How we behave

[John Connellan]

Backpeddler!

No really, I was writing that in a hurry and wasn't thinking about the wording

But that's just the thing. Genetic urges don't necessarily control our behavior in a direct sense.

I didn't say directly but I still think they control our behaviour to a large extent. Granted on top of those drives which genetics gives us, there is an ability to be creative about it but there is a reason why evolution has favoured this creativity (especially in us). By being creative (and thus having an ability to control whatever environment we find ourselves in) we are able to micro-evolve to the new environment. Think about it. It would take many millions of years for us to evolve large coats of fur again but with the creative brain that Selection has favoured, we can micro-evolve in a matter of years! So even creativity is a by-product of evolution and one which has a specific purpose. I still don't believe in free will but I suppose it is very hard to find any irrefutable evidence against it.

They my underly or be part of our behavior, but that doesn't not mean they are necessarily causal, as has been demonstrated.

No they do cause it! Just not directlyas u say. Be careful
I still think all behaviour can indirectly be explained by its advantage evolutionarily to us at some stage of development.

You could say they are causal in the sense that "you are alive because of the genetics that created the systems that make you function and as such, those systems (which are traceable back to genetics) are causal to behavior and I suppose that's correct, but it doesn't get you anywhere really in terms of explaining behavior since it is the systems that are built from the systems from teh systems that control behavior for the most part.

No they are much more causal than that. Im still waiting for ANYBODY to present evidence of behaviour which is not or was not evolutionarily adaptive at some stage.

I'd guess that behavior is also somewhat random.... so at times there is really probably no control on behavior.... depending on how you look at it.

There is a huge control on it. Evolution. If behaviour was disadvantageous then it would be taken out of the gene pool.

Oh and you mentioned somethign before about behavioral science being and extention of biology. If you want to play that game, all natural sciences are an extension of physics IMO.

Yes and Natural Selection itself is but a mathematical/statistical trick but I wasn't going to go that far into it LOL.

I'd say that's pretty reasonable, but it doesn't necessarily explain the behavior of an individual monkey at a randomly chosen time if you see what I mean.

No thats true but to me the bahaviour of the monkey will always be geared towards....u guessed it....your favourite phrase......ensuring the survival of the genes it carries!

 

[John Connellan]

Quote by Lou:<font COLOR=#0000A0>
People who are born with serial killer brains but don't get nurtured to become serial killers tend to be fascinated with serial killers or be psychologists or criminal detectives or something like that.</font COLOR>

PMT/Lou: I am afraid I don't believe that all people have a pre-disposition to serial killing that will come out when nurtured! Sure we all have a pre-disposition to violence when nurtured properly but I believe serial killing is the result of a mutation in the brain (i.e. a mutation away from the norm or abnormal behaviour).

p.s. I got the colour scheme u wanted for that quote PMT ok?!

 

[wesmorris]

No thats true but to me the bahaviour of the monkey will always be geared towards....u guessed it....your favourite phrase......ensuring the survival of the genes it carries!

The context of "behavior" includes all behavior. Why did I choose to drink soda and eat powdered donuts today? That is certainly not ensuring the survival of my genes (though I've already reproduced, but my behavior was the same before having done so). Why does anyone risk their lives (including apes) for any reason?

I might feel like a total stud want to do it because I did something that totally risked my life and I survived it... but in order for me to risk my life in such a manner in the first place, the "survival instinct" must be bastardized and twisted to a point that risking your life is the means that you interpret as survival. That IMO, indicates that while you start with the "instinct to survive", at least human minds (along with some other animals probably, but few of them) abstract their intincts to the point that they become something else, based on their experience.

 

[John Connellan]

The context of "behavior" includes all behavior. Why did I choose to drink soda and eat powdered donuts today? That is certainly not ensuring the survival of my genes (though I've already reproduced, but my behavior was the same before having done so). Why does anyone risk their lives (including apes) for any reason?

Ensuring the survival of genes is a powerful statement which I believe we live by. I think u might not be reading into the statement enough! The behaviour u mentioned can be broken down into two choices: Why did u eat in the first place? 1) Because we have an urge to eat when blood sugar is low etc, 2) Because we often eat to pass time when theres nothing else to do (thereby filling up stores when there is no need to spend energy on another task). These 2 behaviours will be selected for.

The second part is why did u choose those foods over other foods? 1) maybe thats all that was available (and it wasn't worth going to the store to get what might have been a little bit better). 2) Donuts and soda contain a lot of sugar - maybe thats what was needed to replenish blood sugar without 'filling' carbs or protein from your earlier meal (there was certainly a reason u were eating them instead of tucking into a roast chicken!). Our ability to detect what food we need at any given time and the previous trait will also be both selected for.

