the inherited characteristic (intelligence). An older and more experienced animal would tend to have an advantage over a younger more intelligent but less experienced animal thus interfering with the evolution of intelligence. This factor is ameliorated by an organism design that limits life span. See Evolution of ageing.
[edit] Nutritional Status

Higher cognitive functioning develops better in an environment with adequate nutrition,[16] and diets deficient in iron, zinc, protein, iodine, B vitamins, omega 3 fatty acids, magnesium and other nutrients can result in lower intelligence[17][18] either in the mother during pregnancy or in the child during development. While these inputs did not have an effect on the evolution of intelligence they do govern its expression. A higher IQ could be a signal that an individual comes from and lives in a physical and social environment where nutrition levels are high, whereas a lower IQ could imply a child (and/or the child's mother) comes from a physical and social environment where nutritional levels are low.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_ ... telligence

These suggest many diverse reasons why human intelligence was sexually and environmentally selected. Its obvious that improvements in technology may well support the development of larger brains it isn't a closed off system evolution is an iterative feed back loop.
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: human sexual selection

Postby MagsJ » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:02 am

This seems to be a heated debate, so please try not to insult the person's beliefs and stick to the discussion at hand - thanks guys.
Examine what is said, not him who speaks.
~Arab Proverb

The Narcissist exists whereby every activity and relationship is defined by the hedonistic need to acquire the symbols of spiritual wealth, this becoming the only expression of rigid, yet covert, social hierarchies. It is a culture where liberalism only exists insofar as it serves a consumer society, and even art, sex and religion lose their liberating power.
User avatar
MagsJ
Triumvirate
 
Posts: 13109
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, England

Re: human sexual selection

Postby Three Times Great » Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:59 am

Magsj when did you start moderating the psychology forum..? I remember (Carleas?) or whoever used to do it not getting quite so bent out of shape over disagreements... one reason I preferred the psych to the phil forum...

Anyways, it is obvious that every human trait is selected, over time, either for or against. That is what selection means, no trait or aspect of the organisms exists independently or in a vacuum. Over time, everything is honed and fine-tuned to where it "needs" to be, that is to say, in such a way that it is the product of that long period of survivability dictated by the relationship between the organisms in question (the individuals personifying "the species") and its environment. Intelligence, brain size or whatever is certainly no exception.

I, for one, find intelligence to be the most sexually attractive traits there is in the opposite sex... that has to say something about human sexual selection (or maybe only about me?) :lol: :P :lol:

(and Sauw, it is still wrong to reify the species over the individual... the species is just an abstraction and does not exist absent the individual generation... the species is not "alive" any more than a DNA nucleotide sequence chain ATAGGACCA, or whatever, is alive. That we classify individuals into species groups does not bear upon what is actually going on in nature, in the diveristy of the biosphere of living organisms... selection takes place on the individual level, and genes propogate over time (their forms), but this does not mean that these forms are "primary" or more important than the individual; it just means that the individual is a product, in part, of the individual who preceded him. I think this focus on species over individual comes from reading too much Dawkins, but thats just me...)
Three Times Great
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users