#37. The Fallacy of Justice [evolutionary psychology]

EP

Red, theory; black, fact

The Biology of Badness

Evil and criminality may sub-serve either dispersal or preemptive population reduction, both valuable biological processes that tend to prolong the survival of species. 

The algorithms for achieving these ends would have been created over time by some form of evolution.

Evolution and the Role of Emotion

The genetically inherited parts of our behavior enter consciousness as emotions, and can therefore be easily identified. The main outlines of civilization are probably due to the inherited behavior component, and not to the reasoning, conscious mind, which is often just a detail-handler. How could civilization rest on a process that can't even remember what happened last weekend?

Thus, humans have a dual input to behavior, emotion and reason. The above arguments show that evil and criminality come from the emotional input. Yet the entire deterrence theory of justice assumes the opposite, by giving the person a logical choice: "You do this, we do that, and you won't like it. So you don't do this, right?"

However, I think that people commit crimes for emotional reasons. As usual, the criminal's reasoning faculties are just an after-the-decision detail handler. The direction that this detail handler then takes is fascinatingly monstrous, but this does not mean that crime begins in reason.

Conclusion: the deterrence theory of justice is based on a category error.

Past and Future Responses to Badness

Religion, with its emphasis on emotion, was all the formal "law enforcement system" anyone needed up until only about 200 years ago, at the industrial revolution. We may be able to go beyond where religion takes us by means of a disease model of criminality.

It does make some sense to lock criminals up, because with less freedom they cannot physically commit as many crimes. Many prisons become dungeons, however, because of the public's desire for revenge. However, all revenge-seeking belongs to the dispersal/depopulation dynamic and is thus part of the problem. A desire for revenge may follow a crime very predictably, but logically, it is a non-sequitur.

A more nuanced theory of crime prevention is possible, where logical and technological constraints on behavior complement efforts to reduce the motivation for committing crimes at the source: the individual's perception of the fairness of society, which will be due to a combination of objective realities and the filters through which they are viewed. However, I originally wrote as I did because I don't think that logical and technological constraints are the squeaky wheel at the moment.

#35. The Thought Process Through the Ages [evolutionary psychology]

EP

Red, theory; black, fact

In the beginning, there was theology. At some point, intellectual endeavor split into wrestling with reality questions vs. morality questions. Then people had to figure out when to go with your gut and when not to.

_________________

Thought sources	Inputs	Output insights
		Reality (What is)	Blend	Morality (Thus…)
PGSd+senses	Emotion	politicsc		religionc
	Blend	astrologyb ↕	← theologya →	Jewish lawb ↕
Education+senses	Reason	sciencec		lawc

a. primordial condition

b. output distinction added

c. input distinction added

d. evolution; see post 22

If politics and science seem like strange bedfellows, consider that ancient rulers used to consult astrologers before making major decisions.

Just as emotion must not be allowed to contaminate scientific thought, is it equally true that reason must not be allowed to contaminate religious thought? Is failure to observe this restriction the cause of religious schisms?

#33. Emotions [evolutionary psychology, genetics, neuroscience]

EP   NE   GE

Red, theory; black, fact

A Genetics Theory 

All sexually reproducing species may have a long-range guidance system that that could be called proxy natural selection, or preferably, post-zygotic gamete selection (PGS). This is basically a fast form of evolution in which particular body cells, the gametes, are the units of selection, not individuals. Selection is conjectured to happen post-zygotically (i.e., sometime after the beginning of development, or even in adulthood) but is retroactive to the egg and sperm that came together to create the individual. 

Each gamete is potentially unique because of the crossing-over genetic rearrangements that happen during its maturation. This theory explains the biological purpose of this further layer of uniqueness beyond that due to the sexual mixing of chromosomes, which would otherwise appear to be redundant.

Emotions Represent Fitness 

Our emotions are conjectured to be programmed by species-replacement group selection and to serve as proxies for increases and decreases in the fitness of our entire species.

The Corresponding Mechanistic Theory 

A further correlate of an emotion beyond the cognitive and autonomic-nervous-system components would be the neurohumoral component, expressed as chemical releasing and inhibiting factors that enter the general circulation via the portal vessels of the hypothalamus, blood vessels which are conventionally described as affecting only the anterior pituitary gland. These factors may reach the stem-like cells that mature into egg and sperm, where they set reversible epigenetic controls on the level of crossing-over that will occur during differentiation. 

