Podcast Summary

Podcast: LSE: Public lectures and events
Episode: Rules and Representations: desire from an evolutionary point of view
Date: December 6, 2011
Speaker: Dr. Armin Schulz (LSE Philosophy Department)

Overview

In this lecture, Dr. Armin Schulz explores the evolutionary foundations of desire, engaging deeply with philosophical, biological, and psychological perspectives. He critically examines the traditional belief-desire model of mind, focusing specifically on why desires—distinct from beliefs and drives—might have evolved. Dr. Schulz situates his arguments in relation to Kim Sterelny’s work, offers a novel account framed around cognitive efficiency, and addresses challenges and implications for both human and nonhuman cognition.

Main Theme

What is the evolutionary function of desires, and how do they differ, both functionally and conceptually, from drives and beliefs?

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Philosophy as Interdisciplinary Practice (00:42–02:50)

• Schulz advocates broadening how we do philosophy—mixing ideas from biology, psychology, and social science.
  • "You might come here with a certain preconception about what philosophy is like or what it should look like... and try to suggest there's certain ways of doing philosophy that might be interesting and new and different from what you might expect." —Armin Schulz (01:16)
• He frames his project as both philosophical and scientifically informed, deflating the need for strict disciplinary boundaries.

2. The Belief-Desire Model and Its Prevalence (02:50–06:10)

• Schulz presents the mainstream model: mental states as beliefs (maps of the world) and desires (ends or goals).
• These concepts underpin classic social science, psychology, and everyday explanations.
• There is controversy about how faithfully this model reflects actual cognition.

3. Evolutionary Approaches – Focus on Desires (06:11–10:33)

• Evolutionary studies often analyze beliefs (adaptive information processing) but rarely focus on the evolution of desires.
• Addressing this gap is central: "Why would you evolve desires independently of beliefs?" (06:35)

4. Kim Sterelny’s Account

• Sterelny distinguishes the evolutionary drivers of beliefs (handling a deceptive world) from those of desires (responding to internal states).
• Desires purportedly offer advantages over drives:
  1. Handling Complexity: Adaptive in varied environments (14:50)
  2. Reduced Motivational States: Fewer states needed (15:12)
  3. Decision Mechanisms: Avoid winner-take-all strategies (15:53)
  4. Faster Adaptation: Developmental rather than evolutionary change (16:14)

5. Drives vs. Desires: What’s the Real Difference? (10:34–21:27)

• Drives: Direct, reflex-like action, no representational "thinking."
• Desires: Involve internal representations of what would be good; enable rule-based decision-making.
  • "You're using desires to the extent that you consult some sort of explicit tokening of what you ought to be doing... you're going through this mental state type thing that is making decisions in this representational way." —Armin Schulz (12:00)
• Schulz challenges whether Sterelny’s functional distinctions hold up, arguing that drives can be flexible and learned, and desires don’t inherently avoid drives’ problems.

6. Schulz’s Rule-Based Account: The Value of Representational Rules (21:28–28:49)

• The evolutionary upshot of desires is cognitive efficiency:
  • Rule-based action (desires) allows an organism to generalize decisions via principles, rather than memorizing endless context-action pairs (as with drives).
  • Example: Choosing a water source in a mountainous environment — rules for tradeoff (distance, elevation) are more efficient than an exhaustive "lookup table."
  • "If you could just represent, consult this principle when making a decision... that can help you save various kinds of resources, energetic cognitive resources..." (21:50)
• Desire-based systems require less memory, enable faster adaptation, and provide consistent rules for novel situations.
• Key Insight: Desire-based architectures save energy and cognitive resources compared to purely drive-based ones.

7. Adaptation, Selection, and the Limits of the Story (28:49–38:40)

• Natural selection is one driver among many in evolution; population size, genetic drift, and constraints (developmental, physical, genetic) all matter.
• "Factors other than the natural selection are relevant to their evolution... cognitive architecture fossilizes even less well [than the brain]." (33:23)
• Schulz insists on a moderate conclusion: Cognitive efficiency is a prima facie reason—not a guarantee—for the evolution of desires.

