Comments on: Evolution of Utility

By: David Hugh-Jones

David Hugh-Jones — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:49:30 +0000

The evolutionary psychologists’ version of this idea: Symons “On the use and misuse of Darwinism in the study of human behavior”, in The Adapted Mind.

By: Irina

Irina — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:43:33 +0000

http://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v115y2007p302-337.html

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:49:43 +0000

Transparency: I agree with “or something”.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:47:50 +0000

Frances: Nice to see you here. I suppose that humans are more autonomous than dogs, for example, and that utility functions in humans work as the hedonic guidelines for more or less conscious choice. But in dogs, the hedonic guidelines might be closer to being the whole show. But who knows?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:37:31 +0000

I agree with “or something”.

By: Transparency

Transparency — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:18:13 +0000

No I don’t think you’re advocating anything. It’s more like I think your question is like, “where would cats like to swim if they were the sky?” It doesn’t make sense. If cats were the sky, they wouldn’t be cats. Your question incorporates the word “evolution” but doesn’t demonstrate any understanding of it.

The hypothetical that would make sense includes created beings. “Would a robot lacking qualia but programmed to maximize the production of more robots be more or less efficient at reproduction than evolved animals with or without some degree of qualia who work towards intermediate goals?” Or something.

By: Frances Woolley

Frances Woolley — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:10:39 +0000

Arthur, great to see you blogging. Have you seen my post on rat choice theory http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2012/07/is-your-dog-rational.html? If evolution gave humans a utility function, why wouldn't it give non-humans a utility function too? Arguably, it has. But what are the implications for social choice theory of thinking that animals have utility functions? Should we respect animals' choices? If there are reasons not to respect animal's choices, do these same reasons apply to humans also?

By: Arthur Robson

Arthur Robson — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:02:24 +0000

We’re pretty much on the same page, Erik; but you seem to doubt it.

By: erik

erik — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:46:37 +0000

The post seems to suggest that the evolution of our preferences and behavior is independent of the countless evolutionary steps that preceded humans — that the dawn of man coincided with an evolutionary blank slate, cutting all ties to the simplistic creatures from which we developed. This conceals a much simpler (partial) explanation: that humans simply inherited their more primal preferences — such as our desire for food and procreation — from creatures that lacked the intelligence to survive without the guidance of impulse and instinct.

By: Arthur Robson

Arthur Robson — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:26:45 +0000

I am a creationist– I believe that Man created God. More seriously, we are pretty much on the same page as far as the facts go; in terms of theoretical explanation, perhaps you confuse my discussion of the counterfactual with advocating it.