[ExI] Morality Meme vs.Rationality
hkhenson at rogers.com
Fri Dec 14 16:03:39 UTC 2007
At 10:14 PM 12/13/2007, Stefan wrote:
>I do not see a difference in morality and rationality. My arguments
>are summed up in a paper that you can find here:
If you don't mind me cherry picking a bit.
"Evolution does not have an explicit goal but the implicit goal of evolution to
increase fitness can be derived from the above arguments. From
examining what an
increase in fitness actually constitutes, it can be concluded that an
increase in fitness is
equivalent with an increase in the ability of a unit of information
to ensure its
Organisms are, of course, what is behaving morally, i.e., preserving
information. Formerly this was all genetic information.
"One could then form the hypothesis that that is good what increases
put another way that that is good what increases a unit of
information's ability to ensure
its continued existence."
I notice that you cite Hamilton, but don't give the formula, C < R x B
"Where C is the cost in fitness to the actor, R the genetic
relatedness between the actor and the recipient and B is the fitness
benefit to the recipient. Fitness costs and benefits are measured in
fecundity. His two 1964 papers entitled The Genetical Evolution of
Social Behavior are now widely referenced."
"From the gene's point of view, evolutionary success ultimately
depends on leaving behind the maximum number of copies of itself in
the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population>population. Until 1964
it was generally believed that genes only achieved this by causing
the individual to leave the maximum number of viable offspring
possible. However, in 1964
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.D._Hamilton>W. D. Hamilton showed
that since relatives of an organism are likely to share more genes in
common (not to be confused with "common genes," the opposite of
scarce genes), the gene can also increase its evolutionary success by
promoting the reproduction and survival of these related individuals.
This leads individuals to behave as if maximising their inclusive
fitness rather than their personal fitness."
This is where rational for the individual and rational for the gene
I make the case that this ability to identify with unrelated others
(say in an army unit) is because we evolved in bands where the
average relatedness was high enough that taking a big chance of dying
to defend the band was cost effective from the gene's viewpoint.
From the individual's viewpoint, it's not rational to die to save
others. From the gene's viewpoint it is, if they are relatives and
the number you save in dying times the relatedness is more than
one. This makes the case that brain mechanisms built by genes will,
under particular circumstances, induce people to think and act irrationally.
More information about the extropy-chat