Evolutionary psychology

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
121

I am for it for various anthropomorphic and even religious reasons, and my interest lies in what appears through Jesus parables relating to quantum physics. Let me begin by saying that Jesus was one of the best psychologists ever on planet earth, way pre-programmed as a prophetic seer , way before Nietzsche could have been succeeded by Wittgenstein.

Let me explain: Going bacwards, from the idea of Wittgenstein of the. family of resemblances, through Nietzche’s demarkation of Hegel’s synthesis and subsequent Kantian notion of the synthetic a-priori, ( leading to Jesus’ antithesis of the Superman) ; -an elemental idea of regressive process can abstracted.

The resemblance idea corresponds to the social equity Jesus implied, where he said that a person has to ‘die now’ and not wait for it to happen when material death happens.

This idea corresponds with the quantum idea of reductive material elements becoming smaller, as we become aware of the reducibility implemented by instrumental requirements brought forth, literally by more technically advanced instruments of analysis.

Similarity becomes overwhelMs the prior differences which initially brought about the conceptual workings of what anthropomorphysm consisted of.

Anthropomorphysn is the idea of material change brought about by a correspondence to a sought after model. The earliest models betook this, as man’s place in the universe appeared uncertain and at a low level of differentiation with animals.

( That is why the many animal fetishes attached to the earliest speciae differentiations between man and animal.

This differentiation was made from the central logos of a human model, a model of man, now in evolving a regressive process on a rate of change that is no longer linear, but hyperbolic .

What happens psychologically speak in is an approach toward a logical contradiction of an antimony, as far as the image of Superman syceeding the idea of similitude is concerned, but the latency inherent in that has to follow from a premirdial conception of logical uncertainty which has no appearance (phenomenological) to sustain the model.

Therefore, similitude as to anthromethodical features break down, even as a contradictory model replaces it albeit with negative aspects.

In fact, s negation of one is followed by a structural decompensation of the other, and neither can sustain a secure model in the middle of such uncertainty.

Evolutionary psychology can no longer be supported either with or without a simulated model of man, man can no longer sustain the idea of correspondence of higher virtues with an antecedent model of man planted within or without his cognitive adaptation.

This is probably why , that simulated autominous affected authority has to step in and control the fate of man, at least to the point that He will be able to assume some stasis that contravenes his insecurity.

Jesus parable then is doubly effective, for his message of dying now, retains added significance within the relative orientation of duration, which is becoming common knowledge .

This progression of imminent duration within which the idea of transcendent reality is borne offers little hope, to offer the kind of retension of the prior state of eternity , as it is, really inconceivable on all except the only level possible: that of magic and the prophetic certainty of it.

The greatest prophets realized this, and their development psychologically speaking , were actually way ahead, by leaps, not waiting for the slow and painfully backward progress of what cognitive development consists of
evolutionary speaking, unless quantum jumps can be somehow factored into that progression.

122

Maybe its not your fault, but when evolution replaced creationism in the 19thC it adotped many of the idioms of speech that creationsists used. And whilst everyday parlance is littered with teleological phrases it is not surprising that this sort of lexicon persists in evolutionary studies.
It can take work to unpack such language from practicioners who often use it thoughtlessly.
This would be fine if such lazy wording did not lead to lazy thinking, and there is no doubt that this lazy thinking is common enough in evolutionary studies to a degree that allows creationists to maintain hope in their creed whilst listening to people like Pinker, Attenborugh, Dawkins and others.
People who propose a teleological pathway for evolution, and those that propose intelligent design, or creationism can simply lift text from these people and spin it out their way with very little effort.

I suppose we ought to forgive irrelleus for the same reason when he castigates me for rejecting teleology, since everything he has read about evolution seem to be teleological.

Since evolution happens in the breach rather than from the barrel, and our we have inhereted archaic language the most simple descriptions can lead to seeming purpose, it can take some tongue twisting semantics to describe correctly what exactly is happening.
I think what so often happens that description tend to say stuff like “The zebra has stripes because…”; “The giraffe has a long neck because…”, but they are simple and obviously wrong. There is no reason FOR any trait. There is reasoning FROM survival as to how a trait persists.
Traits are nor promoted TO AN END. That means that evolution is not teleological.