Now the two of these are easily linked with the drive to pass genes on. To breed, u need to survive. To survive, u need to eat.

Just a few q's Wes:

1) would u agree that what most lower animals do in their life (if u were to observe them, snakes/frogs for example), is geared towards passing on genes? If so proceed to #2. If not, tell me why.

2) Do u think that these animals 'know' what they are doing all the time? Half the time? If yes then thats where I think your problem lies. Respond to this first then I will tell u more about what I think.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

John Connellan posted these words: "Im still waiting for ANYBODY to present evidence of behaviour which is not or was not evolutionarily adaptive at some stage."

Would you believe it if they did; or, would you simply rationalize until it got you back to the same page? Your remarks regarding Wesmorris' donuts and such was not very impressive insomuch as it was such a stretch. This does not mean that I necessarily disagree with your premise. Our tendencies certainly come from creation and evolution, (take your pick, or both); however, we react to cause, and even for Wesmorris, there is a cause!

"In the mind there is no absolute or free will; but the mind is determined to wish this or that by a cause, which has also been determined by another cause, and so on to infinity. The mind is a fixed and definite mode of thought; in other words, it cannot have an absolute faculty of positive or negative volition; but it must be determined by a cause, which has also been determined by another cause, and this last by another...." "The Ethics" Spinoza Cheers! pmt

 

[John Connellan]

John Connellan posted these words: "Im still waiting for ANYBODY to present evidence of behaviour which is not or was not evolutionarily adaptive at some stage."

Would you believe it if they did; or, would you simply rationalize until it got you back to the same page?

The former

Your remarks regarding Wesmorris' donuts and such was not very impressive insomuch as it was such a stretch.

Tell me what bit u think I've stretched. I need some feedback here!

This does not mean that I necessarily disagree with your premise. Our tendencies certainly come from creation and evolution, (take your pick, or both); however, we react to cause, and even for Wesmorris, there is a cause!

What do u mean by creation? What do u mean by react to cause? What do u think cause is? Any examples?

In the mind there is no absolute or free will;

Im glad we agree

but the mind is determined to wish this or that by a cause, which has also been determined by another cause, and so on to infinity.

Sorry I don't understand this bit

The mind is a fixed and definite mode of thought; in other words, it cannot have an absolute faculty of positive or negative volition; but it must be determined by a cause, which has also been determined by another cause, and this last by another...." "The Ethics" Spinoza Cheers! pmt

Yes I agree that most everything that happens in the universe has a cause but life is funny. With evolution, it appears as if theres a creator shaping organisms to be suited best to the present environment. Now something which isn't alive and replicating cannot adapt to its environment but can only be acted on by the environment. So it is not a simple matter of cause and effect. What causes our minds to think the way they do has been shaped by evolution.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

To John Connelan: In other words, you prefer predestination to cause and effect. Interesting. To explain, if evolution is not a "cause" then what is it?

 

[John Connellan]

No not predestination. I didn't really get my point across. My wording is getting really bad but bear with me . What I meant to say was the cause of 'evolution' is unlike any other cause in the universe (which applies to non-living things), because it appears to mould and adapt creatures for their environment. This gives the appearance of a creator when there is no need for one.

Because of this, everything that is part of our physical body (including our brain and mind) have been shaped by this 'special' cause and so i believe that every facet of behaviour must also have been. Logically then, every facet of behaviour must (have) be(en) conducive to the passing on of our genes.

 

[water]

Logically then, every facet of behaviour must (have) be(en) conducive to the passing on of our genes.

First of all, when talking about passing on our genes, mating isn't enough. It must be ensured that the offspring (=our genes) will survive and reproduce, otherwise the passing on of our genes hasn't been successful.
If we think of humans in modern times, we must extend the meaning of survival and reproduction: It is conception -- and taking care of the child, kindergarden, school, parents have to make a lot of money to make sure that the gets a good start. So making that money is actually for reproductive matters! And if you have a soda and a donut, huh, I guess you have to keep yourself cheerful in order to be more effective at work and at home, in order to make enough money and ensure a safe environment (as best as you can) in order to make sure that your child (your genes) will survive well and healthy and reproduce. That's why grandparents take care of their grandchildren.

 

[John Connellan]

Exactly! Grandparents are known to be more generous than parents and this is because 1) they have a lot more money to spare in their old age and 2) they have realised that they are at their twilight and so the biggest priority for them is to now invest in a copy of their genes which resides in their grandchildren.

