[Mike Waller]

Halucigenia, on 6 February 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

...self-elimination starts to pay bigger evolutionary dividends [to the genes] than does [the individuals] continued existence.By george, I think you have got it - with the inserted additions.

At last, a kindred spirit!!! It is the genes that define the mechanism that reap the evolutionary reward. Though they, of course, are in competition with rival alleles who operate in precisely the same way, with, as usual, those who do the job most effectively achieving ascendancy. Effectiveness in this case is being not so over-active as to take out too many marginal threats to familial reputations, nor so lax as to allow too many to persist. More generally, I think this the only sensible way of looking at the evolutionary process. Although "we are all gene theorists now", many still seem to have pointless debates on topics such has why sexual reproduction has persisted in that it seemingly halves the chances of any given gene getting through. The only sensible answer is that it had proved a brilliant way for the genes defining sexual reproduction to persist over massive evolutionary timescales. Amongst species that go in for assortative mating, this is achieved by using the organism's own brain to identify the mate most likely, by coupling some of its genes with those of the mate-selector, to carry the sexual selection genes through into future generations. As we know, this is an effective strategy in environments where genetic variability pays big dividends in terms of environmental adaption, including parasitic resistance. In such circumstances asexual reproducers run a much greater risk of being driven to the evolutionary wall by parasites, or whatever, perfectly attuned to their relatively unchanging genetic inheritances. The field is thus left clear for the sexual reproducers.

From this standpoint, we can see that the genes defining the sexual selection mechanism are locked in an unending contest with the genes that define the mechanism I am proposing. The former seeking to get as much high quality information out of a prospective mate's kin as possible before making a mating commitment; the latter continually striving to mask familial weaknesses and secure mating opportunities better than their real adaptive merits would attain. The irony is that both genes are carried by all individuals.

This post has been edited by Mike Waller: 7 February 2012 - 01:13 PM

[questionposter]

Mike Waller, on 7 February 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

At last, a kindred spirit!!! It is the genes that define the mechanism that reap the evolutionary reward. Though they, of course, are in competition with rival alleles who operate in precisely the same way, with, as usual, those who do the job most effectively achieving ascendancy. Effectiveness in this case is being not so over-active as to take out too many marginal threats to familial reputations, nor so lax as to allow too many to persist. More generally, I think this the only sensible way of looking at the evolutionary process. Although "we are all gene theorists now", many still seem to have pointless debates on topics such has why sexual reproduction has persisted in that it seemingly halves the chances of any given gene getting through. The only sensible answer is that it had proved a brilliant way for the genes defining sexual reproduction to persist over massive evolutionary timescales. Amongst species that go in for assortative mating, this is achieved by using the organism's own brain to identify the mate most likely, by coupling some of its genes with those of the mate-selector, to carry the sexual selection genes through into future generations. As we know, this is an effective strategy in environments where genetic variability pays big dividends in terms of environmental adaption, including parasitic resistance. In such circumstances asexual reproducers run a much greater risk of being driven to the evolutionary wall by parasites, or whatever, perfectly attuned to their relatively unchanging genetic inheritances. The field is thus left clear for the sexual reproducers.

From this standpoint, we can see that the genes defining the sexual selection mechanism are locked in an unending contest with the genes that define the mechanism I am proposing. The former seeking to get as much high quality information out of a prospective mate's kin as possible before making a mating commitment; the latter continually striving to mask familial weaknesses and secure mating opportunities better than their real adaptive merits would attain. The irony is that both genes are carried by all individuals.

Are you just not reading my posts? I already said the mechanisms are subject to evolution, but there is little evidence to support that consciousness itself has much to do with that. The mechanisms that cause compulsions can mutate, thus leading to different higher and lower probabilities of different actions, that's what your describing, not what consciousness is. Even at this point though it's still muddy. Why do you think after 3.8 billion years that organisms can still want to commit suicide?

This post has been edited by questionposter: 7 February 2012 - 01:24 PM

[Halucigenia]

Mike Waller, on 7 February 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

At last, a kindred spirit!!!

Uh oh, I thought it might be a mistake to interject in this thread.

Quote

It is the genes that define the mechanism that reap the evolutionary reward.

Quite, that’s why the selfish gene is such a good metaphor.

