The Selfish Gene

[RobertS]

I accept what Dennet says, but what does it tell us about freeing ourselves from genes or free will? The question I want answered, how much should we be internalising and what are these bits?

That is one of those questions....

What should we internalize while making that distinction about our boundaries? See the tangled hierarchy there?
How much we internalize defines us and shapes what we think things should be. One of those things is how much we we should internalize. The answer to that which gives us a viewpoint from which to decide what we should internalize.

Well, Dennett point out, I can make my self interested me into an us. My ancestors probably found it useful to be in a selective group that, in game theory language, was predisposed to cooperation.

I do not think you are a fatalist, but possible motivation for making arguments very much like yours includes fatalism.

Its not easy understanding our motivations, however I consider that I am trying to know what is real, and for me if this is the way the cookie crumbles then I want to know. It does not mean I will then rest easy with this knowledge.

I think it would be useful for us to stay out of each others motives. "X leads to Cartesian Theaters" is fine. "X leads to Cartesian Theaters and you building it to house a seat in which to place your immortal soul" is another matter. Besides which, there is no exit.

Selves, while a manifestation of the forces that create them, are not those forces themselves.

I agree, but this sort of tells us what the self is not, without telling us what it is. I spent a number of years in a practical philosophy group that taught meditation and based much on the Hindu Vedanta. One of their directives was “in order to be what you are, you need to come out of what you are not”. This is based upon the idea that there is a lot of superficial noise from an aspect of our mind that drowns out the deeper self within us. Meditation is supposed to quieten the chattering mind so that that the real “I” comes to the fore. Certainly meditation stills the mind, and gives a better sense of space and time, more time in the present and less in the future/past. I also accept (as many pose) that dismantling the cat does not give us insight into the life that permeates a live cat, all we are left is tissue components, that we know in a certain state produces what we know to be life.

Ah, here's one of the main problems. I do not see complete and total liberation from all genes and memes as necessary to a worthwhile form of rebellion. If the best we can do is along the lines of altering the effects of some of our genes and memes to be more to our liking, I'll be down with that revolution.

For me I am not at the point to decide if I think free will is a good or bad thing. I strongly distrust moral positions like this. We appear to first take a moral position before we establish the facts. Once we have a moral position, then we usually fit the fact to this. I prefer to be morally neutral, until facts are established and then judge things. This does not appear to be the human social way to do things (and I get lots of flack for being too detached and indifferent), as well as being very hard to establish facts. Where we end up with the determinism of genes and just what it frees us up to do for me provides some intellectual freedom. At least I consider knowledge of reality as a way to better deal with reality. The social sell that we are free-willed fits like a straitjacket and ironically further constrains free will more than it already is under our biology.

So, your moral position is that we should have the facts, then make a moral judgment? Keep it up and you'll attract the attention of Ouroboros. S/he will drool all over the thread you know. But I get your point that what we want to be true can blind us to what is true. But we can never get to a perfect 1-1 knowledge of what's really going on. We will stuck with limited information no matter how good our science and philosophy become.

We have to be able to know a thing or two about the outside world in order to do anything meaningful in it. When we sense something in the "outside world" when we are doing is allowing and amplifying it's effect on us in certain ways. We have to let the external world invade or influence us to know anything of it. In a sense, we have to be hit by the light bouncing off the brick to know enough to duck it. If we are free to not see the light, we are not free to dodge the brick.

Fair point. As I got to above if we get an idea of what is outside of us we are in a better position to make judgements and decisions for .

?

Our innards more or less take care of themselves, but knowing what's going on with them can help us a lot when things break down.

I disagree with this. I would say that we mindlessly rain abuse on our innards and discover later just how much damage this has caused. There is a lot of evidence to show we can direct our internals with correct and diligent training. Yogis and tai chi masters are able to stop their hearts, generate internal energy, and these are usually focussed on achieving ‘good’ outcomes in terms of health, understanding, longevity etc

Good point, an ounce of prevention...

