“And even when “truth” can be clearly defined, it is a concept to which natural selection is indifferent. To be sure, if an accurate portrayal of reality, to oneself or to others can help spread one’s genes, then accuracy of perception or communication may evolve. And often this will be the case (when, say, you remember where food is stored, and share the data with offspring or siblings). But when accurate reporting and genetic interest do thus intersect, that’s just a happy coincidence. Truth and honesty are never favored by natural selection in and of themselves. Natural selection neither “prefers” honesty nor “prefers” dishonesty. It just doesn’t care.”
He’s talking about the “maps” that humans/animals may carry in their brains. These maps don’t need to match the territory to be adaptive (I think your criticism of the quote hinges on how you would define “significantly”). But there’s quite a bit of space where a “bad map” does not prevent adaptive behavior.
For example, some non-venomous snakes “copied” the color patterns of venomous snakes. It’s still adaptive for animals to avoid all snakes with this coloring (just to be safe) without needing to know the truth about which snake is dangerous and which isn’t. And natural selection is “rewarding” the non-venomous snake for lying about how dangerous it is.
This seems to be conflating possessing truth and sharing truth. The former is almost always valuable. The latter is an interesting bit of game theory, that can go either way.
As it has been said, truth may be spoken as events dictate, but should be heard on every occasion.
These maps don’t need to match the territory to be adaptive (I think your criticism of the quote hinges on how you would define “significantly”)
Partially that, but also partially about the direction of the gradient. First, maps never match the territory perfectly precisely, they are always simplified models. In that sense, of course, a map not “matching” the territory is not a obstacle to surviving and prospering.
However I would claim that the greater the mismatch between the map and the territory, the greater disadvantage in the natural selection game does the creature accrue. If, magically, you get a choice between getting a more accurate map or a less accurate map, you should always choose the more accurate map.
It’s still adaptive for animals to avoid all snakes with this coloring (just to be safe) without needing to know the truth about which snake is dangerous and which isn’t.
That is not true—you set up the question wrong. There are three maps involved: map 1 does not recognize venomous snakes at all; map 2 confuses venomous and mimicry-using snakes; and map 3 successfully distinguishes between venomous snakes and mimicry-using ones.
Map 3 matches the territory better than map 2 which matches the territory better than map 1. The natural selection would give advantage to an animal with map 3 over the one with map 2, and the one with map 2 over the one with map 1.
If, magically, you get a choice between getting a more accurate map or a less accurate map, you should always choose the more accurate map.
I think that point he’s trying to make is that natural selection doesn’t magically get a choice between maps. In general, a more accurate map will only become available to the mind of some creature if it happens to be adaptive for genes in a particular population in a particular environment.
Think of all the creatures with really bad maps. In terms of reproduction, they are doing just fine. For some species, their relative reproductive success can be improved with more accurate maps, but that’s a means to the end of reproductive success,
There are many ways to “make a living” in evolutionary terms, and having a mind with accurate maps is only one of them.
Think of all the creatures who don’t have “maps” as humans do. They are still being acted upon by natural selection.
It’s still adaptive for animals to avoid all snakes with this coloring (just to be safe)
Yes, this could be adaptive, but not costless. An animal that avoids all snakes that look venomous misses out on some opportunities (e.g., foraging for food in a tree occupied by a harmless but dangerous-seeming snake). The opportunity cost, in reproductive terms, might be negligible, or it might matter, depending on the specifics. (Here I’m agreeing with you when you point to the importance of the term “significantly.”)
Because the truth, even in small matters like snake coloration, can make a difference, the original quotation is an overstatement.
Because the truth, even in small matters like snake coloration, can make a difference, the original quotation is an overstatement.
All natural selection “cares about” is genes copied. Claws, peacock tail feathers, and “maps” can all “make a difference,” but natural selection only acts on the results (genes copied); natural selection itself doesn’t favor any particular kind of adaptation, that’s why I think the original quote is not an overstatement.
