Re: Laughter as an individual fitness advantage
- From: Alberto Gómez Corona <agocorona@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:22:57 -0400 (EDT)
Suppose that to communicate "This is fearless" to the group is the
true origin and the true nature of laughter.
Then some mutant individuals can use it for selfish purposes, for
example to advertise to a predator and/or potential sexual partners
and/or other rank-contenders that he don`t feel fear of a predator.
Just in the same way that some herbivores jump high in the same
situation. Then the communicational nature of laugther is contaminated
with false, dangerous information for which the rest has to evolve
countermeasures against.
It is known that chimpanzees lie, and it is very doubtful that such a
kind of lies were n' t developed if laughter where just a
communication mean.
With this last example I what to illustrate that the scenario that i
depict is a real one, that is, there are beings neuronally complex
enough to both laugh and lie.
This is for me a clear demonstration, for me, that laughter could not
have evolved, at least in primates, as a pure communication
mechanism.
On 6 ago, 05:55, "John W Edser" <ed...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
=?iso-8859-1?q?Alberto_G=F3mez_Corona?= <agocor...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Subject: Laughter as an individual fitness advantage
1) According with modern synthetic theory, group cohesion is no longer
a way to explain evolutionary designs. The laughter must have
conferred a differential advantage to individuals, not to the whole
group.
JE:-
Today's Neo Darwinists will not accept the simple argument that Darwinian
nature can trade in risk, i.e. individuals CAN be naturally selected to
accept shared risks as _individuals_ ( not as selected groups or selected
genes) because this can drastically reduce mean risk per individual, per
group (no group selection or independent gene selection is required). They
seem to think that just about any cost to an individual, e.g. just a simple
risk premium remains an "altrusitic"gift only explainable via group
selection above the Darwinian level (or Hamiltonian gene selection below
it). In fact, the payment of such premium was and remains entirly Darwinian
"selfish" (the opposite of both). However, it is a lot more than that
because it remains MUTUALLY selfish. A major Neo Darwinian error is to allow
just a movable frame of reference for calculating fitness. This can allow
just about anything, e.g. today's popular polycentric arguments can score a
goal for the theory by conventionally kicking the goal (making a rationale
argument which can be tested) OR if this fails, move the goal posts over
the ball without even touching it (fitting up nature to the argument). It
is only the assumed frame of reference which matters. For the sciences this
has to remain refutable (constant) otherwise "anything goes".
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
ed...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Could alien life exist in the form of DNA-shaped dust?
- Next by Date: Re: Laughter as an individual fitness advantage
- Previous by thread: Re: Laughter as an individual fitness advantage
- Next by thread: Re: Laughter as an individual fitness advantage
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