123

Well, that is very astute of you Sculptor. Darwinian theory doesn’t explain why a neck is long, it only gives one reason for why the long neck would not have faded.

However little you want to acknowledge it, though, the question ‘why did the neck become long’ can, in fact, be asked.

That is because genetic inheritance does present traceable patterns. Necks don’t just arbitrarily appear in any given length. If you simply say ‘mutations’ and call it a day, you are considerably more pathetic than people who stop at ‘because God did it that way,’ who at least imply a reason they don’t inquire further.

A chemical analysis of deoxyribonucleic acid can give some answers, but to call it the only answer would be like trying to explain music theory by analyzing the properties of a tensed string. It can clarify, but it cannot describe. You cannot describe counterpoint in barroque music, for example, by exclusively referring to the physical properties of a tensed string. You would have to cheat, studying a barroque piece and reading the phenomenon back into the string, so that the properties of the string can more be said to be explained by the piece than the other way around.

And I think you didn’t read Dawkins very carefully. He never ascribes teleology. He just takes Darwin further, trying to understand in detail how it is that traits are allowed to remain. An evolutionarily stable strategy, for example, is not a reason something happens, but a more refined explanation of one reason it does not disappear. When he talks about the gene or phenotype as units of selection, he is not saying that natural selection determines their shape, he is just trying to pinpoint exactly what it is that can be said to react, by permanence or disappearance, to the Darwinian pressures of natural selection. As such, it is a little like splitting the atom: you will always find one more thing to split. You are not looking for patterns of change, but factors that limit change. There will always be a residue.

124

I think that’s why he turned to critique of religion. The caricature of religion that exists in his mind presents attainable goals, while the direction he was headed in evolutionary theory, which you failed to understand was an orthodox Darwinian direction, was a bottomless pit with no possible end.

125

Also, this never happened, how naive are you?

Do you really think no one was aware of evolution, of a changing world that doesn’t require an arbitrary artist to manifest, before the XIX century?

This is the problem with modern ‘intellectuals.’ Zero interest in actual history. All myth, all narrative, all politics.

126

Oh hey yo I remember Dawkins pointing out how stupid a particular design in the giraffe seemed. There’s an optic nerve or something that runs way the fuck out of the way down the neck only to turn around and come back up to the brain. Like it goes around his pelvic bone or something.

So creationists, why would G do that? Or does he allow some margin of error and step back with his hands off like the deist clock maker?

And if he does, how can error be called random of he’s got the universe running on natural laws?

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.

127

Maybe for reasons that you cannot understand because you are a puny human.

128

That is correct. The larger sequential patterns of inheritence can be factored into the smaller, sub ordinate chains, as Being can be into the reduced ontologically appearing inferior pre-tense of existence.

This reset is made easier even breaking with antecedent referential ties.

Not that these ties can actually be demonstrated in any other way, the mile stoned thinkers above alluded to, made it happen.(the linkage of the higher sequencing, and it’s inclusion into the lower)

129

Natural selection is counterintuitive. Attempts to make it sound colloquial tend to anthropomorphize it. The first person to do evolutionary psychology was Darwin himself. EP research is thorny. They’re trying to synthesize evolutionary biology with cognitive psychology. There’s a lot of chaff to burn. The only guy that I know of writing EP books that has a teleological hypothesis is Robert Wright. But I didn’t present his hypothesis because I was presenting mainstream theories based on natural selection. Wright knows his hypothesis won’t be accepted by most EPs. I don’t mind discussing the teleology proposition but it isn’t what I was proposing.

130

God’s mysterious ways. Now that’s original.

131

Among the creationists some say it was the demiurge. Others blame it on Sophia. The Kabbalists say the universe cracked early on. And of course let’s not forget the meddling of Satan. I didn’t think creationism was relevant to this thread but, (shrugs)…

132

In other words, “somehow” lifeless matter evolved into living matter here on planet Earth. Creating that part of nature we call us. And assuming that someday we will understand how this resulted in a human brain able to exercise free will in discussing it’s own psychology we will factor in intuition as well.