As a general statement the quote seems absurd (except in the sense that natural selection has no mind and is thus indifferent to everything). But note that our ancestors’ beliefs interacted with evolution by way of predictions (conscious or unconscious) and not by truth directly. Our normative ‘beliefs’ may have had reproductive value in other ways, but this need have nothing to do with moral truth as defined by those same norms.
Evolution determines gene survival by (to use a hypothetical example) whether or not you can throw a spear, rather than whether or not you have an accurate picture of the the underlying physics.
Is this quote talking about morality and moral “truth”?
He’s using “indifferent” metaphorically. He would completely agree that natural selection has no mind.
What he means is that natural selection operates on differential rates of reproduction of genes, not on the accuracy/truth of the beliefs that the mind of an individual holds.
I agree that “limited” is a better word than “horrible”.
What I meant by “horrible” is that, relative to human maps, ant maps are extremely limited; they do not represent “truth” or reality as well to the same scope or accuracy of human maps.
I think the point is that even though ant maps are limited, they can still be adaptive. Natural selection is indifferent to the scope/accuracy of a map in and of itself.
Critically, the areas in which ant maps are limited are the areas in which natural selection doesn’t kill them for it. Colonies that think food is in places where food isn’t starve to death.
Yes, you’ve hit on the main point. Survival (and later on, reproductive value) is what matters. The fact that the maps help them survive is what matters. The existence of the map or its accuracy matters only matters in so far as it contributes to reproductive success.
Natural selection doesn’t “reward” them for having an accurate map, only a map that helps they live and reproduce.
Yes...? And one of the key traits of a useful map is accuracy.
I mean, yes, clearly natural selection doesn’t value truth for its own sake. It certainly does favor truth for instrumental reasons. I’m uncomfortable phrasing this as “indifferent to truth” as the original quote did. But perhaps we’re talking past each other, here.
This seems to be just wrong. If your map significantly doesn’t match the territory, natural selection is likely to be brutal to you.
Maybe I should have included the whole paragraph:
“And even when “truth” can be clearly defined, it is a concept to which natural selection is indifferent. To be sure, if an accurate portrayal of reality, to oneself or to others can help spread one’s genes, then accuracy of perception or communication may evolve. And often this will be the case (when, say, you remember where food is stored, and share the data with offspring or siblings). But when accurate reporting and genetic interest do thus intersect, that’s just a happy coincidence. Truth and honesty are never favored by natural selection in and of themselves. Natural selection neither “prefers” honesty nor “prefers” dishonesty. It just doesn’t care.”
He’s talking about the “maps” that humans/animals may carry in their brains. These maps don’t need to match the territory to be adaptive (I think your criticism of the quote hinges on how you would define “significantly”). But there’s quite a bit of space where a “bad map” does not prevent adaptive behavior.
For example, some non-venomous snakes “copied” the color patterns of venomous snakes. It’s still adaptive for animals to avoid all snakes with this coloring (just to be safe) without needing to know the truth about which snake is dangerous and which isn’t. And natural selection is “rewarding” the non-venomous snake for lying about how dangerous it is.
This seems to be conflating possessing truth and sharing truth. The former is almost always valuable. The latter is an interesting bit of game theory, that can go either way.
As it has been said, truth may be spoken as events dictate, but should be heard on every occasion.
Partially that, but also partially about the direction of the gradient. First, maps never match the territory perfectly precisely, they are always simplified models. In that sense, of course, a map not “matching” the territory is not a obstacle to surviving and prospering.
However I would claim that the greater the mismatch between the map and the territory, the greater disadvantage in the natural selection game does the creature accrue. If, magically, you get a choice between getting a more accurate map or a less accurate map, you should always choose the more accurate map.
That is not true—you set up the question wrong. There are three maps involved: map 1 does not recognize venomous snakes at all; map 2 confuses venomous and mimicry-using snakes; and map 3 successfully distinguishes between venomous snakes and mimicry-using ones.
