How we behave
- Thread starter John Connellan
- Start date
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
No I don't think u should be posting anymore if all u can do is call posts retarded instead of trying to have a proper scientific argument.
Apparently I should have been more clear.
You ask a question:
I would have suggested you drop the attitude if you would like to continue a civil conversation, but you've already fucked that up with your punk fucking comments like:
Apparently, you did answer your own question, jackass.
John Connellan said:
You ask a question:
... answer it:
... and then speak to me as if I'd given that answer:
Your answer:
... is retarded and you know it, (given that you answer it as follows):
... so you're basically putting retarded words into my mouth and then saying "fraid not" as if you're lecturing a fucking child.
I would have suggested you drop the attitude if you would like to continue a civil conversation, but you've already fucked that up with your punk fucking comments like:
Apparently, you did answer your own question, jackass.
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
For some reason u seem to think I had an attitude when I posted that. I am afraid u were the one one who developed this aggravation probably because u realised u could not win. Instead u had to turn this decent thread into crap like this.
I actually can't believe I am saying this again (I shouldn't really - u ARE acting like a fucking kid only a kid would be a little more observant).
A ? mark means something is a question. Not an answer. Not an answer. Not an answer. Did u get it this time?
Now I realise I probably shouldn't have acted like that was ur answer (with 'fraid not') but I was getting a little frustated with some of the answers coming back at me (not all from u I admit).
Now do u want to start this thread up again or what?
I actually can't believe I am saying this again (I shouldn't really - u ARE acting like a fucking kid only a kid would be a little more observant).
A ? mark means something is a question. Not an answer. Not an answer. Not an answer. Did u get it this time?
Now I realise I probably shouldn't have acted like that was ur answer (with 'fraid not') but I was getting a little frustated with some of the answers coming back at me (not all from u I admit).
Now do u want to start this thread up again or what?
I was unaware this was a contest with a potential winner? Will there be trophies? Most of the tournaments I won awarded a trophy to the winner in a closing ceremony. Will there be refreshments at the ceremony? Should I bring beer? Is everyone in this thread old enough to drink? (for the slow people: This is me being sarcastic.)
I really wonder about jackasses that start threads with a question when they are convinced they already know EVERYTHING. What sort of intellectual masturbation is that? If you're looking for a mutual admiration society, build yourself a treehouse in your parents back yard, and invite Milhouse to come over and stroke your ego.
Regarding the original intent of the starter of this thread, at this point, who in the hell knows what that was. It certainly wasn't informed debate of the subjects of instinct, free will, the role of the subconscious, or evolutionary theories. All attempts to discuss differing ideas and theories on those topics were met with the same juvenile attitude displayed above.
No such thing as free will? I see millions of examples that disprove that notion everyday.
Society does.
Various things are taken into account why we do the things we do. Why do we go to church? Because my mommy always took me there. Why do we get married as opposed to procreating with every female we see? Because most everyone else behaves that way. Those are all due to the effects of society.
I do agree that instinct plays a part in what we do, but it is not the end-all-be-all -- that is just absurd. This is why I consider psychology as psuedoscience. All it is is brainstorming to try and figure out why we act the way we do whereas 99.9% of the things are unproven or false, whacky ideas.
And for those that think we don't have free will, you're nuts. We do what we want to do when we want to do it and the only limitations are the laws of society and common sense. I could slice you right now and the only thing I'd have to worry about are the laws of society. Sure, I wouldn't normally do that thing, but my free will allows me to. Heck I used to five-finger discount some items for fun even though I had the money to purchase them. But I guess since it's "fun", I did that to procreate, lol. I guess I need to prove to my cavewoman that I take risks therefor I'm one bad mofo so she'll like me.
And now you may say take it one step further and ask how those laws of society came to be and you will say it was in our genes and instinct. Uh, I don't know about you, but nature is barbaric. We wouldn't have the laws we do today if it were all based on instinct. We'd still be in the survival of the fittest stage on a much grander scale, but our laws hinder us in that regards. And again, how were those laws of society created? Those who have power. They're the ones that tend to be corrupt as well. The words that they preach does not mean that is the way everything should be -- they're just the first ones to say and enforce it. Heck, I could create my own ten commandments and have some whacky commandments but just because I made those, it doesn't mean my genes and instincts created them for survival.
