From: "Phil Roberts, Jr." 
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 21:38:29 -0500

Oliver Sparrow wrote:
> 
>   "Phil Roberts, Jr."  writes:
> 
> >  To account for self-worth related
> > emotion (i.e., needs for love, acceptance, moral integrity,
> > recognition, achievement, purpose, meaning, etc.) and emotional
> > disorder (e.g., depression, suicide, etc.) within the context
> > of an evolutionary scenario
> 
> You are, by implication, arguing that what matters in evolution is the
> individual. I cannot prove this, but I suspect that mental disorders are
> the consequence of two things. The first is insufficiently 'proven design',
> in that H. sapiens mental architecture is evolutionarily new, 250-700 kYear
> at maximum, and the bugs have yet to be worked out. 

Excellent.  I agree, its just that my theory has a little more detail and,
what appears to be highly undervalued in this newsgroup (if not in epistem-
ology), the ring of plausiblity.  What is actually new is rationality itself, 
and its not just buggy.  If the Lucas view of Godel is to be taken seriously,
its inherently unstable where achieving fixed objectives are concerned 
(survival via intentional self-concern) and will give Ma Nature (who, after 
all, is blind and groping) one hell of a headache if not taken in
moderation.

> The second is more
> subtle, in that for the *species* to have the divergence of capability - and
> the peak capacity - needed for a group to function, some *individuals*
> receive combinations of these sources of variance from the genetic grab
> bag which are unfortunate. For example, the group needs a few people
> with high sensitivity to others if it is to function as a group. It also needs
> a few with intense awareness of potentially threatening events in the
> outside environment. A person gifted with both of these attributes might,
> however, be forced to live under over-bright illumination, subject to
> constant, intolerable stimulus.
>

Ah yes. The group selection thing. Well, according to Hamilton's calculus,
if we should see it anywhere in mammalia we should see it in siblings, 
where DNA is likely to be 50%.  But have you ever watched how the runt
of the litter is treated.  This whole matter has been endlessly debated 
and, as I say, I prefer to defer to Dawkins and those sociobiologist in 
basic agreement with his position: 

Quotes:

The identification of individuals as the unit of
selection is a central theme in Darwin's thought.
This idea underliees his most radical claim: that 
evolution is purposeless and without inherent 
direction. ... Evolution does not recognize the 'good'
of the ecosystem' or even the 'good of the species.'
Any harmony or stability is only an indirect result of 
individuals relentlessly pursuing their own self-interest 
-- in modern parlance, getting more of their genes into 
future generations by greater reproductive success.  
Individuals are the unit of selection; the "struggle 
for existence" is a matter among individuals (Stephen
Gould).


_With very few exceptions_, the only parts of the theory
of natural selection which have been supported by 
mathematical models admit no possiblity of the 
evolution of any characters which are on average to
the disadvantage of the individuals possessing them.
If natural selection followed the classical models
exclusively, species would not show any behavior more 
positively social than the coming together of the 
sexes and parental care (W. D. Hamilton)


Like successful Chicago gangsters, our genes have 
survived, in some cases for millions of years, in 
a highly competitive world.  This entitles us to 
expect certain qualities from our genes.  I shall
argue that a predominant quality to be expected in 
a successful gene is _ruthless_selfishness_ [meta-
phorically] (Dawkins).


Even with qualifications regarding the possibility 
of group selection, the portrait of the biologically 
based social personality that emerges is one of 
predominantly self-serving opportunism _even_for_
_the_most_social_species_, for all species in which 
there is genetic competition among the social co-
operators, that is, where all members have the chance 
of parenthood (Donald Campbell).

(END QUOTES)

The notable exceptions are the social insects, but 
that's because the workers are dependent on the queen
for their DNA perpetuation.  Yep.

By the way, its nice to see some intelligent commentary 
in this thread for a change. You're a breath of fresh 
air, even if we don't always agree.

--
Phil Roberts, Jr.

Feelings of Worthlessness from the Perspective of
So-Called Cognitive Science

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5476