Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 5/11/2011 5:47:18 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

eihwaz
A simple alternative, of greater utility, to the "tribal predation" notion might be a model locating human behavior along axes of competition and cooperation (which someone in behavioral sciences must have done, if it's so obvious that it occurred to me!).


Yes. It's so obvious it has to have been done .... hasn't it? Well. AFAIK, with a few exceptions (radical gender studies, queer theory) it hasn't.

If one sees the fundamental characterisitic of human behaviour as its diversity, then viewing the data along continua or spectrums becomes obvious and sensible. But more fluid models such as these run counter-intuitive to the 'harder' (sic) logic of classification, of definition and of determinism.

The core theory here is (universal) sexual dimorphism, that humans physically differentiate into 2 opposite categories of male and female. This theory views sexual dimorphism as the 'natural biological bedrock', the foundation on which all other understandings of humans and human behaviour is built. However, this theory is only tenable after a careful editing of the evidence.

The theory literally doctors the evidence of hermaphroditism and renders it invisible and irrelevant. It does this physically - through surgical interventions on hermaphrodite infants to 'normalise' them - and theoretically - by refusing to consider the evidence as significant and reducing hermaphroditism to a "abberrant variation of maleness or femaleness" . Hermaphrodites are now officially called 'male or female pseudo-hermaphrodites', denied even a valid status. Thus, the evidence need not be considered.

By classifying hermaphroditism as "pseudo/false" and as "abnormal", the obvious challenge that the physical existence of hermaphroditism presents to the 2-sex model is rendered "irrelevant". How different would our thinking be if we thought there were 3 (or possibly more) natural biological categories? Or, even more radically, maleness and femaleness weren't 'opposite poles' but popular points on a continuum of differentiation? It would be revolutionised.

In my view, the label "abnormal' is essentially cultural, not scientific and ought to be abandoned. Interestingly the 2 sex model is only about 2 centuries old^. Previously in Western law and medicine there were 3 legal and medical categories - male female and hermaphrodite*^.

If the evidence of hermaphroditism was admitted, then it would make much more sense to view physical differentiation as occurring along a continuum or spectrum than as categorical. So a simple change in perspective leads to radical changes in understanding and knowledge.

FWIW my opinion is that diversity is the fundamental characteristic of human behaviour, and the approach of using continua to describe behaviour is far more descriptive of the evidence. This is, from a conventional perspective, extremely radical, even though to me it may appear as common sense to you and me. So, I wouldn't recommend you try to tell 'behavioural scientists' that, they really don't like to hear it !





* the old category of hermaphrodism was much broader than the purely physical category it is understood as today. It included elements of choice, sexual preference and behaviour for example. See Foucault "Herculine Barbin" (Introduction)
^ Lacquer "Making Sex"

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 5/11/2011 6:31:29 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to eihwaz)
Profile   Post #: 141
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 5/11/2011 6:12:02 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

VincentML

We see a great deal of aggression in the under-developed nations and in our own. Particularly amongst people of colour. But also among whites in the United States predominantly, but not exclusively, in the rural South. However, it is more often failed aggression because it is stifled by privileged political class and lack of effective weapons, or aggression expressed as ineffectual criminal activities. Rebellions and protest against the political classes are ever present in our news stories. It is just silly and without foundation to say that the majority of people in the world are not prepared to act aggressively as their primitive ancestors did. It is more proper to say that most do not have the opportunity or fear the consequences. The world’s population is always on fire and it is not due to just the behaviour of a few. The genetic propensity for hostility is alive and well, and a natural characteristic of our species.





Thank you for presenting your case. You argument appears to be genetic factors produce hormones which influence gendered behaviour such as ‘aggression/violence’.

