|
Author
|
Topic: Systemic Morality and Moral Agency
|
John 3
Member
Member # 269
|
posted 10. May 2002 01:48
I'm really interested in complexity science. I found a philosophy forum to express my ideas but I dont really have to vocab to describe it.
I posted this theory on how complexity science could lead us to a new way of looking at morality. But I'm not getting much of a response. I was hoping you guys would understand it and even constructivly criticize it. Thanks.
************************************************
John 3
Learner
Posts: 27
Member Since: May 1 2002
Location:
Systemic Morality and Moral Agency
I posted this in the thread "universal good" but I think it deserves its own thread so this is the gist:
"
Trust, peace, toleration, cooperation, compassion, and unity are just a few. With truth these things will follow. I look at morality in terms of agents within a system. Agents of a system compete untill they evolve to a point where they reach a symbiotic cooperation. At that point, the system reaches agency and now competes and evolves in a larger system of similar but different agents. A knife is an agent in the system of the kitchen and is highly trustworthy and loyal in its function. The universe can be broken down into these terms of agents within systems within agents within systems. If the point is to reach agency, then trust, compassion, unity and other things would follow, would they not?
Moral agency is an obligation to oneself and systemic morality is a moral obligation to the whole of the system.
Thereby balancing absolute and relatavistic moralities. You are obligated to be true and trustworthy to the agents of your body by not polluting them and harming them. Our government should bare the same obligation.
But with systemic morality, one is obliged to do a good job and trust in the whole. To treat as you would be treated which comes from moral agency. With complete trust and truth between the agents, a system reaches harmony. The 'body is your temple' metaphor applies here.
"
I'm thinking that relative morality would apply to moral agency. Because everything is unique, everything has its own needs. What is best for you must be apparent.
Also, systemic morality would be a kind of absolute morality (in relation to the agents of the system). So what is best for the whole must also be apparent.
What leads me to these ideas of moraltiy is complexity science. From the beginning of the universe, energy cycles have been coupling into agents of higher (more comfortable) organization. An agent is primarily an energy well. So this structure of morality would apply to the whole universe and not just humans. The point is to achieve agency. That I propose is the direction of evolution and should be ours.
What are the paths to agency?
For a system to achieve a unified agency, the agents within it must deal with eachother in a certain manner. Only if the agents cooperate can the system ever operate optimaly. The primordial universe is one of the strongest determination. Electrons, protons, nuetrons, etc. interact in much more predictable ways than organisms do. Organization is spontaneous and forcefull at this level. These agents react to eachother in many ways, but of those that happen to serve eachother's needs, they will go on to make complex compounds. A crystal would represent this type of agency.
Our definition of life is one that demands an organization of a highly complex order. It must take in energy, use it, reproduce, and a few other things. Surely no accident caused all this. It is more likely that the smallest organism we know of became of a collection of smaller agents that had certain functions. As life becomes more organized, the more complex agents must contend with much greater chaos.
Mammals negotiated with a hightened nueral capacity. Mammals are the most nurturing animals as well. Behavior has developed evolved out of the devices of the universe. While perfection is only relative to the agent (what is best for a mitochondria may not be best for me), there is a direction to all of this. While chaos and competition are elemental, cooperation seems to be the ideal. In our present state of complexity, I believe compassion is needed to reach our agency. An awareness of our system's agency and its dependance on us.
Could certain behaviors be isolated and proven to always be conducive to the agency of a particular system?
Is there a direction to it all?
Comments are more than welcome.
IP: Hidden
05-06-02, 12:21 am
Baron Max
Learner
Posts: 94
Member Since: Apr 1 2002
Location:
John3, I keep reading your post and, at different times, I seem to understand it. But then I read it again and think that maybe I don't understand it.
Can you take some time to reword it in more simplistic terms? I think you may have some good ideas here, but I'm sorta' confused as to the direction of your ideas/theories.
Maybe use only words found in the book "See Spot, See Spot Run" .... you know, simple words that I can understand?
Baron Max
IP: Hidden
05-07-02, 05:11 am
John 3
Learner
Posts: 27
Member Since: May 1 2002
Location:
There are devices by which order manifests its self into the universe. As the universe cools, this order rises in complexity. There is a missing law of thermodynamics not well established yet. Complexity science may provide an answere to entropy. A law that accounts for the diversification of order and punctuated non-equillibrium.
Predetermined constraints on the behavior of matter (like the four forces causing stars) give rise to complex constraints on energy cycles in matter-- like boiling water or the size of a water droplet.
