0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I appreciate and concur with some of the ideas that you are trying to express here (and elsewhere)although would question your choice of a sole driving force the maximisation of pleasure.
My own opinions are that most of the driving forces are similar to those of evolution and that "fashion" has a large role in the development Richard Dawkins in his idea of Memes is quite useful but I disagree with his fundamentalist hatred of all aspects of religion. The evolved sensation of pleasure has something to do with this but the reality is far more complex.
My current main area of study is looking back to more fundamental physics and considering the possibility that even the laws of physics may have "evolved" naturally in a way that enables complexity in a universe. That is although the laws of physics are fixed early in the evolution of the universe around the times of symmetry breaking. this process is not entirely random because the alternative effects in the physical laws tend to affect the way things settle out. This is a bit like the way the shape of a river bed affects the flow of the water even when the river is in flood and the rocks are covered or the shape of the seabed at great depth can affect the shape of the waves on the surface of the sea.
And the evolution from Hairy Chimpanzees to Non-Hairy one can not be explained .
When male Octopus mates with another male Octopus I know what is driving the behaviour .. you dont know.When somebody commits suicide I know what is driving the behaviour you dont know.
yes thats what I meant chimpanzee evolution theory.The ancestor must have been hairy .What kind of genetic game or strategy would lead to favourate non-sticky hair skin gene.I dont know what i m talking about.The hair went extinct for what?
"Stuffers" hold a worldview and try to stuff every experience and sensation into that view. They interpret all input arriving at their eyes, fingertips, ears, noses and mouths in the light of their finite, literal worldview. Stuffers start with a conclusion and are forced to either mangle or discard evidence that contradicts the pre-conceived conclusion.
Sucide can not be explained by Darwinian theory.
The latest theory is being circulated by Richard Dawking who admits that his thoery far from complete.without random Natural selection it comes crashing down.And even after using billions of years it fails to guarantee anything..
It is Darwinism that stresses survival of the fittest, of the most favourable qualities. Dawkin's theory stresses survival of those closest to you, of those in whom you have a vested interest.
One area in which both of these theories struggle is altruism towards strangers. Altruism cannot be a survival trait, so therefore does not fit into Darwinism. The altruistic trait should by now have been bred out of the population. Nor does altruism towards strangers benefit one's own genes, so Dawkinism cannot readily accommodate it either.
Behaving altruistically towards strangers has been described as a side-effect. During the evolution of the higher apes (including us, chimps) we lived in small family groups, similar to the way baboons do. In this case it was highly likely that we would come into contact with the same individuals at least several times in our lifetime. It would be advantageous to treat those individuals nicely, because there was a chance you would meet them again and you wouldn't want them to harm you the next time you met. Also, these individuals most likely shared many of your genes.
However, when we became part of much larger communities, which also contained unrelated individuals, our brains treated this environment as if it was the small family group. It could be said that even though you may never see a certain individual again, it would be a much safer move to act altruistically towards them, because this way you don't risk personal harm. You also benefit from this behavior if the other individual reciprocates, where it may want to watch your back as you watch their back, etc.