Anon, you are arguing for “incorrect”, not “cynical”. Please consider the difference.
Like it or not, biologists are basically correct in identifying the primary goal of organisms as self-reproduction. That is the nature of the attractor to which all organisms’ goal systems are drawn (though see also this essay of mine). Yes, some organisms break, and other organisms find themselves in unfamiliar environments—but if anything can be said to be the goal of organisms, then that is it. The exceptions (like your contraceptives) just prove the rule. Such organisms are acting in a way that is intended to promote their genetic fitness. It is just that some of their assumptions about the environment might be wrong. Alas, contraceptives are not a very good example, because they prevent disease, make sex easier (thus helping to create pair bonds), and have other positive effects.
Organisms tend to act as though their number one motive is self-reproduction. Philosophers may be able to debate whether that motive is “explicitly represented in their brains”—but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, whether philosophers are prepared to call it a duck seems like a side issue.
It is the same as with Deep Blue. Deep Blue acts as though its number one motive is to win games of chess (thus inflating IBM’s stock price). That is the single most helpful simple way in which to understand its behaviour. If you actually look at its utility function, it has thousands of elements, not one of which refers to winning games of chess—but so what? It is not “cynical” to treat Deep Blue as trying to win games of chess. That is what it is doing!
What about religious people who take vows of celibacy?
I think people care more about self-preservation than reproduction, honestly. I know I do!
Edit: Upon reflection, and receiving some replies here, I actually think Tim made a pretty strong case. However, though “playing chess” may be the “single most helpful simple way to understand” Deep Blue’s behavior, it is wrong to say this of “trying to reproduce” for human behavior. You could predict only a very small percentage of my behavior using that information (I’ve never kissed a girl or had sex, despite wanting to) - whereas, using “self-preservation” and “seeking novelty”, you could predict quite a bit of it. I suspect this is not just true of me, but of many people.
Edit 2: Though you could poke holes in my first edit. Like, maybe the reason I don’t try to reproduce now is only because I’ve failed in the past. But this hinges on being a violation of Tim’s point. Also, see this later comment I made, which I think is pretty much a knockdown refutation.
Edit 3: See this comment by memoridem for a succinct summary of my position. Somehow, none of my comments in this conversation came out clearly.
I think people care more about self-preservation than reproduction,
True in the abstract, but once people actually have offspring, they don’t hesitate to, for example, interpose themselves between an aggressor and their children.
Also, airlines constantly remind people that in case of emergency they should put their own oxygen mask on before helping others with theirs, from which I guess that people would otherwise do otherwise.
What about religious people who take vows of celibacy?
Consider that many of them probably fail and some of them probably take the vow after having children. Those who don’t are so rare you might want to consider them defective from the perspective of propagation of genes. People have genetically inherited diseases too.
I think people care more about self-preservation than reproduction
It’s reasonable to assume that the value of self-preservation declines with age and the number of children. Self-preservation in most instances seems to be instrumental to reproduction.
What about people who adopt children from a foreign country, rather than having their own biological children? I personally know a couple who did that. (I plan on doing the same if I get married—maybe not from a foreign country, but definitely adopting.)
Does it matter really? From my perspective Tim proposes an economical tool for thinking about a system’s goals, but probably won’t lead to much insight and will cause bias compared to more labor intensive methods.
I think this post could clear most of your confusion about the connection between your genes and your goals.
People usually ask questions to clarify some confusion. I don’t know what yours is, but thought the article might be helpful since it elucidates this subject. Have you read it?
Organisms obviously don’t directly optimize their genetic fitness. Deep Blue obviously doesn’t directly optimize winning chess. If you want to economically predict their actions however, finding something they seem to optimize works as a rough model. This is easy if you know the process that made them. It’s the nature of a rough model you can poke holes to it by finding exceptions, but this doesn’t make the model useless.
Tim might be making a stronger claim than this. If that’s the case I probably don’t agree with it.