It may be that the complex cell that we have today formed out of a grouping of smaller biochemical reactions of the mitochondria, nucleus, membrane material, and other things (much like the simbiotic relationship we have with that bacteria in our guts). Amino acids can easily form in space clouds and zero-gravity could cause a membrane to form a bubble around a naturaly occuring rna strand. Some say this stuff could rain down on primordial earths everywhere. Its not proven as far as I know, but its fascinating and the best one I've heard yet. Something about the basic cell functions forming in space clouds seems logical.
But how ever organisms came about, there was a transition in the evolution of matter (DNA allows unthinkable diversity of organisms). The agents of the inorganic world are particles, perturbations, waves, stars, planets, bodies of matter, chemical reactions, and even man-made objects. Anything in which an energy cycle is carried is an agent.
Organisms found out quick that it is not your singular perfection alone that will keep your seed alive because the world is changing, but if the reponsability relied on two interpretations of the past (sex--male/female), the future is safer for the seed. Thus, the universe wants to grow and diversify itself so that it can cooperate in more dynamic terms.
Then I think the next transition in the evolution of matter was to the consciousness. I'm just saying that there has been a direction of more meaningfull complexity in the universe's evolution. Agents of greater complexity must navigate greater chaos and evaluate greater complexities.
The agent that constructs a model of the universe and themself inside of their heads can make predictions far into the future but only if the agent's evaluation of reality actually corrasponds with reality.
From a post concerning the value of life:
"
If we value something then it is a priority, it is important, its beneficial, its conducive and wanted among other things. But perhaps the value of an object is merely an attribute of an organization in regards to another interacting organization. Thus, the greater the complexity of the organization, the more respect it should be given. Even if we don't value them personaly, we have no right to destruct organizations of near equall or greater complexity (order), A causer of destruction must be stoped and contained. Then only given attention and compassion. No more pain, no more suffering, no more torture (unless their suffering is incurable).
But we must destruct and construct everyday -- to eat, work, play, spread the news, etc. With each breath you take, you are destroying however many microbial life floating in the air. You cannot avoid destructing at least something (if not yourself).
"
But there must be a goal and that must be agency.
To reach agency, though, there must be limits on what can be destructed. Perhaps morality is when to construct and destruct.
There must be behaviors that are conducive to the agency of any system in the universe. Communication, cooperation, compassion, will-power. Maybe just love. None the less, religion has taught us that a system of morals is highly nessecary. Yet religion used fear to often to enforce its morals. Maybe compexity science may lead us to a system of morality
So what do you guys think?
Are there any questions about the theory in particular because I'm still kind of working out the details in my head. Sorry if it sounds confusing.
Thanks for the help.
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 10. May 2002 09:17
John3:
Thanks for the great post.
I am extremely interested in the problematic you raise---namely, the relation between life, value, agency, and morality. I have already written a lot on Brainstorms about the first 3 topics, and not to bore everyone else, I will be very brief.
I think that we have to make a threefold distinction. First, there is biological agency as such, which is necessarily self-centered. That is, the essence of life is a sui generis dynamical state that uses information to adjust itself to external circumstances so as to preserve itself in existence. This involves a conative component (i.e., the spontaneous striving toward a valued goal state) and a cognitive component (informational triggers that correlate functional actions with the appopriate external conditions---where "appropriate" is cashed out as tending to preserve the dynamical stability of functions considered as nonlinear oscillators).
Second, this model of individual agency has to be combined with a distinct though related dynamics of "social" or affiliative or cooperative behavior. We already see this at the level of bacteria, but it becomes more highly developed the further up the phylogenetic scale we go. The relation between agency and sociality is tricky from a dynamical standpoint, because they can bleed back and forth---a multicellular organism is a society from one point of view, but a single agent from another. Nevertheless, I believe it is a crucial distinction.
Third, I believe that true morality is restricted to human beings, and is based on our language-based, cultural form of sociality which gives us the ability to imagine the perspectives of other agents and feel compassion for them. Without this imaginative component, you just have familial and tribal affection, not true moral feeling. This higher cognitive level of moral feeling inspired by the imagination is what makes it possible for an individual to stand on principle against his own social group (it is what explains a Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Serbs who fought in defense of Sarajevo, etc.).
[ 10 May 2002, 09:25: Message edited by: James A. Barham ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John 3
Member
Member # 269
|
posted 10. May 2002 19:32
Thanks for the insight.
"This involves a conative component (i.e., the spontaneous striving toward a valued goal state) and a cognitive component (informational triggers that correlate functional actions with the appopriate external conditions---where "appropriate" is cashed out as tending to preserve the dynamical stability of functions considered as nonlinear oscillators)."