Quote

Though they, of course, are in competition with rival alleles who operate in precisely the same way, with, as usual, those who do the job most effectively achieving ascendancy.

Competition can be certainly said to exist between rival alleles when taken metaphorically, and yes, selfish genes compete with other selfish genes, however, they also can be said to co-operate (and still be thought of as selfish) if the outcome is their mutual replication. Obviously mutual replication cannot be said to be the case between alleles though.

Quote

Effectiveness in this case is being not so over-active as to take out too many marginal threats to familial reputations, nor so lax as to allow too many to persist.

I’m not sure if I understand that sentence, you make it sound like some kind of gangster war but think that you may be taking the metaphor too literally.

Quote

More generally, I think this the only sensible way of looking at the evolutionary process. Although "we are all gene theorists now", many still seem to have pointless debates on topics such has why sexual selection has persisted in that it seemingly halves the chances of any given gene getting through. The only sensible answer is that it had proved a brilliant way for the genes defining sexual selection to persist over massive evolutionary timescales. Amongst species that go in for assortative mating, this is achieved by using the organism's own brain to identify the mate most likely, by coupling some of its genes with those of the mate-selector, to carry the sexual selection genes through into future generations. As we know, this is an effective strategy in environments where genetic variability pays big dividends in terms of environmental adaption, including parasitic resistance. In such circumstances asexual reproducers run a much greater risk of being driven to the evolutionary wall by parasites, or whatever, perfectly attuned to their relatively unchanging genetic inheritances. The field is thus left clear for the sexual selectors.

Again, I’m not sure if I understand that, but it sounds like you are conflating the evolutionary benefits of becoming a sexually reproducing organism and the potential evolutionary cost of doing so with the evolutionary mechanism of sexual selection there. Obviously sexual selection is only possible in sexually reproducing organisms, however, sexual selection itself maximizes the chances of sexually selected genes being replicated rather than halving the chances of any given gene getting through. The “twofold cost of sex” which I think that you could be alluding to relates to the evolution of two sexes in sexual reproduction only one of which bears young not the action of the mechanism of sexual selection.
Or maybe you allude to the fact that only half of an individuals genes get replicated to the next generation? But that is not a problem when one considers it from the selfish genes point of view - that it is the genes in the gene pool that are being replicated and that they have no concern for which individual vehicles that they find themselves in as long as that individual is capable of reproducing and passing them on to the next generation. As long as they are frequent in the gene pool it matters not, to them, the genes, whether only half of an individuals genes get passed on to the next generation as copies exist in more than one individual in the gene pool.

You could think of sexual selection as being an aberration of natural selection in sexually reproducing organisms allowing evolution to be directed along pathways unavailable to asexually reproducing organisms though. Also that this can be exploited by those selfish genes promoting traits that would not necessarily be of benefit to the organism’s survival otherwise e.g. the notorious peacock’s tail. Is that something like what you are getting at?

Quote

From this standpoint, we can see that the genes defining the sexual selection mechanism are locked in an unending contest with the genes that define the mechanism I am proposing. The former seeking to get as much high quality information out of a prospective mates kin as possible before making a mating commitment; the latter continually striving to mask familial weaknesses adn secure mating opportunities better than their real adaptive merits would attain. The irony is that both genes are carried by all individuals.

After skimming your previous posts I am still not quite sure what this “mechanism that you are proposing” actually is. “Sexual selection genes”, “the genes defining the sexual selection mechanism” and “striving to mask familial weaknesses” are unusual choices of words but I can only guess that you are alluding to the fact that not only the genes for sexually attractive traits are being selected and passed on but also genes that promote the behavior that selects those traits are also being selected and passed on in a kind of positive feedback loop. However, natural selection for organisms that are not for example so outlandishly ornamented by sexually selected traits that they are less able to survive and pass those and other genes on is the obvious curtailer of this feedback loop. So I suppose that this is what you are getting at by the above paragraph, it’s quite hard to tell by your strange usage of words though.

All I was actually commenting on was the fact that self elimination by whatever means, and the apparent altruism that this may imply, is possible because self-elimination can start to pay bigger evolutionary dividends to the genes in a given population’s gene pool by giving them a greater chance of being replicated than does the individuals continued existence is exactly what is explained by an understanding of the metaphor of the selfish gene. So, you were on the right track there. But trying to unpick your response to that comment has been an entertaining intellectual interlude, so thanks for that at least.

