Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Alan uses the word "demonstrably" in a strange way.   For him, it seems to mean "I think it, therefore it is real".  ....

The demonstration of my freedom to invoke conscious choices is quite simple.
I think of something I can do.
I have freedom to consciously choose whether or not to do it.
I consciously invoke my freely chosen action at a freely chosen time - or I freely choose to delay doing it - or I freely choose not to do it.
The choice is mine.

[Alan Burns]

You haven't demonstrated 'freedom' to write the post.  Fact is, you wrote the post because you wanted to; and since we have no freedom to choose our wants, there is no real freedom in the situation.  At all times, we do what we most want, we can do no other.

These words mean nothing.
How could you demonstrate that I had no freedom of choice in what I chose to write?

You are effectively saying that whatever I choose to do proves that I have no choice

[wigginhall]

The demonstration of my freedom to invoke conscious choices is quite simple.
I think of something I can do.
I have freedom to consciously choose whether or not to do it.
I consciously invoke my freely chosen action at a freely chosen time - or I freely choose to delay doing it - or I freely choose not to do it.
The choice is mine.

Well done on missing the point of my post.  To demonstrate something, means to the satisfaction of others.  For example, suppose I claim to have magic powers. To demonstrate these doesn't mean just saying it, but overtly offering evidence, that can be tested by others, to their satisfaction.

However, I understand that your habitual dishonesty will prevent you admitting this.

[Alan Burns]

Well done on missing the point of my post.  To demonstrate something, means to the satisfaction of others.  For example, suppose I claim to have magic powers. To demonstrate these doesn't mean just saying it, but overtly offering evidence, that can be tested by others, to their satisfaction.

However, I understand that your habitual dishonesty will prevent you admitting this.

I was just pointing out the process of making consciously driven choices which presumably applies to all of us, not just myself.  How anyone can consciously choose to deny that they have such freedom is a mystery to me.

[wigginhall]

I was just pointing out the process of making consciously driven choices which presumably applies to all of us, not just myself.  How anyone can consciously choose to deny that they have such freedom is a mystery to me.

Well done on missing the point of my post.

[torridon]

These words mean nothing.
How could you demonstrate that I had no freedom of choice in what I chose to write?

You are effectively saying that whatever I choose to do proves that I have no choice

We only sense that our freedom is compromised when something external to us stops us getting what we want. 

We feel we have greater degrees of freedom than other creatures; a chimp builds a nest in the tree, humans have far more options to choose from.  That is using a slight variation in meaning of the word 'freedom'; really we are talking about range and diversity and complexity there, not freedom.

We feel we are free because we can think ideas through, mull them over in mind, and we don't feel any inner compulsion to make a choice that we don't want to make.  But we don't have control over the fundamental parameters involved, ie we cannot choose what to want or how much to want it.  Our decisions are made in the context of this fundamental truth.  We may be able to muster some degree of cognitive resources to help us identify and pursue what we most want, but we are always trying to enact desires that we cannot create, control or alter.  So, we are 'free' in an apparent, superficial sense, but not in any profound philosophical sense.

[Sebastian Toe]

These words mean nothing.
How could you demonstrate that I had no freedom of choice in what I chose to write?

You are effectively saying that whatever I choose to do proves that I have no choice

When someone writes that they genuinely believe that they are the reincarnated Christ, as some people have done.
 
Most of us would say that they are delusional and have no choice in saying what they do.

You on the other hand would disagree, according to your version of reality.
Is that correct?

[Sebastian Toe]

Ps, the "forces if evil", still no definition?
In your own free willed words.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the magic claim is on your side, Blue.
Magic is an illusion.
It is you who will claim that my freedom to consciously compose this post is "just the way it seems", implying that my freedom to consciously control my thoughts is just an illusion.

At some level at least you seem to be aware of the problem that a material “I” that was making decisions “in the moment” would be functioning arbitrarily, chaotically, randomly. That makes no sense but determinism offends you, so you invent an invisible little man at the controls (for which there’s no evidence whatever) that you call “soul” to resolve the problem. What you don’t seem to be aware of though despite having it explained countless times is that a “soul” acting in the moment would also be acting arbitrarily, chaotically, randomly. That is, if you grasp that the determined vs random binary is a problem for a material “I”, then it’d also be the same problem for your “soul” conjecture. Every time you’re asked though how you’d get it off the same hook you either ignore the question or resort to “I don’t know but it just works that way” – effectively, “it’s magic innit?”.

