The Evolution of Enjoyment

[ned flandas]

Please excuse my ignorance on this subject.

If we evolved, and survival of the fittest is the basis of evolution, then why do we have certain feelings that would have no use to our survival?

[geetarmoore]

Please excuse my ignorance on this subject.

If we evolved, and survival of the fittest is the basis of evolution, then why do we have certain feelings that would have no use to our survival?

That's not the only basis of evolution, it's just one of the factors... We call it natural selection.

It can be said that the feelings that humans are born with (instinctual) are a direct effect of the evolutionary process....

Why do you assume that they don't have an effect on survival, or natural/sexual selection?

[Rufo]

Exactly what feelings are you talking about?

Also, remember that evolution doesn't necessarily remove unnecessary things unless they are a burden.

[Mercutio]

"Enjoyment" has no survival value? Enjoyment gets you to do things. Or rather, rewards you for having done them. Enjoyment of fats and sugars, for instance, rather than gravel, is very adaptive. And I am fairly certain there might be an evolutionary advantage to enjoying sex.

[Beerina]

I have two Pekingese who play fight and roll around. This obvious enjoyment gives them fighting experience without the actual danger of fighting.

I have a cat that plays with rats and mice and chipmonks and squirrels and rabbits and orangutans and, well, I'm sure he's enjoying it, and it gives practice in hunting.

[Pauliesonne]

yeah, masterbation is AWESOME!

[Dogdoctor]

I guess that previously all of our feelings had some adaptive function. I also guess that for the most part they still do. Just imagine what life would be like without enjoyment (and without drugs to control depression).

[Pauliesonne]

Yeah, drugs are GREAT!

[Dr Adequate]

If we evolved, and survival of the fittest is the basis of evolution, * sigh *

"Natural selection".

... then why do we have certain feelings that would have no use to our survival? We tend to enjoy satisfying drives which are essential to our survival and reproduction, such as hunger, libido, curiosity, the desire for company and social approval, etc.

Being human, we've found various ways to short-circuit the process. Alcohol is a good example: we did not evolve in order that alcohol should get us drunk. However, alcohol is a functional part of our brain chemistry, and so we can cheat Nature by artificially producing and consuming alcohol.

What does the theory of evolution have to say about this? Well, since being drunk, plus the medical complications of drinking, are not conducive to survival and reproduction, we would predict that those cultures in which alcohol has long been part of the staple diet will have higher tolerance for alcohol, and be better able to metabolize it, than in cultures which are not so hard-drinking, and this is in fact what we find.

We might instance gardening as another form of artificial pleasure. A garden should be green, it should be grassy, it should be dotted with trees, it should have water, and, ideally, running water, and it looks at its best in high summer. In short, it should look like the sort of place that would lift the hearts of a tribe of nomadic African hunter-gatherers.

Finally, we should look at pleasures which seem truly gratuitous, of which music can stand as the type and example. If we assume that appreciation of music and muscal talent are linked, which seems sensible (for who could, or would want to, make good music if he didn't appreciate it?) then the existence of music would appear to be a stable game-theoretic solution; that is, if everyone else enjoys music, then it is selective to be able to appreciate it yourself. (Consider the tail of a peacock as a parallel: it is cumbersome to the species, but the male bird without one leaves no heirs. Of course, musical talent is not so essential.)

Observing that something is a stable solution does not, of course, explain how it got there, but we might again consider the parallel of the peacock's tail. If a primitive protomusic was attractive to primitive protohumans, then some individual with the ability to produce something which was, so to speak, more like protomusic than protomusic --- which tripped the same neurons as protomusic, but more effectively, then if protomusical ability is selected for, this new talent will also be selected for, and more favorably, producing a shift in the stable solution. It remains only to reflect on the fact that the other great apes do indeed make a noise which primatologists describe as "singing".

[David Swidler]

"Enjoyment" has no survival value? Enjoyment gets you to do things. Or rather, rewards you for having done them. Enjoyment of fats and sugars, for instance, rather than gravel, is very adaptive. And I am fairly certain there might be an evolutionary advantage to enjoying sex.