And these across-the-board elephant comparisons are ridiculous too, lol. Sure, go ahead and use them as an example for instinct, but nothing else as it's an insult to our intellegence. Evolutionism still doesn't explain how we as humans came to be as smart as we are now. Homo sapiens would still have a good millions of years to reach our state. First answer that and then you'll have the answers as to how we're so much different than other animals. Genes and instinct being the complete reason as to why we do what we do. Pssh.
We aren't at present designed for this living? And why is that? How could something like that have ever happened? If trying to use natural selection as to why we are as we are today, surely there'd at least be one other animal here on Earth on one of these various, massive landmasses that are to our equal (smarter than apes). Maybe they all died in the days when we were able to sail the high seas and nobody ever wrote about it, but I doubt that.
- N
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
There was/were, and quite recently on a paleontological scale.Neildo said:
It's looking like the final development that let us spread to all the land masses was language. It's not clear when that happened, but we're talking about a time frame on the order of magnitude of hundreds of thousands of years at most, not millions.
Until that point other primates of approximately equal intelligence (hominids) were indeed living on other continents. We encountered them in our travels and they became extinct. It's not clear that we killed them off so much as simply out-competing them for resources and, just as likely, interbreeding with them and assimilating their much smaller communities' gene pools. But regardless of the exact process, as we spread they disappeared.
Without spoken language, even if as Jean Auel suggests they may have had a sophisticated sign language, they would have been no match for our well-coordinated hunting parties, our bandwidth for passing lore on to our offspring, and our ability to form complex organizations with division of labor.
Homo sapiens left Africa and replaced the competing species -- when, somewhere between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago? There simply hasn't been enough time for another species to evolve and fill the niches left by the Neanderthals and other hominids -- especially since we filled those niches ourselves.
okay then. but i would argue that the reason humans are not "adapted" to their environment now is that the development of our culture, of our society, of our values and morals, has outpaced the response of people to these changes. if indeed we can become "'designed'" to suit our environment, who is to say that it will happen? that is, who is to say that changes in society will stop - or slow for that matter - giving us the chance to "catch up"?
some risk taking has landed me in the hospital quite a few times, but i see the argument.
i too think there is a reason people do what they do, psychology has gone quite a way in that respect, but i still hold that the ability to think and conceptualize would stand to throw quite the monkey wrench in any genetic plans. that is to say, i believe that if we were cars, our genes would plan for the fabrication of our chassis, and engine, and optional GPS system [etc], but in the end, we are driven by our ideas and emotions, not vice versa. but again, i may well be off base.
*and please, if you must criticize something, keep in mind that the analogy is just that.
I wouldn't call that freewill.wesmorris said:
If you do call that freewill then you have to concede that every mammal has freewill.
I'd call it instincts, flexible instincts that are never concrete but rather can adapt to whatever is put in front of them, still instincts.
They become less adaptable after the organism reaches maturity.
It really is the same thing as traditional instincts except they are largely crafted after birth instead of before. I don't see why that makes them so drastically different as to make them an entirely different thing.
As for choices, everything that can move makes choices to some degree. But their options are limited by their instincts(inc the instincts crafted by experience).
Dr Lou Natic said:
I don't believe most other mammals can do it, as I don't think they play third party to themselves for the most part. If so, then yes. I think the duality inherent to the condition that creates that third party is basically the root of free will. Self and observance of self is the duality I mean. I'm not sure duality is exactly right, but close enough. It's the whole recursive thing I suppose that makes it seem that way.
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
wesmorris said:
Your getting so hypocritical now. Im the one who wants to discuss things and your the one who is degrading the discussion by acting like a kid just because Im not happy with your answer. Yes it seems I do have all tha answers so far so thats why Im urging people to question me and this theory. U have failed utterly however.
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
15ofthe19 said:
It wasn't a contest, it was an argument. Yes people can win arguments.
No this is u being a retarded piece of shit. Grow up and learn something then discuss stuff with me about this topic.
The question I asked was if anybody would question what I have said. And yes I do believe I know almost everything on this topic. However i urge u to just learn how to read threads properly before conversing with me again. How many times have I told u this now?
Many of the posts on the first page have dealt with those topics. Again, stop hijacking threads and read the fucking things will u?
