> whitesickle@msn.com wrote:
>

>> dkomo wrote:
>>

>>>It's often said that belief in supernatural agents such as those found
>>>in the religions of the world is not a direct adaptation but a
>>>*side-effect* of the way our minds work.
>>>
>>>But what exactly is a side-effect of evolution? Richard Dawkins in his
>>>new book _The God Delusion_ offers a good example of such a side-effect:
>>>the tendency of moths to fly in crazy patterns near a bright light
>>>source at night, such as candle flames, campfires and electric lights.
>>>The moth will often fly into the flame and immolate itself.
>>>
>>>I had a instance of this earlier this year. I was sitting at the
>>>computer at night in my office last spring when a moth happened to fly
>>>in and began immediately to repeatedly bounce off the ceiling and
>>>overhead light fixture. This is extremely annoying when you're trying
>>>to get some work done, so I started looking around for The Terminator,
>>>my rolled up newspaper which I use to dispatch moths. But before I
>>>could reach for it, I saw the moth fly straight into the very hot light
>>>bulb overhead during one of its swoops and was killed instantly. I
>>>could see it lying upside down inside the translucent light fixture.
>>>
>>>So what causes this idiotic moth behavior? It isn't an evolutionary
>>>adaptation as it obviously doesn't improve the moth's fitness. Dawkins
>>>explains it in the section "Religion as a By-Product of Something Else"
>>>in Chapter 5 "The Roots of Religion".
>>>
>>>Dawkins speculates that moths use light sources at optical infinity at
>>>night (such as the moon or distant cities) to navigate:
>>>
>>>"The insect nervous system is adept at setting up a temporary rule of
>>>thumb of this kind: 'Steer a course such that the light rays hit your
>>>eye at an angle of 30 degrees.' Since insects have compound eyes (with
>>>straight tubes or light guides radiating out from the center of the eye
>>>like the spines of a hedgehog), this might amount in practice to
>>>smoething as simple as keeping the light in one particular tube or
>>>ommatidium."
>>>
>>> _The God Delusion_, p. 173
>>>
>>>
>>>Ordinarily such a navigation system serves the moth well. The system is
>>>quite accurate as long as the light source is at infinity, and they can
>>>use the same system with reversed sign to return home after a foray.
>>>The problem arises when the moth flies past a light source that is close
>>>by, with its light rays diverging like the spokes of a wheel. As the
>>>moth attempts to keep a angle of 30 degrees to the light, it will have
>>>to keep turning its fly path, producing a spiral which steers it into
>>>the flame or electric light.
>>>
>>>Now Dawkins draws the analogy between religion and the moth:
>>>
>>>"Now, apply the by-product lesson to religious behavior in humans. We
>>>observe large numbers of people -- in many areas it amounts to 100
>>>percent -- who hold beliefs that flatly contradict demonstrable
>>>scientific facts as well as rival religions followed by others. People
>>>not only hold these beliefs with passionate certitude, but devote time
>>>and resources to costly activities that flow from holding them. They
>>>die for them, they kill for them. We marvel at this, just as we
>>>marveled at the 'self-immolation behavior' of the moths. Baffled, we
>>>ask why. But my point is that we may be asking the wrong question. The
>>>religious behavior may be a misfiring, an unfortunate by-product of an
>>>underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is or
>>>once was, useful. On this view, the propensity that was naturally
>>>selected in our ancestors was not religion per se; it had some other
>>>benefit, and it only incidentally manifests itself as religious behavior."
>>>
>>> _The God Delusion_, p. 173-174
>>>
>>>
>>>A question I have is, "is religious behavior and moth light-seeking
>>>malfunction a "spandrel" as Stephen J. Gould defined it:
>>>
>>>"A spandrel is a phenotypic characteristic that evolved as a side effect
>>>of a true adaptation."
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%%28biology%%29
>>>
>>>The article above doesn't make it clear that a spandrel, although a
>>>side-effect, becomes itself an adaptation. That is, it becomes useful
>>>to the organism and is subject to selection, as in the hacker's "misbug":
>>>
>>>"In computer programming, a misbug is an unexpected behaviour of a
>>>program that turns out to be useful."
>>>
>>>So the moth's behavior around nearby lights is not a spandrel because it
>>>is not helpful to the moth. Religious behavior is a spandrel because it
>>>could be helpful to humans and itself come under selection in cultural
>>>evolution.
>>>
>>>The original spandrel in architecture:
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel
>>>
>>>
>>> --dkomo@cris.com

>>
>>
>>
>>
>> dkomo writes:
>>
>> So the moth's behavior around nearby lights is not a spandrel because
>> it
>> is not helpful to the moth. Religious behavior is a spandrel because
>> it
>> could be helpful to humans and itself come under selection in cultural
>> evolution.
>>
>>
>> I haven't read that Gould's definition of a spandrel is adaptationist
>> but merely the unintended consequence (side effect) of a thing or
>> function.