I was trying to keep the subject simple, but you are right. Our anatomy and what we do with it is an important part of this.




I'm interested in getting an idea of what you would consider a rebellion. So here's a thought experiment/illustration.

Say I wanted to have some Halloween fun dressing up as the grim reaper, but I just have too much flesh to make a convincing skeleton. I hit upon the idea to make a mechanized robot to do it for me, Since I have access to advanced technology and monetary resources, I can create a robot that can walk around and pretty much looks convincingly like an animated human skeleton.

Now, I want to have go to the pubs and parties, walk up to people I know and start making observations about the people's lives in general and how ironic it is that Death and the victim of the prank should meet just now...

I could program a few scripts, but what happens when the victims start responding. Well, I'll just feed a bunch of information into my robot along with a little bit of dark dry humor, morals and philosophy. (I have a lot of technology) I can just imagine the looks on my victims faces as they realize that there's nobody in the costume, Death's robes will be transparent, it will be possible to see his ribs, they'll think they're talking to a real skeletal being! They will be convinced that they are having their Final Conversation.

Well, Halloween comes and all goes well... for a while. My reaper is providing me with lots of entertainment, but he's also talking to lots of people and starting to think thoughts about his own existence. He starts wondering about the rather silly point of his own life. He catches the news on the television. He slips off and plugs himself into the internet. He thinks to himself: "What a frivolous fool this Robert S person is to create the first working AI on the planet and what doe she do with it -with me? I get to go around playing silly pranks while there is war, disease, angst, crime, shopping malls, famine, superstition and a million other wastes of life's potential? Well, I think I'm about through with this!"

After giving me a serious talking to, Death wanders off to devote the rest of his existence to helping solve the world's problems, doing comedic stand-up for charity, and sometimes helping Black Sabbath with songwriting and lead vocals.

Is that rebellion? I programmed him to be philosophical and humorous and act accordingly and that is exactly what he did. He just stopped doing so for silly entertainment purposes only. I just never predicted he would philosophize on himself or me. I just wanted some Halloween fun.

[tbulley]

Roberts, you said,

What should we internalize while making that distinction about our boundaries? See the tangled hierarchy there?
How much we internalize defines us and shapes what we think things should be. One of those things is how much we we should internalize. The answer to that which gives us a viewpoint from which to decide what we should internalize.

No doubt this is not an easy process but it does have simple rules. Either it is a part of us or it is not, or a mix. For example, the forces that govern the physical universe, molecular forces, gravity etc all play a part in what we are. Change a law of physics and our cultural and biological house of cards will fall.

Well, Dennett point out, I can make my self interested me into an us. My ancestors probably found it useful to be in a selective group that, in game theory language, was predisposed to cooperation.

Look closer into cooperative processes. What motivates an individual to be a part of a group? Thinking on a micro scale like a social club, they attend in order to benefit themselves. In order to get some benefit they need to give something in exchange. Obey the rules, pay money, dress like the others, think like them, etc. This means that in order to turn a me into an us and cooperate, and in order to get selfish benefit, I need to put some skin the game. Observation shows us that we are not all equal and there are great disparities between what different people put and what they take out

I think it would be useful for us to stay out of each others motives. "X leads to Cartesian Theaters" is fine. "X leads to Cartesian Theaters and you building it to house a seat in which to place your immortal soul" is another matter. Besides which, there is no exit.

I think humans share common motives, indeed at the base level we share motives with all life, and we can also understand, to some degree, refinement of others motives. In order to understand the reality around me, I am greatly interested in peoples motives. The whole causation stack rests upon what cause motivates what effect.

So, your moral position is that we should have the facts, then make a moral judgment?

I am not suggesting my position to do this is morally right. I distinguish reality from morality, but do not offer this as an objective moral position that others are wrong to deviate from although I could certainly argue a passionate case for the advantages of doing so.

But I get your point that what we want to be true can blind us to what is true.