So what was the attitude displayed regarding those theories? Please tell me?
Well then say it u fucking moron. Actually don't becasue ur just going to say something that somebody already said on page 1.
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
Neildo said:Society does.
Why did u go with mommy and not some stranger on the street? Because we are programmed to do whatever ur prents say when we are young. Eventually this is programmed to wear off in later life and to act independently.
No I have answered that one already and many scientists/psychologists already agree with the marriage theory I proposed.
Its definitely not absurd just a little hard to get used to.
That would be one reason but the main one will come clear when u consider that as hunter gatherers, we used to steal all the time. From other animals sometimes and from other people. Survival of the fittest (best stealer!)
Yes it does. Laws and hierarchical societies have been the work of homo sapiens for as long as he lived. It is definitely a case of social advantage often seen in other species such as Lions and Hyaenas.
I don't think those elephant comparisons were by me were they?! Our intelligence does not make evolution theory any less credible. It can perfectly be explained within the theory.
Happens all the time. The environment changes. Have u heard about the industrial moth case? the moths which were white when their background suddenly became blcker with the advent of the industrial age? They were not 'desinged' for that environment.
I don't really know what ur trying to say here but I can't see why there has to ba another species as smart as us
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
Thanks Antifreeze. Im glad to see somebody is trying to understand where I am coming from.
I wouldn't know if animals can play third party to themselves, and frankly I don't think you would either. Although you may be noticing something I have not.wesmorris said:
What indications do you get for humans displaying this ability? other than ofcourse being one and being able to communicate with other ones.
Is there something in their behaviour where this is apparent and would be to an alien?
To be honest I think there are people I have known who have shown that they can not play third person to themselves.
Not saying I don't know what you mean, but I can't see how humans distinctly have some mental ability other animals do not.
Are you purposefully trying to go over my head?
On free will, isn't there a limit on how many options there will ever be?(all be it a great number of options) and aren't there many factors out of human control that are likely to be the deciding factors on what option will be selected and acted upon?
How can anything truely have free will?
Any organism can only be a product of genetics and experience, both things they do not control. Sure they make choices, but are they really choosing the choices they make?
From my perspective it seems you are attributing humans with god like traits.
People would need to be at a drawing board designing themselves before they were born to have any semblance of what I would call true free will, and even then I would be questioning the inspirations of whatever was at that drawing board. It seems almost impossible for anything to have a free will.
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
Lou is right. He is saying what I have been saying all along. To us it seems like we are making choices and this too can be seen to be advantageous. Nature often tricks us like this. For example, matter seems to be solid when it is actually 99.9999% empty space with force fields. Things appear to have an 'intrinsic colour when actually it is just wavelengths of light bouncing offthem. U can see that our mind develops a model though which works very well for us and has survival advantages.
We do have free-will. Probability is the only thing where genes and instinct would come in. No, I wouldn't normally do [insert bad thing], but I could. The probability would be [insert high percentage] against it (depending on how severe the bad deed is), but there's always that [insert other percentage] of me doing it.
How do you explain someone doing something irrational? You can't when someone can do anything they want whenever they want. If humans didn't have free-will, we wouldn't have these vast differences between us. We'd all be doing the same things. So long as there's a good choice and a bad choice -- two extreme spectrums -- and the same choice isn't made by everyone, there is free-will.
Probability is as close as we'll get to understanding why do the things we do. We will be able to narrow things down, but will NEVER be able to figure out why/what a person will do next in any given situation, etc, because of that random free-will factor. And if you think it will be possible, then you must think telling the future is possible.
That's the only real thing I disagree with here is omitting free-will and tossing everything into our genes. Heh, and the only way I'll agree with that is if free-will is in our genes.
Oh, and in regards to natural selection, what do you think about dolphins? They're the smartest animals on/under Earth aside from us. They have an awesome memory, have a complex language (one whistle, chirp, or other sound we hear isn't just that. slow it down and you'll hear various sounds which we think is just one), and all sorts of stuff. I watched an IMAX DVD called Dolphins and that was pretty interesting. I didn't know how complex their speech was.