I dont think I understand that as well as I should but these functional actions could be broken down into two groups right? Those which intend to act for the benefit of the agent and those which intend to benefit other agents -- that may, at a later point, indirectly benefit the acting agent.
Does an agent use both connotative and cognative elements for both these groups behavior?
"The relation between agency and sociality is tricky from a dynamical standpoint, because they can bleed back and forth---a multicellular organism is a society from one point of view, but a single agent from another."
Thats exactly what I'm saying. They all bleed into eachother. Maybe the first entities were finite particles-- but they joined together (cooperatively?) to make more complex systems of entities like molecules. And this scales all the way on up to a Universal agency that a Buddhist monk would talk about.
Morality is a complex issue that evolves with awareness, usually applying to a society level intellegence, right? Certain behaviors are only going to benefit particular systems of agents but many lifeforms may be cooperating based on a functional dependence (chemicals) on the cooperative function. True morality derives from a rational (non-reflexive) decission to do the right thing based on a system of values.
If agency were absolute direction of change, evolution, morality, and the whole universe, it would follow that:
The agent that is aware of the agency of the world, and our dependence on it and eachother, has a moral obligation to respect, trust, and be true to the world and one another. Because lies, hate, disrespect, secrets, mistrust, etc. only hinder the agency of any system.
I also think that to think up lies, hate, disrespect, anger, etc. in ones head is also wrong because those thoughts symbolize our intent. If we say, "man, i'd like to kill that guy." While we dont mean it, saying it will set up a justification for further hatred in the future. The more knowledge, and the more accurate a value system we have, the less we will be hungry, afraid, disrespectfull, and angry (the things that bring out most evil in men).
It would also follow that:
An agent should keep healthy and not hurt itself.
But,
An agent should act independent of its material necessities.
An agent should Love itself.
An agent should respect itself.
An agent should keep learning.
An agent should be productive to itself.
To some-up the systemic imperative based on the above statements:
Do unto others as you would have done onto youself.
Im not sure I understand fully the roles of connotative and cognative functions in agency though?
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 11. May 2002 08:48
On Conative and Cognitive aspects of Function:
The way I see it, there are two sets of problems here. The first set has to do with understanding how true, spontaneous, intrinsic goal-directed behavior works (which is what I mean by "function" and "functionality" and "agency"). The other set of problems has to do with the dynamical relationships that can arise from the interactions among such agents.
I view true functional action as necessarily involving both a conative and a cognitive component. It is not that there are two different things going here, but that the one thing (or, better, process) which we call "functional action" necessarily involves two components that can be conceptually distinguished (but not actually separated).
If cognition is the adjustment of means to ends, then it is obvious that you cannot have cognition without purposive striving. That is a matter of definition. I would also argue that purposive striving also presupposes cognition, because otherwise the success of such striving is inexplicable. In other words, the cognitive component (along the lines I have outlined above) is conceptually necessary to goal-directed action, because otherwise the success of such action would have to be attributed to either chance or clairvoyance. There has to be some sort of physical interaction to guide the action, if it is to succeed. So conation and cognition are two sides of the same coin.
Now, not all associations of living things have this structure. There are clear cases where indiividual agents associate together in a way that is not telically organized overall, but merely finds a sort of resultant attractor, as opposed to an attractor that is being cognitively controlled. Think of the flow of traffic on a highway or a flock of birds. There is a global pattern in both cases, but in both cases the global pattern or attractor is merely the resultant of the actions of the individual agents. There is no global teleology in such cases.
Now, there are seemingly intermediate cases that are harder to know how to theorize. For example, some organisms (e.g., Dictyostelium) can exist as either a population of individual cells which feed separately or as a single goal-directed organism-like conglomeration of cells (in the case of Dictyostelium, the "organism" is called a "fruiting body") which has a clear teleological purpose (reproducton). So we are forced to say that this organism can oscillate back and forth between a resultant attractor and a cognitively controlled attractor. This muddies the waters conceptually, but cannot be helped. Multicellular organisms probably should be viewed as a combination of both dynamical states, as well, depending on the level of analysis.
There are many such similar cases that could be cited. Think of a grazing herd vs. a stampede, a market vs. a firm, a nation at peace vs. a nation mobilized for war, etc., etc.
The best discussion of the relation between the two types of dynamical systems I know of Elias L. Khalil, "Natural Complex vs. Natural System," Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 1990, 13: 11--31.
