How we behave

[spuriousmonkey]

Why does anyone risk their lives (including apes) for any reason?

They did some studies with a certain species of fish. When a predator arrives a few bold ones will go towards it and investigate it. This is clearly risky behaviour and doesn't always have a happy ending.

Why would the little fish do something which could end in its death?

The reason is that females prefer these men that take these lethal risks. Is it because james bond is sexy? Not quite.

what is happening that a female wants to breed with a fit male. There are many ways to test if a male is fit, but most of these things can be subject to evolutionary cheating. A male can grow certain structures that suggest fitness but aren't a real representative of fitness.

Not so with risk taking. Only males that are in good shape will approach the predator. They take the risk because they know (not consciously of course) that they are fit. Females prefer with these males because evolution cannot not cheat on expositin of true fitness.

Hope that explained something Wesmorris.

 

[John Connellan]

Im glad I amuse u P.M.T.

No seriously, u do have a point about a lot of so called atheists. It is when they are in trouble that they find themselves actually talking to GOD

I am afraid I have given this a lot of thought though in my (short!) lifetime. I ten d to think that too many people don't give enough consideration in the opposite. That we (and life in general) are indeed a by-product of the evolution of the universe from the Big Bang. Have u ever even imagined what it would be like if there was no God? I mean REALLY think about it. (ok not too hard, I don't wanna scare u )

 

[John Connellan]

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.

OK I knew u were going to say this but I dodn't want to tell u too much too soon! U are indeed inadvertently helping the species by caring for others but Im afraid this is not how evolution works. U should definitely read the book the selfish gene. Think for a moment about how exactly evolution (through Natural Selection) works and then u will realise why it cannot work in the way u state. The species IS preserved in u but u ARE NOT preserved in the species (i.e. ur genes are yours alone and although some may be present in your kin, they are not in your friends!).

Also, being a surrogate is not that often in nature.

And there is a reason!

and

Got it

 

[wesmorris]

Hope that explained something Wesmorris.

That all makes sense and such, but with humans it's so much more complicated. People sometimes risk their lives with intent (altruism? amusement?, xxxxx?) and no stake in increasing their probability of mating. Certainly much of the time it's as you described above, but much of the time no wouldn't you think?... especially given that the urge to mate doesn't usually represent the ability to pass on one's genes (considering contraceptives and all)? I'm just saying you could go through the risk of certain death to impress and chick and fuck her, all for the prize to end up in a little rubber sheeth... because of intent, which bastardizes the evolutionary process by intertwining it with the abstract. No?

 

[water]

P.M. Thorne

Knowledge can also bring us fulfillment.

Yes, when I am troubled, I read Descartes or about the human brain. :bugeye: No, I don't think it's fulfillment, it just eases the reason in me.

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.

Thanks.
I should learn, I must learn! I will either go crazy or come to mastery.

but nature thrills me.

It is lazy of us to forget about it so many times, don't you think?


As for God,

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.

We could start a new thread on this topic!
I'll jump into your conversation with John, because I think you may be missing one important point when it comes to non-religious people. It is not that I or some other non-religious people "simply wouldn't believe in what is said about God". Fact is that we cannot believe by wanting to believe. You learned about God before you could be aware of yourself; you learned about God before you developed the critical mind which needs to see first in order to believe. I don't mean to insult you in any way; in fact, I envy people who believe in God ever since they can remember.
Episodic memory, needed to become aware of oneself on a conscious level, develops around age 2 (funny you would mention that age!). Whatever you learn before that age, is simply true for you, no matter what it is, and you believe it, (almost) no matter what evidence future experience may provide. You are hardly able of any introspection about things you learned before age 2. That's why believing in God is so obvious to you, and so everything but obvious to some others.

 

[water]

John Connellan,

There have even been theories explaining the massive incidence of homocide by step-parents of step-children

Were the results supporting these theories expressed in percents? That kind of statistcs may be misleading sometimes. For example: In my country, maternal death at childbirth can jump or fall for several hundred % from one year to another. Devastating statistics? Not really, if you consider the actual numbers: in a year, between 1 and 5 women die at childbirth. One year, only one may die, another year three. Did the death rate rise for 200 %? According to statistics yes, but if the numerus is so small, % statistics become misleading.
Could something like that be the case with the above-mentioned theories?

... our reluctance to devote attention to children not of our own.

But this is natural, I think. Blood ties.
Strange or not, I don't pet other cats or dogs, just our cat.

Lions will also kill cubs of other male lions before they start mating.