[questionposter]

Halucigenia, on 7 February 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

After skimming your previous posts I am still not quite sure what this "mechanism that you are proposing" actually is. "Sexual selection genes", "the genes defining the sexual selection mechanism" and "striving to mask familial weaknesses" are unusual choices of words but I can only guess that you are alluding to the fact that not only the genes for sexually attractive traits are being selected and passed on but also genes that promote the behavior that selects those traits are also being selected and passed on in a kind of positive feedback loop. However, natural selection for organisms that are not for example so outlandishly ornamented by sexually selected traits that they are less able to survive and pass those and other genes on is the obvious curtailer of this feedback loop. So I suppose that this is what you are getting at by the above paragraph, it's quite hard to tell by your strange usage of words though.

I think what he is saying is that there isn't actually consciousness, that it's just a bunch of fancy mechanisms somehow formulating thoughts and only mechanisms that create good thoughts will survive.
I can agree that mechanisms such as the ones that cause compulsions perceived by consciousness and mechanisms that create chemicals for emotions can themselves be effected by evolution, but there is little evidence to suggest that your subconscious itself actually "thinks". It's more of just a boiling pot of millions of different signals that are almost randomly generated, some with more strength than others, it's actually a lot more complex than he is giving it credit or that I was giving it credit for. And then, he takes this a step further by saying on the organisms with the "best thoughts" survive, which to me still doesn't make sense, as you can't even determine if a thought will actually end up getting you killed or not. Perhaps compulsions such as depression are caused by mechanisms and he's saying people which those mechanisms will just die out, but if they are here after 3.8 billion years of evolution they probably actually help in some circumstances, which just does to show that you can't determine if a thought will actually lead to something good or bad anyway seeing as how something that would be as *seemingly self-destructive as depression is still around.

This post has been edited by questionposter: 7 February 2012 - 10:08 PM

[Mike Waller]

[quote name='Halucigenia' timestamp='1328638528' post='656707']
Uh oh, I thought it might be a mistake to interject in this thread. Quite, that's why the selfish gene is such a good metaphor.

Mike's reply:

Two opening points: I confirm that I, too, although recognising that genes are in fact mindless specks of DNA, nonetheless find it extremely helpful to envision them as being selfishly obsessed by their individual replication. I also affirm that where characteristics defined by two separate genes act to complement each other when expressed in an organism, the genes can, again, metaphorically, be seen as cooperating to mutual benefit. However, to use a sporting analogy, that cooperation is as conditional as it is between players in a professional sports team: if Player A is dropped because Substitute (= rival allele) B is deemed better, Player C will cooperate just as enthusiastically with the replacement as he did with the original. With both the player and the gene, the sole driver is a wish to be in a side/organism that's winning. Thus even cooperation is selfish.

As for language, my interests spread very widely and include creative writing. Sadly, therefore, I lack the polished patois of the specialised genetic theorist. I hope I will be forgiven!

Regarding sexual selection, I still think that had it a choice and could control its own environment – which patently it does not and cannot – a rank and file selfish gene would elect for the certainties of asexual reproduction in a very stable environment rather than the lottery of sexual reproduction in an unstable one.The one exception to this would be the genes involved in defining every facet of the processes of sexual selection who would be put out of business were a species to revert.

That said, both sexual reproduction and consciousnessare very much side issues to the debate I have sought to initiate and, although having introduced them myself, I would now sooner put them to one side or deal with them as separate topics if anyone is interested in setting this up.

As the heading "Selfish genes and self-destructive behaviours" makes clear, my interest here is in trying to explain what has been described as one of the thorniest of the outstanding evolutionary puzzles:

"Why has natural selection equipped us with biological and psychological mechanisms which are capable of increasing our susceptibility to diseases that make us likely to die prematurely." ("The Sickening Mind", PaulMartin, 1997, p.306). [In the US, it's "The Healing Mind", vive la difference!!!].

The psychological component of the processes to which Martin refers is major depressive illness , of which he says this:

"The sheer universality of depression – or, at least,the capacity to become depressed – suggests that its underlying biological mechanisms are a basic feature of human nature. So why has natural selection equipped us with the capacity for something as disabling as depression?" p.304.