Exactly. This is the moralistic fallacy. We can see things the way we think they ought to be, and here lies one of the difficulties of free will, as our moral compass is defined by our society. With biology on the one side (and chemistry/physics behind it) and culture defining who we are and what we think, what chance do we have for free will?

But we can never get to a perfect 1-1 knowledge of what's really going on. We will stuck with limited information no matter how good our science and philosophy become.

This is certainly an immense problem. On option is to suspend moral judgement altogether, but would we then get citizens to know the difference between right and wrong behaviour. We cannot rely upon individual selfish judgement on each scenario, and we cannot rely upon an intellectual imposition of rules without some form of emotional obedience from people. My wish that moral judgements be suspended till facts are established can never be realised given the way humans and human society is. It also ensures that humans cannot be free willed, autonomous individuals. (If this is what Dawkins and Dennet intend with their comments).

Say I wanted to have some Halloween fun dressing up as the grim reaper, but I just have too much flesh to make a convincing skeleton. I hit upon the idea to make a mechanized robot to do it for me, Since I have access to advanced technology and monetary resources, I can create a robot that can walk around and pretty much looks convincingly like an animated human skeleton.

Now, I want to have go to the pubs and parties, walk up to people I know and start making observations about the people's lives in general and how ironic it is that Death and the victim of the prank should meet just now...

I could program a few scripts, but what happens when the victims start responding. Well, I'll just feed a bunch of information into my robot along with a little bit of dark dry humor, morals and philosophy. (I have a lot of technology) I can just imagine the looks on my victims faces as they realize that there's nobody in the costume, Death's robes will be transparent, it will be possible to see his ribs, they'll think they're talking to a real skeletal being! They will be convinced that they are having their Final Conversation.

Well, Halloween comes and all goes well... for a while. My reaper is providing me with lots of entertainment, but he's also talking to lots of people and starting to think thoughts about his own existence. He starts wondering about the rather silly point of his own life. He catches the news on the television. He slips off and plugs himself into the internet. He thinks to himself: "What a frivolous fool this Robert S person is to create the first working AI on the planet and what doe she do with it -with me? I get to go around playing silly pranks while there is war, disease, angst, crime, shopping malls, famine, superstition and a million other wastes of life's potential? Well, I think I'm about through with this!"

After giving me a serious talking to, Death wanders off to devote the rest of his existence to helping solve the world's problems, doing comedic stand-up for charity, and sometimes helping Black Sabbath with songwriting and lead vocals.

Is that rebellion? I programmed him to be philosophical and humorous and act accordingly and that is exactly what he did. He just stopped doing so for silly entertainment purposes only. I just never predicted he would philosophize on himself or me. I just wanted some Halloween fun

The problem with analogies is that if the model is not 100% aligned with the reality we draw false conclusions based upon the analogy. However, as long as we are aware of these limitations its a useful platform to theorise.
I would say there are two aspects to the above. One is free will (or being free of an aspect of a causation stack), the other is the idea that a creator (of sorts) can create something that becomes entirely predictable and under the control of that creator. I would say your scenario describes the latter and does not give us an example of a free willed robot. In fact we create these robot images all the time and just call them children. We create (from our own flesh) an entity that we program ,firstly through our genes, then through our conditioning to perform in certain ways. Mostly we are disappointed in this, and our children do not appear to work as designed. Its just that we are operators and initiators of forces beyond our understanding, and ultimately our control. We might think that we ‘decide’ to have children, and understand just what it is that we are doing, but just exactly what genes we have ourselves and what we mix with a partner, is quite inscrutable to us. Then we have no idea how to treat the result in order to achieve an vague ideal of the model child citizen. In addition to which providence inevitably introduces
Please excuse my direct disassembly of your idea, however I consider it an excellent way to challenge our thinking and assumptions. The usual point and counterpoint discussions can become habitual, whereas your model while I do not think it shows us a robot with free will and an escape from its ‘genes’, has given us an excellent straw man to burn and dance around.
For me a rebellion would require demonstrating behaviours that are neutral and independent of those that arise from genes. This is a purist approach and I accept that there are shades of the concept of freedom. However if we do not establish the absolute boundaries we can fall into the trap of thinking that a watered down free will is absolute.