[ 11 May 2002, 08:59: Message edited by: James A. Barham ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 11. May 2002 10:45
I would suggest that if you want to study and analyze ‘human morality’ you must first identify and isolate individual occurrences or elements of morality, then determine what controls these elements of morality and finally determine what creates and changes these elements morality.
My analysis suggests that human morality is a feature of human behavior and the basic unit of behavior is the ‘decision made by the individual’. An individual element of morality, from this perspective is a decision such as ‘Shall I kill X?" made by an individual.
My analysis further suggests that this decision is controlled by a ‘decision process or decision logic’. The decision logic used by an individual can be measured and expressed by a mathematical model.
My analysis further suggests that the processes responsible for changing or reprogramming decision logic, and thus morality, can be defined and modeled.
The point I am making, is that it appears to be both possible and practical to analyze human morality in terms of human behavior. This micro-decision-making analysis seems to address most of the issues raised by James and John above.
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 11. May 2002 22:23
Postscript to my previous post:
Reading back over my previous post, I noticed a contradiction in what I wrote.
On the one hand, I compared the patterns in traffic flow on a highway with the shape of a bird flock (both examples of a non-teleological "resultant" or equilibrium arising out of the interactions of teleological agents). On the other hand, I contrasted a herd of feeding animals (non-teleological) with a stampede (teleological). But the trouble is that a bird flock has characteristics like a stampede, as well!
The bird flock is self-organizing in a resultant sort of way so far as its overall shape is concerned. There is no centralized control over the shape, just each individual bird keeping a certain distance from the others, just like cars in traffic. On the other hand, the flock as a whole is clearly a goal-directed system, as in a stampede. So, the flock has characteristics of both types of dynamical system, teleological and non-teleological.
It is not so simple to explain the exact relationships between the two types of system from a dynamical point of view, and mixed cases are certainly possible. Nevertheless, I think it remains an important distinction. Clearly, traffic flow is not goal-directed in the same sense that the individual cars are, I think. Likewise, there seems to be a fundamental difference between organisms and populations or ecologies, firms and markets, etc. But I have to admit the situation is complicated and by no means clearcut. Perhaps the basic distinction is too simplistic to be of much use, after all, and will need to be replaced by a more sophisticated model embracing both types of system, somehow.
IP: Logged
|
|
John 3
Member
Member # 269
|
posted 11. May 2002 23:18
Problem 1-- how spontaneous goal-directed behavior works.
Problem 2-- how multiple agents with such goals behave together.
1-- I would assume spontanious goal-directed behavior occures at the sub-life level -- in the auto-catalytic elements and conditions of the universe.
2-- Agent based goal-directed behavior probably derived from those devices. Probably in the form of auato-catalytic ribisonal sets in space clouds. Either way, it is the nucleus in most microbial agents that dictates the behavior of its life. Both self-centered internal action and externally caused reactions will be controlled by the DNA in the nucleus. Unfortunately, DNA are'nt as quick to learn as nueral nets are. But the intent of these goal-driven agents comes from within the DNA.
While competition will be fundemental to interacting agents with limited resources (primarily space and food), there are proclivaties towards which the agents of a system will go from a competitive state to a cooperative state. These cooperative intentions would be held within the DNA of a microbial life-form. So there must be processes by which these behaviors find their way into the genes-- similar to the processes that cause competative behaviors. Perhaps developments in the environment from the diversification of methods in which agents compete would reach a criticality that would bring about cooperative behavior. Perhaps cooperation is a proclivity of all systems and self-service is a proclivity of the agent (from which comes competition).
That, I think, is an important destinction. The "conative" or driving element is not necessarily one of competition but only of self-servedness. From self-servedness will come competativeness in a dangerous, alien, and chaotic environment. And cooperative behaviors could have very well developed out of self-serving causes as well. If two agents found that they did their jobs much better when they happened to be next to each other, such behaviors are just as likely to be chosen as competitive ones. The environment would just need to present the situation.
Never the less, multi-cellular organisms arose. A nervous system adds a whole new slew of actions to the behavioral bucket. While the conative DNA cognatively provides "conative" devices for the nervous system to help itself, some agents aquire a neural capacity to take on the cognative task of operating the neural network. Cognitive developments occure within seconds rather than years. In one lifetime rather than many. In "real-time".