Map 3 matches the territory better than map 2 which matches the territory better than map 1. The natural selection would give advantage to an animal with map 3 over the one with map 2, and the one with map 2 over the one with map 1.
I think that point he’s trying to make is that natural selection doesn’t magically get a choice between maps. In general, a more accurate map will only become available to the mind of some creature if it happens to be adaptive for genes in a particular population in a particular environment.
Think of all the creatures with really bad maps. In terms of reproduction, they are doing just fine. For some species, their relative reproductive success can be improved with more accurate maps, but that’s a means to the end of reproductive success,
There are many ways to “make a living” in evolutionary terms, and having a mind with accurate maps is only one of them.
Think of all the creatures who don’t have “maps” as humans do. They are still being acted upon by natural selection.
The idea that it is just “a happy coincidence” makes me think Lumifer’s criticism still applies.
This additional context does help; thanks.
Yes, this could be adaptive, but not costless. An animal that avoids all snakes that look venomous misses out on some opportunities (e.g., foraging for food in a tree occupied by a harmless but dangerous-seeming snake). The opportunity cost, in reproductive terms, might be negligible, or it might matter, depending on the specifics. (Here I’m agreeing with you when you point to the importance of the term “significantly.”)
Because the truth, even in small matters like snake coloration, can make a difference, the original quotation is an overstatement.
All natural selection “cares about” is genes copied. Claws, peacock tail feathers, and “maps” can all “make a difference,” but natural selection only acts on the results (genes copied); natural selection itself doesn’t favor any particular kind of adaptation, that’s why I think the original quote is not an overstatement.
As a general statement the quote seems absurd (except in the sense that natural selection has no mind and is thus indifferent to everything). But note that our ancestors’ beliefs interacted with evolution by way of predictions (conscious or unconscious) and not by truth directly. Our normative ‘beliefs’ may have had reproductive value in other ways, but this need have nothing to do with moral truth as defined by those same norms.
I don’t understand what this means.
Is this quote talking about morality and moral “truth”? That’s not how I read it—if it does, it needs more context.
Evolution determines gene survival by (to use a hypothetical example) whether or not you can throw a spear, rather than whether or not you have an accurate picture of the the underlying physics.
Beats me, I just read the title underneath.
yes, i would like to agree with you sir :)
He’s using “indifferent” metaphorically. He would completely agree that natural selection has no mind.
What he means is that natural selection operates on differential rates of reproduction of genes, not on the accuracy/truth of the beliefs that the mind of an individual holds.
Another way to think about his idea:
Natural selection is equally brutal to all life. Moss and ants have horrible maps, but they are still successful in terms of natural selection.
That’s not self-evident to me. They certainly have very limited maps, but I don’t know if these limited maps are bad.
I agree that “limited” is a better word than “horrible”.
What I meant by “horrible” is that, relative to human maps, ant maps are extremely limited; they do not represent “truth” or reality as well to the same scope or accuracy of human maps.
I think the point is that even though ant maps are limited, they can still be adaptive. Natural selection is indifferent to the scope/accuracy of a map in and of itself.
Critically, the areas in which ant maps are limited are the areas in which natural selection doesn’t kill them for it. Colonies that think food is in places where food isn’t starve to death.
Yes, you’ve hit on the main point. Survival (and later on, reproductive value) is what matters. The fact that the maps help them survive is what matters. The existence of the map or its accuracy matters only matters in so far as it contributes to reproductive success.
Natural selection doesn’t “reward” them for having an accurate map, only a map that helps they live and reproduce.
Yes...? And one of the key traits of a useful map is accuracy.
I mean, yes, clearly natural selection doesn’t value truth for its own sake. It certainly does favor truth for instrumental reasons. I’m uncomfortable phrasing this as “indifferent to truth” as the original quote did. But perhaps we’re talking past each other, here.