RE: Are we born….Good?

RE: Are we born….Good? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/24/2014 9:08:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The researchers you point to make an unjustified leap from observed and interpreted behavior to *genetic imperative. Indeed. Invariably, this turns out to be the case when claims of a genetic imperative* underlying human behaviour are made. The silliness of these claims becomes clearer when we recall that, in this particular instance, the alleged 'evidence' is a subjective account of infants interacting in a social setting. How any evidence of this type could possibly point to innate qualities/genetic determination is beyond me. A capacity for empathy lies at the heart of moral behavior and results in consistency even in the behavior of non-human animals which share that capacity. A half dozen or more links have been posted relevant to our innate sense of fairness and capacity for empathy even in infancy, as well as the discovery of a neurological basis for this capacity which is manifestly not "subjective" and which supports the observations that you dismiss as subjective. Moreover, the phrase "genetic imperative" has appeared nowhere except in the posts of those seeking to make the findings disappear. It is wholly and completely a straw man. Nobody has claimed that moral behavior is an "imperative" of any kind, genetic or otherwise, and what could make you think that such a transparent ploy would gain you any traction is beyond me. But as you've mentioned silliness, I suppose that could be an explanation. K.

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/25/2014 5:39:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The researchers you point to make an unjustified leap from observed and interpreted behavior to *genetic imperative. Indeed. Invariably, this turns out to be the case when claims of a genetic imperative* underlying human behaviour are made. The silliness of these claims becomes clearer when we recall that, in this particular instance, the alleged 'evidence' is a subjective account of infants interacting in a social setting. How any evidence of this type could possibly point to innate qualities/genetic determination is beyond me. A capacity for empathy lies at the heart of moral behavior and results in consistency even in the behavior of non-human animals which share that capacity. A half dozen or more links have been posted relevant to our innate sense of fairness and capacity for empathy even in infancy, as well as the discovery of a neurological basis for this capacity which is manifestly not "subjective" and which supports the observations that you dismiss as subjective. Moreover, the phrase "genetic imperative" has appeared nowhere except in the posts of those seeking to make the findings disappear. It is wholly and completely a straw man. Nobody has claimed that moral behavior is an "imperative" of any kind, genetic or otherwise, and what could make you think that such a transparent ploy would gain you any traction is beyond me. But as you've mentioned silliness, I suppose that could be an explanation. K. More bullshit and weasel words from you. Now it is a capacity for empathy but in your post #26 it was Human brains are hardwired for empathy, friendship The "neurological basis" for this capacity is at best a basis for mimicry and learning. You made a silly case for genetic (innate) empathy and now when called on it you dodge your own point and all the links you provided. I say again: weasel words.

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/25/2014 6:39:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Now it is a capacity for empathy but in your post #26 it was Human brains are hardwired for empathy, friendship The "neurological basis" for this capacity is at best a basis for mimicry and learning. You made a silly case for genetic (innate) empathy and now when called on it you dodge your own point and all the links you provided. We have the capacity and we're hardwired for it. Both imitation and empathy are mediated by mirror neurons which are wired into both our parieto-premotor circuits and the anterior insula and cingulate. When someone posts links, the trick is to read them. For further assistance. K.

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/25/2014 7:17:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Now it is a capacity for empathy but in your post #26 it was Human brains are hardwired for empathy, friendship And the problem is? We have the capacity because we're hardwired for it. I'm sorry if saying that so many times made it hard for you to grasp. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The "neurological basis" for this capacity is at best a basis for mimicry and learning. Both imitation and empathy are mediated by mirror neurons, which are wired into both parieto-premotor circuits and the anterior insula and cingulate. When someone posts links, the trick is to read them. K. The problem is the research is speculative at best. It doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. To say that if we have a capacity for a behavior there must be some brain function involved is just too obvious and a waste of time for the infants. Oh my goodness, really?! There is a neurological basis for what we feel and do? Wow! However, the speculation ignores the plasticity of the human brain especially in infants. So, is the brain function innate or learned? No telling from the so called research. Hell, Ikea showed us humans can have empathy for an old lamp and isn't that crazy. Just a silly and pointless discussion from you. IKEA [sm=rofl.gif]

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/25/2014 8:01:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The problem is the research is speculative at best... Just a silly and pointless discussion from you. I don't need to look through your stupid telescope. ~Cesare Cremonini K.