And that’s why the magic claim is 100% “on your side”, and not on mine at all. Even if you continue to refuse to address your problem, could you show some honesty from now on at least by acknowledging it?     

But I claim that it is not an illusion, it is not magic.

“It’s magic” is your claim. How else would you propose to answer the problem you’ve given this supposed soul of yours?

My freedom, and everyone else's is demonstrably real.

If you think that something is “demonstrably” real then  – finally – demonstrate it. “It feels that way to me” isn’t a demonstration of anything, it’s just an assertion of our feelings – and an irrational one at that.

It is a freedom which defies any physical explanation, because such physical explanation will remove any concept of freedom and consign everything to be derived from consequences of physically controlled reactions.

So many mistakes in so few words. Leaving aside your argumentum ad consequentiam though, the only “freedom” it would remove is the fundamentally irrational one you keep asserting on the basis of your feelings, supported by your continued denial of the overwhelming reasoning and evidence that falsifies your claim. 

If you never, ever intend to engage with the problems your “deepest feelings” present when you rely on them for your understanding of the world, why are you here? Seriously though – mindless assertion is for the faith sharing area, not for a discussion area. 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

At some level at least you seem to be aware of the problem that a material “I” that was making decisions “in the moment” would be functioning arbitrarily, chaotically, randomly. That makes no sense but determinism offends you, so you invent an invisible little man at the controls (for which there’s no evidence whatever) that you call “soul” to resolve the problem. What you don’t seem to be aware of though despite having it explained countless times is that a “soul” acting in the moment would also be acting arbitrarily, chaotically, randomly. That is, if you grasp that the determined vs random binary is a problem for a material “I”, then it’d also be the same problem for your “soul” conjecture. Every time you’re asked though how you’d get it off the same hook you either ignore the question or resort to “I don’t know but it just works that way” – effectively, “it’s magic innit?”.

You still seem unable to come to terms with the concept that you have the demonstrable power to consciously invoke an act of will.  Nothing in the physically defined materialistic scenario can define the origin of this power.  It is not random.  It is not predetermined by the purposeless forces of nature.  But it is determined by something.

And that’s why the magic claim is 100% “on your side”, and not on mine at all. Even if you continue to refuse to address your problem, could you show some honesty from now on at least by acknowledging it?     

I can only acknowledge that we have the power of freewill which is not predetermined by the forces of nature but by our God given gift.

“It’s magic” is your claim. How else would you propose to answer the problem you’ve given this supposed soul of yours?

Our gift of freewill is certainly is not magic, but it is real and demonstrable in every act of consciously driven will

If you think that something is “demonstrably” real then  – finally – demonstrate it. “It feels that way to me” isn’t a demonstration of anything, it’s just an assertion of our feelings – and an irrational one at that.

It is not just a feeling.
It is demonstrated by every act which you consciously choose to do.

So many mistakes in so few words. Leaving aside your argumentum ad consequentiam though, the only “freedom” it would remove is the fundamentally irrational one you keep asserting on the basis of your feelings, supported by your continued denial of the overwhelming reasoning and evidence that falsifies your claim. 

The evidence is in our own freedom to invoke acts of will.
The reasoning you espouse denies this freedom, so do you continue to follow this reasoning, or can you consciously choose to concede that you have freedom to choose?

If you never, ever intend to engage with the problems your “deepest feelings” present when you rely on them for your understanding of the world, why are you here? Seriously though – mindless assertion is for the faith sharing area, not for a discussion area.

But my view is not based upon just a feeling, but on my freedom to choose to compose this reply.

[Gordon]

You still seem unable to come to terms with the concept that you have the demonstrable power to consciously invoke an act of will.  Nothing in the physically defined materialistic scenario can define the origin of this power.  It is not random.  It is not predetermined by the purposeless forces of nature.  But it is determined by something.

I can only acknowledge that we have the power of freewill which is not predetermined by the forces of nature but by our God given gift.

Our gift of freewill is certainly is not magic, but it is real and demonstrable in every act of consciously driven will It is not just a feeling.

It is demonstrated by every act which you consciously choose to do.

The evidence is in our own freedom to invoke acts of will.
The reasoning you espouse denies this freedom, so do you continue to follow this reasoning, or can you consciously choose to concede that you have freedom to choose?