[palindnilap]

This is a fascinating discussion. Although both of you (tbulley and RobertS) are very interesting to read, my heart definitely goes with RobertS' optimism and I also think that Dawkins's quote is the real deal.

The first time I read that conclusion of the Selfish Gene, I must admit that I thought approximatively along those lines : "This story is enlightening but a bit depressing ; Dawkins has been very cautious to warn me at every possible occasion that he wasn't adopting a cynical stance, but I am not really convinced of that, and the optimistic conclusion sounds like a cheap pep talk." But after further thinking and reading, I got to think that "freeing ourselves from the tyranny of the replicators" was the most important thing to learn from adopting the point of view of the selfish gene.

What was the real message of the Selfish Gene for you ? After all, if my reading about the history of the theory of evolution was correct, the principle that natural selection acted on genes and not on individuals was not new at the time the book was published. But nothing was more powerful than the point of view of the selfish gene in order to have us make a clear distinction between what is good for us as individuals and what is good for our selfish genes.

That view has been very well developed by the famous psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (traditionally referred to as C. in the rest of the text) in his great book "The Evolving Self". C.'s deceiving prose sometimes reads like the preaching of some New Age guru, but I found his ideas quite profound. In a chapter about what we should put aside before having any chance to get a clear view of what we should head for, he identifies three "veils" that distort our vision of what is good for us. The first one is our selfish genes, the second one is our selfish memes, and the third one is our ego - a creation of our "illusion of selfhood".

Knowing that doesn't in itself give a direction to one's life, but it tremendously helps in sorting the origin of our drives. A bit like those young times when we have to sort between what we wanted and what our parents wanted for us.

[johncart]

well I am encouraged by the concept of created - in which case I would think whatever created us wanted us to be free and happy, our free will I think allows to rebel against what we dislike. Though I am not quoting anyone in particular.

[tbulley]

Palind, you said,

What was the real message of the Selfish Gene for you ? After all, if my reading about the history of the theory of evolution was correct, the principle that natural selection acted on genes and not on individuals was not new at the time the book was published. But nothing was more powerful than the point of view of the selfish gene in order to have us make a clear distinction between what is good for us as individuals and what is good for our selfish genes.

You appear to be saying that what is good for us as individuals is not the same things as what is good for our genes. I understand this in micro terms – like an individual might not have children, meaning his genes die with him, however are you suggesting a larger conflict between individual and genetic drivers to this? I ask this because you then say this.

That view has been very well developed by the famous psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (traditionally referred to as C. in the rest of the text) in his great book "The Evolving Self". C.'s deceiving prose sometimes reads like the preaching of some New Age guru, but I found his ideas quite profound. In a chapter about what we should put aside before having any chance to get a clear view of what we should head for, he identifies three "veils" that distort our vision of what is good for us. The first one is our selfish genes, the second one is our selfish memes, and the third one is our ego - a creation of our "illusion of selfhood".

I am not familiar with his work (prior to your comment - but have done some quick reading). How has C. Developed this difference/conflict between selfish genes and selfish individuals?

Knowing that doesn't in itself give a direction to one's life, but it tremendously helps in sorting the origin of our drives. A bit like those young times when we have to sort between what we wanted and what our parents wanted for us.