jlf1961 -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/25/2014 8:08:28 AM)
Look people, the only genetic imperative is survival. It is the basest instinct in us. Good or Evil is not even in the top 10.

evesgrden -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/25/2014 9:42:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Look people, the only genetic imperative is survival. It is the basest instinct in us. Good or Evil is not even in the top 10. No question in my mind that survival is the A Number one imperative. Number Two is reproduce. Morality, concepts of good and evil, these are constructs. Interesting for academic discussion and even proscribing social order... so that we can yes, survive and reproduce. We come to the table with genetic predispositions upon which the environment has effects. It's not nature vs nurture, it's nature AND nurture. When a baby is born, it goes from having all the comforts of warmth and food and safety to cold and hungry and foreign environment... and so begins the path of learning about delayed gratification. Not altruism but rather "what do you mean I can't have it now? What do you mean I can't have it!!!!! Starving babies do not reject food from their mothers and gesture "no you take it" and push it towards their mothers' mouthes. Starving offspring take the food and gobble it up. There's no empathy for mom when it counts the most. Survival is everything. At a secondary level, caring behavior lends itself to survival of the group. I believe we have a genetic predisposition to learn to feel for others, but that's a far cry from being hardwired for empathy. People use the term "hardwired" so loosely. I'm hardwired to pull my hand back from a flame. I think we are hardwired to be selfish; that's survival. Children have to be taught to share. It's easy for them to share something they don't want or have plenty of. We also have the capacity, ability, aka genetic predisposition to feel for others. What we see across people is that "good" people are those whom the environment has affected in a way that is different from 'bad' people. Absolute power corrupts absolutely... time and again that's revealed absence of empathy. If it's that common a tendency for the environment to get rid of a characteristic, it can't be "hardwired". A capacity, sure, but hardwired, nah.

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/25/2014 10:44:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The problem is the research is speculative at best... Just a silly and pointless discussion from you. I don't need to look through your stupid telescope. ~Cesare Cremonini K. [:D] [:D] Score one for Kirata if you are keeping score. However, here's my point: In this era of ever more sophisticated tools for genome mapping it is irresponsible for any researcher to claim an innate human behavior without specifying the particular genes and the protein (hormonal) pathway to the behavior. Anatomical structure and function are insufficient to make the case with such certitude. SHOW ME THE GENES Additionally, I am confounded by Kirata so energetically defending a determinist position; it seems such a contradiction to many of his previous comments in other threads.

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/25/2014 10:50:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Look people, the only genetic imperative is survival. It is the basest instinct in us. Good or Evil is not even in the top 10. Really? Interesting. Is that a genetic imperative or a learned fear of death? Whoaaa . . .where did grandma go? Why is she starting to smell so foul?

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/25/2014 11:04:25 AM)
quote: Starving babies do not reject food from their mothers and gesture "no you take it" and push it towards their mothers' mouthes. Starving offspring take the food and gobble it up. There's no empathy for mom when it counts the most. Survival is everything. Is that a survival instinct (genetic) or hormonally induced ravenous hunger? quote: At a secondary level, caring behavior lends itself to survival of the group. That has long been a favored notion amongst evolutionists but late discoveries have shown that some primates (chimps especially) commit infanticide, premeditated murder, and war on neighboring chimp tribes. Makes me wonder about all the perceived cumbayah. quote: I think we are hardwired to be selfish; that's survival. Children have to be taught to share. It's easy for them to share something they don't want or have plenty of. One study I say recently indicated that infants cannot distinguish themselves in a mirror until about age 18 months. So, the selfishness may be just the inability to separate out other identities. None of my counterpoints are given with any degree of certainty and are pure speculation for the fun of speculation [:D]

jlf1961 -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/25/2014 11:04:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Look people, the only genetic imperative is survival. It is the basest instinct in us. Good or Evil is not even in the top 10. Really? Interesting. Is that a genetic imperative or a learned fear of death? Whoaaa . . .where did grandma go? Why is she starting to smell so foul? I cant believe you actually put that thought into words. The primary imperative of any species is survival, if not the species goes extinct. It has nothing to do with fear of death. Survival means finding a food supply, avoiding predators, and IMO procreation. I am a firm believer that we retain the physiological warning systems of danger, that feeling of the hair standing up on your neck, usually a good indication there is something not right. It is clearly evident in pinnipeds. This group of animals seem to know when there is a predator in the water, and therefor stay on the beach, never having to go in the water to see the shark or sharks that hunt them for food. Granted, eventually the need to eat pushes them to risk the danger, but they try to avoid becoming shark food.