The biological component to which he refers, is the now overwhelming evidence – detailed in his book and my paper – that depression is the royal road to a whole slew of physical ills that would have taken individuals in the natural world very rapidly out of the picture (sorry!).

The easiest way of comprehending the answer I am offering is to put "Family stigma, sexual selection and the evolutionary origins of severe depression's physiological consequences" into Google and then read my recently published paper which has passed through the peer review process.

Suffice it to say here that I have come to believe that the answer to Martin's question lies in the process of sexual selection. If, as stock-breeders and insurance companies definitely do, individuals selecting sexual partners (not just humans) use family members as a valuable guide to a potential mate's underlying genetic worth, what is routinely called "the genetic arms race", would call for a counter-strategy. And in the ruthless world of naturalselection, the most effective strategy would be to eliminate any individual whose own gene through-put was likely to be significantly exceeded by the qualitative and quantitative negative impact he or she is likely to have on the aggregated gene through-putof close kin, merely by existing.

Using siblicide or infanticide in the context of an individual who – for all its limitations – had evolved to fight like hell for its continued existence would be a very risky strategy as it might well severely damage kin in defending itself. The obvious solution – or so it seems to me –is the use of depression, to employ a very colourful (sorry!!) analogy, as a stun gun. Once the gene-based linkage between that and the host of physiological consequences Martin details (many of which are also to be found in my paper) was made, from the point of view of natural selection and inclusive fitness, it was all plain sailing (sorry, again!).

I fully acknowledge that the implications are appalling, but with major depressive episodes already high up the World Health Organisation's list of diseases causing most impairment to human existence and rising higher,I believe that it better that we understand what is going on.

This post has been edited by Mike Waller: 8 February 2012 - 12:47 PM

[questionposter]

Mike Waller, on 8 February 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

Two opening points: I confirm that I, too, although recognising that genes are in fact mindless specks of DNA, nonetheless find it extremely helpful to envision them as being selfishly obsessed by their individual replication.

Yep, there's the problem. It doesn't matter if your in the habit of saying you "like" to think genes act that way, because they don't, they don't think, they don't have to do any particular thing, they just exist. Some genes just happen to generate mechanisms that have a higher probability of getting passed on in that's about it, there's no real limitation, just that there may not be a suitable environment at the time. Genes themselves aren't competing, your subconscious isn't competing, it's just mechanisms and switches. Your subconscious doesn't get angry, it simply releases to hormone for anger in response to certain signals getting processed in your brain and then you perceive the information as anger. If everything was mapped put by genes themselves, psychologists would be geneticists instead.

This post has been edited by questionposter: 8 February 2012 - 01:18 PM

[Mike Waller]

In an attempt to stimulate more debate, I make the following claim which is of relevance only to those who, as I do, believe that the metaphorof the selfish gene offers the best available way of understanding why we and all other life forms come to be as we are.

Both here and in my paper "Family stigma, sexual selection and the evolutionary origins of severe depression's physiological consequences", I have contended that major depressive episodes reduce life-expectancy in the many ways they are now known to do because of a lethal interaction between mate selection pressures and those of inclusive fitness, acted out in the contest of the phenotype/genotype disparity. By this I mean that as individuals only express some part of their genetic inheritance, observation of a prospective mate's close kin offers the best chance of identifying the adaptive quality of those genes currently unexpressed but which are still likely to be transmitted to young. Against such a background and in a naturalistic setting, a mechanism which moved from sustained negative feedback with regard to performance, on to chronic depression and thence to an early death would be a very unpleasant, but evolutionarily effective, means of eliminating family members who, by performing well below the average for the family, would others inflict severe reputational damage on their siblings and other close relatives. In accordance with the postulates of selfish gene theory, the sole evolutionary beneficiaries of such a process would be the genes which defined the mechanism.

It seems to me that to those who accept selfish gene theory, there are only two possibilities with this idea. Either it is fatally flawed in terms of that evolutionary logic, or it offers one of the most profound insights into the human condition yet to emerge.

Regarding the former, if it is so, it would seem kindest were I to be relieved of my misconceptions as soon as possible. As I have indicated, I do have many otherinterests which, if I am mistaken in this, could be more profitably explored.

