Recently, I have become increasingly aware of a trend. It seems many people I respect as being intelligent and thoughtful are labouring under misconceptions regarding Atheism and Evolution. In some cases, they have been force-fed these lies in order to demonise or ridicule ideas contrary to other beliefs. I've created this blog called "Debunking Atheistic and Evolutionary Myths and Misconceptions" (though I ran out of room so it had to be shortened) in order to combat this trend.
I create this small blog here, because it's a thriving community that seems to have a significant number of these individuals. I feel I have some wisdom to impart on these matters, though I leave that up to YOU (yes you) to decide.
I do not create this in order to "convert" anybody to atheism. I feel each person needs to examine themselves and come to their own decisions. However is it not only fair that they do so with full knowledge of both arguments?
I do not create this as a forum for attacking theists or theistic beliefs. Many people have personal reasons for their faith. Furthermore, many people today adopt a very modern approach to their faith. This can often lead to them feeling they are a better person because of their religious beliefs.
I would very much like for anybody who has a question regarding atheism, or evolutionary biology to ask away, and I will do my best to answer.
I'd like to start with an argument put forward by FieryBalrog on this thread.
Here's my contention / question. My grandfather was an atheistic humanist, whose goal was the betterment / prosperity / brotherhood etc. of all mankind. He died, and obviously according to the Bible he's going to hell.
I know earlier it was mentioned that people who are good but atheistic have no rational reason to be good, but I disagree with that entirely. If you hit someone, they take vengeance on you and hit you back. If you bake them muffins, they might give you pumpkin seeds, if you massage their back they may give you a BJ. Being compassionate has lots of advantages.
Anyhow, that's not related to my inquiry, just a fundamental feeling. Now you can debate that aspect, but it's not what's important.
I could, because that isn't any rational basis for morality. Its just a form of Hobbesian social contract where people are nice to each other and enforce lawful/unlawful behaviors for purely self-interested reasons. The problem with that is, well first of all, thats not the only or even major reason why people actually refrain from immoral behavior. Second, if you punch someone in the face they might beat you up, sure, great reason not to hit someone. However if you steal their money or woman or whatever and blame it on someone else, you get free stuff and someone else gets fucked. Sounds like a great advantage so must be a good thing to do, right?
The idea behind basing morality on "do the most advantageous thing" is that it in order to be logically consistent, if the most advantageous thing happens to be to fuck someone over and get away with it, well that must be the right thing to do then.
You argue that there is no rational basis for our morality and I would strongly disagree with this.
You also seem to be implying that instead we receive our morality from religious texts, and I will do my best to answer this here too.
From an evolutionary standpoint, if we practice behaviors that benefit ourselves, genes that underpin those tendencies are more likely to be passed on, thus increasing the prevalence of that behavior type. For humans, we are undoubtedly social creatures with the ability to communicate and work together. When we work together, our abilities transcend those of us working alone. We assign roles, we carry them out and suddenly we have an aqueduct or a system where each member of a group is forfiling a different vital role. The benefit for everybody is clear. Whats more, it is a rational response on reflection of the achievements to continue the behavior that has led you to them. Behaviors that are conducive to such endeavours are favoured and passed on.
What behaviors are beneficial then? Clearly working together for a common goal. Looking after ones family is a fairly clear candidate. What is far less clear however are the benefits of treating others as you yourself would like to be treated. Love thy neighbour. Lets use the example of killing another person, for it is the easiest to see the consequences of, as they occur immediately and drastically. Imagine yourself in a tribal village, each member of the village has her or her role within the village. By killing a member of your village, you remove the person forfiling that role. It is likely that the person was highly skilled at that role, and by killing him, you have put a strain on the entire village by forcing others to take his place, as well as theirs. You kill a hunter, you may starve for instance. This can be applied to other acts, by merely injuring or disabling that person, you still stop or hinder them from forfiling their role within the community.
While a lot has changed since those earlier times, our genes remain largely unchanged. When we help somebody in need, our body releases endorphins into our bloodstream which make ourselves feel good.
Additionally, we have the ability to empathise with others. To imagine ourselves in their shoes, generally stopping us from inflicting suffering upon them.
Lastly, on the point that we receive our morality from religious texts. Last I checked, Chimps were without any Bible or Qur'an, yet they get by without killing and raping each other just fine
Thanks for reading (if you get this far). Any and all feedback and questions are appreciated.
Nice read! I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but Dawkins did a video back in 1987 about this very subject of cooperation being explained trhough evolution. Now, this is about morals, but it refutes FieryBalrog's "do the most advantageous thing" and screw someone over using experiments involving the Prisoner's Dilemma.
The "morality from religion" argument is retarded. There is strong evidence that Neandertals cared for the injured and elderly instead of letting them die. I don't suppose the Bible told them to do it.
But "morality from evolution" implies that when we're being "good", we're doing so because we, or people with similar genes, will get a survival/reproductive advantage when we do so. And that's not nearly as appealing as "be good just because." Or is it?
To BottleAbuser: Morality from evolution only provides the cause. The effect is that we do the right thing because A) It makes us feel good B) It helps contribute to society and thus ourselves and C) We feel obliged to do the right thing according to our individual morals.
To LTT: Hadn't seen the video before, having a look through it now. Thanks for sending it
Ah, you picked the wrong person to call out :p I'm an evolutionary anthropology major and I believe evolutionary biology is the basis for all human morality. You seriously misrepresented my argument. I myself said in that thread:
And the effort has failed, I believe. The fundamental basis for human morality is our existence as (primate (mammal (animal))) organisms with the associated ancestral feelings and emotions. Logic and rationality are just modes of thinking used for justification and exploration.
My point was that the basis for morality is biological ancestry and attendant cultural constructions, not logical, coherent argument. Arguments do not create the reality of what is good and what is wrong, they just justify and influence biological urges. Thus the basis for morality is neither rational nor irrational, but beyond the realm of rationality, and thus a good realm for exploration for religious argument. My argument in essence is that much of modern morality, even that propounded by atheists, is basically belief in a religious system, which may hook into memes that propagate for reasons of ancestral feelings. Things like "all humans deserve dignity" can't be justified on any logical basis.
OK, that said, your understanding of evolutionary biology and the way it affects human society is a bit flawed. You say:
From an evolutionary standpoint, if we practice behaviors that benefit ourselves, genes that underpin those tendencies are more likely to be passed on, thus increasing the prevalence of that behavior type. For humans, we are undoubtedly social creatures with the ability to communicate and work together. When we work together, our abilities transcend those of us working alone. We assign roles, we carry them out and suddenly we have an aqueduct or a system where each member of a group is forfiling a different vital role. The benefit for everybody is clear. Whats more, it is a rational response on reflection of the achievements to continue the behavior that has led you to them. Behaviors that are conducive to such endeavours are favoured and passed on.
I take it you haven't read the selfish gene?
The basic idea behind your post is Group Selection, a nebulous idea proposed by Wynne-Edwards in the 50s where organisms that performed actions for the "good of the group" thrived because the whole group thrived.
Unfortunately, natural selection doesn't work that way. As Dawkins points out in The Selfish Gene, which is really just an argument founded on Williams and Hamilton's arguments, natural selection operates on the genetic level. This means that unless no other mechanisms are at work, a population full of altruists and selfish bastards (as a simplification) will degenerate into an equilibrium of selfish bastards unless given very specific starting conditions, according to both game theory and observation. Take a squirrel, if one squirrel gives an alarm call, it helps out the groups chance of survival, but it increases its own risk of getting caught. The gene that governs the likelihood of sounding the alarm like that will tend to die out of the population because those who carry it will proportionately die out.
Unless....
Some squirrel populations actually do give alarm calls like that. Why?
The answer was kin-selection, which Hamilton clarified. Your kin share your genes. So, if the benefit you provide to your kin means that the genes you share have a great chance of replication, and the benefit outweights the cost, the behavior is stable. Hamilton's pretty simple rule says
b*r > c where benefit (in reproductive terms) times the ratio of relatedness (% of shared genes by those receiving the benefit) has to outweigh the cost to the organism performing the action.
This is one of the fundamental bases for human behavior. If you've ever wondered why humans are so much more altruistic towards people who are their own flesh and blood, here's the basic reason. It goes back to what I was saying about the fundamentally non-rational basis for human morality.
The other basis for altruism is reciprocal shared networks, which is another complicated topic that depends heavily on game theory. But either way, theres a reason human beings are much strongly attached to those they interact with on a daily basis, their local community, and their kin, which is one reason why global initiatives that urge you to act now! about one of a million problems across the globe are so much less compelling to people than actual immediate causes in their local neighborhood. (another example of the lack of power and truth of rational argument in morality).
And then finally you said:
Lastly, on the point that we receive our morality from religious texts. Last I checked, Chimps were without any Bible or Qur'an, yet they get by without killing and raping each other just fine
Which is pretty hilarious. Please read Jane Goodalls own book "In the Shadow of Man" or any number of works on chimpanzees. They are one of the most interesting social primates and have a lot of crazy behaviors going on. The males often hunt in kin-selected packs as early humans are speculated to have done, and form tightly knit natal groups. Among other things, these groups sometimes wage war on other male groups and kill all the males and grab all the women and sometimes kill the infants. Chimpanzees are much more complex creatures than you are giving them credit for.