Animals learn to walk, run, chase, eat, etc., with help of their DNA and their environment, but mostly through experiental trial and error -- creating a model of the world and a value system that tries to corraspond to the real world. But these animals are still slaves to the conative and cognative componants of their DNA. They carryout reason only to serve the genes. We do to, but we realize we dont have to. An agent that can objectify itself from its inhereted devices like fear, hunger, and sex and make descissions purely through reason could be considered sentient. We still use these devices but we think we have controll over them. So even though we need to eat, we see that eating the donut out of the donut rack is not a valuable proposition. If you dont pay, that is.
So, suddenly, when all hungers are satisfied, the agent wonders, "so what IS the point?... What's our goal?... What's.. My goal?..." and so I say, agency.
Its a matter of awareness. Animals are unaware of what they're really serving. They're serving the system. Their competition causes life's diversification and thus the cooperation that begets sentience. But for some reason, many sentient beings cant find a rational reason to serve the system. I think just knowing the point, agency, would give them that reason.
Though Im not 100% sure about the theory yet, if its true, it'll show up empiracly.
As you say,
"There are clear cases where indiividual agents associate together in a way that is not telically organized overall, but merely finds a sort of resultant attractor, as opposed to an attractor that is being cognitively controlled." James Barham
If agency is the systemic goal and cooperation IS absolute, I would imagine that systems have mechanisms by which agents utilize and adopt these "resultant attractors" into their processes.
Could these attractor points be the systemic catalysts to higher organization through cooperation?
But Warren, you're right. I'm gonna have to get down into the nitty gritty of moral philosophy in order to map out systemic absolutes of sentient obligation and the agencies absolute obligation to the self.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 12. May 2002 07:40
John,
J: Problem 1-- how spontaneous goal-directed behavior works
Except in a very trivial sense, there is no such thing as spontaneous goal-directed or teleological behavior. Goal-directed behavior is generated by a complex set of causal relationships. I call this complex set of relationships the adaptive paradigm. This basic paradigm, by different names, has been known at least since Aristotle’s time.
J: Problem 2-- how multiple agents with such goals behave together.
This is an interesting problem. Complex goal-directed behavior involves a combination of independent parallel processing and hierarchical structures. Nervous systems provide a useful illustration of this process.
You are suggesting an approach which might lead to development of a model or theory of morality. I was describing a method of modeling and analyzing morality that I discovered by accident when analyzing human decision making(I was looking at how people make smart and/or dumb business decisions.)
The generally accepted view is that human decision making is a very complex process where some components of decision making are inherited or hard wired and some components adjusted by experience or programmable. My research produced four interesting findings. First, I discovered that human decision making, or more accurately the programs or logic controlling decision making could be modeled and simulated. Second, I discovered that the variables controlling decision making could be observed and measured. Third, I discovered that by varying the values of these variables you could produce essentially any possible type of decision logic. Finally, I discovered that all the variables controlling decision making were programmable or subject to change.
Taken together, these findings mean that humans can be ‘programmed’, subject to the constraints of the programming process’ to make any possible type of decision. Since human morality is expressed by the decisions made by individuals, this means that humans can be programmed, subject to the constraints of the programming process, to generate any possible type of morality. [This research is unpublished, but can be made available for review. ]
The generally accepted view is that morality is grounded in complex philosophical concepts, in the inherent properties of matter, and in evolutionary events occurring thousands and millions of years in the past. My research suggests that morality is grounded in processes and events that occur around us everyday, and can be subjected to ordinary scientific analysis. In somewhat simplistic terms, morality, I claim, is what everyone decides is in their own best interest but reflecting the likely impact of ones actions on others.
It is rather interesting, that probably the best known and most effective strategy for programming human morality was expressed some 2000 years ago as "Love thy neighbor as thyself". Contrary to some views, this strategy is a very logical and very successful strategy consistent with the overall goal of survival.
IP: Logged
|
|
John 3
Member
Member # 269
|
posted 12. May 2002 11:32
Thanks you guys for all the awesome input you've given. I think we may be on to something.
"My research suggests that morality is grounded in processes and events that occur around us everyday, and can be subjected to ordinary scientific analysis."
I get the feeling that most people are believing that these processes and events are completely removed from the "nature" of the universe and thus are arbitrary except in relation to only us humans. That our behaviors are in no way relative to the system (universe) in which we reside.
I'm not saying that "human morality" applies to everything everywhere. It IS relative to the human. But for certain agents in certain conditions, there is often a best action and a worst action. Similar agents as humans (sentience) exposed to similar conditions as we are (communication, interaction of competing agents, and thus cheating, lieing, stealing, killing), will necessitate similar morality.
If there are systems elsewhere in the universe similar to a sentient society, I would argue that they would be confronted with the same obstacles to reach agency. For those particular conditions, to reach agency, there may be a "best" coarse of action.