Excuse me while I conduct a few experiments to test those assertions.

[Tricky]

Roger Waters (of Pink Floyd) thinks it might not be a survival trait (http://www.lyricsdomain.com/18/roger_waters/amused_to_death.html)
And somewhere out there in the stars
A keen-eyed look-out
Spied a flickering light
Our last hurrah
And when they found our shadows
Groups 'round the TV sets
They ran down every lead
They repeated every test
They checked out all the data in their lists
And then the alien anthropologists
Admitted they were still perplexed
But on eliminating every other reason
For our sad demise
They logged the only explanation left
This species has amused itself to death

[Dr Adequate]

Excuse me while I conduct a few experiments to test those assertions. Just hope that you don't get assigned to the control group.

[Iacchus]

Please excuse my ignorance on this subject.

If we evolved, and survival of the fittest is the basis of evolution, then why do we have certain feelings that would have no use to our survival?Whereas what would be the point if the Universe were non-experiential? Wouldn't enjoyment, in accord with meaning and purpose (as well), merely be an extension of this? So, maybe what we need to ask, is why is the Universe experiential?

[Roboramma]

And what is the point of a Universe that is experiential?

Just curious.

[Iacchus]

And what is the point of a Universe that is experiential?

Just curious.Well, at the very least, it allows us to reflect on why we're here.

[Roboramma]

What's the point of reflecting on why we're here?

[Iacchus]

What's the point of reflecting on why we're here?What is philosophy?

[Roboramma]

If you're saying that philosophy is the point of reflecting on why we're here, or that reflecting on why we're here is philosophy, then you haven't answered the question.
So...

What is the point of philosophy?

(Do you see what I'm getting at?)

[Iacchus]

If you're saying that philosophy is the point of reflecting on why we're here, or that reflecting on why we're here is philosophy, then you haven't answered the question.
So...

What is the point of philosophy?

(Do you see what I'm getting at?)Whereas if you agree that there is no point to it all, why question it? Why question anything? I'm suggesting that everything is so-designed that we ask questions. And, I'm merely asking how so?

[Mercutio]

Whereas if you agree that there is no point to it all, why question it?Do you only question things that have a point? Can it be of interest without having an Iacchian point?
Why question anything?Actually, Iacchus, why do you question anything at all? You avoid evidence like it's avian flu.
I'm suggesting that everything is so-designed that we ask questions.Circular. Assumes your conclusion. To the best of our knowledge, neither beetles nor bacteria ask questions, and they outnumber us. Why do you insist that "everything is designed"?
And, I'm merely asking how so? The answer lies within, Iacchus. Seriously, the real question is "why are you asking these leading questions, when you have no intention of actually searching for answers?"

[Pauliesonne]

The answer lies within, Iacchus. Seriously, the real question is "why are you asking these leading questions, when you have no intention of actually searching for answers?"

Because he dosen't want to...

[Beleth]

If we evolved, and survival of the fittest is the basis of evolution, then why do we have certain feelings that would have no use to our survival?
Daniel Dennett's new book explores the notion that perhaps those feelings have a symbiotic relationship to us -- that maybe we have certain feelings and thoughts not for our survival, but for theirs. In other words, certain ideas have evolved such that we are naturally good hosts and carriers for them.

[Iacchus]

Circular. Assumes your conclusion. To the best of our knowledge, neither beetles nor bacteria ask questions, and they outnumber us. Why do you insist that "everything is designed"?I'm referring to those things which are intelligent minded of course. I wouldn't expect a rock to question the nature of its existence. Would you?

[Ducky]

I'm referring to those things which are intelligent minded of course. I wouldn't expect a rock to question the nature of its existence. Would you?


Then why are you questioning the nature of your existence? Virtually all of your posts demonstrate you share many critical thinking skills with a rock.






(you have got to stop serving up the softballs Iacchus.)