On January 30 2008 15:16 LTT wrote: Nice read! I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but Dawkins did a video back in 1987 about this very subject of cooperation being explained trhough evolution. Now, this is about morals, but it refutes FieryBalrog's "do the most advantageous thing" and screw someone over using experiments involving the Prisoner's Dilemma.
Here it is in 5 parts:
I know about the prisoners dilemma :p I did a paper on the iterated prisoners dilemma and the idea behind reciprocal altruism being repeated shared interactions to build trust.
However, it doesn't logically justify anything. It can't. The existence of the prisoner's dilemma doesn't tell you that co-operation is morally right. It just says, in certain circumstances (open-ended repeating interaction), cooperating may net you the highest net personal benefit. However in others, co-operating is always the lower-benefit move (closed-ended repeating interactions, one-shot interactions) so in that case does that justify defection in those cases? Now you have go beyond rationality and appeal to some sense of fairness and justice to say "no, defection is wrong even if its a one-shot prisoner's dilemma."
Lets say you have a long interaction with a drug dealer. Every week you leave a bundle of cash under a lamppost and he leaves a bag of drugs under a bench in a different park in the city. You suddenly find out that he is going to die in 5 weeks, and you know that he knows this, and that he knows you know this. Mathematically, in terms of net personal benefit, the best move is now to defect every week for the next 5 weeks. But does it become morally justified?
On January 30 2008 16:50 Alethios wrote: The effect is that we do the right thing because [...] We feel obliged to do the right thing according to our individual morals.
Alethios, I'm not sure if we're working on the same definition of "cause." If X causes Y, Y is because of X, not because of Z. Right?
Me, I'm comfortable with describing "moral behavior" as being (historically) shown to be advantageous to one's genes.
FB, the implied argument is that if there's only 1 day left before the drug dealer dies, he won't be able to retaliate if you defect, and he knows this, so he will predict that you will defect and defect to minimize his own losses. Therefore, he will defect, and you should defect. The Nash equilibrium is indeed that you should both defect. The base case is true.
However, if you try to use induction on this, you'll find that for every day except the last one, the drug dealer has the next day to retaliate (respond by defecting). Which was the reason you were both cooperating (mutual benefit, plus the threat of retaliation in the case of defection). This will apply to every day but the last day. If, somehow, you justify it for the n-1th day, you could use the same argument for any day, and you'd never have cooperated in the first place (with the knowledge that at least one of you will die first).
Oh, I'm sure there's a possible situation in which the logical course disagrees with most people's morals. I say it's a problem with those people's morals.
Also, probably a matter of word choice, but game theory does logically justify certain choices. Maybe not in a moral sense. But then again, you might argue that "justify" means something that I don't think it means.
[QUOTE]On January 30 2008 17:25 BottleAbuser wrote: [QUOTE]On January 30 2008 16:50 Alethios wrote:
FB, the implied argument is that if there's only 1 day left before the drug dealer dies, he won't be able to retaliate if you defect, and he knows this, so he will predict that you will defect and defect to minimize his own losses. Therefore, he will defect, and you should defect. The Nash equilibrium is indeed that you should both defect. The base case is true.
However, if you try to use induction on this, you'll find that for every day except the last one, the drug dealer has the next day to retaliate (respond by defecting). Which was the reason you were both cooperating (mutual benefit, plus the threat of retaliation in the case of defection). This will apply to every day but the last day. If, somehow, you justify it for the n-1th day, you could use the same argument for any day, and you'd never have cooperated in the first place (with the knowledge that at least one of you will die first). [/QUOTE]
You could say that about a one-shot too. "The best move is to cooperate because if both of you co-operate you maximize benefit."
Yet mathematically the best move in a one-shot is still to defect no matter what the other guy does.
The problem with saying "the drug dealer has the next day to retaliate" is that he's not just responding to your moves, he also has the option to pre-emptively defect. And since both of you are now trying to pre-empt each other, in every situation your pre-emptive defection gets you a higher payoff faster than if you put the defection off for longer.
Its the same here. Trying to justify arguing against the Nash eq. here is just as wrong. Reduction-ad-absurdum by induction doesn't work because as long as the time limit is open ended (i.e. "with the knowledge that at least one of you will die first") the reciprocal co-operation is in equilibrium. Only when theres a definite end point, does it degenerate into mutual defection.
This is actually of importance in the real world in studying cartel behavior. Its one of the reasons its so hard to keep cartels together for long.
I was justifying cooperation with the threat of retaliation the next day if the other one defected, so it wouldn't work for the non-iterated version.
Your argument (knowledge of the endpoint leads to fast defection) runs contrary to experimental results, where the famous tit-for-tat strategy did pretty good. From what I know, every strategy knew that it would be paired with another given strategy exactly 100 times.
You could argue that this is a result of illogical strategies, but when the goal is to accumulate the most benefit... it would be logical to choose the most successful strategy. I suppose I could say that knowledge that another agent COULD be illogical, and developing a successful strategy based on that knowledge, is logical.
wow I was going to comment on this but then FieryBalrog said everything I wanted to say better than I could've.
evolutionary psychology can give so many amazing insights into human behaviour if you're willing to accept things that make sense but sound bad on the surface (low 'truthiness').
other good books that are somewhat related: Steven Pinker - How the Mind Works Jared Diamond - The Third Chimpanzee
I see i've got a lot to reply to, i'm glad it's sparked some stimulating discussion.
I'd best get started.
On January 30 2008 16:57 FieryBalrog wrote: Ah, you picked the wrong person to call out :p I'm an evolutionary anthropology major and I believe evolutionary biology is the basis for all human morality. You seriously misrepresented my argument. I myself said in that thread:
And the effort has failed, I believe. The fundamental basis for human morality is our existence as (primate (mammal (animal))) organisms with the associated ancestral feelings and emotions. Logic and rationality are just modes of thinking used for justification and exploration.
My point was that the basis for morality is biological ancestry and attendant cultural constructions, not logical, coherent argument. Arguments do not create the reality of what is good and what is wrong, they just justify and influence biological urges. Thus the basis for morality is neither rational nor irrational, but beyond the realm of rationality, and thus a good realm for exploration for religious argument. My argument in essence is that much of modern morality, even that propounded by atheists, is basically belief in a religious system, which may hook into memes that propagate for reasons of ancestral feelings. Things like "all humans deserve dignity" can't be justified on any logical basis.
I'm sorry if any misrepresentation has occured, it certainly was not my intention. That being said, I reproduced your entire argument to Ancestral's question. If your argument was incomplete, why did you post it? Furthermore, you chose to post the argument in a thread filled with people known to (on occasion) willfully misrepresent Darwinian arguments and representatives. This video for example.
Continuing:
On January 30 2008 16:57 FieryBalrog wrote: OK, that said, your understanding of evolutionary biology and the way it affects human society is a bit flawed. You say:
From an evolutionary standpoint, if we practice behaviors that benefit ourselves, genes that underpin those tendencies are more likely to be passed on, thus increasing the prevalence of that behavior type. For humans, we are undoubtedly social creatures with the ability to communicate and work together. When we work together, our abilities transcend those of us working alone. We assign roles, we carry them out and suddenly we have an aqueduct or a system where each member of a group is forfiling a different vital role. The benefit for everybody is clear. Whats more, it is a rational response on reflection of the achievements to continue the behavior that has led you to them. Behaviors that are conducive to such endeavours are favoured and passed on.
I take it you haven't read the selfish gene?
The basic idea behind your post is Group Selection, a nebulous idea proposed by Wynne-Edwards in the 50s where organisms that performed actions for the "good of the group" thrived because the whole group thrived.
Unfortunately, natural selection doesn't work that way. As Dawkins points out in The Selfish Gene, which is really just an argument founded on Williams and Hamilton's arguments, natural selection operates on the genetic level. This means that unless no other mechanisms are at work, a population full of altruists and selfish bastards (as a simplification) will degenerate into an equilibrium of selfish bastards unless given very specific starting conditions, according to both game theory and observation. Take a squirrel, if one squirrel gives an alarm call, it helps out the groups chance of survival, but it increases its own risk of getting caught. The gene that governs the likelihood of sounding the alarm like that will tend to die out of the population because those who carry it will proportionately die out. [Part of text omitted]
Our dispute doesn't seem to be over any scientific grounds. I realise that my argument from an evolutionary standpoint was not meticulous, but nor was it ever meant to be. The thread was created in order to "Debunk Myths and Misconceptions", not educate theists to tertiary level. I chose a simple example showing how we could derive some part of our morality rationally through our Darwinian past.
At some level or another, co-operating with "moral" behavior is beneficial. Upon reflection at an achievement, we can rationally derive a moral code, which goes on to become the new benchmark. Whats more, we can rationally decide to follow our own personal moral code today because it makes us feel good.
While I agree that the fundamental basis for our morality is indeed our evolutionary development from our Darwinian past, I strongly disagree that logic and reason do not enter into the mix when forming our personal objective morality. As far as I can tell, you have not made a counter argument to this proposition.