Lion society is NOT the same as human!! I mean, in a lion society you have a dominant male who mates with all the females, and you don't have that in humans, do you?!
Also, there are other species that know surrogat parenting, like dolphins, merkats, some apes, even sea-otters. Clue: offspring is not numerous in these species, so they have to care for all the offspring they have. Maybe that was once the original impulse in humans.

Whether males kill other offspring is probably tightly linked to the kind of social organisation those animals live in.

So: you can have less offspring and surrogat parenting; or more offspring and no surrogat parenting. The result is pretty much the same though, in both cases the species survives.

Humans just got things messed up in the process of developing as a society.

Also, another second-thought on the above mentioned theories: Do they show that homicide of step-children in specific for a certain social group, like the poor or something like that?

OK I knew u were going to say this but I dodn't want to tell u too much too soon! U are indeed inadvertently helping the species by caring for others but Im afraid this is not how evolution works. U should definitely read the book the selfish gene.

I think I understand at least a part of your point. Yes, my thinking is likely to be slanted in an environmental way when it comes to humans. There are few animals who kill for fun, many humans find it normal. Look what humans have done with this planet! It is a crying shame.

What I am saying is that if you are destroying the environment you are living in, your species is going to become extinct in the long run. You will die, and the species will die.

Genes may be selfish, but the way human reason is interpreting this selfishness leads mankind into destruction.

You name me one animal that reproduces to a range that the environment cannot support it anymore!!

Can you?

Lemmings have a self-regulative mechanism, hares, if they become too many, get hunted by other predator animals, who then, when the hares run out, die of starvation -- there are regulative mechanisms in nature that ensure Natural Selection, there is always balance in nature.

But humans started playing god and meddled into this process -- that they cannot handle! Human technology is just a try to postpone the inevitable.

Think for a moment about how exactly evolution (through Natural Selection) works and then u will realise why it cannot work in the way u state.

IMO, in human society, evolution and Natural Selection take on somewhat different *shapes* from those in the animal kingdom. The principles may be the same. But I think that the human need to procreate is not so much important anymore as it may have been millions of years back. The Earth is already overpopulated, and if humans as a species want to survive, birthrates must drop, or the environment will not be able to supply our existence. Exactly this is happening in the Western world. People cannot afford to have 10 children anymore, because there are not able to take care for so many, unemployment rises.
Right now, humans are trying to figure out how much is too much. It just that you learn how much is too much only after it is already too much.

I know that I am being emotional about this whole thing, but it just makes me damn angry to see those creatures on two legs claiming to have a reason and to be the "crown of Creation", and doing all the damage they do. Maybe we are the crown: the thing you put on in the end.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

FROM JOHN C. Im glad I amuse u P.M.T.

Amused is not quite the word; I think maybe delightful.

FROM JOHN C. No seriously, u do have a point about a lot of so called atheists. It is when they are in trouble that they find themselves actually talking to GOD

To be completely fair, this could said of people who claim to believe as well.
You know what? People are pretty much the same all over regarding things like fear, courage, weakness and strength. However when it comes to thinking, sometimes it is just too big of a temptation to think that we little hunks of protoplasm can decide whether or not we were created, and stuff like that.

FROM JOHN C. I am afraid I have given this a lot of thought though in my (short!) lifetime. I ten d to think that too many people don't give enough consideration in the opposite. That we (and life in general) are indeed a by-product of the evolution of the universe from the Big Bang. Have u ever even imagined what it would be like if there was no God? I mean REALLY think about it. (ok not too hard, I don't wanna scare u )

Ah ha, there you go again making me smile. I have lived a long time, and have proven myself to be quite perceptive, and I still think that you have not made up your mind. I have though, and yes, I have given a lot of thought to a lot of things, including what it might be like to not believe in God, and I simply cannot fathom it.

I could tell you some things that might impress you, but they would not prove anything. Church left me rather upset for awhile, and confused, but not about the existence of God, only about what was expected of me. It took some doing for me to get back to a place of peace. In retrospect, I can see that I was the reason it took so long. I was born a hard headed rebel, and sometimes got the idea that the whole world depended on me, then one day it seemed as though the world did not even know I was here. It was then that I truly began to grow.

Know this, if God is an illusion, so am I. pmt

 

[wesmorris]

Brother PMT.

belief is the illusion.

You are not. I respect your belief for the illusion it is and your good intentions and attachment to it.

Your attachment to it has nothing to do with whether or not it is an illusion don't you think?

 

[P. M. Thorne]

ROSA M. Yes, when I am troubled, I read Descartes or about the human brain. No, I don't think it's fulfillment, it just eases the reason in me.