But my view is not based upon just a feeling, but on my freedom to choose to compose this reply.

Why don't we just 'define' all mental events, both conscious and unconscious, including all thoughts, choices and dreams, as being the outputs of our biology - in much the same way that essential hormones are outputs of our biology. That approach provides a provisional explanation that is already supported by a substantial body of evidence, and where research continues.

That way you can stop all the fallacious nonsense such as in your last post, where your personal incredulity and arguments from consequences and ignorance etc are just plain silly. 

[torridon]

You still seem unable to come to terms with the concept that you have the demonstrable power to consciously invoke an act of will.  Nothing in the physically defined materialistic scenario can define the origin of this power.  It is not random.  It is not predetermined by the purposeless forces of nature.  But it is determined by something....

It is determined by a brain.  This is why brains evolved.  Your whole argument renders brains somewhat unnecessary.  We don't need to invent some invisible magic being inside to carry out the function that brains have spent millions of years evolving to do; better to start with the evidence and wonder at it rather than invent unevidenced facile notions that hide all that underlying complexity and deny all understanding of reality.  We are not living in some make-believe fantasy, in the real world, needs are weighed and lead to optimal responses through neural systems whose complexity mirrors that of the organism. Although humans are more complex than other creatures, a moment of choice is still ultimately resolved through the neural mechanisms and cortical structures that long predate the evolution of humans. The sophistication of human mind mirrors the neuroanatomical structure of the brain - we do all that abstract thinking largely thanks to a layer of folded neocortex that surrounds the more ancient brain below but it is the ancient systems of the brain that mediate need and emotion where decisions are ultimately resolved.  We still do what we most want at any moment and the idea that we can be free of those wants is ultimately meaningless.  I just 'invoked a conscious act of will' to write this post. A chimp deciding which tree to build its nest in is also resolving choice between alternatives, somehow, a simpler choice perhaps, but it still happens without the aid of any magic.

[ekim]

But my view is not based upon just a feeling, but on my freedom to choose to compose this reply.

As a matter of interest, why did you reply rather than not reply?

[wigginhall]

I think blue made the point that for Alan, "demonstrate" means "assert".    So, demonstrably real means "something that I assert to be real".    Misuse of the word, but he doesn't care.

[Alan Burns]

I think blue made the point that for Alan, "demonstrate" means "assert".    So, demonstrably real means "something that I assert to be real".    Misuse of the word, but he doesn't care.

I would have thought that the vast majority of people are quite capable of demonstrating that they have the freedom to make a consciously driven choice.

[SusanDoris]

I would have thought that the vast majority of people are quite capable of demonstrating that they have the freedom to make a consciously driven choice.

Well, I certainly can't. Tell me exactly, step by step, how  I can demonstrate that; so that anyone hearing my explanation can see that it is objective, can be tested, and is reliable every time.

[ippy]

I would have thought that the vast majority of people are quite capable of demonstrating that they have the freedom to make a consciously driven choice.

I wondered if you've tried:  info@topnotchsigns 

If you do make an order with them Alan, the A boards are more or less trouble free other than the obvious but if you do decide to go for one of their overhead signs attached to your A board, you have to be a bit cautious about using them on windy days and then if again you're using one of them, as you may on one of your very special message days, don't forget to keep an eye out for the low level shop signs and of course look out for the ever present street furniture.

Topnotch won't be anything like that Northern Island baker, they'll print any slogan you might want whatever you're promoting on any particular week, short of the illegal stuff like inciting violence etc.   

I hope this info is of use to you, that is if you're not all ready conversant with this type of evang advertising.

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy

[torridon]

I would have thought that the vast majority of people are quite capable of demonstrating that they have the freedom to make a consciously driven choice.

In a superficial sense, perhaps.  Look, I just kicked that stone, see, free will, nothing stopped me. 

Big deal. But if others are taking the time to explore the issue from the deeper philosophical perspective of cause and effect, you could engage with those levels also.  The 'vast majority of people' would also be able to demonstrate being able to touch a keyboard, but that no way disproves the theory of atomic matter which says you can't, really.

[wigginhall]

Well, I certainly can't. Tell me exactly, step by step, how  I can demonstrate that; so that anyone hearing my explanation can see that it is objective, can be tested, and is reliable every time.