Thanks for the contribution Rosa

 

[P. M. Thorne]

John Connallen posts: "Exactly! Grandparents are known to be more generous than parents and this is because 1) they have a lot more money to spare in their old age and 2) they have realised that they are at their twilight and so the biggest priority for them is to now invest in a copy of their genes which resides in their grandchildren."

John! What? Where on earth did you get that? How many grandparents do you know? My grandparents were very poor in their elderly years. Many grandparents now live on social security, and cannot afford their prescription bills, or health insurance. You must be accustomed to being around folks of means.

I would also question, what you call "the biggest priority." This does not compute either. This came across to me like something out of a Sociology book. You must be very young, and I do not mean to be rude. Young is nice.

John wrote: "No not predestination. I didn't really get my point across. My wording is getting really bad but bear with me . What I meant to say was the cause of 'evolution' is unlike any other cause in the universe (which applies to non-living things), because it appears to mould and adapt creatures for their environment. This gives the appearance of a creator when there is no need for one."

Wow, you are a thinker, but there is so much more you could consider if you would. No need for a Creator........Ah, I disagree, and I see no end to learning; therefore, please understand that I am not intellectually constipated, nor am I stuffed full of fables from my youth. I am forever a student, and I love young people, old people, and all in between, and I love creation. Therefore, I see God as the first cause. If you cannot think of things this way, at least respect it.

John writes: Because of this, everything that is part of our physical body (including our brain and mind) have been shaped by this 'special' cause and so i believe that every facet of behaviour must also have been. Logically then, every facet of behaviour must (have) be(en) conducive to the passing on of our genes.

There is something to be said for having children, but when you commence seeing the whole world as an extended family, then you see a little Afghani girl as a creation of God, as someone to love; and you see an old elephant as a creation of God, and you marvel at the wonders, and cringe at the destruction. There is much that we question, but most of the problems that we now face happened because of man, and we should be smart enough to know that these would not have happened if man had loved his neighbor as himself. If man would leave things in as good as, or better than, he found them, ...........but he has not, and we experience the effect of those causes. This is not, in the strictest sense, evolution. Evolution, to me, is something wonderful and interesting, carried forward by a divine plan. Once in Hyder, Arizona, I had opportunity to see the sky at night. It is unbelievable, and the Phoenix sunsets are so fine, I almost forgot I was on the freeway, as I gazed at the beauty. Not that these things mean any more than an oak tree or a grasshopper, but nature thrills me.

As for passing on our genes, is this always a great thing? What say you?

pmt

 

[water]

P.M. Thorne,

How many grandparents do you know? My grandparents were very poor in their elderly years. Many grandparents now live on social security, and cannot afford their prescription bills, or health insurance.

Actually, now that you mentioned it: I had two grandparents, only one was "effective" though; the other one didn't pay much attention to me because I am a girl, and not catholically baptized ... He didn't exactly care about his genes. But I spent a lot of time with an old lady, who was sort of a surrogate grandparent to me. Anyway, just because some grandparents don't care for their grandchildren doesn't mean that they don't want to.
Thinking about grandparents brought me to this thought; I'm not sure whether this has already been discussed here, so I apologize if I repeat things:

The survival of the species and the survival of the individual member of this species are two sides of the same coin. The species doesn't survive if the individual doesn't and vice versa. This is kinda obvious, but has an important implication in human society. The passing on of genes, the successful reproduction consists of at least these factors:
1. conception
2. care for the children
3. a) being surrogate to children of other people
3. b) making sure that the social and biological environment is safe and healthy

It is not enough if you take care just for your own children; we live in a society, therefore certain efforts to keep this society alive and well (as best possible) are necessary if we want to ensure that our children (=our genes) will survive. That's why there is law, the police, social institutions, schools, ... industry ... ecology ...

I always thought that politicians are just abusing children and playing on cheap sentiments when speaking about "... and to make a safe world for future generations", but now I see that there actually is something behind that!

(Huh, why do I feel like I've just discovered hot water?)

There is much that we question, but most of the problems that we now face happened because of man, and we should be smart enough to know that these would not have happened if man had loved his neighbor as himself. If man would leave things in as good as, or better than, he found them, ...........but he has not, and we experience the effect of those causes. This is not, in the strictest sense, evolution.

It is the evolution of REASON. You know the biblical story about how knowledge makes you impure? Well, there is quite a lot of truth in it. Were it not for the development of human reason, there were no nukes, no undegradable plastic, no dead rivers, no vanishing forests ...
Of course, there also would be no music, no computers, none of the beauty made by humans that we like so much, and don't seem to be able to live without it.