Interesting. I have not actually read Descartes, only commentaries, this is something I plan to do. I do read Spinoza, and love the guy. In my whole life I have had only two heroes and he is one; (the other is a Finnish singer from whom I received encouragement beyond what I thought was at all probable, and still keeps in tow to some degree).

ROSA M. Thanks. I should learn, I must learn! I will either go crazy or come to mastery.

That is just the way I think and feel. John asked whether I had considered any possibility that God did not exist, and I cannot. Here is another thing I cannot understand; this is, why some people have no desire to learn beyond daily stuff. I admit that most of my learning is not how to repair plumbing, or program my computer. My learning is of a spiritual sort, or so I say. I say this because, it is a focusing thing. We Americans, for sure, are mostly not focused. The Eastern religions emphasize far more than does Christianity, which does advocate "praying without ceasing," and "having the mind of God," but I say that few know what half of what they supposedly believe actually means.

Here is an example. A woman asked me if I was a born again believer. I smiled, and asked very nicely exactly what she meant by that. Her response was, (with a finger pointed in my direction), "The bible says, 'Ye must be born again!" I smiled again, bigger this time. "I know what the Bible says," says I, "but I want to know what you mean." She lost her sternness and asked, "What do you think it means?" I told her as best I could, and again she was stern, and said, "That's right!"

She was/is a nice enough lady, but I do not like the finger thing. Christians and rock stars seem to think that finger things adds to their effectiveness, and I do not like it!

ROSA M. It is lazy of us to forget about it [“ but nature thrills me.”] so many times, don't you think?

Worse than lazy because we too are a part of nature, and when we put the rest of nature from our minds, we are detaching ourselves in a way from that of which we are apart, -something like putting God from our minds. -I am not trying to be a smart-ass, Rosa; that is from my heart.

ROSA M. I'll jump into your conversation with John, because I think you may be missing one important point when it comes to non-religious people. It is not that I or some other non-religious people "simply wouldn't believe in what is said about God". Fact is that we cannot believe by wanting to believe.

No, my friend, I have not missed it. You are correct, of course, and have brought up a very good point. Saying a bunch of words does not do it either. It, to me, is a realization, a connection, a harmony, a joy, an assurance, an abundance of love for one's fellow man.

ROSA M. You learned about God before you could be aware of yourself; you learned about God before you developed the critical mind which needs to see first in order to believe. I don't mean to insult you in any way; in fact, I envy people who believe in God ever since they can remember.

That is not quite right. I became aware of God, but cannot say that I ever really "learned about Him," because, unfortunately what I learned was mostly fable. My God! My mother used to tell me that the devil would get me if I was bad. She told me God was watching me all the time, even when she was not there, and knew everything I did. I recall this happening often when I was five and six. She told me the devil had a big pot of fire on his head, and a pitch fork that he used to get naughty children and would toss them into the fire. I had her tell me the story often, and then I remember going to the back of the house and wondering if she really believed that. Her mother was superstitious and so was she, but she knew better than that. God to her was a free baby sitter, but I did not buy her stories. When I was a child, I was afraid of nothing if I was outside, not even in the dark. (I did not say now!! )

ROSA M. Episodic memory, needed to become aware of oneself on a conscious level, develops around age 2 (funny you would mention that age!). Whatever you learn before that age, is simply true for you, no matter what it is, and you believe it, (almost) no matter what evidence future experience may provide. You are hardly able of any introspection about things you learned before age 2. That's why believing in God is so obvious to you, and so everything but obvious to some others.

Interesting, and there could certainly be some truth to that. Who knows for sure. Thank you for responding. Maybe I am off the subject, but it was nice to have your feedback, and you have fun with your studies. pmt

 

[P. M. Thorne]

WESMORRIS POSTED THE FOLLOWING: Brother PMT. belief is the illusion. You are not. I respect your belief for the illusion it is and your good intentions and attachment to it. Your attachment to it has nothing to do with whether or not it is an illusion don't you think?

Brother Wesmorris, you know better than that. I enjoy your postings, because you alway put some goodies with your presumptions, especially if you think you might offend.

You are correct inasmuch as what we think changes nothing but us, but God is more that what I think. He is, just as nature is, just as we are, and certainly just as surely as........... Yeah. Nice to hear from you. pmt

 

[wesmorris]

because you alway put some goodies with your presumptions, especially if you think you might offend.

well, I respect where you're coming from. a lot of people I really care about feel as you do. that and you seem like a decent fella to me, and I respect that as well.

it seems a lacking though that you would bother making a point about presumptions as you tout presumptions.

they are all presumptions. (including my comments) (rather, any answer to a fundamental question like "do I exist", or "is there a god" or "why cheese?")

one can only attempt minimize them and their impact on the resulting reasoning or deeds.

perhaps though there was an excess of presumption in the use of the term "brother", my bad. i can see how that looks like schmoozing, and I didn't mean it like that as was feeling respect for you (well, not like I really know you or anything, just how you seem to me here of course) when I thought of it.