If, on the other hand, my logic is as compelling as it seems to me, is it not of considerable importance that we would at last have a clear insight into the reasons why we seem so hag-driven to trash the planet as each individual strives to secure the physical evidence of comparative success, an endless struggle which results in so many living out their lives under life-destroying clouds of depression? If, as I am claiming, we are all born with a life or death need to secure the approval of others, is it any wonder that so many of us do scrabble so intently for the trappings of success? Similarly, with the approval of others so crucial to our self-esteem, is it surprising that, when we buttress this fundamental requirement with pride in country, we are prepared to be organised to die and kill by the many millions, as the twentieth century all too clearly demonstrated?

On a more prosaic scale, cannot we suddenly see the underlying potency of advertising tag-lines such as "because you're worth it" and the enticing invitation to be "the only kid on your block with......" Does not the idea also explain Freud's conviction that thereis a death instinct, Thanatos, standing in opposition to the procreative urge; and in the world of literature, Victor Hugo assertion that "Man lives by affirmation even more than he does by bread";and Cervantes having given Sancho Panza these lines, over 400 hundred years ago:

"Ah, don't die, Master, but take my advice and live many years; for the foolishest thing a man can do in this life is to let himself die without rhyme or reason, without anybody killing him, or any hands but melancholy's making an end of him"?

Comments please.

This post has been edited by Mike Waller: 12 February 2012 - 03:55 PM

[questionposter]

Mike Waller, on 12 February 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

In an attempt to stimulate more debate, I make the following claim which is of relevance only to those who, as I do, believe that the metaphorof the selfish gene offers the best available way of understanding why we and all other life forms come to be as we are.

Both here and in my paper "Family stigma, sexual selection and the evolutionary origins of severe depression's physiological consequences", I have contended that major depressive episodes reduce life-expectancy in the many ways they are now known to do because of a lethal interaction between mate selection pressures and those of inclusive fitness, acted out in the contest of the phenotype/genotype disparity. By this I mean that as individuals only express some part of their genetic inheritance, observation of a prospective mate's close kin offers the best chance of identifying the adaptive quality of those genes currently unexpressed but which are still likely to be transmitted to young. Against such a background and in a naturalistic setting, a mechanism which moved from sustained negative feedback with regard to performance, on to chronic depression and thence to an early death would be a very unpleasant, but evolutionarily effective, means of eliminating family members who, by performing well below the average for the family, would others inflict severe reputational damage on their siblings and other close relatives. In accordance with the postulates of selfish gene theory, the sole evolutionary beneficiaries of such a process would be the genes which defined the mechanism.

It seems to me that to those who accept selfish gene theory, there are only two possibilities with this idea. Either it is fatally flawed in terms of that evolutionary logic, or it offers one of the most profound insights into the human condition yet to emerge.

Regarding the former, if it is so, it would seem kindest were I to be relieved of my misconceptions as soon as possible. As I have indicated, I do have many otherinterests which, if I am mistaken in this, could be more profitably explored.

If, on the other hand, my logic is as compelling as it seems to me, is it not of considerable importance that we would at last have a clear insight into the reasons why we seem so hag-driven to trash the planet as each individual strives to secure the physical evidence of comparative success, an endless struggle which results in so many living out their lives under life-destroying clouds of depression? If, as I am claiming, we are all born with a life or death need to secure the approval of others, is it any wonder that so many of us do scrabble so intently for the trappings of success? Similarly, with the approval of others so crucial to our self-esteem, is it surprising that, when we buttress this fundamental requirement with pride in country, we are prepared to be organised to die and kill by the many millions, as the twentieth century all too clearly demonstrated?

On a more prosaic scale, cannot we suddenly see the underlying potency of advertising tag-lines such as "because you're worth it" and the enticing invitation to be "the only kid on your block with......" Does not the idea also explain Freud's conviction that thereis a death instinct, Thanatos, standing in opposition to the procreative urge; and in the world of literature, Victor Hugo assertion that "Man lives by affirmation even more than he does by bread";and Cervantes having given Sancho Panza these lines, over 400 hundred years ago:

"Ah, don't die, Master, but take my advice and live many years; for the foolishest thing a man can do in this life is to let himself die without rhyme or reason, without anybody killing him, or any hands but melancholy's making an end of him"?

Comments please.