That's the cursed beauty of human reason: it cannot make unless it destroys.
And once that scenario started playing ... I'm not sure it can be stopped BY US. We need someone to save us from ourselves!

 

[P. M. Thorne]

I am supposing that you refer to the story of Adam & Eve, but I do not believe that knowledge makes us impure. There is a verse that says knowledge brings sorrow, which is certainly true, but if I take that out of context and try to use it as an absolute, I would be but a fool. Knowledge can also bring us fulfillment. I like the way you write though. My God! Someone that does not claim to have all the answers. Good for you. This means you are still learning, which to me means you are an interesting writer.

To not be misunderstood, I was not implying that grandparent care or do not care, but was answering a statement that grandparents spend so much money on their grandchildren. For many grandparents this is not a probability, no matter what their desire. Okie dokie. My intention was not to be critical of the writer, because he made some good points, but we simply cannot generalize about people. I know because I am a people! pmt

 

[John Connellan]

John! What? Where on earth did you get that? How many grandparents do you know? My grandparents were very poor in their elderly years. Many grandparents now live on social security, and cannot afford their prescription bills, or health insurance. You must be accustomed to being around folks of means.

U have to realise you're not the centre of the world In behavioural ecology the laws of statistics come into play and so just because your grandparents weren't very generous doesn't mean that 84% of other people have grandparents which (are more generouis than their parents).

I would also question, what you call "the biggest priority." This does not compute either. This came across to me like something out of a Sociology book. You must be very young, and I do not mean to be rude. Young is nice.

I might be younger than u alright (Im a student). I believe our subconscious always has priorities through life which may change through time. For example, when u are a child your priorities hardly lie in having sex with girls but rather learning about the world from older people (esp your parents). As people aproach the end of their lives, their priorities shift as mentioned above.

Wow, you are a thinker, but there is so much more you could consider if you would. No need for a Creator........Ah, I disagree, and I see no end to learning; therefore, please understand that I am not intellectually constipated, nor am I stuffed full of fables from my youth. I am forever a student, and I love young people, old people, and all in between, and I love creation. Therefore, I see God as the first cause. If you cannot think of things this way, at least respect it.

I see I have stumbled across a religious person I have never believed in a creator or what u would term GOD even as a child. I have always believed that religion was invented (even by the early hominids) as a way of comforting the only species on the planet which is aware at any time, of its death

Evolution, to me, is something wonderful and interesting, carried forward by a divine plan. Once in Hyder, Arizona, I had opportunity to see the sky at night. It is unbelievable, and the Phoenix sunsets are so fine, I almost forgot I was on the freeway, as I gazed at the beauty. Not that these things mean any more than an oak tree or a grasshopper, but nature thrills me.

The thing about evolution is that it doesn not need to be started and once started, it does not need a divine intervention to keep the Natural Selection process going. This is not to say however that it might have been started as an ingenious idea! (just comforting you!)

As for passing on our genes, is this always a great thing? What say you?

I would never say that it is 'always' a great thing but if you asked my genes they would definitely say it is. All that my genes give me are the urges to reproduce and this is definitely always a great thing!!!!!!!!

 

[John Connellan]

One thing I have to disagree with, (sorry Rosa, you're one of my favourites!) is number 3) below:

The passing on of genes, the successful reproduction consists of at least these factors:
1. conception
2. care for the children
3. a) being surrogate to children of other people
3. b) making sure that the social and biological environment is safe and healthy

If u are a surrogate to other people u are not passing on your genes are u?!

There have even been theories explaining the massive incidence of homocide by step-parents of step-children as being caused by our reluctance to devote attention to children not of our own. Other species have also taken to greta lengths to ensure this. Lions will also kill cubs of other male lions before they start mating. This is mainly to ensure that the mother looks after his kids. If u think aboiut it, Lions which had this aggressive trait would always do better than ones which didn't kill and that is why they are here today! that is evolution working!

 

[P. M. Thorne]

John C. posted: U have to realise you're not the centre of the world In behavioural ecology the laws of statistics come into play and so just because your grandparents weren't very generous doesn't mean that 84% of other people have grandparents which (are more generouis than their parents).

And you, my dear sir, need to pay attention to what has been written. I did not say nor did I mean to imply that grandparents are not more generous. You had said "they" spend more; and I say not necessarily, considering that so many are poor. Now, was this not the way it went? I forgive you, because you are funny, and I like people who know how to be funny, respectable and reasonable, and I do perceive some good breeding.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

SHOOT! First I clicked in the wrong place and submitted before I was through, and then I lost my last post, and I have to go. I will get back with you John. I liked your post, and you are respectably funny. Way to go. Catch you later. pmt

 

[P. M. Thorne]

JOHN CONNELLAN ^^^^^^^^^

Hi John. I will try again. My computer and I are having some disagreements today, it seems.

