By: Kaj Sotala

Kaj Sotala — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:20:23 +0000

I'm glad I started subscribing to the feed on journals linking to bp3.org - it's interesting to see how somebody else reports on the same article that I just covered. :)To clarify your last paragraphs - are you saying that these results are trivial because they don't show that individuals actually have (or develop) attributes such as the ones modeled, nor that they could have evolved? If so, I'm not entirely sure that I'd agree. Aren't many evolutionary explanations in general just that - explanations of why a certain trait or feature, once evolved by happenstance, is beneficial and may rise to fixation? Certainly the paper didn't explain how such features may have evolved in the first place, but they don't seem like more complex than many other genetic behaviors. Or did I misunderstand your criticism?

By: This is common sense

This is common sense — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:33:47 +0000

I think it might still be "a more complex than necessary way" of explaining this.Right from the start Prof McNamara was over-complicating: "The problem is that the process of natural selection tends to produce individuals that do the best for themselves." That is not really true. If we look back through history, all we can say is that process of natural selection tends to produce agents whose actions tend to result in the continuation and propagation of the genetic patterns within them.It is obviously not the specific DNA molecules that are kept across generations, only the pattern, hence a genetic pattern that tends to result in the survival of more copies of itself will tend to survive.So perhaps I am ignoring some hidden complexity, but the longevity and success of genetic patterns that encourage cooperation therefore seems obvious to me.

Comments on: Why cooperate?

By: Kaj Sotala

By: This is common sense