There are only a finite amount of different possible agents and conditions that the universe can compose given the finite amount of matter and time. And given the natural laws such as gravity, that number is significantly reduced. In that sense, the universe is like a story book with meaning, with a beginning and an end.
Just because what is true for one agent is not true for another agent, does that negate the trueth of the action? No, the trueth of the benefits only applies to certain conditions. Who is to say that our condition is not elemental to the universe. That societies elsewhere might not endure similar condition and thus benefit from similar behaviors.
I would argue that, though certain behaviors are beneficial to certain agents, cooperation is a behavior that is inherently beneficial to all systems and thus agents.
I'm not so sure I would go as far as to say that cooperation is absolute. But agency is absolute in the respect that, in order for a system to reach agency, the agents of the system must compete enough to serve themselves. Thus, the systemic goal of agency demands both self-serving and system-serving behaviors.
Are there behaviors that cannot be classified into agents-serving and system-serving behaviors?
Perhaps you guys should design agents based of the cooperation of agents within themselves.
Perhaps diversifying the competition will facilitate this.
Is that possible?
Could we harness cooperation to accelarate agents adaptive mechanisms?
Does anyone not agree with me on the point that, if there is a goal, whether it is agency or not, then given the finiteness of the universe, there must be a best coarse of action for every situation in order to achieve that goal?
[ 12 May 2002, 12:47: Message edited by: John 3 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 12. May 2002 22:07
The interesting exchange between John 3 and Warren is too lengthy for me to try to reply to point by point, but I wanted to make a couple of quick points at spots where I think major disagreements lie.
John 3: I agree with Warren that you have to make a distinction between living systems that operate according to means-ends functional logic, and everything else. It is true that we see some tendency to move in the direction of life already in certain nonequilibrium thermodynamic systems like hurricanes, candle flames, the Benard cell, the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, etc. But that sort of self-organization, while necessary for life, is not sufficient for it. It is still just minimizing energy, given a set of boundary conditions. I think Warren will agree with me that the functional logic of the cell cannot be explained by energy minimization. Indeed, one of its most salient traits is that it does WORK in order to move matter AGAINST local energy gradients.
Warren: On morality and self-interest, I think there is yet another important distinction we must make. I guess in the end all human action is "selfish" in the limited sense that all our actions---even acts of self-sacrifice---are motivated by our seeking a subjective sense of happiness or well-being in some broad sense. But I think that is still a limited way of looking at things.
The person who runs into the burning building to save perfect strangers no doubt does so on some level because it makes him feel good about himself, but surely the more important point is that human beings---and only human beings---are capable of training their emotional responses in accordance with higher ideals. It is a cognitive capacity unique to our species that makes such behavior possible. It is the fact that some human beings can come to feel good through selfless devotion to others and self-sacrifice, in addition to the more commonplace modes of 'reciprocal altruism" and cynical calculation, that constitutes our higher moral nature, I think. At any rate, I believe that this is what primarily distinguishes us from the other animals. It is all about feelings, yes, but it is about training our naturally selfish feelings to respond to the way we imagine that other human beings are feeling.
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 12. May 2002 22:20
Oh, and John 3, I forgot that I wanted to say a word about your comments about DNA.
Of course, yours is the majority opinion, but nowadays a lot of scientists are disputing the "genocentric" view of the cell that you outline. Certainly, DNA is crucial on anyone's account, but don't forget that it is entirely passive. It has to be manipulated by proteins for anything to happen. It is the cell as a whole that decides what genes get "expressed" under what circumstances.
This new "metabolic" view of the role of DNA in cell functioning (and even in evolution, on some accounts) is still pretty new, but it already has a considerable body of empirical evidence in its favor.
If you're interested in following this up, see especially Lynn H. Caporale (ed.), Molecular Strategies in Biological Evolution (Annals of the NY Acad. Sci., Vol. 870), NY Acad. Sci., 1999. Also, you might want to check out the web site of James A. Shapiro. He has a number of excellent recent papers available there. Richard von Sternberg, Susan Oyama, Evelyn Fox Keller, Brian Goodwin, and Eva Jablonka, to name a few, are other important thinkers questioning the traditional view of the role of DNA in cell functioning.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 13. May 2002 10:36
John,
John: Does anyone not agree with me on the point that, if there is a goal, whether it is agency or not, then given the finiteness of the universe, there must be a best coarse of action for every situation in order to achieve that goal?