Evidence is introduced that males engage in more physically violent behaviour (emotional/verbal aggression or violence is not considered as aggression/violence in your account). Tying your argument to gendered behaviours is perhaps not the best move. The social gender training of infants begins as soon as they arrive in the world (“it’s a boy/girl”). Before an infant even has a name it has a gender. Whatever evidence exists is therefore contaminated by socialised gender training from the very beginning. To arbitrarily assign this to genetic causes is unacceptable, as is the narrow definition of aggression.

Regardless of this, even your own evidence contradicts your position. “Aggression” you tell us is said to peak “around 2–3 years of age”. Yet you admit that androgens aren’t produced by boys in huge amounts till puberty, roughly a decade later. If it is true that aggression peaks at around 2–3 years of age, then something other than androgens would seem to be the likely candidate. This seems to contradict your thesis.

The argument that gendered aggression in males is genetically determined is shallow. Your claim is that there is a “high correlation between these hormones [androgens] and aggressive behaviour.” There is a mountain of evidence, most of it undisputed, that boys are trained in physically ‘aggressive’ behaviour and girls trained to avoid physically ‘aggressive’ behaviour by all around them from Day 1. A reasonable interpretation of this is that aggression is socially implanted, and moulded in differing ways for boys and girls. Even you acknowledge that hormones are produced by behaviour/environment when you state: “Testosterone levels are subject to situational influences, as we saw in the case above for athletes getting ready for a contest “. Yet, no attempt is made to exclude/examine/disprove this hypothesis. Your argument therefore fails to exclude alternative plausible explanations.

It is a common though unproven assumption that hormones cause behaviour. This is rather odd, as the corollary, behaviour/environment produces hormones isn’t disputed. The perception of risk/danger produces a flood of adrenalin, for instance. Other well known examples are the earlier age of onset of menses in girls, or changes in average height amongst the Japanese following lifestyle changes post-World War II. Why should we accept the unproven assumption that hormones produce behaviour a la your thesis, when we know the opposite to be valid? Not logical.

I could go on and on, taking your hypothesis apart forensically but what’s the point? Even you acknowledge that your hypothesis is unproven when you state: “In time further research will show the hormones and neuron receptors involved. Eventually this linkage will be traced back to specific gene clusters.” This is written in the future tense. This is a hope, an aspiration, at very best a prediction. It is a clear acknowledgement by you of the speculative nature of your argument.

Thus, even by your own account your hypothesis is unproven, at best speculative. Nor IMHO is it even clear the thesis is plausible, given the weakness of your central argument connecting genes, hormones and gendered behaviour. Everyone agrees that gender (as distinct from biological sex) is a human achievement, not a biological imperative.

Your case is riddled with vague (sometimes sexist, sometimes verging on racist) assumptions, indefensible generalisations, narrow self serving interpretations, and glaring contradictions. The inherent sexism gives us a clue to the political nature of the hypothesis. It’s really about male supremacy, an apology for male violence as somehow ‘natural’ and therefore immutable.

Shoddy science like this has long been used to support male violence and hegemony, racism, to underwrite eugenics and whole load of other nasties. It reflects a strong cultural belief that human behaviour is 'naturally' rooted in our animal 'instincts' and history, not the current state of knowledge. Thousands of research projects have sought to prove this in over a century of research. None has succeeded. It's really time to call it quits.

Nowadays behavioural biological determinism (of which genetic determinism is one variety) is taught as the Naturalist Fallacy. It is an excellent example of how science/knowledge gets corrupted/distorted as it gets simplified and used for political purposes. It is as valid in today’s world as alchemy.


< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 5/11/2011 6:28:23 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 142
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 5/11/2011 7:29:30 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The social gender training of infants begins as soon as they arrive in the world (“it’s a boy/girl”). Before an infant even has a name it has a gender. Whatever evidence exists is therefore contaminated by socialised gender training from the very beginning. To arbitrarily assign this to genetic causes is unacceptable, as is the narrow definition of aggression.

Everyone agrees that gender (as distinct from biological sex) is a human achievement, not a biological imperative.