Yes, that's the normal sense of demonstration.  But you won't get an honest answer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You still seem unable to come to terms with the concept that you have the demonstrable power to consciously invoke an act of will.  Nothing in the physically defined materialistic scenario can define the origin of this power.  It is not random.  It is not predetermined by the purposeless forces of nature.  But it is determined by something.

And you seem to be unable to grasp the basic notion of logical fallacy. Here you try the fallacy of reification – you merely assert that there’s something to “come to terms with”, and that something actually has been “demonstrated” rather than just asserted to be the case.

Why not at least try to understand that fallacious arguments are wrong arguments, so every time you attempt one you instantly tell the rest of us that you’re wrong?

Oh, and what you were supposed to be responding to here by the way was your problem of how this soul of yours would function if it wasn’t to be either deterministic or random in character. Any thoughts at all on that, or are you sticking with “it’s magic innit”?
     

I can only acknowledge that we have the power of freewill which is not predetermined by the forces of nature but by our God given gift.

And again you essay the fallacy of reification – you can’t “acknowledge” something you’re entirely unable to demonstrate to be true; you can only assert it. 

Our gift of freewill is certainly is not magic, but it is real and demonstrable in every act of consciously driven will

Continued evasion noted. If this supposed “soul” doesn’t rely on magic, how does it resolve the determined vs random problem that you’ve unwittingly transferred to it?   

It is not just a feeling.
It is demonstrated by every act which you consciously choose to do.

And here you confuse (and conflate) the feeling of “free” will that we all have with the explanation for it. We feel all sorts of things that more considered analyses tell us are misperceptions. Today for example I went for a bike ride. For all intents and purposes the roads I used felt solid to me, but I also know that bitumen is in fact a very high viscosity liquid and thus that if I waited long enough I'd see it slowly deform. That is, a superficial feeling based on my intuition is correct enough for functional purposes, but not good enough to describe accurately what's happening at an underlying level. Yet for some reason your thinking about consciousness starts at A and ends at A - you rely on the most superficial evidence you have to provide your deepest explanation of what’s actually happening. It’s idiotic and your endless repetition of it is dishonest, yet you persist with it. Why?     

The evidence is in our own freedom to invoke acts of will.

The reasoning you espouse denies this freedom, so do you continue to follow this reasoning, or can you consciously choose to concede that you have freedom to choose?

And here you try again the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity. The reasoning and evidence that undoes you denies only your deeply irrational and mistaken understanding of “free” will, not the actual one. Perhaps if you’d stop lying about that at least it’d save some of us the trouble of continually correcting you on it.   

But my view is not based upon just a feeling, but on my freedom to choose to compose this reply.

Of course it is. Your feeling is that the way you experience choice means that you have also an (evidence-denying) explanation for it, which in turn requires you to invent an invisible little man at the controls that by some apparently magical process is exempt from the determined vs random problem.

It's desperate stuff Alan, and it undermines too your claim that you actually think about things.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

AB,

You’re still confused. Theories don’t “effectively remove” speculations about alternative explanations when those speculation are not investigable. Germ theory for example doesn’t “effectively remove” the speculation that disease is caused by malevolent aliens. Rather theories provide robust explanations that are testable, predict future outcomes, can be falsified if different evidence emerged etc. 

How does this response tie in with your claim that AB consistently entirely dismisses scientific findings we do have because it provides an incomplete explanation for consciousness. Lots of waffle from you but you seem to have failed to identify the robust explanation about reasoned moral decision-making that he dismissed entirely.

Given that evidence is so important to you, I would think you would want to link to the theory that you are thinking of that provides a "robust explanation" for the process of how the brain produces the complexities of self-reflective knowledge that makes up conscious self-awareness, which then allows us to describe our subjective experiences of self, and which gives us the ability to see alternative points of view by recognising that other people have a subjective sense of conscious self that is separate from our own, and which thereby informs conscious choices that we make about our moral behaviours. If scientists agree that there is evidence that we cannot consciously reason our complex moral choices and behaviour from alternative desires and fears thrown up by our sub-conscious, I'd be interested in seeing the link for it.

The models for consciousness we do have from the various fields of research working in the field do not "effectively remove" your speculation about “freedom to make consciously driven choices” – they’re indifferent to it (because it falls at the first hurdle of being logically incoherent) for the same reason that childbirth theory is indifferent to my speculations about storks.