>
> I don't understand this sentence. The definitions of a spandrel that I
> found on the Internet were confusing. I really don't know if Gould
> meant it to be a trait that was an unintended consequence of an adaptive
> trait, and the unintended trait has no adaptive value (is selectively
> neutral), or whether the unintended trait did eventually acquire an
> adaptive value and could itself come under selection. The Wikipedia
> definition, by using the analogy of the hacker "misbug", implies the latter.
>
> By the way, using the term "unintended consequence" is just casual
> language and is not intended to imply that evolution can have
> intentions, lol. I say this to ward off any wagging fingers that may be
> attracted this way, to admonish or to instruct the ignorant.

> I guess I'm asking if you think religion can be "useful" and

>> if so whether it constitutes adaptationism.

>
> I think it is an evolutionary by-product that gradually came under
> selection. Daniel Dennett suggests two reasons why:
>
> 1. Religion fosters "team spirit" and group cohesiveness. Those groups
> with better religions outcompeted those with poorer ones.
>
> 2. Belief in a personal diety is a self-help tool. People who think God
> is helping them can overcome problems better and achieve more than the
> poor schmucks who don't believe in God.

> In terms of the structure

>> of our minds we still are "adapted". Again, it gets back to the rift
>> between cultural evolution and biological evolution. As a response of
>> learning and science "we've" realized there is no such thing as a
>> personal God..these are anthropormic. But the vast majority of people
>> believe in a personal God...I would say that its biological...this need
>> for religion. Or I'll say it was definitely founded when language
>> developed. This belief in religion may have even applied to ancestral
>> cavemen who didn't have the power of language...just grunts.I think
>> biology applies to the entire organism both the brain and the mind. I
>> can't prove it and I don't have any proof but I think somehow religion
>> was a biological adaptation.

>
> Then you think religion is a direct adaptation, and not a spandrel,
> by-product, or side-effect of other human mind processes?

>
> This will sound arrogant but I think

>> religion equates with lack of complexity of the brain/mind.

>
> Or religion is a misfiring in an otherwise complex and productive
> mind/brain. Our minds are like a powerful sports car that can deliver
> terrific performance, but also produces a lot of noise and exhaust gases.

> Since

>> science and technology didn't really get going until the last three
>> hundred years religion was useful but at the same time (many times
>> actually) it was not useful. I don't care how much science and
>> technology advances (and if there is any Baldwin effect going on here I
>> haven't witnessed it) all that will happen is a reintroduction of the
>> myths into the new science and culture. Man will never cease to believe
>> in a personal anthropomorphic God until he is actually genetically
>> engineered to the point where that person thinks and feels differently.
>>

>
> Nonsense. Dawkins believes there may be as many as 30 million atheists
> in the US alone. Europe probably has an equal number.

>> Aggression was a biological adaptation chosen by natural selection and
>> imprinted on our genetic code. This nobody can dispute. It is also,
>> unless your a complete moron, no longer adaptable. I would have thought
>> the introduction of nuclear weapons would have been an intelligent
>> reason (from the point of species survival) for the human race to step
>> back. But instead there are enough nuclear weapons hundreds of times
>> worth of blowing the world up.
>>
>> The real ugly secret that most people, even those who cheer optimistic,
>> is that this species will probably extinguish itself before genetic
>> engineering can hope to bring about a signifigant difference.
>>

>
> Genetic engineering is not the only show in town. On the horizon is the
> full complement of GRIN technologies (genetic, robotic, information and
> nano processes). That's *GRIN*, not *GRIM*. See Kurzweil's fine new
> book _The Singularity is Near_.

> Point is, yes, the human species could extinguish itself, but not before
> replacing itself with one or more new and better species of
> hyperintelligent and virtually immortal organisms. What the form of
> these may be, whether "wet" life, cybernetic, or pure information
> flowing within superpowerful computer networks, is anybody's guess at
> this point. But Kurweil thinks it could happen within the next 100
> years at the superexponential rate technology is advancing.

> You should find out more about GRIN and get off this sole preoccupation
> with genetic engineering.