On the other hand, before there was us? I suspect that nature didn’t select anything at all intuitively. Because that would seem to imply a nature cognizant of what it was doing when this particular random mutation rather than that particular random mutation resulted in matter evolving into us.

In fact that’s one reason we invent God. With God human intuition can be sourced back to an omniscient and omnipotent font. There is a teleological component to existence. It’s Him.

Then it’s only a matter of pinning down whether this God is our God or their God. Or the God of the Deists. Or the Pantheists.

Or a No God teleology those like the Buddha thought up.

Intuitively perhaps.

133

So you’re saying “lifeless matter” evolved into living matter through natural selection? So the environment selected the best adapted lifeless matter? Is that what you are claiming? I can see how once life emerged natural selection could transform living organisms over deep time. But I don’t comprehend how natural selection could transform lifeless matter into a living organism. Do you?

134

I’m living in the real world you fucking idiot

135

That’s what all paranoid delusionals say.

Little bitch.

136

Why has a giraffe such a long neck?
A non teleological way to ask this question should be how is it that giraffe’s necks have grow so long over time?

The example of the giraffe has been a mythical example of how to explain evolution.
The usual reason is often expressed as a competition in reaching the highest leaves on the trees. This “just so story” has been offered to children fo generations. It is wrong.
Observation shows that the giraffe’s most common sustainence is from grazing grass. It is highly uncomfortable for them to graze, and yet that is what they do.
The real story of the long neck is more remarkable. It is all about mating. Male Giraffes use their heads as sledgehammers to one another in competition for females. THe longer the neck the far more momentum the head has to bash other males. This painful and uncomfortable process has led to the unfeasibly long necks. Why, you might ask do emale giraffes also have long necks and you figure out there there is no direction or design here.
Mating is at the very cutting edge of natural selection can can lead to the most bizare forms emerging such as ridiculously large human breasts, which, indicentally have zero extra benefit for milk, but attract the eye of man.
If you are not convinced by thisw take a look at birds of paradise especially the bower bird who constructs an absurd nest or peacocks who have those mad feathers.

youtube.com/watch?v=m9hcvIxASAI

137

Yeah, that’s the same question.

Which natural selection doesn’t answer. As you pointed out, all it says is that certain factors didn’t stop it from growing longer.

Also, if you are going to pretend to nit pick words, nothing actually grew. Some were just born with longer necks.

But we won’t keep doing that, sometimes it’s relevant to point out inexactitudes and some times it is not.

138

That depends on what you include in your own understanding of nature and how far back to want to take it: quora.com/What-is-the-diffe … and-nature

If nature and the universe are interchangeable and revolve around the evolution of matter/energy going back to the Big Bang, then “somehow” [it would seem] mutations occurred in matter that configured it into biological life. And it is generally in discussing biological life on planet Earth that many speak of natural selection. Only, again, unlike with God, nature is not thought to have consciously chosen these mutations. They just happened given the brute facticity of biological matter evolving over time. Some mutations result in making it more likely that a species will survive. But it’s not like nature planned it this way. Even within a species some gain an advantage over others.

Take the saga of the Heike Crabs: youtu.be/dIeYPHCJ1B8

Unless it turns out that going back to a complete understanding of existence itself nature actually did plan it. Then the “Rummy’s Rule” factor.

139

The peacock is interesting because it actually does hurt more than it helps. This realization is what led Dawkins to conclude that it wasn’t the individual peacock being selected for (never mind the species), but the gene for the peacock feathers (to be bluntly inexact).

But, like I said, that just begs the question. So then he went to the phenotype. But that eventually still begs the question.

If your approach to explain change is to point out things that don’t stop it, you will never come up with theories that account for all of the change.

140

The big problem with natural selection, and you won’t like me saying this, is that it kind of evokes a selector. As you said, there is none. But that can easily get shuffled to the back of the mind when you are describing actual hypotheses for some change or another, you say ‘it was selected for by nature because it attracted the female.’ Never mind that that begs the question of why it attracted the female, the whole focus is wrong. Nothing actually selects, nothing gets selected. Things just happen or they don’t.