EDIT:

oh and it never occured to me when i posted my first response to you that you might be offended. you are a grown-up right? why would you be offended?

 

[water]

P.M. Thorne,

We Americans, for sure, are mostly not focused.

I am just one European, so my generalization is huge, but I have spoken to some people about it and there is a point to this:
Americans tend think in short-term perspectives, Europeans and the Old World are used to think in long-term perspectives.
Thinking in short-term perspective may sometimes appear as "not focused".
There's just so much historical and modern data that support this idea of the American short-term perspective! But that's not the topic of this thread ...

That is not quite right. I became aware of God, but cannot say that I ever really "learned about Him," because, unfortunately what I learned was mostly fable.

It doesn't matter if it was fables about the devil etc. What matters is that in this early age you learned/were taught that there *is* a God. What characteristics he was supposed to have is secondary, as they change with your growing up. But the basic belief that there *is* a God remained in you.
I know Catholics who were brought up in strict Catholic families, believing in Christ and everything, but today they believe that God is nature. They have the belief that there *is* a God deeply implanted in themselves, while his atributes have changed during their lives.

I was never taught about any god. So my belief in god today is based completely on this premis: We can not prove whether god is, neither can we prove that there is no god. Therefore, for the sake of adequate argumentation, we have to presume that there could be something like god. Faith in god, based on such reasonable reasons is not strong, as you can imagine.


P. M. Thorne and WESMORRIS,

Sorry for popping in like that , I just have to say something regarding

WESMORRIS POSTED THE FOLLOWING: Brother PMT. belief is the illusion. You are not. I respect your belief for the illusion it is and your good intentions and attachment to it. Your attachment to it has nothing to do with whether or not it is an illusion don't you think?
Brother Wesmorris, you know better than that. I enjoy your postings, because you alway put some goodies with your presumptions, especially if you think you might offend.

I think I've discovered a characteristic of Wes' writing and thinking that explains a lot to me: Wes is not burdened with idealisms, quasi-bourgeoisie and other things that sometimes obstruct the logical reason, while some other of us are. He can be pure, cold logical reason sometimes, and some people are likely to find that offensive. He can present arguments without any moralizing or idealizing.
I used to think that logics (the arguments, the syllogisms) is a cold thing, distant to reality, as it pertains only to issues of reason. But what we all have in common is reason, and those issues we can discuss -- discussing certain issues in the space of religion, for example, is pointless in the long run.
This isn't intended to be an ad-hominem, it is just a meta-thought on the communication at SF.

Now I'll pop out

 

[water]

spuriousmonkey,

what is happening that a female wants to breed with a fit male. There are many ways to test if a male is fit, but most of these things can be subject to evolutionary cheating.

At least in mammals, another factor has been discovered: females want to breed with those males whose set of immunity genes is the most different from their own; the offspring will then have the greatest possible variety of immunity genes. The information about the genes is recepted via the sense of smell.
Experiments in humans have shown that pregnant women and those who take birthcontrol pills fail to recognize their best counterpart as far as immunity genes go.
(Unfortunately, I don't remember anymore where I read that ... but it's at least a hint when looking for new info. )



wesmorris,

People sometimes risk their lives with intent (altruism? amusement?, xxxxx?) and no stake in increasing their probability of mating.

They have messed up contexts ...

especially given that the urge to mate doesn't usually represent the ability to pass on one's genes

Bonobo chimpanzees are regarded as the most intelligent apes. They have one striking characteristics that is not seen in any other species: they have sexual intercourse even outside of their mating time, and quite often. Actually, I don't know how to call it, since they have sex with oneanother regardless of the gender of the animal, outside of mating season they are homosexual, and even age isn't that important. I thought it was kinda sick when I first saw it.
It is said that by having sex they relieve stress.

Anyhow, some scientists say that this could be a common characteristic with the human ancestor -- to have sex without the intent to reproduce.

The thing with humans is that the fertility cycle in human females is getting shorter and shorter; it is likely that once they were fertile only once a year.

