Yes. The idea about using mammalian values as a starting point is interesting and is elaborated, but “human cognition” and “human culture” look like place holders for complexity.
His division of mammalian values on 7 behavioural traits is also questionable, as I would use more general level of basic drives, that is survival and replication (+ some instrumental; in that case SEEK and PLAY is part of learning behaviour).
I think the 7 traits part comes for existing literature on the subject. This is the book referenced (didn’t look it up, though):
J. Panksepp and L. Biven, The Archaeology of Mind: Neuroevolutionary Origins of Human Emotions. WW Norton & Company, 2012.
I actually thought that part seemed pretty reasonable. I’ve not thought about the specifics deeply, but I would basically expect it to look something like a number of modules focused on limited scope being repurposed and interacting to motivate us in ways that give us our values. Whether the particular modules are right or not I don’t know, but they all seemed like the sorts of things I would expect. I don’t actually expect to find modules in the mind that are specifically focused on survival and replication even if they exist because evolutionary pressures to do those two things shaped them over generations.
I got that they are from the book, which describes mammal behaviour. I just suggested another clarification of the same features based evolutionary biology expectations. For example, my internal model is that if I observe an animal particular behaviour, I expect that this type of the behaviour is either for survival or for reproduction.
I also think that there should be literature about it, but I didn’t search it yet.
Survival-reproduction model is simpler and could be easily presented as a math model. For complex social mammals this includes activities like learning and social behaviour, but they also have survival fitness.
Yes. The idea about using mammalian values as a starting point is interesting and is elaborated, but “human cognition” and “human culture” look like place holders for complexity.
His division of mammalian values on 7 behavioural traits is also questionable, as I would use more general level of basic drives, that is survival and replication (+ some instrumental; in that case SEEK and PLAY is part of learning behaviour).
I think the 7 traits part comes for existing literature on the subject. This is the book referenced (didn’t look it up, though):
J. Panksepp and L. Biven, The Archaeology of Mind: Neuroevolutionary Origins of Human Emotions. WW Norton & Company, 2012.
I actually thought that part seemed pretty reasonable. I’ve not thought about the specifics deeply, but I would basically expect it to look something like a number of modules focused on limited scope being repurposed and interacting to motivate us in ways that give us our values. Whether the particular modules are right or not I don’t know, but they all seemed like the sorts of things I would expect. I don’t actually expect to find modules in the mind that are specifically focused on survival and replication even if they exist because evolutionary pressures to do those two things shaped them over generations.
I got that they are from the book, which describes mammal behaviour. I just suggested another clarification of the same features based evolutionary biology expectations. For example, my internal model is that if I observe an animal particular behaviour, I expect that this type of the behaviour is either for survival or for reproduction.
I also think that there should be literature about it, but I didn’t search it yet.
Survival-reproduction model is simpler and could be easily presented as a math model. For complex social mammals this includes activities like learning and social behaviour, but they also have survival fitness.