[ExI] Neutral selection, anyone? was /Re: Really? and EP
dan_ust at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 21 16:25:18 UTC 2009
--- On Tue, 4/21/09, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
> > 2009/4/21 Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>
> >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:45 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com>
> >> snip
> >>> Humans don't need a reason to fight.
> >>> They are the best fighters yet developed by
> >>> Humans fight just for fun. Read the news.
> >> This demonstrates an appalling misunderstanding of
> >> Humans who fought when the net advantage of
> fighting to their genes
> >> (including copies in relatives) was negative did
> not (statistically)
> >> become out ancestors.
> > Please excuse this very basic question, but how do you
> avoid coming to
> > conclusions in EP about behaviours that don't have a
> heritable basis?
> > Or do you simply assume that there aren't any such
> Natural behaviors are observed only in organisms.
> These organisms
> exist because of genes which are the elements of
> heredity. Underlying
> meme based behavior is a genetic layer for learning (being
> with) memes. Basic evolutionary principles lead to
> the conclusion
> that resistance to damaging or genetically fatal memes will
> For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers#Communal_spiritual_family
> "The Shakers did not believe in procreation . . . "
> I would be most interested in examples of behaviors that
> don't have a
> heritable basis.
But that's a loaded example. I would think some behaviors (surely, not all) are -- like it appears many genes are -- neutral in that they have little or no impact on the survival of the genes. (In fact, I would start off with neutrality as my null hypothesis were I testing EP hypotheses.)
More information about the extropy-chat