Large amounts of crossing-over are viewed as retroactively penalizing the gametes leading to the individual by obfuscating or overwriting with noise specifically the genetic uniqueness of said original gametes. In contrast, low levels of further crossing-over reward the original gametes with high penetrance into the next generation. 

Here we have all the essential ingredients of classical natural selection, and all the potential, in a process that solves problems on an historical timescale.

The Limited Scope of Crossing-over

Crossing-over happens only between homologous chromosomes, which are the paternal and maternal copies of the same chromosome. Human cells have 46 chromosomes because they have 23 pairs of homologous chromosomes. 

The homologous-chromosome-specificity of crossing-over suggests that the grand optimization problem that is human evolution has been broken down into 23 smaller sub-problems for the needs of the PGS process, each of which can be solved independently, without interactions with any of the other 22, and which involves a 23-fold reduction in the number of variables that must be simultaneously optimized. 

In computing, this problem-fragmentation strategy greatly increases the speed of optimization. I conjecture that it is one of the features that makes PGS faster than classical natural selection.

Do Chromosome-specific Signaling Pathways Exist?

However, we now need 23 independent neurohumoral factors descending in the bloodstream from brain to testis or (fetal) ovary, each capable of setting the crossing-over propensity of one specific pair of homologous chromosomes. Each one will require its own specific receptor on the surface of the target oogonia or spermatogonia. In the literature, I already find a strange diversity of cell-surface receptors on the spermatogonia. I predict that the number of such receptors known to science will increase to at least 23. None of this is Lamarkism, because nervous-system control would be over the standard deviation of traits, not their averages.

Naively, this theory also appears to require 23 second messengers to transfer the signals from cell surface to nucleus, which sounds excessive. Perhaps the second messengers form a combinatorial code, which would reduce the number required by humans to log₂ (23) = 4.52, or 5 in round numbers. This is much better. Five second-messenger systems are known, these being based on: cyclic AMP, inositol triphosphate, cyclic GMP, arachidonic acid, and small GTPases (e.g., ras). The AND-element that would be required for decoding could be implemented straightforwardly as a linear sequence of transcription-factor binding sites along the DNA strand. However, many mammalian species have many more than the 32 chromosome pairs needed to saturate a 5-bit address space. If we expand the above list of second messengers with the addition of the calcium/calmodulin complex, the address space expands to 64 pairs of homologous chromosomes, for a total ploidy of 128. This seems sufficient to accommodate all the mammals. Thus, a combinatorial second-messenger code representable as a five- or six-bit binary integer in most organisms would control the deposition of the epigenetic marks controlling crossing-over propensity.

It Gets Bigger

If the above code works for transcription as well as epigenetic modification, then applying whatever stimuli it takes to produce a definite combinatorial second-messenger state inside the cell will activate one specific chromosome for transcription, so that the progeny of the affected cell will develop into whatever that chromosome specifies, be it an organ, a system, or something else. And there you may have the long-sought key to programming stem cells. You're welcome.

The requirement that the evolution of each chromosome contribute independently to the total increase in fitness suggests that a chromosome specifies a system, like the nervous system or the digestive system. We seem to have only 11 systems, not 23, but more may be defined in the future.

Illustration credit: By Edmund Beecher Wilson - Figure 2 of: Wilson, Edmund B. (1900) The cell in Development and Inheritance (2nd ed.), Category:New York: The Macmillan Company, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3155599

#26. Why Organized Religion? Theory Two [evolutionary psychology]

EP

Red, theory; black, fact

Emotions are an "endophenotype," a term from functional magnetic resonance imaging, that provides a useful stepping stone from evolutionary arguments to explanations of our daily lives. 

Starting with the Emotion 

What is the mood or feel as you enter a place of worship and participate in the ceremonies conducted there? More than anything else, the mood is one of great reverence, as though one is in the presence of the world's most powerful king. Kings are supposed to "represent their race." 

Problem

If the emotional outline of people's behaviour is being partly randomized in each generation by recombination-type mutations, a consistent moral code seems impossible if we assume that morality comes mostly from peoples' inborn patterns of emotional reactivity, that is, the sum total of everyone's preferences. The purpose of a king may be to find and coincide with societies' moral center of gravity, around which a formal, if temporary, moral code can be constructed. In a complex society, everyone must be "on the same page" for efficient interaction. 

It Gets Bigger

The same problem no doubt recurs each time organisms come together to form a colony, or super-organism: the conflict between the need of a colony for coordination of colonists and the need of evolution for random variability. Such variability will inevitably affect the formulation and interpretation of the coordinating messages that the colonists exchange, like all their other inborn characteristics. 