I do not agree. I knew very well from a very young - crawling - age that I was male and a handful of years later I was watching females. And I never was homosexual, even not when I was crawling. I do not agree that gender training had anything to do with being conscious of my gender identity and sexual inclination.

I am rather convinced that nearly all people are aware of their sex, gender identity and sexual inclination from perchance before they even were born. No doubt there may be exceptions, like pseudo-homosexuals and perchance - I speculate - some tomboys, but such people truly are the exceptions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Your case is riddled with vague (sometimes sexist, sometimes verging on racist) assumptions, indefensible generalizations, narrow self serving interpretations, and glaring contradictions. The inherent sexism gives us a clue to the political nature of the hypothesis. It's really about male supremacy, an apology for male violence as somehow 'natural' and therefore immutable.

There are pronounced biological differences between genders, and gene pools differ as well. From that biological perspective, recognizing those differences, there is nothing wrong with being sexist and racist - though the erroneous concept of race is very much out of fashion in the science of biology. Biologists deal in populations and gene pools these days, not in races.

As erudite as you pretend to be in your answer to vincentML, you fail in just about all aspects of your arguments in my eyes - and I did study biology for quite a number of years.

I deemed his post good and I told him as much. I deem your post bad. You have not a scientific, but a political agenda and thus - by denying biological truths - it is you who are racist, sexist and prejudiced in the most negative sense of these concepts.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 143
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 5/11/2011 8:45:38 PM   
eihwaz


Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
If aggression is inherited, than so is the ability to self-regulate aggressive behavior in accordance with social cues.

Yes, we learn. I did not say otherwise. And I agree that neural plasticity is inherited. I cannot imagine how else it was acquired.

My point was that aggression and our ability to regulate it are of at least equal significance when considering the nature of humans.  The degree to which we can regulate our aggression, and the variety of ways -- even constructive ways -- we can express it, are distinctly human and, therefore, qualify as aspects of "human nature."

I cataloged the elements of the androgen system to illustrate that even a system so apparently simple is actually quite complex and nuanced and, as a whole system, itself not necessarily susceptible to deterministic formulations, much less as a deterministic basis for behavior.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
A simple alternative, of greater utility, to the "tribal predation" notion might be a model locating human behavior along axes of competition and cooperation

Both competition and cooperation are subsumed under the rubric of tribal or group predation/aggression.

Although predators may compete, competition is not predation, but a much richer, more complex set of behaviors.  Cooperation occurs in many contexts, not just hunting, whether for deer or dollars.  Cooperation and competition frequently occur simultaneously between individuals in a group as well as between groups.  A model based on cooperation and competition is much more general than a "tribal predation" model because it potentially encompasses a much greater set of behaviors (and motives).

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Historically, group structures have been hierarchal, so it is difficult to be clear as to how much cooperation was not coerced by power elites.

Two problems with using history to support propositions about biology are, first, that humans have been around a lot longer than the historical record and, second, that history is always refracted through a particular political and moral frame of reference.  History is at best suggestive, never probative.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
As well as imagination, creativity, language, tool making, etc. But they all wrap around our core animal nature.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
The phenomenon of human behavior might be too multidimensional, multilayered, and complex to ever be described by a unified model.

I see this as a fancy way to deny or distance ourselves from our essential animal nature. Just a secular alternative to insisting we have a soul while the other animals do not.

You could say that our human nature is "wrapped around our animal nature."  This doesn't deny that we have animal natures.  Our human nature includes the fact that we are not completely subject to our animal nature, that we have great latitude of choice about our behaviors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
I would say that, if anything, what's inherited is the ability to manifest behavior.

The amoeba also inherited the ability to manifest behavior.

There's a subtle difference between inheriting behavior and inheriting the ability to behave.  The former connotes something predetermined and stereotyped, the latter possibility and choice.  I take you to be asserting that human behavior is essentially as determined and stereotyped as ameobic behavior, albeit a lot more complicated.