Anyhow, but yeah, whatcha think about dolphins? Since they're the 2nd smartest animal on Earth, why haven't they at least come closer to our complexity? I don't think they'd have it any worse under water than we did up on land to interfere with their evolution. But hey, the ocean is a mysterious place -- one we don't know much about -- so who knows what is left to be discovered.
- N
PS - Damn you guys are hostile to each other, heh.
How do you explain someone doing something irrational? You can't when someone can do anything they want whenever they want. If humans didn't have free-will, we wouldn't have these vast differences between us. We'd all be doing the same things. So long as there's a good choice and a bad choice -- two extreme spectrums -- and the same choice isn't made by everyone, there is free-will.
Probability is as close as we'll get to understanding why do the things we do. We will be able to narrow things down, but will NEVER be able to figure out why/what a person will do next in any given situation, etc, because of that random free-will factor. And if you think it will be possible, then you must think telling the future is possible.
That's the only real thing I disagree with here is omitting free-will and tossing everything into our genes. Heh, and the only way I'll agree with that is if free-will is in our genes.
Oh, and in regards to natural selection, what do you think about dolphins? They're the smartest animals on/under Earth aside from us. They have an awesome memory, have a complex language (one whistle, chirp, or other sound we hear isn't just that. slow it down and you'll hear various sounds which we think is just one), and all sorts of stuff. I watched an IMAX DVD called Dolphins and that was pretty interesting. I didn't know how complex their speech was.
Anyhow, but yeah, whatcha think about dolphins? Since they're the 2nd smartest animal on Earth, why haven't they at least come closer to our complexity? I don't think they'd have it any worse under water than we did up on land to interfere with their evolution. But hey, the ocean is a mysterious place -- one we don't know much about -- so who knows what is left to be discovered.
- N
PS - Damn you guys are hostile to each other, heh.
Dr Lou Natic said:
Of course not. I'm just guessing based on my knowledge and gut on the topic. My gut is that very few animal on the planet can consider themselves in the third person like "man I'm getting fat" kind of stuff.
I don't know what you notice exactly but when you tell me I'm generally amused.
What indications do you get for humans displaying this ability?
"what should I do with my carreer?"
"was I mean to that person?"
"do I really understand what I think I understand?"
"man i never realized I act that way"
That kind of thing makes it pretty plain to see I think.
Yeah I think so? Hard to say though if an alien would think in similar terms eh?
I think all people with properly functioning brains observe themselves and have a 'sense of self' that transcends the immediate.
"I remember once when I was five, orange seemed so much more orange then than it does now." *shrug*
Actually I think... well, it's difficult to describe exactly what I think. Basically in the moment, we drag condensed and categorized experiences from previous moments into the moment. A pen is a pen because of your experience, you've condensed and categorized one facet of your experience into a shape in your mind and given it a name: "pen". Self is like the entire potato of those shaped experiences and how they relate to each other. Most animals simply don't have the equipment to recursively consider "self".
Humans are just better at it than other animals, I don't think they necessarily have the market cornered. Basically I think that the seed of the ability of a species to consider itself in the third person starts with the realization of the passing of time.... a conscious realization/differentiation between now and then. At that point, I think the most simiplistic form of self-observation is possible. It is my guess that only a few animals can really do that. I don't know if that's correct for sure or not of course.
Are you purposefully trying to go over my head?
No.
So as not to get too side-tracked for the moment I'll say: yes.
Sure.
I explained it as well as I could before. It's about having the choice in the moment. IMO, even choosing "heads or tails" is free will, as there is nothing confining me to either choice.
I control aspects of my experience and depending on my capability to exert will and well, perform... I can control a large part of my experience. I could kill myself and really exert control of my experience. It would be stupid, but I have the option if I want it.
Uhm.. depends on the scenario no? On a multiple choice test I can choose any answer right? *shrug* You choose between the options you think you have.
Interesting. I don't see it that way.
Perhaps then you should tell me what you mean by "true free will". I can take my mind whereever I like. IMO, that is free will. What about your idea of it? I don't think a person has to design themselves to choose between eggs or cereal for breakfast.
Hehe, yeah but you hate people... so can you say you don't want to take what you might deem to be positive attributes away from them? You wouldn't want to think of dirt as godlike no? Hehe..
Hrmph. Why? I don't see what the big deal is? Free will doesn't seem like a big deal to me. It's just statistics, er.. sort of.