This is the very cognitive dissonance (the necessity of entertaining apparent opposites) I was pointing out.

As I assume (although don’t know) that some sort of monism is correct, this is not a tension I feel.

Is the solution you propose the solution you accept? It seems a reasonable resolution to me.

I’d be interested to learn whether you posit that the ability to “access” psi phenomena is contingent upon heritable differences in brain structure/function.

Were that the case, I would argue the adaptive value of even the most rudimentary of such abilities (say, the ability to detect of predators directing attention at one) would be so high that psi ability would quickly be selected for. That would solve the problem of having to “wait around until the blind forces of evolution just happened to come up with a brain able to manifiest the higher cognitive and spiritual capacities.” Indeed, I would expect arms races to ensue vis mind reading and the thwarting of same, as well as the evolution of mental indirection and deception.

Ironically, I would say that one of the strongest arguments against the reality of psi phenomena (given an orthodox evolutionary framework) – at least in a form that it is in any way contingent upon particular neural configurations – is that it is not extremely common in nature, given this likely adaptive value.

(D):I’m not sure I follow, Magnan, as you embrace a position and its opposite in the span of three sentences. To embrace “interactive dualism” is to reject the notion that these human characteristics are instantiated in recently evolved neural structures.”

This is the very cognitive dissonance (the necessity of entertaining apparent opposites) I was pointing out. Evidence for the evolution of certain brain structures related to cognitive functions, and at the same time much evidence for the ultimate non-dependence of human consciousness on the human brain. One tentative solution to resolve the cognitive dissonance is proposed by some parapsychologists, the interactive dualist Darwinism I briefly described. Interactive dualism is not in conflict with the known intimate association of consciousness with cortical structures, rather it is a concept reconciling the apparent brain-dependence of consciousness with a vast body of evidence that consciousness is not one with and identical to brain structures or their functioning. The interactive dualist Darwinist considers that immaterial Mind has interacted with the Darwinist physical evolution of man.

Rape today can be explained because rape was once adaptive and rapists had more kids, so we carry rape genes.

Why aren’t we all rapists then? The non-rapists should have been weeded out by now?

Maybe rapists didn’t have more kids?

Maybe rape is a byproduct of civilization, after all, we don’t find much evidence for any distinction between modes of sexual behavior in the animal kingdom, from which we are supposed to be descended?

I agree. But how to reconcile this with the huge body of evidence (summarized in part in The Spiritual Brain) that human consciousness is not (just) the operation of billions of neurons. It seems that some form of interactive dualism is really the case.

I’m not sure I follow, Magnan, as you embrace a position and its opposite in the span of three sentences. To embrace “interactive dualism” is to reject the notion that these human characteristics are instantiated in recently evolved neural structures.

I agree. But how to reconcile this with the huge body of evidence (summarized in part in The Spiritual Brain) that human consciousness is not (just) the operation of billions of neurons. It seems that some form of interactive dualism is really the case.

The reality of psi and other psychical phenomena is well established. Of course the vast majority of Darwinists are categorical materialists and deny this and any form of dualism, but some parapsychologists try to have their cake and eat it too by adhering to a sort of dualistic Darwinism where they reconcile their belief in the modern theory of evolution with parapsychology using a sort of interactive Darwinism. They suggest that whatever “spiritual” forces or entities operate through the physical brain waited around until the blind forces of evolution just happened to come up with a brain able to manifiest the higher cognitive and spiritual capacities they desired.

I don’t think that is very satisfactory for a lot of reasons, especially that such forces could manipulate the physical world and would not reasonably just hope that a suitable animal body just happened to evolve despite more than astronomical odds.

It follows that, because the cortical areas that host these crucial functions are recently evolved, some version of evolutionary psychology must in fact be correct, however silly other specific hypotheses may appear.

Elements of human theory of mind, which is universally observed and universally indispensable to the conduct of human affairs, are among those that have an increasingly firm empirical grounding as cognitive capacities with origins in primate and human evolution. That theory and research both originated in and takes a rightful place among the fruits of empirical science.

I’m not sure that universals such as getting hungry are really the realm of evo-psych. I think universals such as laughter, dreams, music, and dance are more interesting. Universals shared with other primates and social mammals, while more universal, are less interesting, IMHO.

Ah, but to use a turn of phrase that folks here normally apply to evidence for evolution, I think the realm of strictly human phenomena is shrinking all the time. Chimpanzee babies laugh when tickled, birds and whales sing, and everyone with a canine companion knows that they dream.

In the words of Tom Weller, Man is the only animal that wears bow ties. (okay, I would grant that we appear to be capable of a kind of abstract thought that animals don’t).

(All that said, I don’t deny that there are much more interesting phenomena than hunger. I was just talking about the basics to make my basic point, when it got picked up by another commenter.)

The same thing can be said of evo psych. If every behavior as well as every memory and thought is a physical thing posted in consciousness, then it certainly must be crowded in there!

i) hunger (i.e. telling an animal to eat) is a critical function, but how do creatures survive long enough without it to ‘evolve’ it?

Creatures without hunger are much less likely to survive, assuming that they do not constantly have a readily available supply of food, and that they routinely perform metabolic activities which would drain them without regular energy replenishment (so plants have a different story to tell). They are by no means guaranteed to all die instantly, though.

At some point, the right combination of genes appears in enough organisms that it “avalanches” and spreads throughout the population. Species with the hunger experience will have that experience become more and more refined to circumstances, while those without it will not.

ii) but if hunger ‘evolved first’ before actual eating by animals, then what pressure did it ‘evolve’ on?

Technically, that’s totally possible too. A set of genes could come together that serve one purpose (or no purpose at all) and later change slightly to serve another.

The thing to keep in mind is that environmental changes don’t “trigger” needed mutations — that would be something like Lamarckism.

Of course, I totally admit that I’m not completely “explaining” the origin of hunger in the slightest. I have no idea what genes relate to hunger and in what ways. But I’m pretty sure that someone in biology does have a good sense of those details, perhaps even down to a pathetic level. Conversely, I’m not aware of anyone with a good “How, what, when??!” for design, except maybe Dembski and his notion that it could all be the modification of quantum variables.

Just curious, Avonwatches: I assume you believe in genetic entropy? That would answer a lot of questions for me.