You waffle a lot, but copying and pasting some actual evidence - references to specific paragraphs from peer-reviewed research papers that support your ideas - might give some credibility to your opinions on the workings of the conscious human brain in relation to reasoning out moral decisions. And it would also help your credibility if you provided a link to evidence to show where the ability of self-reflective knowledge that allows us to see someone else's point of view has been observed in animals.     

Except it’s not “obviously true” at all. That’s just an irrational belief you happen to hold built on the odd notion that your “deepest feelings” about something must therefore explain reality at the deepest level. The don’t.

Except you don't know what reality is at the deepest level. Are you suggesting that science has a way of establishing an objective reality for our subjective conscious self-awareness?  This self-awareness appears to influence our conscious moral choices, as our moral choices often express our deepest feelings about who we aspire to be so if you have evidence that science has established an objective reality at the deepest level that should therefore determine the decisions our conscious brain makes about moral behaviour, I'd be interested in you posting that evidence and explaining how it shows that our conscious brain does not drive the complexities of reasoned morality.     

No it doesn’t because the author didn’t bother to address the determined vs random problem.

I asked you this before and you have not elaborated on where you think determined vs random fits into what Dr Magda Osman was saying - in which paragraph of her writing that I linked to do you think determined vs random should be addressed and why?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No you wouldn't. Dr Rowe has written several books, it's unrealistic to expect someone to read them all in one go and would be quite in order for you to provide a quotation.

Gabriella this may give you some insight into Dorothy Rowe's theories (& I post this with no bias):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/rowe.shtml

Thanks Robbie.

I would agree with Ippy that Dr Rowe's views on this topic make some kind of sense to me. Dr Rowe says "what neuroscientists have shown is that we are free to make choices about how we interpret events. It is our interpretations of events, and not the events themselves, that determine what we do."

Or as she seems to put it - we choose which of the alternative meanings produced by our brain we are going with, which then influences our choice of future behaviour. And she makes the point that the range of meanings we can choose from is limited by how much we have learned in our life.

Though I admit to being a bit surprised that Ippy would recommend a scientist who uses the word "sin".

[Alan Burns]

Well, I certainly can't. Tell me exactly, step by step, how  I can demonstrate that; so that anyone hearing my explanation can see that it is objective, can be tested, and is reliable every time.

You have just demonstrated your ability to choose by reading my post and making a consciously driven choice to reply to it.  I see no possibility of this being an illusion, because the evidence for your conscious choice is in your post.  You chose to reply, you could have chosen not to reply, or you could have chosen different words to reply.  The choice was yours.  If there was a physical explanation for your choice you would have had no freedom to choose what you did.  You are in control, but what defines you and your consciously driven choices?

I have to admit to being totally baffled at how anyone can possibly deny that they have freedom to choose.  Could it be related to Sassy's opening post which claims that many people seek reasons not to believe in God?  To admit to having conscious ability to choose could lead to a discovery of their own spiritual nature, which in turn leads to a realisation of God's nature. 

All I can say is that you have nothing to fear from seeking God, because in discovering God you will discover your true purpose in this world, an inner peace and joy which faith can bring, and free you from the evil deceptions which hide us from the truth.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

How does this response tie in with your claim that AB consistently entirely dismisses scientific findings we do have because it provides an incomplete explanation for consciousness. Lots of waffle from you but you seem to have failed to identify the robust explanation about reasoned moral decision-making that he dismissed entirely.

There’s no waffle and that wasn’t his claim. He told us that he’d deny any theories that “effectively remove” the opinions he asserts to be facts. I merely explained that you cannot prove a negative – natural childbirth theory doesn’t for example “remove” stork theory if you frame the latter to be non-investigable, but it does provide a sufficiently robust explanation as to make it irrelevant.   

Given that evidence is so important to you, I would think you would want to link to the theory that you are thinking of that provides a "robust explanation" for the process of how the brain produces the complexities of self-reflective knowledge that makes up conscious self-awareness, which then allows us to describe our subjective experiences of self, and which gives us the ability to see alternative points of view by recognising that other people have a subjective sense of conscious self that is separate from our own, and which thereby informs conscious choices that we make about our moral behaviours. If scientists agree that there is evidence that we cannot consciously reason our complex moral choices and behaviour from alternative desires and fears thrown up by our sub-conscious, I'd be interested in seeing the link for it.