Anon, you are arguing for “incorrect”, not “cynical”. Please consider the difference.
Like it or not, biologists are basically correct in identifying the primary goal of organisms as self-reproduction. That is the nature of the attractor to which all organisms’ goal systems are drawn (though see also this essay of mine). Yes, some organisms break, and other organisms find themselves in unfamiliar environments—but if anything can be said to be the goal of organisms, then that is it. The exceptions (like your contraceptives) just prove the rule. Such organisms are acting in a way that is intended to promote their genetic fitness. It is just that some of their assumptions about the environment might be wrong. Alas, contraceptives are not a very good example, because they prevent disease, make sex easier (thus helping to create pair bonds), and have other positive effects.
Organisms tend to act as though their number one motive is self-reproduction. Philosophers may be able to debate whether that motive is “explicitly represented in their brains”—but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, whether philosophers are prepared to call it a duck seems like a side issue.
It is the same as with Deep Blue. Deep Blue acts as though its number one motive is to win games of chess (thus inflating IBM’s stock price). That is the single most helpful simple way in which to understand its behaviour. If you actually look at its utility function, it has thousands of elements, not one of which refers to winning games of chess—but so what? It is not “cynical” to treat Deep Blue as trying to win games of chess. That is what it is doing!
What about religious people who take vows of celibacy?
I think people care more about self-preservation than reproduction, honestly. I know I do!
Edit: Upon reflection, and receiving some replies here, I actually think Tim made a pretty strong case. However, though “playing chess” may be the “single most helpful simple way to understand” Deep Blue’s behavior, it is wrong to say this of “trying to reproduce” for human behavior. You could predict only a very small percentage of my behavior using that information (I’ve never kissed a girl or had sex, despite wanting to) - whereas, using “self-preservation” and “seeking novelty”, you could predict quite a bit of it. I suspect this is not just true of me, but of many people.
Edit 2: Though you could poke holes in my first edit. Like, maybe the reason I don’t try to reproduce now is only because I’ve failed in the past. But this hinges on being a violation of Tim’s point. Also, see this later comment I made, which I think is pretty much a knockdown refutation.
Edit 3: See this comment by memoridem for a succinct summary of my position. Somehow, none of my comments in this conversation came out clearly.
True in the abstract, but once people actually have offspring, they don’t hesitate to, for example, interpose themselves between an aggressor and their children.
Also, airlines constantly remind people that in case of emergency they should put their own oxygen mask on before helping others with theirs, from which I guess that people would otherwise do otherwise.
Consider that many of them probably fail and some of them probably take the vow after having children. Those who don’t are so rare you might want to consider them defective from the perspective of propagation of genes. People have genetically inherited diseases too.
It’s reasonable to assume that the value of self-preservation declines with age and the number of children. Self-preservation in most instances seems to be instrumental to reproduction.
What about people who adopt children from a foreign country, rather than having their own biological children? I personally know a couple who did that. (I plan on doing the same if I get married—maybe not from a foreign country, but definitely adopting.)
Does it matter really? From my perspective Tim proposes an economical tool for thinking about a system’s goals, but probably won’t lead to much insight and will cause bias compared to more labor intensive methods.
I think this post could clear most of your confusion about the connection between your genes and your goals.
What do I seem confused about to you?
People usually ask questions to clarify some confusion. I don’t know what yours is, but thought the article might be helpful since it elucidates this subject. Have you read it?
Organisms obviously don’t directly optimize their genetic fitness. Deep Blue obviously doesn’t directly optimize winning chess. If you want to economically predict their actions however, finding something they seem to optimize works as a rough model. This is easy if you know the process that made them. It’s the nature of a rough model you can poke holes to it by finding exceptions, but this doesn’t make the model useless.
Tim might be making a stronger claim than this. If that’s the case I probably don’t agree with it.
OK, I’m in complete agreement with you.