On January 30 2008 16:57 FieryBalrog wrote: And then finally you said:
Lastly, on the point that we receive our morality from religious texts. Last I checked, Chimps were without any Bible or Qur'an, yet they get by without killing and raping each other just fine
Which is pretty hilarious. Please read Jane Goodalls own book "In the Shadow of Man" or any number of works on chimpanzees. They are one of the most interesting social primates and have a lot of crazy behaviors going on. The males often hunt in kin-selected packs as early humans are speculated to have done, and form tightly knit natal groups. Among other things, these groups sometimes wage war on other male groups and kill all the males and grab all the women and sometimes kill the infants. Chimpanzees are much more complex creatures than you are giving them credit for.
Clearly "killing and raping each other" was the wrong example here. I apologise, what I instead should have said is that "Chimpanzees are without a religious text, but still almost certainly maintain their own moral code to follow."
To go slightly off topic for a moment, but remaining on Chimpanzees. What I find particularly interesting about Chimpanzees is that the closer you look, the more similar to us they seem. One wonders whether if they had to correct mechanisms, could they learn to talk and act like us? Which obviously leads to interesting questions about where they should stand morally and legally.
On January 30 2008 16:50 Alethios wrote: The effect is that we do the right thing because [...] We feel obliged to do the right thing according to our individual morals.
Alethios, I'm not sure if we're working on the same definition of "cause." If X causes Y, Y is because of X, not because of Z. Right?
Perhaps we are working with the same definition. My argument was probably unclear. My point is this: Given we receive some degree of morality through evolution, where does this leave us? Once we have that morality, the effect on our every day decisions is that when we do act morally... we feel good about doing it, and so forth.
Keep meaning to read Pinker... watched a lecture of his however, pretty inspiring!
On January 30 2008 17:53 BottleAbuser wrote: I was justifying cooperation with the threat of retaliation the next day if the other one defected, so it wouldn't work for the non-iterated version.
Your argument (knowledge of the endpoint leads to fast defection) runs contrary to experimental results, where the famous tit-for-tat strategy did pretty good. From what I know, every strategy knew that it would be paired with another given strategy exactly 100 times.
From what I remember the strategies didn't know how long they would be interacting for? Because, if you think about it, if theyre interacting for exactly 100 turns, "Tit for Tat, defect no matter what on the last turn" always does better than Tit for Tat.
Its interesting to note though that "tit for tat" seems to be a general characteristic of human morality when dealing with non-kin, which makes sense. However, it still can't be a logical basis for morality. Even if "tit for tat" was a good long-term strategy, if the basis for any morality is optimal self-benefit, then you can never tell someone not to do something, except for the possibility of getting caught and losing trust and therefore suffering punishments. If I find a wallet on the street with loads of cash, why should I track down the owner and give the money back, when I will almost certainly never see or interact with them again? That kind of specific situation shows us that morality is a non-rational theory of behavior, and that the whole idea behind moral action is not supposed to be optimal self-benefit, which is only a side "bonus". The basis behind our action should not be "don't do this or you'll get punished in some fashion". Thats the idea behind law, not moral thinking.
Both have a role. Genes lay the foundations, but your experiences are what shapes your personality.
Facts please because if you take two babies twins ( so it is two ppl with the same genes ) and raise them in different families, when they will be adults their behaviours wont be the same.
No offense but i dont agree .
Culture and education >>>>>>>>>>>> Genes regarding human social behaviour
Btw: saying that genes are important in human social behaviour is a standart idea among racist people.
Both have a role. Genes lay the foundations, but your experiences are what shapes your personality.
Facts please because if you take two babies twins ( so it is two ppl with the same genes ) and raise them in different families, when they will be adults their behaviours wont be the same.
No offense but i dont agree .
Culture and education >>>>>>>>>>>> Genes regarding human social behaviour
Btw: saying that genes are important in human social behaviour is a standart idea among racist people.
However-- If you take two twins and raise them in the SAME family they won't be the same either... So what that shows is that they are different somehow other than the way they were raised and their culture.
On January 31 2008 00:57 f0rgiv3n wrote: However-- If you take two twins and raise them in the SAME family they won't be the same either... So what that shows is that they are different somehow other than the way they were raised and their culture.
Of course they wont be the same ^^ nevertheless they will have some things in common ( language, acquaintances, education ...) But you know, humans are able to take decisions about their own existence so this is why we are all differents. So this example only shows that genes arent really important regarding human social behaviour it implies nothing about education or culture because free will can prevail on it .
Read Pinker's "The Blank Slate" as well. In many studies of identical twins raised together or apart, the overall trend is that about 50% of the variation of most human characteristics (personality traits, intelligence, etc.) is due to genetics. Interestingly, the family in which they're raised has almost no impact over the long term. That is, whether identical twins are raised in the same or different families has almost no impact on their long-term personality traits, which tend to be quite similar in any case. The cause of the other 50% variance is unknown, believed to be through chance events or peer groups.
Edit: My point here is that although our behaviour isn't determined by our genes, research shows that genes DO play a large factor.
Both have a role. Genes lay the foundations, but your experiences are what shapes your personality.
Facts please because if you take two babies twins ( so it is two ppl with the same genes ) and raise them in different families, when they will be adults their behaviours wont be the same.
No offense but i dont agree .
Culture and education >>>>>>>>>>>> Genes regarding human social behaviour
Btw: saying that genes are important in human social behaviour is a standart idea among racist people.
So you're saying genes have no effect on a persons behaviour whatsoever? That is just simply not true. You seem to think that by stating that genes DO have an impact on an individuals personality, i mean that they are the only factor. That is however not what i meant. I simply meant that genes DO play a role. I also think that your enviroment has a greater impact than your genes, but the importance of the genome in regards to a persons personality can't be ignored.
One more comment closer to the initial discussion:
It's true that from a biologist's point of view, one can understand ethical behaviour very well in terms of the evolutionary advantage of promoting genes.
However, this doesn't mean that an individual's ethical decisions are directly caused by evolutionary reasoning. If a father rushes into a burning building to save his children, he's not busy thinking 'My two children will likely pass on more further copies of my genes than I would, so it is imperative that I save them', he's acting out of love, compassion, duty, and other very human emotions.
Now, evolution has shaped our reward systems so that we feel love towards our kin such that we'll tend to act as if we were maximizing our gene-spread. However, this doesn't replace or conflict with the usual (secular) ethics, or suggest that one should act to maximize their genes. You can be an evolutionary ethicist and still decide not to have children or be more compassionate than pure calculating reason would suggest.
I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that in evolutionary psychology, it's easier to write that "organisms do X to maximize the spread of their genes" than "organisms do X since genes have over time shaped their reward systems to on average encourage that behaviour".
On January 30 2008 20:11 Boblion wrote: Human behavior =/= genes
Human behavior is related to culture NOT to genes ( except if your are mentally handicaped ).
So i disagree with you.
This is totally wrong. Genes lay the foundations for human behavior, they also constrain human behavior. Theres a reason humans are much the same all over the world. Whats your explanation for this obvious fact?
No matter how much cultural re-education you try to impose, even in the most totalitarian regime where all culture is controlled from the top, parents will still love their children, people will still respond to personal incentives, etc.
There have been numerous very catastrophic and horrible attempts in the 20th century to prove otherwise.
On January 31 2008 03:29 FieryBalrog wrote: This is totally wrong. Genes lay the foundations for human behavior, they also constrain human behavior. Theres a reason humans are much the same all over the world. Whats your explanation for this obvious fact?
Genes lay foundations for primal human behavior ( eat / mate /survive ) moreover we havent the same ideas and opinion around the world. .... there are several cultures.... The constitution of United-States isnt written in your own DNA .....
On January 31 2008 03:29 FieryBalrog wrote:
No matter how much cultural re-education you try to impose, even in the most totalitarian regime where all culture is controlled from the top, parents will still love their children, people will still respond to personal incentives, etc.
There have been numerous very catastrophic and horrible attempts in the 20th century to prove otherwise.
????? Seriously re-read my posts please .... You overstate genes part in human behaviour. You should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron This boy was like an animal until he was found by "civilized" people.
Btw: there are some parents who kill their own children ... Humans are way more complex than animals.
We should discuss via PM because i think that we are quite off-topic ^^
On January 31 2008 03:29 FieryBalrog wrote: This is totally wrong. Genes lay the foundations for human behavior, they also constrain human behavior. Theres a reason humans are much the same all over the world. Whats your explanation for this obvious fact?
Genes lay foundations for primal human behavior ( eat / mate /survive ) moreover we havent the same ideas and opinion around the world. .... there are several cultures.... The constitution of United-States isnt written in your own DNA .....
All cultures are run by male-bonded social networks. All cultures human beings believe in the supernatural. All cultures human beings respond to personal incentives and incentives for their kin. All human cultures are based on kin networks. They are all built around family units that are based upon marriage or sexual union. In just about all human cultures, males generally desire fertility and youth in female partners. In just about all human cultures, females generally desire resource investment and long-term commitment from male partners. Etc. Etc. Kinda strange, don't you think?
On January 31 2008 03:29 FieryBalrog wrote:
No matter how much cultural re-education you try to impose, even in the most totalitarian regime where all culture is controlled from the top, parents will still love their children, people will still respond to personal incentives, etc.
