Here's my to reply to your reply to my reply to Janet Taylor's posting.
This thread is based on the following quote from Janet:
> Even altruisum is
> performed because it brings more joy to be the giver than whatever is
> given up.
Here we go:
>>1) This statement has no meaning, because the word "joy" has no meaning.
>
>The word /joy/ certainly does have meaning! I'm most amazed to encounter
>such a
>statement in this context. That it has meaning, and that you understand
its
>meaning, is attested to by your offering a "more carefully worded"
substitute
>("prefers to perform"). If /joy/ had no meaning, such substitution would
not
>make any sense, either.
As I stated in the next sentence, "joy" is subjective. Perhaps this phrase
should read "the meaning of "joy" shifts from person to person". This would
make the sentence "stand-alone" and not depend on the next sentence for a
clarification.
>> "Joy" differs from individual to individual, that is, it is subjective.
>
>Whether or not something differs among individuals has nothing to do with
>subjectivity. Body mass differs from individual to individual, too, but
that
>doesn't make it "subjective".
While technically correct, your reply misses the point. The meaning of
"joy", the experience of "joy", differs from individual to individual. The
meaning of "Body Mass" does not differ from individual to individual. "Joy"
_is_ a subjective term. Some people receive joy from being spanked, other
don't. Again, perhaps I should have added a few more words to make it clear
what I meant. However, I really didn't expect anyone to argue with joy
being subjective.
>> We end up with something like "Individuals perform
>> altruistic acts because they prefer to perform them."
>
>Janet's line of inquiry DOES tend to fall into this sort of tautology, and
t>hat
>does pose a deficiency which we must point out, but the problem with it is
>simply that what we seek to explain is why individuals have preferences.
So I
>*do* agree with the point you make as #3 --- but #2 was off track. For
>although
>her statement is tautological for Dawkins' purpose, it actually has an
>important
>meaning. She claims that altruistic acts are by nature consonant with
>economic
>calculation. That is far from meaningless; in fact, it stands as as
>apparently
>in conflict with Dawkins' theory and so may have utility in the testing
A tautology is a meaningless statement. No new knowledge is gained, no
opinions are expressed, it cannot be examined, it cannot be tested. A is A.
Thanks,
Dave Leeper
dleeper@sybase.com
"The Blue Sky is an Illusion created by the Sun to hide us from an Infinite
Black Void." - David Leeper
-----------------------------
To David Leeper:
Janet Taylor wrote the following sentence
> Even altruisum is
> performed because it brings more joy to be the giver than whatever is
> given up.
to which you gave extended reply, in two separate messages.
I am in strong agreement with your discussion in the message entitled
_virus:
Re: Rationalism_, but toward the later post _virus: Joy_ I am far less
pleased
by your argument. Perhaps you should have left well enough alone.
In specific, you replied:
>1) This statement has no meaning, because the word "joy" has no meaning.
The word /joy/ certainly does have meaning! I'm most amazed to encounter
such a
statement in this context. That it has meaning, and that you understand its
meaning, is attested to by your offering a "more carefully worded"
substitute
("prefers to perform"). If /joy/ had no meaning, such substitution would
not
make any sense, either.
> "Joy" differs from individual to individual, that is, it is subjective.
Whether or not something differs among individuals has nothing to do with
subjectivity. Body mass differs from individual to individual, too, but
that
doesn't make it "subjective".
> We end up with something like "Individuals perform
> altruistic acts because they prefer to perform them."
Janet's line of inquiry DOES tend to fall into this sort of tautology, and
that
does pose a deficiency which we must point out, but the problem with it is
simply that what we seek to explain is why individuals have preferences. So
I
*do* agree with the point you make as #3 --- but #2 was off track. For
although
her statement is tautological for Dawkins' purpose, it actually has an
important
meaning. She claims that altruistic acts are by nature consonant with
economic
calculation. That is far from meaningless; in fact, it stands as as
apparently
in conflict with Dawkins' theory and so may have utility in the testing
process.
In summary, I agree that Dawkins' theory is a huge step forward in a very
important problem, the problem of unit-of-evolution, and the consequences of
that theory are especially noteworthy for providing cogent answers to
serious
puzzles such as the evolution of altruism. But I'd like to see this argued
without falsely accusing people of making meaningless statements.
INADEQUATE
and MEANINGLESS are not synonymous! Thank you.
-----T