An excellent question and one that gets to crux of the morality issue. For a specific set of conditions, and for a specified set of possible actions- there do appear to be a near-optimal option or a near- optimal decision making logic. This optimum is not, however, universal. The optimum can change if 1)there are changes in external conditions, 2)new options become available, and 3)there is a change in the relationship between an action and its impact on achieving a goal.
Optimal decision logic, and this applies to moral decisions such as ‘shall I kill" as well as business decisions such as "shall I but" are highly dynamic or changeable. Humans are continuously changing, modifying, and refining decision making logic in order to make it adaptive to the conditions that exist at the moment. There are optimal or near-optimal courses of action relative to a set of conditions, but the optimal courses of action and the input which will initiate them are continuously and very rapidly changing. Human survive only because we have very powerful mechanisms for rapidly changing decision making logic. If you look at exactly what part of this logic can and does change, the answer is everything. [I aware that this is contrary to the widely held belief that human nature and human morality has permanent features that developed or evolved long, long ago, but once you define what controls and changes human behavior, it is easy to demonstrate that it is completely programmable.]
James,
JB: The person who runs into the burning building to save perfect strangers no doubt does so on some level because it makes him feel good about himself, but surely the more important point is that human beings---and only human beings---are capable of training their emotional responses in accordance with higher ideals.
There are, IMO, a lot of myths about ‘selfishness’ and ‘altruism’ and human and non-human behavior. Humans, again in my opinion, are different from animals in that we have a far greater ability to utilize group, social, or cooperative decision making and problem solving. As a result, human behavior changes or adapts far more rapidly than the behavior or other animals. There is not, however, IMO a great deal of difference with respect to selfishness.
The concept of ‘survival of the fittest’ suggests that behaviors will be selected that promote the self-interest of the individual over the greater interest of the group. Neither the theory, nor the predicted result appear to be valid. The adaptive paradigm suggests that behaviors will develop which are compatible with survival. In ‘theory’ behaviors which promote ‘survival of the fittest’ would lead to a loss of diversity which would lead to a reduced ability to adapt to changing conditions. In theory, any species that developed selfish selection of the fittest behavior patterns would quickly become extinct. [The actual processes of changes are more complex that ‘select for the fittest’ or ‘select to maintain diversity’. The point here is that the theory of selfishness or selection of the fittest doesn’t work. ]
Humans are altruistic because for a social, cooperative social animal, altruism makes sense. Social or cooperative behaviors may not be as highly developed in other species, but animals of other species are known to protect and act cooperatively with other animals including animals of other species. Dogs, as a simple example, will risk their lives to defend their owners. It is relatively rare for animals to go out of their way to harm or eliminate competing members of their own species unless their own survival is immediately at risk.
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 13. May 2002 13:35
Warren:
Yes, dogs will risk their lives to protect their owners because they have been psychologically entrained onto an attractor constituting a dyad with the owner. But will a dog risk its life to save another dog it is not related to? That is the question, and that is the way in which we are fundamentally different from other animals.
I believe that we have to be careful to adopt an emergentist view of different hierarchical levels in our understanding of cosmic, organic, and cultural evolution. Reductionism and the eliding of crucial bifurcation points is the enemy of clear thinking on this question of the natural foundations of human nature.
The trouble with trying to say that life is fundamentally no different from nonlife is that it ignores value tout court, which is fundamentally the intrinsic striving of the cell to maintain itself in existence (using cognitive dynamics, however that may eventually be cashed out).
Similarly, the trouble with trying to say that human beings are fundamentally no different from other animlas is that it ignores our multiplicity of higher values, ultimately derived from biological value, yes, but also quite distinct from it.
I would simply ask you: What is the "selection value" of The Magic Flute or the St Matthew Passion?
IP: Logged
|
|
John 3
Member
Member # 269
|
posted 13. May 2002 23:45
"I agree with Warren that you have to make a distinction between living systems that operate according to means-ends functional logic, and everything else."
Agreed. For now we will talk about organisms. But I believe those 'means' spiral all the way down to the forces of nature (or singular force).
You want a distinction... but will you admit that there are processes between non-life systems and life systems. And if so, at what point in the process do you call it agency or means-ends functional?
But we should focus on organisms for a while.
"It is the cell as a whole that decides what genes get "expressed" under what circumstances." James A. Barham
Good point. And the parent cell -- only as a whole -- will also allow its genes to go into the child cell.
"This optimum is not, however, universal. The optimum can change if 1)there are changes in external conditions, 2)new options become available, and 3)there is a change in the relationship between an action and its impact on achieving a goal." warren_bergerson
Let us condense these down to--- If any external or internal conditions change, the optimum thus changes.