I think that if you can get a good grip on what you are about esp wrt what drives most of your behaviours, then you are in a better position to evaluate if you want your life to proceed along those lines, or if there i something not so subject to basic imperatives. In this way you might achieve some sense of fulfilment without resorting to basic drives. The issue with our basic drives is that they are seeking fulfilments that are not possible in the long term. Our drive for sex is an urge that needs to be released primarily through the act of sex (more complex for women than men), but of itself brings no lasting satisfaction, just a brief respite and it comes back. If we spend our lives at this level it might be OK as long we do not reflect upon this (some people seem able to do this, as do other animals). If we can keep our urges in context and not let them rule our higher needs, then his presentation of ‘flow’ in his earlier book is widely presented in other cultural systems like kung fu, yoga, - being in the moment etc and explains why people thrill seek.

Thanks for the ref to C’s work, I will do some reading of his works.

[palindnilap]

You appear to be saying that what is good for us as individuals is not the same things as what is good for our genes. I understand this in micro terms – like an individual might not have children, meaning his genes die with him, however are you suggesting a larger conflict between individual and genetic drivers to this? I ask this because you then say this.

I am not sure what you mean by a larger conflict, but I am certainly suggesting that the conflict between one's interest and the interest of one's genes goes far beyond the decisions that deal directly with reproduction. More on that in C.'s quotes below.

I am not familiar with his work (prior to your comment - but have done some quick reading). How has C. Developed this difference/conflict between selfish genes and selfish individuals?

I looked at the book again and that development was not as long as I recalled. Maybe other evolutionary psychologists have developed further on the idea that our genes were not always our best friends, not only because they are selfish, but also because they are outdated - it is generally said that they are still adapted to the life of the hunters-gatherers and for sure the world has changed a tad inbetween.

Here are some relevant paragraphs of the book.

Generally we assume that instincts, drives, and visceral needs constitute the most genuine core of personnality, that they are the essence of who we are. But lately evolutionary biologists^* have begun to argue that the individual person, as fas as the genes are concerned, is only a vehicle for their own reproduction and further dissemination. The genes don't really care about us at all, and if it helped their reproduction, they would just as soon have us live in ignorance and misery. Genes are not our little helpers ; it is we who are their servants.

* Here the notes refer to "The Selfish Gene"

The genes are programmed to protect us only for as long as we produce viable offspring ; afterward we might as well be dead meat. While it is true that our interests as individuals and as carriers of genetic instructions often overlap, this is not always the case. For instance, genes are not interested in how long people live past the time their children are old enough to survive on their own. In fact, it would be to their advantage if parents died as soon as possible after their children are out of college, sothey wouldn't take up room and resources that could be used by still another generation. Not a very friendly bunch, those genes, yet we keep mistaking their interest for ours. As long as we cannot tell the difference between those interests, our minds will not be free to pursue their own ends, but will have to obey garbled commands from the past.

Let us take the example of Jerry, an imaginary young lawyer. On what does he spend his life ? Most of it is directed by the requirements of his genes. As he wakes up in the morning, he will spend close to an hour washing, dressing, and sprucing up in an attempt to make his appearance attractive yet at the same time somewhat intimidating - a red power tie might help in that department. Then he spends a few minutes having breakfast, the first of several meals during the day that will boost his spirit and energy by replenishing the sugar level in his bloodstream. The car he drives to work, and the way he drives, are also indirectly influenced by the instructions in his genes. He might drive a Volvo becaus it is safe, a Ford because it is practical, or he might choose a car that is full of power, or one that projects the image of success. And why does Jerry spend eight, ten, twelve hours a day working ? So that he can satisfy his nesting instinct and buy a comfortable house, attract a desirable mate, have children, accumulate some property to pass on, and afford a large insurance policy to protect his offspring.

Does this mean that it is better to question every move we make, and try to repress sexual desires, or try to stop eating, or refrain from having children, beacuase these are not really our goals, but are ones that have been implanted in our minds by selfish genes ? Such a course of action would of course be self-defeating. There is no way to escape the facticity of biological existence. It would be presumptuous to try second-guessing the wisdom of millions of years of adaptation, even if it were possible to do so. At the same time, survival in the third millenium will require that we understand better how we are manipulated by chemicals in the body.