There have been numerous very catastrophic and horrible attempts in the 20th century to prove otherwise.
On January 31 2008 03:59 Boblion wrote: ????? Seriously re-read my posts please .... You overstate genes part in human behaviour. You should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron This boy was like an animal until he was found by "civilized" people.
A lot of animals require the normal social environment for their species when being reared in order to function properly as adults. Case in point- tigers raised in the zoo can't hunt properly in the wild, vervet monkeys deprived of social interaction make poor mothers and might even become slightly insane, etc.
For example: Humans won't learn language if they never hear it spoken, but the ability to learn language IS hard-coded genetically. Unless there is a genetic defect, all human infants will learn and speak language simply from hearing any language at all in their formative years.
On January 31 2008 03:59 Boblion wrote:
Btw: there are some parents who kill their own children ... Humans are way more complex than animals.
Well i give up. We are off-topic anyway. Free will and culture dont exist -.-. DNA prevails.
Edit: ok one last ...
On January 31 2008 04:24 FieryBalrog wrote:
All cultures are run by male-bonded social networks. All cultures human beings believe in the supernatural. All cultures human beings respond to personal incentives and incentives for their kin. All human cultures are based on kin networks. They are all built around family units that are based upon marriage or sexual union. In just about all human cultures, males generally desire fertility and youth in female partners. In just about all human cultures, females generally desire resource investment and long-term commitment from male partners. Etc. Etc. Kinda strange, don't you think?
Kinda strange that Merkel runs Germany. Kinda strange that Hillary might be the next US president. Kinda strange that i m an atheist. Kinda strange that many ppl dont want to have children, blablabla and so on.
btw: sarcasm sux.
On January 31 2008 03:29 FieryBalrog wrote: A lot of animals require the normal social environment for their species when being reared in order to function properly as adults. Case in point- tigers raised in the zoo can't hunt properly in the wild, vervet monkeys deprived of social interaction make poor mothers and might even become slightly insane, etc.
For example: Humans won't learn language if they never hear it spoken, but the ability to learn language IS hard-coded genetically. Unless there is a genetic defect, all human infants will learn and speak language simply from hearing any language at all in their formative years.
I totally agree with it. A monkey wont be able to speak English because of his genes whereas a human will. Big news !!! Nevertheless the fact that you learnt English as language isnt related to our genes it is related to the culture of your parents. That is why English isnt my main language.
Here is how, if one ignores the "Dark Matter", which is theoretical, and has no proof, just "theoretical proof".
Black Holes suck anything in. Even light, we all know that. However, many people have been leaving the Black Holes out of the "theoretical Big Bang equation" as I would label it.
Black Holes, if one believes in them, suck in everything by great amounts of mass (or gravity, which is more accurate, because lead is heavier than per say hydrogen.) They are formed by great masses colliding/compressing in some way. Generally it has been stated, they are formed from two neutron stars, which collide, and then compress, until they start pulling everything in, making a Black Hole.
Not only does the Big Bang thoery exclude black holes in the equation, it also ignores the fact that matter does not just appear out of nothing, or else it would happen every now and then. Gravity is very clearly existent, due to the fact that things drop. Creation out of nothing (ex nihilo), should be evident in some physical way, if you do not believe in a God. We should have evidence of more than one Big Bang, not a single massive one.
Black holes refute the Big Bang theory, because if all of the universe ever was compressed, it would turn into a black hole. It would obviously include a damn lot more than two neutron stars. It would include every single neutron star in our current universe, every star, and everything in this universe. It is impossible for a Big Bang to happen, without escaping a black hole, and if it is impossible for light to escape, it is also clearly impossible for any means of an explosian to happen.
Basically what I'm saying is; 1. Nothing can exist without a creator (a God), or atleast spontaneous generation on a broad, evident scale. 2. A single Big Bang, is not possible, it would be more likely for there to be many large mega-planets, explode into whatever we have in this universe. 3. There are some many people that do admit to believing in God (and God does exist), or else there are thousands/millions/maybe billions of people that are crazy, and would be persecuted (some even unto death), for a god of some sort. 4. Many people have been changed, and say that God is the reason for it.
All cultures are run by male-bonded social networks. All cultures human beings believe in the supernatural. All cultures human beings respond to personal incentives and incentives for their kin. All human cultures are based on kin networks. They are all built around family units that are based upon marriage or sexual union. In just about all human cultures, males generally desire fertility and youth in female partners. In just about all human cultures, females generally desire resource investment and long-term commitment from male partners. Etc. Etc. Kinda strange, don't you think?
Kinda strange that Merkel runs Germany. Kinda strange that Hillary might be the next US president. Kinda strange that i m an atheist. Kinda strange that many ppl dont want to have children, blablabla and so on.
btw: sarcasm sux.
Just going to respond to this. I'm not being sarcastic anyway. Merkel/Hillary/whomever are figureheads in a giant governmental apparatus. This apparatus was constructed by male-bonded social networks, maintained by such, and is still maintained by such, all over the entire world- patriarchal society. This can only be explained through sexual selection exerting pressures on the human genome, and it does need an explanation.
Even if you're an atheist, the fact that every single culture around the world includes beliefs in the supernatural requires explanation. Massive world-wide trends require explanations.
Many people don't want to have children is quite obvious. As the cost of raising a child goes up and infant mortality goes down, and the need for laborers around the farm decreases, number of children decrease in tandem with contraception. Many animals practice such population control.
Even if you're an atheist, the fact that every single culture around the world includes beliefs in the supernatural requires explanation. Massive world-wide trends require explanations.
The explanation isnt genes... otherwise i wouldnt be human since i m an atheist.
On January 31 2008 05:38 FieryBalrog wrote:
Many people don't want to have children is quite obvious. As the cost of raising a child goes up and infant mortality goes down, and the need for laborers around the farm decreases, number of children decrease in tandem with contraception. Many animals practice such population control.
It is because of their DNA and genes ?
"i dont want children" -----> you say it is because of genes
"well wait, after reflexion i want children " ----> you say it is because of genes too.
So DNA can change ???? Mutants Ftw !
I think that you mistake genes and DNA for brain / ideas /culture ...
On January 31 2008 05:38 FieryBalrog wrote: Just going to respond to this. I'm not being sarcastic anyway. Merkel/Hillary/whomever are figureheads in a giant governmental apparatus. This apparatus was constructed by male-bonded social networks, maintained by such, and is still maintained by such, all over the entire world- patriarchal society. This can only be explained through sexual selection exerting pressures on the human genome, and it does need an explanation.
Even is there are no "true" matriarcal societies there are several matrifocal and matrilinear societies known. How can DNA/genes can explain this ?
In the StarCraft universe, the Dark Templar Tribes of Shakuras are ruled over by Matriarch Raszagal. Near the end of StarCraft: Brood War, she is killed, and names her Prelate, Zeratul (a male), the new leader of the Dark Templar, thus ending the Dark Templar matriarchy.
Even if you're an atheist, the fact that every single culture around the world includes beliefs in the supernatural requires explanation. Massive world-wide trends require explanations.
The explanation isnt genes... otherwise i wouldnt be human since i m an atheist.
Many people don't want to have children is quite obvious. As the cost of raising a child goes up and infant mortality goes down, and the need for laborers around the farm decreases, number of children decrease in tandem with contraception. Many animals practice such population control.
It is because of their DNA and genes ?
"i dont want children" -----> you say it is because of genes
"well wait, after reflexion i want children " ----> you say it is because of genes too.
So DNA can change ???? Mutants Ftw !
I think that you mistake genes and DNA for brain / ideas /culture ...
Are you really this naive? Because something has a genetic basis every single individual in the species must express the trait in equal amounts invariantly?
Genes influence species-wide trends in behavior. Not every male natal group of chimpanzees actively hunt in cooperation. But some do. Yet the behavior has a definite genetic basis. Not all gorilla silverbacks put on the same displays or use threat displays in the same situations. Yet threat display is a behavior with a strong genetic basis. Etc.
Do you even know how genetics work? Genes vary, their level of expression varies, and genetically-based behaviors depend on environmental feedback. A fox that has a small litter in times of environmental stress might have a large litter in times of plenty. Basic example of same freaking genes, environmental feedback. Just because a human is thinking about it doesnt mean the options he's thinking and considering and discarding aren't influenced by his genetic make up. Of course they are.
To start with a basic point for humans- why do humans around the world love and invest in their children? Magic? Free will? Culture? Its a behavior with a very strong genetic, innate basis. And yet it manifests as love, as thoughts, as emotions as feelings. Obviously not everyone loves their kids. Some people even hate their kids. Yet the genes are still there.
Even if you're an atheist, the fact that every single culture around the world includes beliefs in the supernatural requires explanation. Massive world-wide trends require explanations.
The explanation isnt genes... otherwise i wouldnt be human since i m an atheist.
Many people don't want to have children is quite obvious. As the cost of raising a child goes up and infant mortality goes down, and the need for laborers around the farm decreases, number of children decrease in tandem with contraception. Many animals practice such population control.
It is because of their DNA and genes ?