< Message edited by eihwaz -- 5/11/2011 8:48:30 PM >

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 144
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 5/11/2011 8:53:24 PM   
Marini


Posts: 3629
Joined: 2/14/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
I would say that, if anything, what's inherited is the ability to manifest behavior.

The amoeba also inherited the ability to manifest behavior.

There's a subtle difference between inheriting behavior and inheriting the ability to behave. The former connotes something predetermined and stereotyped, the latter possibility and choice. I take you to be asserting that human behavior is essentially as determined and stereotyped as ameobic behavior, albeit a lot more complicated.


I agree there is a big difference between inheriting the behavior and inheriting the ability to behave.
Bravo!

< Message edited by Marini -- 5/11/2011 9:00:30 PM >

_____________________________

As always, To EACH their Own.
"And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. "
Nelson Mandela
Life-long Democrat, not happy at all with Democratic Party.
NOT a Republican/Moderate and free agent

(in reply to eihwaz)
Profile   Post #: 145
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 5/12/2011 7:28:02 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

My point was that aggression and our ability to regulate it are of at least equal significance when considering the nature of humans. The degree to which we can regulate our aggression, and the variety of ways -- even constructive ways -- we can express it, are distinctly human and, therefore, qualify as aspects of "human nature."

I cataloged the elements of the androgen system to illustrate that even a system so apparently simple is actually quite complex and nuanced and, as a whole system, itself not necessarily susceptible to deterministic formulations, much less as a deterministic basis for behavior.


Here is a very informative article that describes the cognitive and emotional pathways of the brain, explaining the interactions of the prefrontal lobes, the amygdala, and the right cerebral cortex. We share all of these organs and their functions with the other beasts (mammals) We also share the primary emotions of hunger (predation) and fear (prey) We are evolved as a body/brain system that reacts through thought and emotion to our environment. No matter how complex our social environment nor how advanced our technology we are still essentially naked apes dressed in fine clothing if we are lucky.

quote:

Although predators may compete, competition is not predation, but a much richer, more complex set of behaviors. Cooperation occurs in many contexts, not just hunting, whether for deer or dollars. Cooperation and competition frequently occur simultaneously between individuals in a group as well as between groups. A model based on cooperation and competition is much more general than a "tribal predation" model because it potentially encompasses a much greater set of behaviors (and motives).


Conveniently or unintentionally, you ignore the second part of my proposition which is that families, groups, and nations spend an incredible amount of energy and money to socialize our aggression and turn it to other forms such as sport and work place endeavors. There has always been a great need to tame the inner beast through the imposition of traditions or power. Like all the great beasts we have developed hierarchal social pacts. I see the glass of aggression half empty because it has been sucked out by the need for social order. My point is supported by exceptions where society has failed, e.g. Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Dexter , etc

quote:

Two problems with using history to support propositions about biology are, first, that humans have been around a lot longer than the historical record and, second, that history is always refracted through a particular political and moral frame of reference. History is at best suggestive, never probative.


Anthropologist study artifacts that predate the historical record and find no shortage of arrow heads nor lack of evidence of hierarchal social organization. And as for history not being probative I will disagree by paraphrasing a quote from one of my favorite movies: The History Boys: “History is just the same old shit over and over again, isn’t it.”

quote:

You could say that our human nature is "wrapped around our animal nature." This doesn't deny that we have animal natures. Our human nature includes the fact that we are not completely subject to our animal nature, that we have great latitude of choice about our behaviors.


It seems to me you have three choices. Human nature is subject to our animal nature, our social learning, and/or divine law. I see no evidence for the latter. That leaves the other two which in fact are the nuts of my thesis: we are socialized beasts, tribal predators.

quote:

“The amoeba also inherited the ability to manifest behavior.”