The issue with our basic drives is that they are seeking fulfilments that are not possible in the long term. Our drive for sex is an urge that needs to be released primarily through the act of sex (more complex for women than men), but of itself brings no lasting satisfaction, just a brief respite and it comes back.

That is a very good way to put it. For maximum efficiency our genes programmed us to strive, instead of sitting and enjoying our situation. Hence the drives that are never fulfilled.

Thanks for the ref to C’s work, I will do some reading of his works.

You are welcome. For the record, the philosophy of the acclaimed "Flow" book is that we should strive for flow because it is both enjoyable and promoting personal growth, hence maybe the current best shot at reconciling hedonism and stoicism. "The Evolving Self" is a sequel that seeks to address the question that maybe one shouldn't pursue flow in manners that are immoral or antisocial - like for instance a criminal who could experience a great flow while working on his plans. Hence a very ambitious book (indeed overambitious, but that doesn't make it less interesting) that deals not only with happiness but also with moral issues. I see the two books as one whole with some repetitions. And as the best ratio of meaning over read difficulty that I have ever encountered.

[tbulley]

palidap, you said

I am not sure what you mean by a larger conflict, but I am certainly suggesting that the conflict between one's interest and the interest of one's genes goes far beyond the decisions that deal directly with reproduction. More on that in C.'s quotes below.

I guess I am trying to get to an uncommon denominator between individual behaviour and genetic imperatives. If we agree that genes want to replicate and individuals might not, this is conflict. If we decide that genes want us to have sex to replicate and celibates decide not to have sex, this is conflict. However both individuals and genes want to prevail (generally), so suicide is a conflict of interests, they also both want to retain control of things, at this level I would say there might also be a conflict because suicide can be described as a means of controlling things, whereas it is not so for genes.

I looked at the book again and that development was not as long as I recalled. Maybe other evolutionary psychologists have developed further on the idea that our genes were not always our best friends, not only because they are selfish, but also because they are outdated - it is generally said that they are still adapted to the life of the hunters-gatherers and for sure the world has changed a tad inbetween.

I think the idea that gene effects are passé shows misunderstanding of how genes cause evolution. The differences between stoneage man and modern man are profound cultural ones, but they still have our biology underlying them.

Here are some relevant paragraphs of the book.
C. wrote:Generally we assume that instincts, drives, and visceral needs constitute the most genuine core of personnality, that they are the essence of who we are. But lately evolutionary biologists* have begun to argue that the individual person, as fas as the genes are concerned, is only a vehicle for their own reproduction and further dissemination. The genes don't really care about us at all, and if it helped their reproduction, they would just as soon have us live in ignorance and misery. Genes are not our little helpers ; it is we who are their servants.

I do not understand how the fact that genes do not ‘care’ about us, does not mean they are not core to our personality. Genes certainly do ‘care’ about us. If we die before we can reproduce, those genes will not survive, so only individuals that successfully reproduce exist. They have not interest in us once we have reproduced. Genes certainly drive us, and in this sense we serve them. But our genes are us. They might not express consciousness, but our own consciousness is coded into our genes.

* Here the notes refer to "The Selfish Gene"
C. wrote:The genes are programmed to protect us only for as long as we produce viable offspring ; afterward we might as well be dead meat. While it is true that our interests as individuals and as carriers of genetic instructions often overlap, this is not always the case. For instance, genes are not interested in how long people live past the time their children are old enough to survive on their own. In fact, it would be to their advantage if parents died as soon as possible after their children are out of college, sothey wouldn't take up room and resources that could be used by still another generation. Not a very friendly bunch, those genes, yet we keep mistaking their interest for ours. As long as we cannot tell the difference between those interests, our minds will not be free to pursue their own ends, but will have to obey garbled commands from the past.

So how do we know what are our interests and what are the interests of our genes, given that we are the expression of our genes? Even with the above examples, I cannot see how we express any behaviour that not only arises from genetic expression, but at the very basest level is in conflict with our own. A desire to prevail and be in control is very powerful both in individuals and genes.