8. Objections Addressed (38:41–48:38)

• Objection 1: Measuring Efficiency
  • There are alternative measures; Schulz’s is pragmatic and widely used in linguistics and neuroscience.
• Objection 2: Distinguishability
  • It’s empirically tricky, but with cognitive ethology and neuroscience, distinctions between drive/desire-based systems can be inferred.
• Objection 3: Persistence of Drive-Based Organisms
  • Natural selection isn’t always dominant; transitions are costly, so many organisms retain drives for some tasks.
  • Often, both architectures coexist within an organism.

9. Implications for Representation Debates (46:05–52:32)

• Schulz’s view provides support for both representationalist and certain anti-representationalist positions:
  • Representations streamline decision-making — not an unnecessary cognitive luxury.
  • However, drive-based models can still handle certain environments efficiently.

10. Conclusion & Takeaways (52:33–57:57)

• Desires evolve for cognitive efficiency, enabling the flexible, resource-light application of rules.
• This view offers a fresh moderate position, distinct from both standard evolutionary psychology and radical anti-representationalism.
• "Is this philosophy, is this biology, is it cognitive science, is it psychology? To some extent, who cares... Let's throw everything we got at this problem." (57:37)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the central problem:
  "Why would you evolve desires independently of beliefs?... It's the belief-desire model of the mind. It's got two parts. So it's just focused on one part." (06:35)
• On representation:
  "If you make decisions in this rule based way, in some ways that is akin to making decisions using desire... the ability to make decisions in a rule based way might be a reason for the evolution of desire like states." (25:10)
• On cognitive efficiency:
  "Replacing... lots of storage with a bit of computation... this sort of replacing of computation with storage can be energy saving." (53:10)
• On disciplinary boundaries:
  "Is this still called philosophy? Is this sufficiently philosophical to be worth the name? Or is this just really bad data-lacking psychology...? If that's what it is, then make it better. Then let's not worry about whether it has to remain philosophical at the end of the day." (57:25)

Timestamps for Major Segments

• 00:42–02:50 – Philosophy as interdisciplinary, outline of lecture
• 02:50–06:10 – The belief-desire model explained
• 06:11–10:33 – Why focus on desires? The evolutionary gap
• 10:34–21:27 – Drives vs. desires, evolutionary distinctions, and critique
• 21:28–28:49 – Schulz’s rule-based account, water source example
• 28:50–38:40 – Selection, adaptation, and complexity in evolutionary change
• 38:41–48:38 – Addressing major objections and clarifications
• 46:05–52:32 – Implications for representation, embodied cognition
• 52:33–57:57 – Conclusion, disciplinary perspective, final remarks
• 58:42–87:55 – Q&A: Drives vs. lookup tables, unconscious desires, co-existence of drives/desires, extension to institutions, brain requirements, habits vs. stimulus-response, evolutionary complexity, and more.

Q&A Highlights

• Drive-table analogy: Schulz maintains the key is whether a rule is explicitly represented/consulted, not just implicitly encoded (58:42–62:31).
• Consciousness: Desires, as defined, do not require consciousness (62:32–63:21).
• Co-existence: Organisms can and do possess both drive- and desire-based systems (63:21–64:54).
• Nonorganic extension: Potential application to robots and possibly institutions, though more complex (64:54–67:26).
• Habits vs. desires: Schulz classifies habits within drives; the distinction is one of representational processes (72:32–74:48).

Final Thoughts

Dr. Schulz provides a nuanced, interdisciplinary exploration of the evolution of desire, emphasizing the value of representational, rule-based decision-making for cognitive efficiency. He pushes the debate beyond simplistic adaptationist narratives or anti-representational polemics, instead offering a measured evolutionary argument grounded in empirical and theoretical considerations.

This episode is essential listening for anyone interested in philosophy of mind, cognitive science, or evolutionary theory.