There's a subtle difference between inheriting behavior and inheriting the ability to behave. The former connotes something predetermined and stereotyped, the latter possibility and choice. I take you to be asserting that human behavior is essentially as determined and stereotyped as amoebic behavior, albeit a lot more complicated.


Not really. I was just being a wise ass in citing the amoeba. I made my true case previously and in my response above.

Thank you, eihwaz







< Message edited by vincentML -- 5/12/2011 7:29:46 AM >

(in reply to eihwaz)
Profile   Post #: 146
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 5/12/2011 7:43:05 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I readily admit I hijacked and creatively reformulated the quote to suit the purpose of my own narrative. So, if you are going to nit pick shit...

Well damn, this quote sure won't require any creative reformulation the next time you see it.

Thank you.

K.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 147
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 5/12/2011 7:49:11 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
exceptions where society has failed, e.g. Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Dexter , etc

Society did not fail in these cases. It is simply genetics: they were born psychopaths or sociopaths or whatever.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 148
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 5/14/2011 8:22:14 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
exceptions where society has failed, e.g. Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Dexter , etc

Society did not fail in these cases. It is simply genetics: they were born psychopaths or sociopaths or whatever.



It is pretty damned interesting isnt it, the existence of mass murderers. I wonder if the specific cause or constellation of causes will ever be known. I have read they all had disfunctional childhoods and that seems pretty lame a reason to me. Many others have had dysfunctional childhoods and did not commit such crimes. Suggests to me a failure of the social model. I gather you agree at least to these psychopaths, Rule.

Have a good evening

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 149
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 5/14/2011 3:11:26 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline 		They had abnormal childhoods because they were 'special' people, i.e. they had the genotype of a psychopath.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 150
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 5/14/2011 9:09:39 PM   
eihwaz


Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
They had abnormal childhoods because they were 'special' people, i.e. they had the genotype of a psychopath.

This may be a case where both predisposition and environment are required:  i.e., a certain environment is required to activate the predisposition.  Thus, people without the predisposition can survive awful childhoods without becoming psychopaths.  Or someone with the predisposition can have a good childhood and never become a psychopath.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 151
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 5/15/2011 2:49:33 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
This may be a case where both predisposition and environment are required:  i.e., a certain environment is required to activate the predisposition.

Maybe you are right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
Thus, people without the predisposition can survive awful childhoods without becoming psychopaths.

I would insert 'usually'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
Or someone with the predisposition can have a good childhood and never become a psychopath.

Maybe you are right, but I rather doubt it.

(in reply to eihwaz)
Profile   Post #: 152
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 5/15/2011 10:33:46 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline 		I find it odd that ppl are trying to apply deterministic explanations to unpredictable behaviours, even speculatively. The logic of determinism is quite opposite to unpredictability. Determinism predicts known fixed outcomes. In this sense determinism is the antithesis of unpredictability, they cancel each other out. So, as usual. we see a fall back on the old reliables – the moral/political judgements of perversion, aberration and abnormal - as supposed explanations usually without a shred of evidence to support such blatant speculation.

Contemporary understandings of subjectivity* don’t experience difficulties explaining unpredictable behaviours. Unpredictable outcomes are seen as inherent in the system. The system of turning infants into self-regulating acculturated subjects, like any human system, is chaotic and will produce unpredictable outcomes.

Again if you begin with the observation that the most fundamental characteristic of human behaviour is its diversity, then unusual outcomes aren’t that much of a problem, they are within the range of potential outcomes. This approach can be used as an alternative stand alone perspective or to complement the various subjectivity approaches.


* These are approaches that seek to explain how people see and understand themselves using multiple disciplines including sociology anthropology linguistics and modern re-readings of Freudian psychoanalysis, amongst others. See, for example, de Leuze & Guattari "Anti-Oedipus" & "A Thousand Plateaus".


< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 5/15/2011 11:06:51 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 153
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 5/16/2011 7:28:18 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

It seems to me you have three choices. Human nature is subject to our animal nature, our social learning, and/or divine law. I see no evidence for the latter. That leaves the other two which in fact are the nuts of my thesis: we are socialized beasts, tribal predators.


There some other options - that we aren't determined in the sense you are arguing; or abandoning the Nature/Culture split that sets up this entire discussion.

Determinism has difficulties explaining the operations of the human psyche, and even greater difficulty accounting for consciousness, which is, as far as we know, a human specific trait.

Most of us agree that all our feelings thoughts and emotions are mediated through our psyches. So it seems to me that this ought to be foregrounded in any explanation of human behaviour/nature. Think of sex for instance - is it an exclusively biological trait, as commonly presumed? It certainly has a lot of physiological aspects but if the psyche isn't there, nothing happens does it? Our psyches are a lot more complicated than merely mapping out the brain's physical activities and synaptic connections.

To me a far more promising approach is to abandon the false splits between culture/nature and mind/body set up by Cartesian dualism that underwrite this discussion. This makes deterministic approaches as crude and outmoded as Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics made Newton's mechanical Universe.

_____________________________



(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 154
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 5/16/2011 10:36:51 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

To me a far more promising approach is to abandon the false splits between culture/nature and mind/body set up by Cartesian dualism underwrite this discussion. This makes deterministic approaches as crude and outmoded as Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics made Newton's mechanical Universe.


In responding to your challenge I was quite careful to point out the elaborate effort that society makes to stifle aggression. I reject your straw man suggestion that I am proposing a deterministic nature. How different is the concept of human aggression than Deleuse & Guattari’s “desiring-machine” or Nietzche’s “Will to Power?” All three are a positive “reaching out” and all three are met with fascist oppression for the sake of order in the State. The difference is that I propose the locus is in the brain. You propose the “psyche.” Well, what is that if not the “mind” or the “soul” divorced from the Brain? Otherwise, where is the psyche? I am saying the Brain and Mind are one and the same. There is no duality in my construct. It is in yours. Subjectivity occurs through the functions of the brain’s neural circuits and sensory organs that connect it to the outside environment. Deleuse & Guattari in their most interesting and informative article connect the “desiring-machine” to all the other “desiring-machines” but they fail to connect it to the brain, i.e. they fail to account for the "plastic" internal environment with which we are each born. My construct is far and away NOT Cartesian at all. It is your advocacy of a psyche (soul?) that is dualistic.

And because consciousness has not been explained does not mean it will not be. You cannot take advantage of a gap in our knowledge so easily.

Oh and btw, you suggest that consciousness is a human specific trait. Does that mean that all the other mammals - the apes, dogs and cats - are then unconscious??

< Message edited by vincentML -- 5/16/2011 10:44:58 AM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 155
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 5/16/2011 10:49:37 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Determinism has difficulties explaining the operations of the human psyche, and even greater difficulty accounting for consciousness, which is, as far as we know, a human specific trait.

The unique quality of human consciousnsess appears to arise from our capacity for abstraction. Humans create an internal abstraction of themselves, an internal representation of themselves, which enables us to view ourselves as an object and reflect upon our nature. But surely you don't mean that dogs and cats, for example, aren't conscious. Indeed, even as we move further down the chain of life it seems difficult to draw a clear line where awareness ends. On what other than purely arbitrary basis would we do so? Are there any living things that are not aware, however dimly, however limited in degree?

K.




< Message edited by Kirata -- 5/16/2011 10:51:12 AM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 156
RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it - 5/16/2011 1:34:36 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

In responding to your challenge I was quite careful to point out the elaborate effort that society makes to stifle aggression.

This "society" you credit with subduing these aggressive human beasts is not something separate from human nature, aligned against it in order to "stifle" it. It is, itself, an expression of human nature.

K.



< Message edited by Kirata -- 5/16/2011 1:38:38 PM >

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 157
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Human nature- whatever you wanna say about it Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094