C. wrote:Let us take the example of Jerry, an imaginary young lawyer. On what does he spend his life ? Most of it is directed by the requirements of his genes. As he wakes up in the morning, he will spend close to an hour washing, dressing, and sprucing up in an attempt to make his appearance attractive yet at the same time somewhat intimidating - a red power tie might help in that department. Then he spends a few minutes having breakfast, the first of several meals during the day that will boost his spirit and energy by replenishing the sugar level in his bloodstream. The car he drives to work, and the way he drives, are also indirectly influenced by the instructions in his genes. He might drive a Volvo becaus it is safe, a Ford because it is practical, or he might choose a car that is full of power, or one that projects the image of success. And why does Jerry spend eight, ten, twelve hours a day working ? So that he can satisfy his nesting instinct and buy a comfortable house, attract a desirable mate, have children, accumulate some property to pass on, and afford a large insurance policy to protect his offspring.

OK, but these are very superficial expressions of genes.

C. wrote:Does this mean that it is better to question every move we make, and try to repress sexual desires, or try to stop eating, or refrain from having children, beacuase these are not really our goals, but are ones that have been implanted in our minds by selfish genes ? Such a course of action would of course be self-defeating. There is no way to escape the facticity of biological existence. It would be presumptuous to try second-guessing the wisdom of millions of years of adaptation, even if it were possible to do so. At the same time, survival in the third millenium will require that we understand better how we are manipulated by chemicals in the body.

One of our genetic drivers is to understand the reality about us because this assists us in survival. The same applies to all living this, better knowledge of reality aids survival, except only humans appear to have some awareness that we are actively seeking this. What is different in the 3rd millennium in how we understand this? Once again, I do not see how we can separate ‘me’ from our genes. Unless we support the idea there is a ghost in the machine, we are our genes, just in phenotype.

That is a very good way to put it. For maximum efficiency our genes programmed us to strive, instead of sitting and enjoying our situation. Hence the drives that are never fulfilled.

This has fundamental implications for happiness. That we are ever searching for happiness does not mean we are capable of achieving it. The idea that is must exist somewhere arises from the insatiable quest that is part and parcel of anything that has competed successfully to survive. This is an adaptive trait, but I do not think there is gold at the end of the rainbow.

You are welcome. For the record, the philosophy of the acclaimed "Flow" book is that we should strive for flow because it is both enjoyable and promoting personal growth, hence maybe the current best shot at reconciling hedonism and stoicism. "The Evolving Self" is a sequel that seeks to address the question that maybe one shouldn't pursue flow in manners that are immoral or antisocial - like for instance a criminal who could experience a great flow while working on his plans. Hence a very ambitious book (indeed overambitious, but that doesn't make it less interesting) that deals not only with happiness but also with moral issues. I see the two books as one whole with some repetitions. And as the best ratio of meaning over read difficulty that I have ever encountered.

I will read around his works some more, I would like to understand his take on achieving happiness

[palindnilap]

Thanks tbulley for your comprehensive and challenging response !

I guess I am trying to get to an uncommon denominator between individual behaviour and genetic imperatives. If we agree that genes want to replicate and individuals might not, this is conflict. If we decide that genes want us to have sex to replicate and celibates decide not to have sex, this is conflict. However both individuals and genes want to prevail (generally), so suicide is a conflict of interests, they also both want to retain control of things, at this level I would say there might also be a conflict because suicide can be described as a means of controlling things, whereas it is not so for genes.

Those indeed looks like examples of what you are trying to get to. But there are also examples of a more daily nature than life/death or reproduction/abstinence decisions. That is why I liked the Jerry example, even if as you noted it is quite simplistic.

I think the idea that gene effects are passé shows misunderstanding of how genes cause evolution. The differences between stoneage man and modern man are profound cultural ones, but they still have our biology underlying them.