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/25/2014 11:14:57 AM)
quote: It is clearly evident in pinnipeds. This group of animals seem to know when there is a predator in the water, and therefor stay on the beach, never having to go in the water to see the shark or sharks that hunt them for food. Granted, eventually the need to eat pushes them to risk the danger, but they try to avoid becoming shark food. quote: The primary imperative of any species is survival, if not the species goes extinct. The neo-Darwinist might say that the pinnipeds who survived were those who developed awareness of sharks. Those that perished lacked that mechanism. Seems to be a far cry from claiming an evolutionary imperative for survival. My objection is that the phrase reeks of teleological philosophy, that evolution 'knows' what it takes to pass on the genes. I think evolution is not so well organized or orderly as that. There is a lot of luck involved in a very messy and unpredictable process. Keep in mind we are looking backwards from the success stories and often forgetting the failures who were just plain unlucky.

jlf1961 -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/25/2014 11:50:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: It is clearly evident in pinnipeds. This group of animals seem to know when there is a predator in the water, and therefor stay on the beach, never having to go in the water to see the shark or sharks that hunt them for food. Granted, eventually the need to eat pushes them to risk the danger, but they try to avoid becoming shark food. quote: The primary imperative of any species is survival, if not the species goes extinct. The neo-Darwinist might say that the pinnipeds who survived were those who developed awareness of sharks. Those that perished lacked that mechanism. Seems to be a far cry from claiming an evolutionary imperative for survival. My objection is that the phrase reeks of teleological philosophy, that evolution 'knows' what it takes to pass on the genes. I think evolution is not so well organized or orderly as that. There is a lot of luck involved in a very messy and unpredictable process. Keep in mind we are looking backwards from the success stories and often forgetting the failures who were just plain unlucky. I never said that evolution was organized. I said that we are programed to seek survival before anything else. There is no genetic code dealing with "good" or "evil," that is pretty farfetched to think evolution programed that into our genes. As I said before, good is a relative term, relative to the society, and is learned at the family level. As we are social animals, survival means we work together as a group, but it does not mean that we do this out of some inborn genetic proclivity. It means that our ancestors learned that "good" makes individual survival a better bet. So, we are not born good, nor are we born evil. Psychopathy and sociopathic tendencies are purely brain function, partially genetic, and partially nurture. A large number of good people turned their backs to the plight of the Jews in Europe during WW2, men philosophically opposed to Nazism served with distinction in the German army, served as guards at concentration camps, and accepted the execution of millions, even though they were opposed to it.

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/25/2014 1:35:25 PM)
quote: I said that we are programed to seek survival before anything else. There is no genetic code dealing with "good" or "evil," that is pretty farfetched to think evolution programed that into our genes. As I said before, good is a relative term, relative to the society, and is learned at the family level. As we are social animals, survival means we work together as a group, but it does not mean that we do this out of some inborn genetic proclivity. I am not deliberately being picky here but the first sentence in the first paragraph is contradicted by the last sentence in the second paragraph, I think. Putting them together they read: "We are programed for survival but when we work together for survival it is not out of some inborn genetic proclivity." I hope you see the contradiction. I think . . . and I emphasize this is my opinion . . . that the notion animals are programed for survival or have a survival instinct is a myth born as a corollary of "survival of the fittest" which did not appear incidentally until the fifth edition of Darwin's book, and then just to please some of his supporters. "Programed for survival" suggests that evolution is purposeful. Any purposefulness is imagined by the human mind in observing a blind and highly wasteful process of change. In my opinion (emphasis) evolution has no purpose. It just happens because life is persistent in a relatively friendly environment. And it happens hap hazardly. Some biological structures are adapted to the environment and some are not. There is no forward reason to evolution. One should just as easily be able to imagine that the whole process could reach stasis and no more change occur. One could just as easily imagine that only the roaches will survive any new world environment. There was a time before life existed on this planet and there will probably be a time when the planet will once again be devoid of life. Life is just a passing accident. Unless of course the Creationists are correct. Then nevermind.

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 8 [9]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875