You’re very confused. The cognitive sciences in particular provide a wealth of evidence that supports their theories of mind. Those theories are consistent with our understandings of other phenomena we experience and can explain more fully, and so far at least they give us a good indication of being on the right track toward a more complete model. AB though dismisses that evidence out of hand because it doesn’t provide “definitions” (by which presumably he means explanations) that are complete, and he uses that notion then to insert his “soul” as an explanation but for which there’s no evidence whatsoever. That’s his problem. Even though a complete A-Z explanation of consciousness isn’t there we do at least have perhaps a coherent A-M explanation, whereas AB has only A – “it feels that way to me therefore that’s the complete explanation for it”.

To put it another way, which do you think to be the more likely to give you an accurate picture: a 100 piece jig-saw with half the pieces missing, or a 100 piece jig-saw with 99 of the pieces missing? I propose the former (while accepting that I could be wrong); AB asserts the latter (while denying any possibility of being wrong).             

You waffle a lot…

Actually I don’t, but using pejorative language like this just makes you look unpleasant as well as out of your depth. 

…but copying and pasting some actual evidence - references to specific paragraphs from peer-reviewed research papers that support your ideas - might give some credibility to your opinions on the workings of the conscious human brain in relation to reasoning out moral decisions. And it would also help your credibility if you provided a link to evidence to show where the ability of self-reflective knowledge that allows us to see someone else's point of view has been observed in animals.

My credibility is fine thanks, and if by “the ability of self-reflective knowledge that allows us to see someone else's point of view has been observed in animals” you mean something like empathy, the literature is full of it. I’ve posted a whole list of citations on those papers in the past from studies on everything from vampire bats to elephants. If I can find the list I’ll even do it again for you if you like? Be aware though that no matter how nuanced, sophisticated, empathetic these animals have been found to be AB will just dismiss it a “learnt behaviour”, though who they learnt it from and how is something about which he’s always remained silent.   

Except you don't know what reality is at the deepest level. Are you suggesting that science has a way of establishing an objective reality for our subjective conscious self-awareness?  This self-awareness appears to influence our conscious moral choices, as our moral choices often express our deepest feelings about who we aspire to be so if you have evidence that science has established an objective reality at the deepest level that should therefore determine the decisions our conscious brain makes about moral behaviour, I'd be interested in you posting that evidence and explaining how it shows that our conscious brain does not drive the complexities of reasoned morality.

Misrepresentation noted. I talk about deeper levels – indeed I’ve often said here that there’d be no way to know whether we’d ever found the ultimate truth about anything (the problem of unknown unknowns in other words). That doesn’t mean though that there aren’t deeper levels of understanding that we can identify. The earth feeling flat and then being found not to be so is an obvious example. AB though starts with how something feels to him as an experience, and finishes with it as his fundamental explanation for that experience: “I experience decision-making as if there’s a little man at the controls, therefore there is a little man at the controls”. That’s his problem.             

I asked you this before and you have not elaborated on where you think determined vs random fits into what Dr Magda Osman was saying - in which paragraph of her writing that I linked to do you think determined vs random should be addressed and why?

From what I read in the link, she suggests some sort of autonomous (ie, non-deterministic) decision-making process. So far as I could see though she didn’t trouble to explain how that decision-making mechanism would function outside of the determined vs random binary options.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Here you go:

Evolutionary morality

Allchin, D. 2007. "Social unDarwinism." American Biology Teacher 69(Feb.): 113-115.

Camazine, S., Deneubourg, J.-L., Franks, N. R., Sneyd, J., Theraulaz, G., & Bonabeau, E. 2001. Self-Organization in Biological Systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hamilton, W.D. 1964. The genetical evolution of social behavior. J. Theoretical Biology 7, 1-52.

Holland, J. H. 1998. Emergence: From Chaos to Order. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Krebs, J.R. and Davies, N.B. 1993. An Introduction to Behavioural Ecology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific.

Murphy, N. and Brown, W.S. 2007. Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Nowak, M.A. 2006. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314, 1560-1563.

Richerson, P.J. and Boyd, R. 2005. Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Sober, E. & Wilson, D.S. 1998. Unto Others. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Trivers, R.L. 1971. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology 46, 35-57.

Wilkinson, G.S. 1984. Reciprocal food sharing in the vampire bat. Nature 308, 181-184.

Wilkinson, G.S. 1990. Food sharing in vampire bats. Scientific American (Feb.): 76-82.