As someone who can see mechanisms effecting how decisions are made from a conscious 3rd-person-view, and as I have tried to convey before, it's not so simple. My best guess is that because you have been following this pattern of thinking for 30 years as you have stated yourself, your mind is so use to generalizing information along the premises of those "guidelines" or ideas that it would take more energy for you to be more open-minded and not let those subconsciousness mechanisms generalize information like that, and since this is only a forum you probably won't take putting work into that seriously which is likely why this debate as kept as long as it has. I know how evolution works, and what your saying is true in some ways and certainly evolution can play a role in emotions and effecting thoughts, but not every aspect of what your saying is true. It isn't that simple, and that's why even after hundreds of years we still don't really understand everything even about a single thing that is life.

This post has been edited by questionposter: 13 February 2012 - 02:45 AM

[Mike Waller]

If you click on the following web address you will find a blog from the BBC's Home Editor with the title "Friends are a matter of life and death". It arises out a recent remark by a UK Government adviser that "Loneliness is probably more dangerous to our health in retirement than smoking". This, in turn, arose from a meta-analysis carried out by academics at Brigham Young University and the University of North Carolina.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16989689

This post has been edited by Mike Waller: 13 February 2012 - 10:19 AM

[questionposter]

Mike Waller, on 13 February 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

If you click on the following web address you will find a blog from the BBC's Home Editor with the title "Friends are a matter of life and death". It arises out a recent remark by a UK Government adviser that "Loneliness is probably more dangerous to our health in retirement than smoking". This, in turn, arose from a meta-analysis carried out by academics at Brigham Young University and the University of North Carolina.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16989689

Yeah, I know all about those types of articles, but honestly there is no direct connection, your subconscious can't actually reason or think. We don't even have evidence that what it's actually doing is even math. What happens is you have subconscious actions that people don't have a real reason to not act on, and people just try to think up of whatever reason try to fit for them existing completely ignoring the fact that your subconscious can't even reason like that.
It could be like "why do we have fingers?" and there would be someone saying "we have fingers because our DNA thought it would be good to have, and that has survived", which is only half right. We don't have fingers because our DNA or ANY mechanisms thinks anything, we have them because they just happened to what what's coded inside DNA and that DNA happened to make it after all this time.
The way it works isn't "we have friends so our DNA thinks its a good idea", its "There are genes that happened to code for mechanisms in the brain which implore social interaction, and those social interactions happened to be good for bringing us together, and because we are working together we have a better chance of surviving". It's not a direct correlation between subconscious reactions, its just a logically working thing that it would help us survive. The genes don't exist for any real reason other than that they lead to things that have a high probability of surviving, not because they actually "think". It doesn't matter if you'd like to think they think, they don't think or at least there's no evidence to support they think. People can still choose to not be social even if they are naturally social, and according to that article they just won't have as high of a probability of surviving probably because there won't be anyone around to help them if they are in danger, that's it, no cynical no not cynical.

This post has been edited by questionposter: 13 February 2012 - 02:02 PM

[Mike Waller]

Reversal of Fortune
A poor man, oppressed by life, seeking to hang himself,
Climbs to fix the noose. Seeing, hid high upon a shelf,
A bag of gold, he leaves rejoicing. Finding it not there,
The owner then takes up the rope and dies in black despair.
Thus the human mind, when sent reeling by some blow, Seems somehow constrained to quickly end the show.


The above is my reworking of a short poem said by the original translator to have been based on an epigram composed in Ancient Greece. If so, it is another example of the timelessness of the phenomenon which I have sought to make compatible with the genetic theory of evolution. At risk of boring those who have followed this topic, I restate my solution as follows:

1. For species whose method of reproduction includes careful selection of mates, the fact that prospective partners only express half the genes they carry presents a serious problem in gauging their true adaptive worth.

2. An obvious way round this is to use close kin as a guide to those hidden genes. It works for stockbreeders, it works for insurance companies, and when we look, we usually find that natural selection has long preceded us.

3.As natural selection can be viewed as an endless series of strategies and counter-strategies, the use of kin as a guide to true adaptive worth will almost certainly have favoured the emergence of a counter-strategy.

4. In this context the most probable counter-strategy would be the self-elimination of individuals whose performance was sufficiently poor in relation to close kin as to do them reputational damage in the context of mate selection that will have quantitative and qualitative reproductive consequences far in excess of the likely genetic throughput of the under-performing individual.

