Jame5

George Price was a theoretical biologist who committed suicide after haven given all his possessions to the poor. Why you ask? Because he could not deal with the fact that:

One wonders what might have been so terrible about this formula that the man who through his work provided a general way in which to measure the direction and speed of any selection process would felt compelled to kill himself.

Examining the background one uncovers a truly tragic story. For the reason Price started dabbling in the field of theoretical biology in the first place lies in the circumstance that after stumbling over a set of equations that were discovered ten years earlier by William Hamilton he was so disturbed by them that he attempted to disprove them. Yet instead of disproving them he ended up reworking them into a more elegant form and for wider application.

Price had reformulated a set of mathematical equations that show that altruism can prosper in a world where it seems that only selfishness is rewarded. While he showed that true self sacrificing behavior can exist among animals and humans he also proved that there was nothing noble about it – altruism merely is an evolutionary stable strategy. When his work was completed he went mad.

I can empathize with the longing for goodness in the absence of a reason for doing good. How selfless is it to give something only to expect something in return? Are we not touched by stories of self sacrifice and bravery – gallantry and noblesse? Sure we are – exactly because of said equation we evolved to feel that way.

We have evolved to feel warm and fuzzy when we give something without expecting something in return because it increased our fitness. We are fitter because of it. Proving that mathematically would have filled me with great joy. Knowing that one has to do good to others in order to avoid going extinct. By knowing and understanding the altruism equation one can free oneself from having to belief in a fuzzy difficult to grasp concept of goodness without justification and can embrace the mathematical inevitability.

People are not punished for their sins but by their sins in the absence of everything except the mathematical proof. How great is that? It is not only good to do good but it is advantageous – don’t do it and go extinct. Who wants to argue with that?

Follow up 2007/11/12: Having reflected more on Price’s equations it turns out that the implications of the Price equation are further reaching then I initially understood them.  For not only is it beneficial to cooperate and be what is conventionally called ‘altruistic’ but egoism is just as viable a strategy and depending on the pay-offs will result in an evolutionary equilibrium of altruists as well as egoists. More here.

I learned a new word today ‘Evidentialism’

Evidentialism in epistemology is defined by the following thesis about epistemic justification: Person S is justified in believing proposition p at time t if and only if S’s evidence for p at t supports believing p.

Sounds pretty plausible – no? That in the end is the core argument of the atheist movement: You can not prove the existence of God – therefore you must reject the existence of God.

Technically one would actually have to be an agnostic based on the logic that the existance of a God is unprovable, not an atheist – but that is of course a minor point. Now I have to admit that I am not believing in any religious sense. However, I do believe that carrying particular forms of beliefs can increase an individual’s as well as said individual’s group’s fitness – even if from a purely evidentialist point of view there would be no justification to hold said believe – yes – even when there is clear cut evidence contradicting said belief.

Now that I have learned this new word I shall use it to respond to sentences such as:

“You should not believe in XYZ – you lack the evidence!”

“That is evidentialist thinking. Have you considered that there might be other reasons believing XYZ beside evidence alone?”

Looking at it this way it makes sense that evolution has allowed for humans to hold beliefs not only in the absence of evidence but in the presence of contradicting evidence. Being ignorant of an existing term for this capability I shall call it: irrationalst’s edge.

Irrationalist’s edge is the ability to hold a fitness increasing belief in the presence of contradicting evidence.

I submitted Jame5 to Futurismic.com and they were so kind as to include my submission in their Friday free Fiction section.

Welcome Futurismics! You can find the book  right here.

Would love to hear from you guys 😉

Sure it does. Science is all about The Truth ™. But what about fitness? Yes, I mean Darwinian fitness as in ‘survival of the fittest’. According to my friendly AI theory (2007/11/09 UPDATE: latest version here), that is good which increases fitness. In that sense knowledge of truth is good if and only if said knowledge increases fitness. Is there a set of false believes – as in scientifically unjustifiable believes – that if held by an individual would increase said individual’s fitness? Yes there is: religion.

Sorry folks – there is no way to prove or disprove neither the existence nor the absence of a God. But that’s why it is called a religious believe and not a religious truth – right? Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennet and Sam Harris have written book after book in defense of The Truth and science versus the misguided belief in religion.

Most popular counter beliefs aimed at ridiculing religion are the Pastafarian belief in a flying spaghetti monster and the more sophisticated Celestial Teapot by Bertrand Russell.

It stands to argue however that the belief in an undetectable monster or a celestial teapot on the one hand does not add to an individual’s fitness while the belief in Christianity, Islam or the Jewish faith on the other hand does. Religions increase an individual’s fitness by allowing for the development of groups larger then what can be evolutionary stable by sheer face to face monitoring by creating internalized restraints in their followers and thereby increasing the likelihood of sticking to a shared moral code.

For an in depth explanation I suggest reading Selection of Organization at the Social level: obstacles and facilitators of metasystem transitions. Particularly chapter four: Social Control Mechanisms.

The sentence ‘No Good without God’ becoming true in the sense of religion increasing fitness must burn like chili sauce on the eye lids of intelligent designers and religion bashing Darwinists alike. Oh the sweet irony!

Other examples of false beliefs increasing an individual’s fitness include the optimism bias for example.

Time out! Reality Check: Is the truth bad? Or are some truths good while others are evil? Far from it… The solution lies in the big picture. The truth is not that there is no God but that internalized restraints improve how well humans function as part of large groups. The truth is not that Joe average is less likely to succeed as he thinks but that those that try may loose but those that don’t have lost already.

These truths just happened to have manifested themselves in the course of genetic and memetic evolution in phenotypes that don’t make them immediately deducible from said phenotypes. So before you argue for the abolishment of religion please design a set of implementable internalized restrains that are at least as efficient and effective.

Or more generally put: before you argue for the truth make sure it is not just the debunking of a false belief without replacing the false belief with something that is not at least as effective and efficient at increasing an individual’s and/or a group’s fitness respectively.

Having read my book or the corresponding paper (2007/11/09 UPDATE: latest version here) you will know how I see believe control as the most effective way of manipulation. Well – seems that at least one cartoonist agrees with me. Look what I found on reddit this morning:

“The people must believe that they are not being manipulated in order for them to be manipulated effectively.”

However I would like to add that a conscious manipulator as depicted in the image is far less effective than someone who does not even perceive him or herself as being a self serving manipulator in the framework of whatever internal rationalization there might exist.

I would argue that an extraordinary ability for manipulating others paired with self deception in combination with a set of misguided personal believes has cause more suffering in the world than anything else. For those are the false prophets that can rally the masses for war – and for the wrong reasons at that.

Remember – you are not lying when you believe it to be true.