"i dont want children" -----> you say it is because of genes
"well wait, after reflexion i want children " ----> you say it is because of genes too.
So DNA can change ???? Mutants Ftw !
I think that you mistake genes and DNA for brain / ideas /culture ...
You keep responding to posts like you think everything we say is an extreme. We're not saying that our personalities are hard coded from birth. The point is that genes DO play a part. Or are you denying that too?
I love my family because of my genes. HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHA
On January 31 2008 06:13 Xiberia wrote: You keep responding to posts like you think everything we say is an extreme. We're not saying that our personalities are hard coded from birth. The point is that genes DO play a part. Or are you denying that too?
No . I m not saying that genes have no effect. I only said that culture/free will >>>>> genes regarding human social behavior.
Fiercybalrog are you denying that culture and free will play a part in human behaviour ?
I think he's saying that neither approach is exclusively correct. Genes play directly into the way culture affects human behavior, as we are naturally drawn to those that are physically similar to us.
On January 31 2008 05:27 GeneralZap wrote: The Big Bang goes against Black Hole Physics.
Here is how, if one ignores the "Dark Matter", which is theoretical, and has no proof, just "theoretical proof".
Black Holes suck anything in. Even light, we all know that. However, many people have been leaving the Black Holes out of the "theoretical Big Bang equation" as I would label it.
Black Holes, if one believes in them, suck in everything by great amounts of mass (or gravity, which is more accurate, because lead is heavier than per say hydrogen.) They are formed by great masses colliding/compressing in some way. Generally it has been stated, they are formed from two neutron stars, which collide, and then compress, until they start pulling everything in, making a Black Hole.
Not only does the Big Bang thoery exclude black holes in the equation, it also ignores the fact that matter does not just appear out of nothing, or else it would happen every now and then. Gravity is very clearly existent, due to the fact that things drop. Creation out of nothing (ex nihilo), should be evident in some physical way, if you do not believe in a God. We should have evidence of more than one Big Bang, not a single massive one.
Black holes refute the Big Bang theory, because if all of the universe ever was compressed, it would turn into a black hole. It would obviously include a damn lot more than two neutron stars. It would include every single neutron star in our current universe, every star, and everything in this universe. It is impossible for a Big Bang to happen, without escaping a black hole, and if it is impossible for light to escape, it is also clearly impossible for any means of an explosian to happen.
Basically what I'm saying is; 1. Nothing can exist without a creator (a God), or atleast spontaneous generation on a broad, evident scale. 2. A single Big Bang, is not possible, it would be more likely for there to be many large mega-planets, explode into whatever we have in this universe. 3. There are some many people that do admit to believing in God (and God does exist), or else there are thousands/millions/maybe billions of people that are crazy, and would be persecuted (some even unto death), for a god of some sort. 4. Many people have been changed, and say that God is the reason for it.
This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever read in my entire life. Please tell me you don't actually believe this crap.
On January 31 2008 06:15 Boblion wrote: I love my family because of my genes. HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHA
Laugh all you want, its true Why DO you love your family? Whatever the reason its, it wasn't your decision, so I don't even see why you would get upset if it was deeply rooted in genetics (which it obviously is).
On January 31 2008 06:15 Boblion wrote: Fiercybalrog are you denying that culture and free will play a part in human behaviour ?
No I'm not. I am denying this:
On January 31 2008 06:15 Boblion wrote:
No . I m not saying that genes have no effect. I only said that culture/free will >>>>> genes regarding human social behavior.
and, what I am saying, which is a little more sophisticated than you seem to give people credit for, is that genetics and evolutionary history place constraints - limits - on cultural modification of behavior. Behaviors that are too far outside the permissible realm introduce stress and poor health. Memes that are too far outside the acceptable or plausible don't catch on. Etc.
Here is a meme: "we should arrange society in such a way that our children are raised collectively by the state in mass nurseries from the day they are born."
Perfectly feasible.
Will never catch on, even if a totalitarian govt introduces it, people will fight every step of the way and it won't change their feelings.
Why?
Humans are genetically incapable of subscribing to such beliefs en masse.
Similar things have been tried in the 20th century. Much of the greatest tragedy was trying to bend human nature and external nature to cultural whims. The Great Revolution, the Year Zero of Cambodia, etc.
On January 31 2008 05:27 GeneralZap wrote: The Big Bang goes against Black Hole Physics.
Here is how, if one ignores the "Dark Matter", which is theoretical, and has no proof, just "theoretical proof".
Black Holes suck anything in. Even light, we all know that. However, many people have been leaving the Black Holes out of the "theoretical Big Bang equation" as I would label it.
Black Holes, if one believes in them, suck in everything by great amounts of mass (or gravity, which is more accurate, because lead is heavier than per say hydrogen.) They are formed by great masses colliding/compressing in some way. Generally it has been stated, they are formed from two neutron stars, which collide, and then compress, until they start pulling everything in, making a Black Hole.
Not only does the Big Bang thoery exclude black holes in the equation, it also ignores the fact that matter does not just appear out of nothing, or else it would happen every now and then. Gravity is very clearly existent, due to the fact that things drop. Creation out of nothing (ex nihilo), should be evident in some physical way, if you do not believe in a God. We should have evidence of more than one Big Bang, not a single massive one.
Black holes refute the Big Bang theory, because if all of the universe ever was compressed, it would turn into a black hole. It would obviously include a damn lot more than two neutron stars. It would include every single neutron star in our current universe, every star, and everything in this universe. It is impossible for a Big Bang to happen, without escaping a black hole, and if it is impossible for light to escape, it is also clearly impossible for any means of an explosian to happen.
Basically what I'm saying is; 1. Nothing can exist without a creator (a God), or atleast spontaneous generation on a broad, evident scale. 2. A single Big Bang, is not possible, it would be more likely for there to be many large mega-planets, explode into whatever we have in this universe. 3. There are some many people that do admit to believing in God (and God does exist), or else there are thousands/millions/maybe billions of people that are crazy, and would be persecuted (some even unto death), for a god of some sort. 4. Many people have been changed, and say that God is the reason for it.
This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever read in my entire life. Please tell me you don't actually believe this crap.
GeneralZap, as well as a few others, please try to keep your discussion on topic. If you feel strongly about your argument, please either save it for another time, or find another place to post it. Thanks. My advice however, if you wish to use science to prove the existence of god, is to at least become a little more well read first. Try starting with Stephen Hawking. I've noticed videos of his about on Youtube.
On January 31 2008 07:47 FieryBalrog wrote: Similar things have been tried in the 20th century. Much of the greatest tragedy was trying to bend human nature and external nature to cultural whims. The Great Revolution, the Year Zero of Cambodia, etc.
What the fuck seriously ? what totalitarisms have to do with culture / genes ? If totalitarisms didnt worked it was because people enjoy freedom ( oh for sure it is because of DNA -.-). You are also describing a kind of totalitarism with your DNA / genes stuff, you deny ppl free will:
- you love your family because of your genes. If you dont like your family it is because of your gene too ( obviously ). - you are ( not ) good at school because of your genes - you are posting on tl because of your genes - bablbalbblalbalblalbla because of your genes What a wonderful ideology. Heil DNA !
Sry if i'm Bm/stupid/whatever you want it is because of my genes
edit: after reflexion i understand your idea. And as a nice guy ( because of my genes ) i will tell an ever better idea. Your social behaviour isnt related to your genes but to atoms because we are all made of atoms and even genes are made of atoms !
On January 31 2008 07:47 FieryBalrog wrote: Similar things have been tried in the 20th century. Much of the greatest tragedy was trying to bend human nature and external nature to cultural whims. The Great Revolution, the Year Zero of Cambodia, etc.
What the fuck seriously ? what totalitarisms have to do with culture / genes ? If totalitarisms didnt worked it was because people enjoy freedom ( oh for sure it is because of DNA -.-). You are also describing a kind of totalitarism with your DNA / genes stuff, you deny ppl free will:
- you love your family because of your genes. If you dont like your family it is because of your gene too ( obviously ). - you are ( not ) good at school because of your genes - you are posting on tl because of your genes - bablbalbblalbalblalbla because of your genes What a wonderful ideology. Heil DNA !
Sry if i'm Bm/stupid/whatever you want it is because of my genes
edit: after reflexion i understand your idea. And as a nice guy ( because of my genes ) i will tell an ever better idea. Your social behaviour isnt related to your genes but to atoms because we are all made of atoms and even genes are made of atoms !
I deserve a Nobel prize.
I'm not sure if its the language barrier or what, but I get the feeling that I'm just talking past you.
On January 31 2008 07:47 FieryBalrog wrote: Similar things have been tried in the 20th century. Much of the greatest tragedy was trying to bend human nature and external nature to cultural whims. The Great Revolution, the Year Zero of Cambodia, etc.
What the fuck seriously ? what totalitarisms have to do with culture / genes ? If totalitarisms didnt worked it was because people enjoy freedom ( oh for sure it is because of DNA -.-). You are also describing a kind of totalitarism with your DNA / genes stuff, you deny ppl free will:
- you love your family because of your genes. If you dont like your family it is because of your gene too ( obviously ). - you are ( not ) good at school because of your genes - you are posting on tl because of your genes - bablbalbblalbalblalbla because of your genes What a wonderful ideology. Heil DNA !
Sry if i'm Bm/stupid/whatever you want it is because of my genes
edit: after reflexion i understand your idea. And as a nice guy ( because of my genes ) i will tell an ever better idea. Your social behaviour isnt related to your genes but to atoms because we are all made of atoms and even genes are made of atoms !
I deserve a Nobel prize.
Dude... seriously. Nobody is saying that genes are directly responsible to our behavior, but they undeniably influence it.
Stop being willfully ignorant of other people's arguments simply so you can continue to argue you own.
Dude... seriously. Nobody is saying that genes are directly responsible to our behavior.
I think that's what Fiercy is saying:
On January 31 2008 07:47 FieryBalrog wrote: Why DO you love your family? Whatever the reason its, it wasn't your decision, so I don't even see why you would get upset if it was deeply rooted in genetics (which it obviously is).
On January 31 2008 09:24 Alethios wrote: Stop being willfully ignorant of other people's arguments simply so you can continue to argue you own.
Hey everyone started to flame me because i said that imo culture and education >>> genes regarding behaviour. I m not convinced by fiercy's arguments because there are so much weird things about human behaviour that genes alone cant explain ( suicide, sadomasochism, friendship and so on ). Fiercy ignores free will so much that it makes me mad.
his argument is: "we are made of DNA so your behaviour is related to genes". Big News ! He ignores human culture which is a product of your mind, and takes a way more important part in our behaviour than you think. Why ppl tastes change so much between different societies and eras ?
example: Definition of beauty nowadays in western society:
Definition of beauty in western society during the 18 century:
Boblion, I think that yes, people are flaming you because it appears that you're saying:
"The effects of other factors are much much greater than the effects of genes on human behavior."
Because they're bringing up examples in which the effects of genes on behavior are shown to be comparable, if not greater than the effects of other factors. And you're ignoring them.
Pointing out the exception will not prove your point. Certain specific behaviors have been conclusively shown to be hard-coded by genes. Anyone here know which study it was that showed that genes hard-code for certain behaviors in bees? (or was it ants? wasps?)
"Abnormal" behaviors such as those that you pointed out can possibly be attributed to genetic mutations, which may or may not prove to be advantageous. If it is advantageous enough to make such behavior mainstream sometime down the line, I'll betcha that the behavior will no longer be seen as amoral or even strange. (Suicide, I think, will never reach that status, due to the effects of the behavior.)
Sorry bottleAbuser but i cant agree with it. How can human behavior hard-coded by genes ... Human behavior is the product of the interaction of your neurons and synapses. DNA and Genes take a less important part ( ok there are DNA in each of your neurons but still, it isnt the DNA which thinks but your brain ). Moreover you are saying that sadomasochists ( they have abnormal behavior ) are mutants ? Seriously LOL
example: Definition of beauty nowadays in western society:
Definition of beauty in western society during the 18 century:
How can genes explain it ? :D
And yet is there any society in which a fat woman with bad skin would be considered sexually attractive by most men? HMMMMMMMmm why not, what is this mysterious constraint upon cultural modification of human behavior and standards?
Why do human males find symmetrical features, clear skin, youth, and a wide hips to waist ratio attractive in women around the world across all these different cultures? The answer lies in sexual selective pressures exerted upon humans during our evolutionary history...
On January 31 2008 10:24 Boblion wrote: Sorry bottleAbuser but i cant agree with it. How can human behavior hard-coded by genes ... Human behavior is the product of the interaction of your neurons and synapses. DNA and Genes take a less important part ( ok there are DNA in each of your neurons but still, it isnt the DNA which thinks but your brain ). Moreover you are saying that sadomasochists ( they have abnormal behavior ) are mutants ? Seriously LOL
Dear me, how do you think the neurons and synapses are formed and organized? Why are human brains mostly similar in organization? This is basic stuff here...
Okay, let's stop laughing here long enough to pretend that some arguments won't go away because you're laughing at them.
It's been shown that certain behaviors in bees disappear when corresponding genes are not there, and reappear when the genes are re-introduced. I'm sorry that I don't have the citation here, but if I remember correctly the study was mentioned in The Blind Watchmaker (book).
Now, we can accept that it's possible for a gene to code for a behavior, right? It would be overly simplistic to say that all behaviors are coded for by genes, but it's possible that at least some are.
Then, it's possible that sadomasochism is coded for by genes. I offered it as a possibility, I'm not asserting it as fact. I actually think it's more complicated than just genes, or a combination of genes. However, they could be a very important factor.
Let's make a computer analogy, because I like computers. We'll pretend genes decide the hardware, and the environment decides the software. Simplistic, but it'll stand for our purposes. So, the genes decide how fast we are, how much memory we have, maybe how "smart" we are, how fat we are, whatever.
The environment decides how we treat different inputs and respond to them. OK so far?
Now, let's say two computers of the same model have different web browsers. This would be analogous to identical twins raised in different environments. Both of them go to the same website, the acid test, and.... they display different looking websites. Different behavior, even though they have identical hardware! I guess you're right that the environment matters much more!
No, wait. Let's hook up two primitive PDAs with ported versions of the web browsers we just used. Oops! How come it doesn't show anything? I guess the PDA hardware isn't capable of dealing with the pictures in the website. Does this mean that hardware, after all, does play a big role?
/end computer analogy
In the end, unless you subscribe to some form of creationism, we are all mutants. We usually describe organisms with NEWLY (with respect to the majority of whatever population we're talking about) mutated genes as mutants, though.
I find it hard to accept a definition of "behavior" that is subjective. Feelings are subjective. You can't measure them. Actions, like standing up, crying, smiling, lifting a hand, attacking someone (without implying anything about the intent), falling down, closing one's eyes... that is behavior. That can be observed, measured.
I guess you could argue that with sophisticated enough technology, we could measure feelings and thoughts, because they are just different labels for different forms of brain activity. However, it would be erroneous to say that we are observing behavior by gathering a person's reports on his thoughts or feelings, unless we are talking about the person's act of reporting.
On January 31 2008 13:12 BottleAbuser wrote: Okay, let's stop laughing here long enough to pretend that some arguments won't go away because you're laughing at them.
It's been shown that certain behaviors in bees disappear when corresponding genes are not there, and reappear when the genes are re-introduced. I'm sorry that I don't have the citation here, but if I remember correctly the study was mentioned in The Blind Watchmaker (book).
Now, we can accept that it's possible for a gene to code for a behavior, right? It would be overly simplistic to say that all behaviors are coded for by genes, but it's possible that at least some are.
Then, it's possible that sadomasochism is coded for by genes. I offered it as a possibility, I'm not asserting it as fact. I actually think it's more complicated than just genes, or a combination of genes. However, they could be a very important factor.
Let's make a computer analogy, because I like computers. We'll pretend genes decide the hardware, and the environment decides the software. Simplistic, but it'll stand for our purposes. So, the genes decide how fast we are, how much memory we have, maybe how "smart" we are, how fat we are, whatever.
The environment decides how we treat different inputs and respond to them. OK so far?
Now, let's say two computers of the same model have different web browsers. This would be analogous to identical twins raised in different environments. Both of them go to the same website, the acid test, and.... they display different looking websites. Different behavior, even though they have identical hardware! I guess you're right that the environment matters much more!
No, wait. Let's hook up two primitive PDAs with ported versions of the web browsers we just used. Oops! How come it doesn't show anything? I guess the PDA hardware isn't capable of dealing with the pictures in the website. Does this mean that hardware, after all, does play a big role?
/end computer analogy
In the end, unless you subscribe to some form of creationism, we are all mutants. We usually describe organisms with NEWLY (with respect to the majority of whatever population we're talking about) mutated genes as mutants, though.
Genes provide both hardware and a basic software in your analogy. We come in built with the ability to process visuals, speak and process language, fear of heights, fear or loud noises, suckling, these are all behaviors, that will arise automatically in any normal development. Environment is more like input that modifies which behaviors actually manifest, and is a little more complicated in that in the early years especially environmental and social inputs may modify the software itself.
However, observational evidence from cultures all over the world alone is enough for it to be clear that genes constrain and direct behavior in certain ways, because cultural ideas that run too far contrary to what humans will biologically accept do not catch on (or, sometimes if they do catch on, lead to societal failure) and also environments (including social environment) that are too far contrary to our biology lead to stress and poor health.
Eh, it's irritating for me to see people quote long posts on the same page, but I guess it's part of TL culture (I'm seeing it everywhere).
I guess you could say that hardware does have built-in stuff to do very very basic stuff by itself, like the control logic of a CPU. But I won't try too hard to defend a throwaway analogy.
My point is that the statement "environment >> genes" is false, not that "genes >> environment" is true.
And yet is there any society in which a fat woman with bad skin would be considered sexually attractive by most men? HMMMMMMMmm why not, what is this mysterious constraint upon cultural modification of human behavior and standards?
Why do human males find symmetrical features, clear skin, youth, and a wide hips to waist ratio attractive in women around the world across all these different cultures? The answer lies in sexual selective pressures exerted upon humans during our evolutionary history...
I guess that you dont know that "beautiful" women of the 18 centrury were quite fat, too bad.
Btw you should real this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty Yea there is a correlation hips/waist and ratio and sexual attractivity. But it isnt HARD FACTS it is a correlation. Some people like small women whereas some dont.
You seem to totally ignore the subjectivity of tastes.
On January 31 2008 10:24 Boblion wrote: Sorry bottleAbuser but i cant agree with it. How can human behavior hard-coded by genes ... Human behavior is the product of the interaction of your neurons and synapses. DNA and Genes take a less important part ( ok there are DNA in each of your neurons but still, it isnt the DNA which thinks but your brain ). Moreover you are saying that sadomasochists ( they have abnormal behavior ) are mutants ? Seriously LOL
Dear me, how do you think the neurons and synapses are formed and organized? Why are human brains mostly similar in organization? This is basic stuff here...
Yea DNA and genes make us human beings. Yea this is why we have all a brain with a parietal, frontal lobes and so on. But you totally ignore that the interactions with your environnement mould your brain and the organization of your neurons. For example: http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2005/01/blind_people_can_use.html
Okay, let's stop laughing here long enough to pretend that some arguments won't go away because you're laughing at them.
It's been shown that certain behaviors in bees disappear when corresponding genes are not there, and reappear when the genes are re-introduced. I'm sorry that I don't have the citation here, but if I remember correctly the study was mentioned in The Blind Watchmaker (book).
Now, we can accept that it's possible for a gene to code for a behavior, right? It would be overly simplistic to say that all behaviors are coded for by genes, but it's possible that at least some are.
Then, it's possible that sadomasochism is coded for by genes. I offered it as a possibility, I'm not asserting it as fact. I actually think it's more complicated than just genes, or a combination of genes. However, they could be a very important factor.
Let's make a computer analogy, because I like computers. We'll pretend genes decide the hardware, and the environment decides the software. Simplistic, but it'll stand for our purposes. So, the genes decide how fast we are, how much memory we have, maybe how "smart" we are, how fat we are, whatever.
The environment decides how we treat different inputs and respond to them. OK so far?
Now, let's say two computers of the same model have different web browsers. This would be analogous to identical twins raised in different environments. Both of them go to the same website, the acid test, and.... they display different looking websites. Different behavior, even though they have identical hardware! I guess you're right that the environment matters much more!
No, wait. Let's hook up two primitive PDAs with ported versions of the web browsers we just used. Oops! How come it doesn't show anything? I guess the PDA hardware isn't capable of dealing with the pictures in the website. Does this mean that hardware, after all, does play a big role?
/end computer analogy
In the end, unless you subscribe to some form of creationism, we are all mutants. We usually describe organisms with NEWLY (with respect to the majority of whatever population we're talking about) mutated genes as mutants, though.
Once again it is a reducing analogy. You compare human beings to computers and bees... Nevertheless i agree with you, some genes might be factors. But i still think that culture and education are usually more important because we are way more complex than a comptuter, we can create concepts and those concepts can have an influence on us ( ethics for example ). Computer and animals havent religions or feelings.
Btw your last statement is somewhat frightening. I mean, gays are mutants ? Seriously i know that evolution is related to mutations but you overestimate genes part in a phenomenom ( human behaviour ) which is the most complex thing on earth. How can you explain friendship ? SUicide ? Homosexuality ? A "wild" human with his bare genes cant undertand those behaviours, because they are cultural/free will constructions.
On January 31 2008 13:17 BottleAbuser wrote: I find it hard to accept a definition of "behavior" that is subjective. Feelings are subjective. You can't measure them. Actions, like standing up, crying, smiling, lifting a hand, attacking someone (without implying anything about the intent), falling down, closing one's eyes... that is behavior. That can be observed, measured.
I guess you could argue that with sophisticated enough technology, we could measure feelings and thoughts, because they are just different labels for different forms of brain activity. However, it would be erroneous to say that we are observing behavior by gathering a person's reports on his thoughts or feelings, unless we are talking about the person's act of reporting.
What i want to say is that human are so versatile/impredictable that you cant say human behavior = genes. I agree with your second statement
On January 31 2008 14:17 FieryBalrog wrote:
Genes provide both hardware and a basic software in your analogy. We come in built with the ability to process visuals, speak and process language, fear of heights, fear or loud noises, suckling, these are all behaviors, that will arise automatically in any normal development. Environment is more like input that modifies which behaviors actually manifest, and is a little more complicated in that in the early years especially environmental and social inputs may modify the software itself.
However, observational evidence from cultures all over the world alone is enough for it to be clear that genes constrain and direct behavior in certain ways, because cultural ideas that run too far contrary to what humans will biologically accept do not catch on (or, sometimes if they do catch on, lead to societal failure) and also environments (including social environment) that are too far contrary to our biology lead to stress and poor health.
1- This is only an analogy Because there will always be "abnormal" people. 2- Nevertheless i agree with you when we have an genetic instinct of self-preservation. But contrarily to animals and computer human have free will. So they can suicide and free will can prevail over genes ( sry ) - Cultures can fail not because of people genes but because of their ideas ... I mean why some people are able to live in a monastery or a couvent ? Is it because of genes ? Totalitarisms failed because they deprived people of their free-will and usually human beings cant stand it.
Boblion, you have selective reading comprehension, or you're just skimming my posts maybe?
Everyone's a mutant. Unless, as I said, you believe in some sort of intelligent design theory. Do you? The rest of this argument is pointless if we can't agree on the mechanism for the process by which life was created.
And yes, that makes gays mutants. Homosexuals fall inside the group of "everyone."
Animals don't have feelings? Never mind that humans are also animals, I'll assume you're talking about "animals other than humans." I have feelings; I know that, because I feel them. Do you have feelings? I don't know for certain; there's no way for you to prove it to me. However, you appear to have feelings, so I'll assume you do have them. Do animals have feelings? They certainly seem to have feelings to me. They cry when they hurt, they smile and play when they're happy. From my perspective, other animals have feelings just as much as you do.
Oh yeah, nonhuman animals have been observed to commit suicide (with probable intent to suicide, not accidental).
These "abnormal" people you speak of. Is this "abnormal" tag more politically correct than "mutant"? At least "mutant" has an objective definition, "abnormal" you can place on anyone you don't like and it will fit the definition.
And "friendship" has been shown to be advantageous for individuals who choose to display that particular behavior. You don't need anything special or even intelligent to choose cooperation, just enough diversity in (perhaps randomly determined) behavior for the advantages to show themselves in terms of reproductive success.
Totalitarianisms have failed because the people couldn't stand it? Source, please. Every non-contemporary government has failed (by definition). These include democracies and republics. Why have those failed? Because people couldn't stand being part of their own government?
And yes, there are behaviors that can't be explained by genes alone. As I said in my previous post, I'm not trying to assert "genes >> environment," (or genes = behavior, dunno where you got that idea) I'm disputing the statement that "environment >> genes." Have I done so effectively?
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote: Boblion, you have selective reading comprehension, or you're just skimming my posts maybe?
???? I quoted you several times. I made answers.
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote: Everyone's a mutant. Unless, as I said, you believe in some sort of intelligent design theory. Do you?
Everyone has a different DNA because of evolution ( darwinism selection ) + random mutations.
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote: The rest of this argument is pointless if we can't agree on the mechanism for the process by which life was created.
I agree.
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote: And yes, that makes gays mutants. Homosexuals fall inside the group of "everyone."
People havent the same DNA. Big News. I think that environment / education/ culture take a part atleast as important than DNA in this kind of behaviour. There are only correlations between some genes and homosexuality, period. There are people who have the same genes but who arent gays. When you talk to a gay you say " sry i cant understand your feelings/sexual tastes because you havent the same genes than me " ?
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote: Animals don't have feelings? Never mind that humans are also animals, I'll assume you're talking about "animals other than humans."
My statement was that both you and fiercybalrog neglige the fact that human beings arent like others animals. They are way more complex, and they are able to " think", to create concepts, to have culture and to INTERACT with it.
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote: I have feelings; I know that, because I feel them. Do you have feelings? I don't know for certain; there's no way for you to prove it to me.
WOW you use of "methodological skepticism". But it doesnt surprise me. You are such a reductive adept of mechanism that Descartes would be proud of you. This guy tried to make a robot duck ( i give a lot of credit to Descartes, but he is a man of the 17 century ).
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote: However, you appear to have feelings, so I'll assume you do have them. Do animals have feelings? They certainly seem to have feelings to me. They cry when they hurt, they smile and play when they're happy. From my perspective, other animals have feelings just as much as you do.
SRY i dont care of your perspective, maybe animals have feelings ( i dont know ) but Animals have religions ? Animals have schools ??? Animals make art ? ???? OPEN YOUR EYES !!! Humans WONT EVER BE LIKE OTHER ANIMALS ! We are on another level.
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote: Oh yeah, nonhuman animals have been observed to commit suicide (with probable intent to suicide, not accidental).
Facts please.
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote: These "abnormal" people you speak of. Is this "abnormal" tag more politically correct than "mutant"? At least "mutant" has an objective definition, "abnormal" you can place on anyone you don't like and it will fit the definition.