A Social Solution 

With kingship comes the corrupting influence of personal power and  tyrannical government. Replacing a real king with a pretend-king named "God" would seem to be the solution that accounts for organized religion, but then one loses the flexibility that goes with having a flesh-and-blood king who can change his predecessor's laws based on current popular sentiment.

Mechanistic Interpretation 

However, human nature may well have a core-and-shell structure, with an "unchanging" core surrounded by a slowly changing shell. The former would be the species-specific objective function and produced by species-replacement group selection within the genus, and the latter would be due to selection of smaller units, and would represent the stratagems hit upon by our ancestors to meet the demands of the objective function in our time and place. This shell part may account for cultural differences between countries. The core may be implemented in the hypothalamus of the brain, whereas the shell may be implemented in the limbic system. The core, being very slow to change, could be managed by organized religion, whereas the shell could be codified by the more flexible institution of government. Though the core is unchanging overall, specific individuals will harbor variations in it due to point mutations, necessitating the standardizing role of religion. Synaptic plasticity would then be used to cancel the point-mutational variation in the objective function.

The Big Picture 

The core may consist of four pillars, or regulatory themes: regulation of genetic diversity, memetic diversity, altruism, and dispersal. Our energetic investment in obtaining each item is to be optimized.

#24. Proxy Natural Selection from the Inside [evolutionary psychology, genetics]

EP   GE

Red, theory; black, fact

Morning hymn at Sebastian Bachs' By Toby Edward Rosenthal

What Does Darwinian Fitness Feel Like?

My first post on post-zygotic gamete selection (PGS) left open some questions, such as what it should feel like, if anything, when one is fulfilling the species objective function and being deemed "proxy-fit" by one's own hypothalamus.

How Our Emotions Program Us

I conclude that it's just what you would think: you feel joy and/or serenity. Joy is one of Ekman's six basic universal human emotions, the others being fear, anger, disgust, sadness, and surprise. I think that emotions collectively are the operations of the highest-level human behavioral program. (That is, the program in its broadest outlines.) The unpleasant emotions force you to get off the couch until they are taken care of, and joy lets you get back on. Thus, the unpleasant four are the starting emotions, and joy is the stopping emotion. 

Surprise may be a meta-emotion that tells you that your threshold for experiencing one of the other emotions is too high, and immediately lowers it. Each activation of an emotion may tend to lower the threshold for activating it next time, which implies a positive feedback loop capable of changing the personality to suit suddenly changed circumstances, especially if the emotion eventually begins issuing with no trigger at all.

Where Our Emotions Come From

To relate this to the mechanism of PGS, the crossing-over events that went into making the sperm cell that made a given person would theoretically affect brain development more than anything else, specifically connecting some random stimulus to one of the unpleasant primary emotions. This creates temperament, and thus  personality, which is the unique quality which they have to offer the world, and on which they are being tested by history. If the actions to which their own, special preferences propel them are what the species objective function is looking for, they succeed, feel joy and serenity, and experience an altered methylation status of the DNA in the spermatogonia if male, which suppresses further crossing over in the manufacture of sperm, so that their personality type breeds true, which is what the population needs. Famous musical families, for example, may originate in this way.

PGS is quick evolution to respond to challenges that come and go on less than a multi-thousand generation timescale, and it explains the complexities of sexual reproduction.

A Flaw in the Argument, Addressed

However, trees have no behavior, much less personalities, and yet they have sexual reproduction. However, trees probably adapt quickly not by behavioral change, but by changes in their chemistry. The chemistry in question would be the synthesis of pesticidal mixtures located in the central vacuole of each plant cell. In terms of such mixtures, each tree should be slightly unique, an easily testable prediction.

The Big Picture 

Each of the four unpleasant "starting" emotions may sub-serve one of the four pillars of the species objective function. Thus: sadness, altruism; disgust, genetic diversity (due to point mutations; what is motivated here is the screening of such novelties during mate selection, screening always being the expensive part); fear, memetic diversity (or motivating prescreening of memetic novelties through fear of public speaking); anger, dispersal.

Each of these emotions seems to have another use, in preserving the life of the individual, as opposed to the entire species. Thus: sadness, unfavorable energy balance; disgust, steering one away from concentrations of harmful bacteria; fear, avoidance of injury and death; anger, driving away competitors for food and mates.

Picture credits: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags/Country-specific_tags#United_States_of_America