All three of those 'if' statements should apply to the one above.
Furthermore, when I speak of an optimum, I mean it as a frame in time. From a given frame, there is a best and worst direction relative to a certain goal.
Why would it not be universal?
"human behavior changes or adapts far more rapidly than the behavior or other animals. There is not, however, IMO a great deal of difference with respect to selfishness." warren_bergerson
Accept that they know its wrong.
"The adaptive paradigm suggests that behaviors will develop which are compatible with survival. In ‘theory’ behaviors which promote ‘survival of the fittest’ would lead to a loss of diversity which would lead to a reduced ability to adapt to changing conditions." warren_bergerson
??????????????
I was under the impression that 'survival of the fittest' is what caused diversification. But your right, that concept alone does not logically demand such diversity. A good pruning mechanism though.
How does the 'adaptive paradigm' answer this?
"The point here is that the theory of selfishness or selection of the fittest doesn’t work." warren_bergerson
Precisely.
Those with differing opinions should speak up cause that’s fundamental.
"Social or cooperative behaviors may not be as highly developed in other species, but animals of other species are known to protect and act cooperatively with other animals including animals of other species." warren_bergerson
In how lowly of organisms does 'motherhood' take place? That’s hardwired in the genes, right? Single-cell communities?
Thanks for the interesting post warren.
"Reductionism and the eliding of crucial bifurcation points is the enemy of clear thinking on this question of the natural foundations of human nature." James A. Barham
What is reductionism and what are the detriments of is ideology?
"The trouble with trying to say that life is fundamentally no different from non-life is that it ignores value tout court, which is fundamentally the intrinsic striving of the cell to maintain itself in existence (using cognitive dynamics, however that may eventually be cashed out).
Similarly, the trouble with trying to say that human beings are fundamentally no different from other animals is that it ignores our multiplicity of higher values, ultimately derived from biological value, yes, but also quite distinct from it." James A. Barham
Point well taken. There are major differences between the life and non-life systems. And I mean not to ignore the human values by elevating the value of other life. Truly, there is a moral and cognitive level distinction between humans and all other organisms on earth to say the least.
Are there processes which connect these distinct agents? Science would say there are. Jesus would say there are. But not us. We think everything is arbitrary -- irrelative to us. That there is no point to all of this.
Perhaps we are just trying to protect our selfish interests.
I'm a liar, a hater, a thief, a cheater, and I can be hurtful just like everyone else.
But I know what is right and so I feel sorrowful, guilty, shameful, and insecure.
But I also realize now that I have learned all these ways and now I can choose not to be like that. If agency is the way, I choose it.
The problem is: The ability to reach agency is relative to ones awareness -- so how do I know my view of the world will serve the ultimate agency.
I don’t, so I cant take any chances. I will turn the other cheek. I will take the bullet. I may run like hell, but I won't shoot back. Do I have a need for any anger at all? Not if I believe in agency. Because in the grand agency of the universe, we are little. I don't know how little, but very little.
I know, I know. Some tall words. Big imagination, huh?
So can a purely selfish agent feel shame or guilt?
[ 14 May 2002, 01:41: Message edited by: John 3 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
James A. Barham
Member
Member # 50
|
posted 14. May 2002 09:49
John 3:
On the question of reductionism vs. emergence:
My position is that to understand life and mind, we have to understand function. What is function? It is cognitively guided, goal-directed striving. That is, life, function, intelligence, and value are all deeply interwoven concepts.
Now, how are we to understand the existence of life, understood as the locus of striving and intelligence (or, in a word, agency), from a physical point of view? How is such a thing possible?
Well, the short answer is, We don't know. But at least from an emergentist perspective, where we view reality as consisting of a hierarchy of levels, each with its own qualitatively novel and irreducible laws, the existence of transitions to different kinds of novelty over the course of cosmic evolution begins to make sense. Well, what does "making sense" mean? I think it just means fitting in with everything else we know. So, the view from condensed-matter physics helps to make sense of life in a way that the view from high-energy physics does not. I think we have to discard the mainstream, high-energy physics, universal reductionist, "theory of everything" view before we can even begin to imagine how something as peculiar as agency is possible.
Of course, even after that mental shift occurs, there still remains the problem of characterizing the rational agency of life in detailed physical terms---What is the "order parameter" of life?, so to speak. And lots of people are now hard at work trying to figure this out. But within the emergentist framework we can at least imagine how a solution might be possible---something that is impossible to do within the reductionist framework.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic