How we behave

[15ofthe19]

If behavior is a function of genetics, how do you explain cases of identical twins that have radically different behaviors? For example, identical twin brothers: one is straight, one is gay. It happens. How does genetics explain that?

People behave in all sorts of ways that are potentially harmful to them, or have absolutely nothing to do with trying to pass on their genes. Is anybody actually thinking about procreating while their fap, fap, fappin it to a Paris Hilton video? Can't we all agree that she, of all people, doesn't need to spawn?

 

[wesmorris]

15...

I don't think you've got it. They are saying that behavior is 100% correlated to the requirement of spreading your genes.

 

[15ofthe19]

They are saying that behavior is 100% correlated to the requirement of spreading your genes.

Then obviously I know nothing of behavior, because I go to great lengths to ensure that I am not spreading my genes until I am ready.

 

[wesmorris]

Then obviously I know nothing of behavior, because I go to great lengths to ensure that I am not spreading my genes until I am ready.

Yeah.

I suppose a vasectomy (or however you spell it) is uhm.. well I dunno what I guess. The argument is highly convoluted, as Lou seems to conveniently disregard behavior that isn't geared toward reproduction (like uhm.. well, any intellectual endeavor). If the claim were.. "all behavior geared toward reproduction is a result of the inherent evolutionary requirement" I might agree, but wonder "why state the obvious?". That is not the claim though, as you can see in John Connelan's last post.

 

[15ofthe19]

Every living organism is controlled by the gene propagation instinct and this is the ONLY thing that determines not only the physical function of an organism, but also its behaviour.

Honestly Wes, I was a little late to this thread, and when I read the above paragraph I chuckled because I assumed it was a bit of hyperbole to make a point. I certainly didn't think anybody would actually argue this from a literal standpoint. After re-reading the thread, to my disbelief, I see that JC is not the only one arguing this point. It's amusing to see what people can be militant about these days.

 

[John Connellan]

And as I've noted, I think you're wrong. It is NOT the ONLY thing that determines behavior. If there is no free will, then you are probably right, it's not worth arguing about in that case anyway. I think there is free will, so I think you're wrong. I do think it a fundamental motivator, but not the only motivator.

OK I guess that what it boils down to now. U think that we have free will whereas I believe that it appears to us that we have free will but our subconscious (which I believe 'really' controls us) runs on predefined response systems which have evolved in us.

 

[John Connellan]

Honestly Wes, I was a little late to this thread, and when I read the above paragraph I chuckled because I assumed it was a bit of hyperbole to make a point.

Yes and as I have stated already, its best not to open your trap until u have read ALL posts in a thread.

I certainly didn't think anybody would actually argue this from a literal standpoint. After re-reading the thread, to my disbelief, I see that JC is not the only one arguing this point. It's amusing to see what people can be militant about these days.

Nobody thought it was possible to argue that we are a product of evolution until Darwin argued it from a literal standpoint. OK so u have re-read the thread. Whats your problem?

 

[wesmorris]

our subconscious (which I believe 'really' controls us) runs on predefined response systems which have evolved in us.

Which is only partially correct.

You subconscious is also effected, shaped and operates per the resultant of your experience. Meaning that in the moment, you can choose one input over another (like staying home or going to school), which also in the moment, effects how your subconscious will be shaped in later moments hence... freewill.

 

[15ofthe19]

Whats your problem?

Hmmm, self-righteous youth that get married to a position that they haven't fully explored. That's one problem that comes to mind.

I don't really see how evolution plays into my decision to over-indulge with ice cream just because I can.

Ever seen the effects that Meth has on a person? Tell me what's evolutionary about their decision to go mix up a cocktail of poisions and inhale it into their lungs?

You subconscious is also effected, shaped and operates per the resultant of your experience.

EXACTLY. I would point to a shell-shocked war veteran as a person whose subconscious is forever altered as a result of his/her experience.

 

[John Connellan]

I really don't think u understand what Im trying to say. And I still don't think u have read the previous posts because some of these were answered quite extensively. I am not going to waste too much time but give a brief answer to each problem. For a more extensive answer, look at my previous posts on the first page.

Hmmm, self-righteous youth that get married to a position that they haven't fully explored. That's one problem that comes to mind.

This is a complicated one and the more complicate it is, the harder it is to see the underlying 'goals' of our subconscious and ultimately...genes. I don't understand what u mean by position so we'll just say a guy who marries a girl without considering consequences. Is that right?
Anyway marriage has been consciously 'invented' by society from subconscious goals because various benefits arise from having a 'partner for life. Some birds even do this. One of the advantages (to name one) is the males ability to mate with the female frequently without having to go through expensive courting rituals again. U have just provided me with a great example to demonstrate : that this instinct to settle down is SO strong that we can often do it DISADVANTAGEOUSLY and not consider the future. Like many recent inventions of society, such behaviour can be harmful until weaned out by NS.

I don't really see how evolution plays into my decision to over-indulge with ice cream just because I can.

This is TOO easy! U have to realise WHY u like ice cream in the first place. Even our ancestors would consider ice cream as being delicious because it contains chemicals which are bodies are genetically designed to 'like' (i.e. sugar). Sugar is a great energy source (important in the wilderness) and so our bodies release endorphins when we taste them which makes us want to do it again. All evolutionarily advantageous.

Ever seen the effects that Meth has on a person? Tell me what's evolutionary about their decision to go mix up a cocktail of poisions and inhale it into their lungs?

Another easy one. I have already explained this way too much though so read one of my very early posts.

 

[John Connellan]

Which is only partially correct.

You subconscious is also effected, shaped and operates per the resultant of your experience. Meaning that in the moment, you can choose one input over another (like staying home or going to school), which also in the moment, effects how your subconscious will be shaped in later moments hence... freewill.

I guess I don't really understand what you're saying so I will analyse your example from my point of view.

The choice of staying home or going to school seems like our choice but the choice u make is always (as calculated by your subconcious) the choice which maximises ultimately, your ability to pass on genes (and thus your ability to survive etc...). Your subconcious is a great computer and analyses the environment and situation u find yourself in. Obviously there will be some days where skipping school is going to be more of a benefit than others. This is when u might do it.

here's 4 simple situations:

sit (A): class will involve an unimportant topic and parents are not home

sit (B): class will be important and parents are home

sit (C): class will be unimportant but parents are home

sit (D): class will be important but parents are not at home

Now even though u cannot feel this calculation going on, your mind decides that sit (A) would be the best time to skip class because your ability to pass on genes will be enhanced. If u want to know why just say so and I will tell u later.
Now whats the result of the calculation? It just 'feels' right to skip a class when sit (A) arises (presuming there are advantages to it as well!). Now in this case it is obvious why it feels right as there are only 2 variables but in life these are not the only 2 variables deciding whether we should skip a class or not. There thousands of them but they all result in decision about whether we should skip or not. When we do skip, sometimes we know why but most of the time we don't and say it is simply down to OUR CHOICE. Now u know where this choice really came from

 

[15ofthe19]

Another easy one. I have already explained this way too much though so read one of my very early posts

.

I've read every post in this thread, more than once. You are wrong. Re-reading your posts doesn't change anything. If I read them again tomorrow, you will still be wrong.

Do you understand why you feel "high" when you drink alcohol? Lack of oxygen to the brain. Yeah, that's real advantageous.

One more thing. "U" is a letter. "You" is a word. This is not a yahoo chat room, and unless you want everyone to assume you're a 14 year old girl, I'd suggest using words. It's really tough to take somebody seriously when their syntax looks like 6th graders passing notes in study hall.

 

[wesmorris]

The choice of staying home or going to school seems like our choice but the choice u make is always (as calculated by your subconcious) the choice which maximises ultimately, your ability to pass on genes (and thus your ability to survive etc...).

Which is exactly where you are wrong. You choices will always maximize what your subconscious deems is the most good.... or "the subjective good". That is not at all necessarily that which maximizes my ability to pass my genes.

While passing on genes is a fundamental component of that, as I've said it's obviously not the whole potato.

 

[antifreeze]

i will start with an appeal to mr. connellan to correct me if i misconstrue the point he is trying to making, and i apologize in advance for the hypotheticals and the poor organization.

our natural 'feel good' systems which kick in when we do something that increases the replication of our genes

so the experience of "fun" is bait to lure humans into reproduction? what about people who have "fun" on rollercoasters or sky diving?

The unhappy feelings have evolved to deter us from whatever caused them but they might get so strong as to end ones life.

i hold that society is at the root of much of the world's unhappiness, but since societal interaction is a behavior in which so many of us humans engage, it would seem [according to the notion that all human actions are advantageous to human survival] that society can/ought not cause unhappiness in humans?

Because as we all know the conditions (mental states) which lead to suicide are definitely no longer adaptive, these will be weaned out from our genetic make-up.

talking about depression and general insanity i take it. okay, i will grant that certain people do have a genetic predisposition toward depression, however, i would argue that given the proper conditions any human being can become depressed. suppose that you had a happy hypothetical family living in a fine hypothetical house. one day, a hypothetical fire destroys your house and incinerates your family. you, meanwhile are left with massive burns, and massive hospital bills, homeless, family-less, currently unable to work due to your injuries. that would sure depress all hell out of me.

also, suppose i shot myself in the head, and had my next of kin mail you my death certificate just to prove you wrong. would that make me insane? *ahem* don't mind me, i have been awake for the past seventy hours or so, and i think it is starting to affect my cognitive functions.

it seems to me that at the heart of our disagreement is the issue of motivation, whether it be evolutionary programming, the subconscious, or free will. i personally think that humans do indeed have free will. so long as i can make the choice to end my life, this will continue to be the case.

 

[John Connellan]

.

I've read every post in this thread, more than once. You are wrong. Re-reading your posts doesn't change anything. If I read them again tomorrow, you will still be wrong.

Do you understand why you feel "high" when you drink alcohol? Lack of oxygen to the brain. Yeah, that's real advantageous.

No this is a harmful side effect of alcohol. The reasons we get sedated (alcohol cannot cause a high) and feel good are as follows:

1. Increased turnover of norepinephrine and dopamine
2. Decreased transmission in acetylcholine systems
3. Increased transmission in GABA systems
4. Increased production of beta-endorphin in the hypothalamus

These are things which naturally make us feel good but are stimulated by the effect of the drug.

One more thing. "U" is a letter. "You" is a word. This is not a yahoo chat room, and unless you want everyone to assume you're a 14 year old girl, I'd suggest using words. It's really tough to take somebody seriously when their syntax looks like 6th graders passing notes in study hall.

I use the shorthand because trying to explain things to u would take forever otherwise. I will continue using 'u' and risk looking like a 14 year old girl

 

[John Connellan]

.
I've read every post in this thread, more than once. You are wrong. Re-reading your posts doesn't change anything. If I read them again tomorrow, you will still be wrong.

The why the hell are u still asking stupid questions that have been answered. Don't be getting all defensive with me.

 

[John Connellan]

Which is exactly where you are wrong. You choices will always maximize what your subconscious deems is the most good.... or "the subjective good". That is not at all necessarily that which maximizes my ability to pass my genes.

Oh but it is! How do u think the subconscious deems something is good or not? Randomly? Fraid not.

 

[John Connellan]

i will start with an appeal to mr. connellan to correct me if i misconstrue the point he is trying to making, and i apologize in advance for the hypotheticals and the poor organization.

apology taken

so the experience of "fun" is bait to lure humans into reproduction?

It is one of the lures alright. Urges are another way of getting us to do things but they are before the fun begins or may not lead to something fun at all!

what about people who have "fun" on rollercoasters or sky diving?

In some environments, people (or animals) which don't take risks every now and again will not survive as much as those which do. As long as the benefit of the risk is greater than any loss through injury or death, such a trait will be selected for. How can a risk-taking trait be selected? Those who enjoyed taking risks (because their bodies produce 'fun' chemicals in such situations) got to produce more offspring and the trait was spread throughout the gene pool. Even today scientists are discovering this 'risk' chemical in the brain.

i hold that society is at the root of much of the world's unhappiness, but since societal interaction is a behavior in which so many of us humans engage, it would seem [according to the notion that all human actions are advantageous to human survival] that society can/ought not cause unhappiness in humans?

It is! And this is becasue society is another changing environment we find ourselves in. We are living in citys today with populations of up to 18 million. We are not at present 'designed' for this living.

i would argue that given the proper conditions any human being can become depressed.

U are right. Whats the key word? Proper conditions. I neer said that we are perfectly genetically adapted to our environment today. I have been trying to say the opposite through this whole thread. If conditions get too bad then we are all susceptible. genetaically, some may be still more susceptible than others.

it seems to me that at the heart of our disagreement is the issue of motivation, whether it be evolutionary programming, the subconscious, or free will. i personally think that humans do indeed have free will. so long as i can make the choice to end my life, this will continue to be the case.

That is indeed the heart of our disagreement. I have no doubt u believe that evolution has played a large role in our behaviour but I am trying to take it a step futher because I believe our behaviour is just another area of biology (i.e. it can be completely explained within the rules of natural selection).

 

[wesmorris]

Oh but it is! How do u think the subconscious deems something is good or not? Randomly? Fraid not.

You ask a question, answer it and then speak to me as if I'd given that answer. Your answer is retarded, you know it, so you're basically putting retarded words into my mouth and then saying "fraid not" as if you're lecturing a fucking child.

I suggest you drop the attitude if you would like to continue a civil conversation.

 

[John Connellan]

You ask a question, answer it and then speak to me as if I'd given that answer. Your answer is retarded, you know it, so you're basically putting retarded words into my mouth and then saying "fraid not" as if you're lecturing a fucking child.

I suggest you drop the attitude if you would like to continue a civil conversation.

Oh shut up will u? I never had an attitude but I might just have one now. If my answer is retarded then what does that make your question. I never answered my question u idiot. "?" means a question.