Pure ideology ... Explaining differences of behaviour solely because of genetics is reductive/disgusting. I have a different idea than you so it is because of my genes too, because i'm a "mutant" ?
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote: And "friendship" has been shown to be advantageous for individuals who choose to display that particular behavior. You don't need anything special or even intelligent to choose cooperation, just enough diversity in (perhaps randomly determined) behavior for the advantages to show themselves in terms of reproductive success.
So reductive again ... You "choose" your friends randomly ? You dont choose them because they have the same ideas/tastes ( culture concepts ) than you ? Because they are interesting /cool people ?
Btw, I dont choose my friends because they can be "advantageous" but because i like them.
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote: Totalitarianisms have failed because the people couldn't stand it? Source, please.
Open your eyes: URSS, Romania,...
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote: Every non-contemporary government has failed (by definition). Because people couldn't stand being part of their own government?
I guess that your definition of "failed" isnt the same than mine.
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote: These include democracies and republics. Why have those failed?
-.- Because of wars, or coup d'état/putsch.
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote: And yes, there are behaviors that can't be explained by genes alone. As I said in my previous post, I'm not trying to assert "genes >> environment," (or genes = behavior, dunno where you got that idea) I'm disputing the statement that "environment >> genes." Have I done so effectively?
I think that Culture/education/free will >>>> genes. You dont think so. I'm not convinced by your statements and I wont change my opinion, sry.
I read this thread somewhat quickly, mainly because it seems to have gone way off-topic.
I just want to thank the guy for this blog and its mission, to help clear up some common misconceptions about atheism and evolution, so that theists and the like can at least have a more informed faith, one that has gone through a trial by fire. And if they change their faith in the process, it must be for the good, unless we want to admit that dishonest, willful ignorance is the way to go.
I don't think where this thread/blog has gone is productive in regards to the stated goals here. Maybe it will make future installments less vulnerable to these tangents and inform the whole process in the long run. But because of all these tangents, this project is changed and basically a "fail" because none of the people with "common misconceptions" are going to read 10% of what has been posted in this thread.
That being said, the level of discussion here is decent for TL because we have several educated, clashing, know-it-all-never-wrongs. Whoever has anything to learn from this clashing, they must be lurking, because I don't see anyone else ready to give an inch and learn something, except maybe the original post's author.
IMO Boblion has something to learn from those he is trying to dismiss, defeat, and ridicule. His earlier posts show the problem especially. This has just become another internet argument instead of people trying to see what they can learn from eachother and teach eachother, and I think his approach to this thread is the major part of this problem.
On February 02 2008 00:14 lugggy wrote: IMO Boblion has something to learn from those he is trying to dismiss, defeat, and ridicule. His earlier posts show the problem especially. This has just become another internet argument instead of people trying to see what they can learn from eachother and teach eachother, and I think his approach to this thread is the major part of this problem.
Yea, i know that my English prose isnt really good, and i'm really sry if i look agressive or stupid. Nevertheless i made a post on this blog because Alethios statement was:
From an evolutionary standpoint, if we practice behaviors that benefit ourselves, genes that underpin those tendencies are more likely to be passed on, thus increasing the prevalence of that behavior type. For humans, we are undoubtedly social creatures with the ability to communicate and work together. When we work together, our abilities transcend those of us working alone. We assign roles, we carry them out and suddenly we have an aqueduct or a system where each member of a group is forfiling a different vital role. The benefit for everybody is clear. Whats more, it is a rational response on reflection of the achievements to continue the behavior that has led you to them. Behaviors that are conducive to such endeavours are favoured and passed on.
What behaviors are beneficial then? Clearly working together for a common goal. Looking after ones family is a fairly clear candidate. What is far less clear however are the benefits of treating others as you yourself would like to be treated. Love thy neighbour. Lets use the example of killing another person, for it is the easiest to see the consequences of, as they occur immediately and drastically. Imagine yourself in a tribal village, each member of the village has her or her role within the village. By killing a member of your village, you remove the person forfiling that role. It is likely that the person was highly skilled at that role, and by killing him, you have put a strain on the entire village by forcing others to take his place, as well as theirs. You kill a hunter, you may starve for instance. This can be applied to other acts, by merely injuring or disabling that person, you still stop or hinder them from forfiling their role within the community.
While a lot has changed since those earlier times, our genes remain largely unchanged. When we help somebody in need, our body releases endorphins into our bloodstream which make ourselves feel good.
I disagreed with him because i think that the relation between behaviour and genes is more complex. It is not because a behaviour is successful that he is written in your genes and can be "passed on". I mean for example that a twin can be nice with others people whereas his brother can be a muderer. My idea is that people can make choices and understand that some behaviours arent "beneficial" because of their free will and their ability to think whereas Alethios said that it is something related to genes and darwinism selection.
So i said that i couldnt agree with it and a huge off-topic started. I'm sorry . We should end this argument.
Edit: after re-reading my first posts i think that i were caricatural ( ok genes take a part in human behaviour, but i still think it is less important than culture stuff ).
On February 02 2008 02:34 Boblion wrote: Edit: after re-reading my first posts i think that i were caricatural ( ok genes take a part in human behaviour, but i still think it is less important than culture stuff ).
I'm glad we've reached this point. I never meant to suggest that our behavior is exclusively caused by our genes, clearly the environment plays a large role also.
On February 02 2008 00:14 lugggy wrote: I just want to thank the guy for this blog and its mission, to help clear up some common misconceptions about atheism and evolution, so that theists and the like can at least have a more informed faith, one that has gone through a trial by fire. And if they change their faith in the process, it must be for the good, unless we want to admit that dishonest, willful ignorance is the way to go.
I don't think where this thread/blog has gone is productive in regards to the stated goals here. Maybe it will make future installments less vulnerable to these tangents and inform the whole process in the long run. But because of all these tangents, this project is changed and basically a "fail" because none of the people with "common misconceptions" are going to read 10% of what has been posted in this thread.
That being said, the level of discussion here is decent for TL because we have several educated, clashing, know-it-all-never-wrongs. Whoever has anything to learn from this clashing, they must be lurking, because I don't see anyone else ready to give an inch and learn something, except maybe the original post's author.
Thanks for the feedback.
I'm weary of curbing or limiting the discussion in future installments. I suppose we'll see what happens in future threads and hope that the discussion remains reasonably on topic.
If anybody would like to PM me with more feedback, or suggest the next topic to tackle, you are most welcome to do so.
On February 02 2008 00:14 lugggy wrote: IMO Boblion has something to learn from those he is trying to dismiss, defeat, and ridicule. His earlier posts show the problem especially. This has just become another internet argument instead of people trying to see what they can learn from eachother and teach eachother, and I think his approach to this thread is the major part of this problem.
Yea, i know that my English prose isnt really good, and i'm really sry if i look agressive or stupid. Nevertheless i made a post on this blog because Alethios statement was:
On January 30 2008 15:00 Alethios wrote: From an evolutionary standpoint, if we practice behaviors that benefit ourselves, genes that underpin those tendencies are more likely to be passed on, thus increasing the prevalence of that behavior type. For humans, we are undoubtedly social creatures with the ability to communicate and work together. When we work together, our abilities transcend those of us working alone. We assign roles, we carry them out and suddenly we have an aqueduct or a system where each member of a group is forfiling a different vital role. The benefit for everybody is clear. Whats more, it is a rational response on reflection of the achievements to continue the behavior that has led you to them. Behaviors that are conducive to such endeavours are favoured and passed on.
What behaviors are beneficial then? Clearly working together for a common goal. Looking after ones family is a fairly clear candidate. What is far less clear however are the benefits of treating others as you yourself would like to be treated. Love thy neighbour. Lets use the example of killing another person, for it is the easiest to see the consequences of, as they occur immediately and drastically. Imagine yourself in a tribal village, each member of the village has her or her role within the village. By killing a member of your village, you remove the person forfiling that role. It is likely that the person was highly skilled at that role, and by killing him, you have put a strain on the entire village by forcing others to take his place, as well as theirs. You kill a hunter, you may starve for instance. This can be applied to other acts, by merely injuring or disabling that person, you still stop or hinder them from forfiling their role within the community.
While a lot has changed since those earlier times, our genes remain largely unchanged. When we help somebody in need, our body releases endorphins into our bloodstream which make ourselves feel good.
I disagreed with him because i think that the relation between behaviour and genes is more complex. It is not because a behaviour is successful that he is written in your genes and can be "passed on". I mean for example that a twin can be nice with others people whereas his brother can be a muderer. My idea is that people can make choices and understand that some behaviours arent "beneficial" because of their free will and their ability to think whereas Alethios said that it is something related to genes and darwinism selection.
So i said that i couldnt agree with it and a huge off-topic started. I'm sorry . We should end this argument.
Edit: after re-reading my first posts i think that i were caricatural ( ok genes take a part in human behaviour, but i still think it is less important than culture stuff ). [/QUOTE] You are right that there are some problems with what he said exactly, and I tend to trust you without getting too into the details myself. Maybe it is a good thing that you contributed as you did, so next time he doesnt make an inaccurate representation of evolution.