5. The most likely way of bringing this about would be for the usual processes of natural selection to progressively forge a link between a sense of failure (as induced by the reactions of significant others) to low mood, and then a further link between low mood and the range of dire physiological consequences we know now it to have.

This rational is either fatally flawed or one of the most important insights yet achieved in seeking to understand the human condition. I should much appreciate hearing from anyone competent to judge.

This post has been edited by Mike Waller: 20 February 2012 - 10:49 AM

[questionposter]

Mike Waller, on 20 February 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

Reversal of Fortune
A poor man, oppressed by life, seeking to hang himself,
Climbs to fix the noose. Seeing, hid high upon a shelf,
A bag of gold, he leaves rejoicing. Finding it not there,
The owner then takes up the rope and dies in black despair.
Thus the human mind, when sent reeling by some blow, Seems somehow constrained to quickly end the show.


The above is my reworking of a short poem said by the original translator to have been based on an epigram composed in Ancient Greece. If so, it is another example of the timelessness of the phenomenon which I have sought to make compatible with the genetic theory of evolution. At risk of boring those who have followed this topic, I restate my solution as follows:

1. For species whose method of reproduction includes careful selection of mates, the fact that prospective partners only express half the genes they carry presents a serious problem in gauging their true adaptive worth.

2. An obvious way round this is to use close kin as a guide to those hidden genes. It works for stockbreeders, it works for insurance companies, and when we look, we usually find that natural selection has long preceded us.

3.As natural selection can be viewed as an endless series of strategies and counter-strategies, the use of kin as a guide to true adaptive worth will almost certainly have favoured the emergence of a counter-strategy.

4. In this context the most probable counter-strategy would be the self-elimination of individuals whose performance was sufficiently poor in relation to close kin as to do them reputational damage in the context of mate selection that will have quantitative and qualitative reproductive consequences far in excess of the likely genetic throughput of the under-performing individual.

5. The most likely way of bringing this about would be for the usual processes of natural selection to progressively forge a link between a sense of failure (as induced by the reactions of significant others) to low mood, and then a further link between low mood and the range of dire physiological consequences we know now it to have.

This rational is either fatally flawed or one of the most important insights yet achieved in seeking to understand the human condition. I should much appreciate hearing from anyone competent to judge.

The notion that everything happens because mechanisms determine what happens is the religion of determinism, and determinism itself doesn't exist in reality. There are plenty of people who might be stuck with things such as mechanisms that produce too much of the chemical that causes depression, but they can fight through it if they want, and its not the only factor. As you have already ignored but I'll try say again anyway, many subconscious mechanisms play a part in evolution, but there is little or no evidence to support that consciousness itself has anything to do with that. So far every scenario you have presented involves centering around processes of subconscious mechanisms. I find the reasoning for why depression is still around without assuming that the genes themselves think based on the information you had given, but there's perfectly healthy people that can still want to commit suicide without actually having done anything wrong relative to their kin, and there still is probably suicidal losers who probably don't, and some who even become successful. Although its helpful to view things working as mechanisms in psychology, especially when people aren't using their heads, everything can't be crammed under that single principal. Not every single thing is some struggle, and why should it be?

This post has been edited by questionposter: 20 February 2012 - 01:35 PM

[Mike Waller]

questionposter, on 20 February 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

The notion that everything happens because mechanisms determine what happens is the religion of determinism, and determinism itself doesn't exist in reality. There are plenty of people who might be stuck with things such as mechanisms that produce too much of the chemical that causes depression, but they can fight through it if they want, and its not the only factor. As you have already ignored but I'll try say again anyway, many subconscious mechanisms play a part in evolution, but there is little or no evidence to support that consciousness itself has anything to do with that. So far every scenario you have presented involves centering around processes of subconscious mechanisms. I find the reasoning for why depression is still around without assuming that the genes themselves think based on the information you had given, but there's perfectly healthy people that can still want to commit suicide without actually having done anything wrong relative to their kin, and there still is probably suicidal losers who probably don't, and some who even become successful. Although its helpful to view things working as mechanisms in psychology, especially when people aren't using their heads, everything can't be crammed under that single principal. Not every single thing is some struggle, and why should it be?

