Re: Richard Dawkins Question

"Kevin Aylward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> John Edser wrote:
> > RT:-

[snippage]

> > Dawkins political leaning is
> > to the far left. This colours his
> > science and view of nature.
>
> Nonsense. Facts are facts.
>
> >The
> > catchword for the right was "selfishness"
> > but for left it remains, "altruism". Both views
> > are wrong but both have managed to dominate
> > and bias evolutionary theory.
>
> Rubbish. True, selfishness is all one needs to explain
apparent
> altruism.
>
> ********
> Definition - Selfishness - absolute selfishness is doing
whatever is
> necessary to maximize ones own interests, irrespective if
doing so will
> also aid another.
>
> Absolute selfishness does not mean keeping everything to
oneself, as
> this will often result, on many occasions in a net
detriment due to the
> consequences of such action. The term selfishness
automatically includes
> the notion that helping others can, and does often help
oneself with a
> net advantage to that which would have been achieved by
not helping
> others in the long run. Doing something that results in a
net detriment
> simple cannot be referred to as absolute selfishness, if
another better,
> i.e. more advantages to it, i.e. more selfish, option was
available for
> that individual.
>
> Again, to emphases, being truly selfish is doing whatever
maximizes ones
> own interests by definition. If this maximization is only
achievable by
> helping others, then that is what will be done. The point
being that
> helping others is not being done for the purposes of
helping others,
> i.e. altruistic, it is only a side effect of absolute
selfishness.
> Anything that truly results in a net determinate, is not
truly selfish,
> and will eventually be weeded out by the Darwinian
selection process. It
> can't be any other way once replicators exist. "What is
observed mostly,
> is that which replicates the most". Its that simple.

I can't help thinking of the perfect example of this (which
I suppose formally resides in game thy) -- the problem is
how to make two children divide a pie fairly; force the
first child to cut the pie in two parts in the ratio she
likes, but force the second child to be the one who chooses
the first slice of pie. While the first child desires to cut
the pie into the largest and smallest slices to get the
bigest slice, she quickly sees that the optimal solution,
though not the best she'd like, is to divide the pie
equally. This problem however forces a simple known
cost/benefit ratio for the possible actions, whereas the
general evolutionary problem, being a massively
multi-variable one, with mostly fuzzy probabilities for
costs and benefits, is not easily solved except through
trial and error over time, and evolutions resulting survival
of the fittest. By and large though, evolution seems to
generally find the optimal solution (by its own definition
of optimal of course.)    ...tonyC


> *************
>
> Also see
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/altruism.html
>
> from http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/morals.html
> > Nature is only
> > concerned with mutual but not necessarily equal
> > fitness gains.
>
> Mutual help is better for the individual.
>
> >Dawkins, like many Neo
> > Darwinists today, appear obsessed with what
> > they keep _falsely_ claiming are cases of
> > organism fitness altruism documented within
> > nature. Their arguments for this event lack
> > rigor. Their intention seems to be in trying
> > to prove that altruism is a superior ethic and
> > a fact of nature.
>
> I would guess that Dawkins likes to water down the reality
of the fact
> that we are essential, mindless automatons with no soul.
Its a bit of
> PC'ing
>
> http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
>
> >These Neo Darwinian arguments
> > reach height of absurdity when the cost for
> > a mutual fitness gain is labelled, "reciprocal
> > altruism", when it is absolutely nothing of the
> > sort.
>
> Its trivial so show, from the above definition of *truly*
selfish, why
> mutual co-operation, occurs.
> http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/altruism.html
>
> >
> > Dawkins was very quick to see that the common
> > misuse of Hamilton's rule allowed him to argue
> > that selfish genes can cause organism fitness
> > altruism within nature; an excluded Darwinian
> > event. Prior to Hamilton (also a member
> > of the political left), organism fitness
> > altruism could only be explained by group
> > selection; a mostly discredited view.
> >
> > Dawkins is on record in opposing Thatcher's
> > free market economic reforms,
>
> So, what. What has this got to do with his objective
scientific views.
>
> Look, its simply daft to suggest that, in general,
scientist alter their
> facts just to suit their political position, although, oit
may happen on
> a few occasions.
>
> >which today
> > can be proven to have provided the prosperity
> > that the UK now enjoys via market globalisation.
> > It was Regan and Thatcher that wound back
> > Maynard Keynes massive acts of economic group
> > selection that sanctioned enormous economic
> > protectionism and government "pump priming",
> > waste.
> >
> > It is the _unique_ human event of trade that
> > makes humans different from animals yet it
> > is this _cognitive_ process of _mutualisation_
> > that is never discussed within evolutionary
> > theory.
>
> Because standard evolutionary theory does not account for
culture, i.e.
> meme replicants being Replicated. Genes are not
sufficiently broad.
>
> However, a theory can be made, based on Darwinian axioms,
that does
> account for such effects, e.g.
> http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
>
> >This is because evolutionary theory
> > has always been just a political football.
> > Neither the far left or the far right,
> > (which take turns in dominating evolutionary
> > theory) wish to include trade because it
> > places all the action back onto _individuals_
> > using Darwinian logic.
>
> Complete and utter nonsense. Evolutionary theory has
nothing to do with
> politics, although on occasions, politicians may have
tried to back up
> the arguments on misapplication of a scientific theory.
>
>
> >
> > Dawkins is on record as opposing the war with Iraq.
> > so he has poured scorn on the intellectual capacity of
> > George Bush. Dawkins seems to imply that his work in
> > evolutionary theory, which features Hamilton's
> > false logic of selfish geneism, has somehow provided
> > him with some sort of superior insight into the ethics
> > of world events.
>
> Nonsense. Evolution and politics have nothing in common.
>
>
> Kevin Aylward
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.anasoft.co.uk
> SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
> Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
> Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
>
> http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html
>
> "Understanding" itself requires consciousness,
> therefore consciousness cannot be "understood"
> without referring to itself for the explanation,
> therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness,
> is intrinsically unsolvable as it is self referral.
>
>