John C. posted these words: I might be younger than u alright (Im a student). I believe our subconscious always has priorities through life which may change through time. For example, when u are a child your priorities hardly lie in having sex with girls but rather learning about the world from older people (esp your parents). As people aproach the end of their lives, their priorities shift as mentioned above.

A lot of that depends on the child, but I get your point. Yet, to tell you the truth, it is sometimes difficult for me to figure out what people’s priorities are. I enjoy people who are still growing, still students in the general sense of the word, and still enthusiastic, because I love learning. Any day that we can know more about others and ourselves than we did the day before is a good day. I get more excited about things than some do, probably because learning validates me, not that I learn to impress anyone. That is not it, but it makes me feel closer to my Creator. This is a big universe, with all kinds of mysteries just waiting to be discovered, and there is so much good that can be done. Just think what it would be like if we took care of our planet, loved one another, and actually learned from those who have gone before us; that is, learned in a way that we would feel compelled to apply what we know. We know so much more than what we use; wherefore, I say knowing is not enough.

John C. writes: I see I have stumbled across a religious person

Oh, was that you?

John C. continues: I have never believed in a creator or what u would term GOD even as a child. I have always believed that religion was invented (even by the early hominids) as a way of comforting the only species on the planet which is aware at any time, of its death.

Are you sure about that? Or, have you simply not believed what you have been hearing about God? I can think of no time in my life when I did not believe in God, and I remember back until I was two. This was B. C. ….( ), or before church. Now, it is “after church,” and God is still real to me. I say, it is innate in man to believe in God, and because I am convinced of this, I tend to wonder how much thought you have given to the matter. Do not tell me. It is none of my business, but you sound like a smart guy, and I cannot for a minute that you are convinced that God is not real. I did not invent Him. Everything beautiful in this world told me there was a God when there was nothing in my young life to make me believe in much of anything.

J. C. wrote: The thing about evolution is that it doesn not need to be started and once started, it does not need a divine intervention to keep the Natural Selection process going. This is not to say however that it might have been started as an ingenious idea! (just comforting you!)
How sweet; or, something like that! Seriously, I can only tell you what I think, and that is that it has all been done. What we might call a miracle is something that we cannot explain. What we call divine intervention may be a kind of predestination, insomuch as it was simply not in the flow of things for it to go otherwise.

Did you ever hear of the guy that fell off a cliff, and as he fell, he began crying out to God, “Help me, help me, and please help me! Suddenly this gust of wind blew him sideways and he grabbed hold of a root that held him in place, whereupon he said, “Oh, never mind, God, I everything under control now.” I know it is just a story, but very typical of human nature. Just as people tend to become superstitious, leaning toward astrology and so forth when times are bad, and talk about good luck and bad luck, and ask for advice and so forth. However, when times are good, those same ones are offended that anyone should think they need advice on anything, whether present or future. In other words, many believe or disbelieve depending upon their immediate needs.

I think this is because we get the wrong message. God is not an umbrella, or a rescue system, He is in us and through us, and above us. We breathe because of Him. Without Him, there would be no evolution, and no John and no Mickey.

John writes: I would never say that it is 'always' a great thing but if you asked my genes they would definitely say it is. All that my genes give me are the urges to reproduce and this is definitely always a great thing!!!!!!!!

This is where I laughed and laughed.


Discretion is a good thing; and yet, no one could have made your point any better. Good job.

I will give you some unsolicited advice. Do not marry anyone you cannot live with, or anyone you cannot live without; otherwise, you will soon be learning more than you ever wanted to know about evolution!

pmt

 

[water]

If u are a surrogate to other people u are not passing on your genes are u?!

Think of the point of being a surrogate: You don't pass on your own genes, that's true. But you help that the species as such can survive! And so it happens by your aid -- and so your own genes may not be passed on, but the genes of the species you belong to do. The species is preserved in you, you are preserved in the species. Like said before, survival of the species and survival of an individual member are two sides of the same coin. We have to see this in an extended context.

Also, being a surrogate is not that often in nature.
By surrogate in humans you can mean being actual step parents; but, what is more frequent: just stepping in sometimes and acting as a parent. Many people do that, in a positive way.

(sorry Rosa, you're one of my favourites!):

Thanks. and

 

[water]

There was an interesting thing about the need for a creator on another thread. I'll look it up; basically the argument went thus: if a thing has a purpose, then this means that an instance of a creator is being supposed.
I gotta go now, but I get back later.