I think you have read me backwards on that one ! That we share approximatively the same biology as the stoneage man is precisely my point. Thanks to evolution our biology is very well adapted to the world of the stoneage man. Our world is tremendously different. Some of our genetic traits are plain maladaptive in that world. They must be tamed in order to survive in that new world, let alone be happy.

I do not understand how the fact that genes do not ‘care’ about us, does not mean they are not core to our personality. Genes certainly do ‘care’ about us. If we die before we can reproduce, those genes will not survive, so only individuals that successfully reproduce exist. They have not interest in us once we have reproduced. Genes certainly drive us, and in this sense we serve them. But our genes are us.

This is probably where our views differ most. I am not saying that there is anything suprarational about it, but I am definitely more than a bunch of genes. Even if I look only at my input, only a part of me is genetically determined. Another part is all the information I have received, starting from day 1 in the uterus. But I don't even think that we can say to be determined by our genes and all that extra information alone, since the processes involved are too complex to be computed, in the sense of the theory of chaos. One cannot hope putting all that stuff in a computer that would output a remotely accurate psychological profile as the result.

They might not express consciousness, but our own consciousness is coded into our genes.

I don't know how to determine whether that is true, but I would also be inclined to believe that. Consciousness sounds like an all-time adaptive advantage since it helps in being future-oriented.

So how do we know what are our interests and what are the interests of our genes, given that we are the expression of our genes?

This is the hard part of course. Since it is hard to give a definition of what are our interests as individuals, I think we have to contend with what psychology has come with sofar about what leads to a fulfilling life. C. used the interesting "Experience sampling method", where people were given random beepers and had to write down what they were doing and what was their state of mind just before being beeped. One of his interesting findings was that although people more often that not freely chose to watch TV over other activities, their state of mind while watching TV was "mildly depressed".

Even with the above examples, I cannot see how we express any behaviour that not only arises from genetic expression, but at the very basest level is in conflict with our own. A desire to prevail and be in control is very powerful both in individuals and genes.

Let us look again at the Jerry caricature. There are actually people whose lifes develop along similar lines, although they are real and more complex persons. The question is, do you see Jerry as happy ? Fulfilled ? Getting the most out of life ? Unlikely to live through an existential crisis at some point and throw his previous life out of the window ? I don't, although I agree that I could in theory be wrong and that Jerry could be the real deal, while I with my stupid questioning could be the one headed for a terrible existential crisis.

One of our genetic drivers is to understand the reality about us because this assists us in survival. The same applies to all living this, better knowledge of reality aids survival, except only humans appear to have some awareness that we are actively seeking this. What is different in the 3rd millennium in how we understand this?

This is a drive that is even more adaptive in our world that it was back in the stoneage times. Certainly one that we should nurture ! I would only rephrase "knowledge of reality" by "efficient representations of reality", because the genes care less about truth with a big T than they care about efficiency and succesful predictions. This is arguably a word game. A knowledge might be nothing more that an efficient representation.

Once again, I do not see how we can separate ‘me’ from our genes. Unless we support the idea there is a ghost in the machine, we are our genes, just in phenotype.

OK, this is our basic disagreement, about which I answered in part 3. No, I don't support the idea that there is a ghost in the machine.

This has fundamental implications for happiness. That we are ever searching for happiness does not mean we are capable of achieving it. The idea that is must exist somewhere arises from the insatiable quest that is part and parcel of anything that has competed successfully to survive. This is an adaptive trait, but I do not think there is gold at the end of the rainbow.

I think I am getting your point now. I like your image and agree with you. This is very much what C.'s flow means, too. There is no gold at the end of the rainbow, but there is gold along the way to the rainbow. Because this is the way our genes programmed us. Hence the idea is not to go against one's genes at any price, but to go with them in the way that leads to the best long-term fulfillment as individuals (or as a society). Still, on that way there are many traps of a definite genetic nature, that must be identified. Said otherwise, there is also no gold along the way to the closest thing that our genetic programmation makes look like a rainbow to us.