When the US 8^th Airforce deployed to England and started their air campaign against Germany, they suffered far heavier losses than had been expected. As many of these arose from fighter attacks, some bright spark came up with the idea of using the bomber force to destroy the factories that built fighters or made their components. The result was even heavier losses because, understandably, the Germans had anticipated such attacks and established a lethal combination of flack and fighter defences around such facilities. Summing up this disastrous new strategy, one commentator said that it was an attempt to resolve a very difficult problem (dealing with the fighters) by tackling an impossible one.

What has this to do with the present topic? My feeling is that I have successfully dealt with a very difficult problem in that, after decades of effort, I have come up with an explanation for the evolutionary persistence of depression and it its physiological consequences that fully accords with the genetic theory of evolution, itself, in my opinion, the only fully coherent explanation for the evolutionary process currently available. My difficult is that considerations of good manners are now confronting me with an impossible task: that of explaining my ideas in terms of Questionposters world view, something which remains as impenetratable to me now as it did when he or she first joined the debate. If there are those out there who can act as intermediaries, I should welcome their assistance. Otherwise, as I have previously suggested, I feel that QP and I shall simply have to agree to differ.

I also have a more general point to make. I have proposed that people (and other organisms) can be led to act other than in accordance with their personal evolutionary interests by considerations of family reputation. This should not be taken to imply that such considerations are at the forefront of their minds when they so act. As long as what they do has the effect of protecting family reputation, their proximate motivation could be as simple as a burning conviction that what they are doing is somehow "right".

This post has been edited by Mike Waller: 24 February 2012 - 03:43 PM

[questionposter]

Mike Waller, on 24 February 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

When the US 8^th Airforce deployed to England and started their air campaign against Germany, they suffered far heavier losses than had been expected. As many of these arose from fighter attacks, some bright spark came up with the idea of using the bomber force to destroy the factories that built fighters or made their components. The result was even heavier losses because, understandably, the Germans had anticipated such attacks and established a lethal combination of flack and fighter defences around such facilities. Summing up this disastrous new strategy, one commentator said that it was an attempt to resolve a very difficult problem (dealing with the fighters) by tackling an impossible one.

What has this to do with the present topic? My feeling is that I have successfully dealt with a very difficult problem in that, after decades of effort, I have come up with an explanation for the evolutionary persistence of depression and it its physiological consequences that fully accords with the genetic theory of evolution, itself, in my opinion, the only fully coherent explanation for the evolutionary process currently available. My difficult is that considerations of good manners are now confronting me with an impossible task: that of explaining my ideas in terms of Questionposters world view, something which remains as impenetratable to me now as it did when he or she first joined the debate. If there are those out there who can act as intermediaries, I should welcome their assistance. Otherwise, as I have previously suggested, I feel that QP and I shall simply have to agree to differ.

I also have a more general point to make. I have proposed that people (and other organisms) can be led to act other than in accordance with their personal evolutionary interests by considerations of family reputation. This should not be taken to imply that such considerations are at the forefront of their minds when they so act. As long as what they do has the effect of protecting family reputation, their proximate motivation could be as simple as a burning conviction that what they are doing is somehow "right".

I problem is you aren't reading my posts at all, because mechanisms can be subject to evolution without consciousness having anything to do with that, and I already stated somewhere back that morals are relative, so I don't see why you think I'm making a big fuss with considering them in evolution. I hardly doubt that what your suggesting describes every single action, because honestly people can do things independent of chemical feelings and and recognize when their subconscious mechanisms implore them to do a particular thing, but they don't have to do it. Also, regarding morals, it doesn't even take a genius or any sort of intelligent mechanism to know that getting killed and stolen from is bad for you, and since people don't want that, they support an institution of rules against those actions. Plenty of people can change morals anyway, they can consider something good that use to be bad or vice-versa.
You might have a scenario where someone's brain associates particular objects or actions with fear such as when people become afraid of things for extended periods of time, but even if you are afraid and you don't even have to conquer those fears for any reason, you can consciously do so and by doing it over time your subconscious will adjust to that pattern and gradually not associate the releasing of the chemical that causes fear with a particular object or event. This is evidence to support that in fact your consciousness is a separate entity that is capable of even molding subconsciousness almost at will.
I already said I think some of what your saying is logical, but it's really just not as simple as "your genes think this, so this happens", your genes don't even possess the capability of conscious thought.

This post has been edited by questionposter: 24 February 2012 - 07:04 PM