It seems that the intelligence (in human terms of IQ) of a species is connected to a rise in the sex drive outside of the mating season.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

spuriousmonkey,


Experiments in humans have shown that pregnant women and those who take birthcontrol pills fail to recognize their best counterpart as far as immunity genes go.
(Unfortunately, I don't remember anymore where I read that ... but it's at least a hint when looking for new info. )

Yes, I mentioned something like that in another thread also.
Anyhoo, the point was to explain the origin of risk taking.

 

[John Connellan]

That all makes sense and such, but with humans it's so much more complicated. People sometimes risk their lives with intent (altruism? amusement?, xxxxx?) and no stake in increasing their probability of mating.

Im gonna have to correct u again Wes. This thread seems to be getting out of hand again. Nobody said that mating is the ultimate goal for life. What good would mating alone be for genes? The goal is to pass on genes and as much of them as possible. To pass on genes there are various other things for the carriers (organisms) to consider. An easy one is that u have to at least survive.

What u have to remember is that genes don't have a mind of their own (even though they are sometimes described as selfish!). This mean that genes cannot directly affect our behaviour at any time because they don't even know what we are doing. Our mind does that. But what do genes do? They shape our mind so that generally everything we do will tend to ensure the passing on of genes in some way. This is what we see as the product of evolution.

Certainly much of the time it's as you described above, but much of the time no wouldn't you think?...

No, all the time I think. Everything we do can be traced back to how it would be helpful to our genes.

given that the urge to mate doesn't usually represent the ability to pass on one's genes (considering contraceptives and all)? I'm just saying you could go through the risk of certain death to impress and chick and fuck her, all for the prize to end up in a little rubber sheeth... because of intent, which bastardizes the evolutionary process by intertwining it with the abstract. No?

True that contraceptives will change the evolutionary process (I suppose u could say that in the future most of the people will be descended from people who forgot their condoms or something ). What isn't true is that we like to have sex because it doesn't pass our genes on. We have evolved the urge long ago (THE most important evolutionary urge) and we must act on it even though we don't want children yet (thats how powerful our genes are at controlling us!).

 

[John Connellan]

RosaMagika: What are your immunity genes like?

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Wesmorris: I Took No Offense, Sir. I Believe I Said When You Say Something That -you- Think Might Be Offensive. However, I Can Be Offended. You Beat Your Boots! I Am A Sensitive Person, Who Is Not Being Entirely Honest Unless I Correct You!

I Am Woman! I Have Two Children, One Living. I Have Three Grandchildren, All Living, Ages 20, 18 And 10. I Am A Writer With A Love For Philosophy, History, And Folks Like You. One Good Thing About Being Older, Is That My Ego Has Relaxed A Bit. How Is That For Evolution? Pmt

 

[water]

Risk taking
Spuriousmonkey, thanks for reminding me that the point was to explain the origins of risk taking.

One can understand certain risk taking within the same species, but how about taking risks like this:
I once observed a cat, sitting on a stack of log wood (the stack was about 1m wide, 4m long, and 1,5 m tall, so that you can have a mental picture).
Two dogs (one the size of a German sheperd, and the other one was a smaller kind of dog) were playing and chasing eachother around. At some point, the bigger dog forced the smaller one to the side of the wood stack, and the smaller one cried and barked.

Then the cat JUMPED DOWN FROM HIS SAFE PLACE between the dogs and chased them apart.
It was the weirdest thing to see! The three of them were standing there, staring at eachother, the dogs were stunned with surprise.
Then the cat made himself on his way to the house, the dogs were still in amazement.

Cats are known to be able to chase away a dog, no matter how big the dog is. One single dog rarely attacks a cat. But many cats do know that as soon as there are two dogs, they are likely to attack the cat.
(The cat in question was more than 5 years old, and already had experience with being attacked by two dogs.)

Why did the cat risk his life? To prevent the bigger dog from hurting the smaller one? Was the cat sure that he can handle the situation?
Maybe the cat didn't feel safe anymore, so he escaped? But why didn't he escape at the other end of the stack, where the dogs couldn't see him?

I'm totally in the dark here ... Risk taking for ensuring "global stability"? Or due to an inadequate assessment of the situation (that that time had a happy outcome, but some other time it may not)?

 

[water]

I thought about risk taking and came to these 3 points:

1. Institutionalized risk taking
2. Fun
3. Romantic/idealistic understanding of a situation // wrong assessment of the situation

1. Institutionalized risk takingTake the police or soldiers: They accept taking deadly risks as a part of their job description. But where does this institutionalized willingness to risk one's life for others come from? In human history, when did first soldiers appear? When did it become worthy to risk your life for the benefit of the community? Why so? Is this connected with how complex the society got?
First you have humans who are everything in one person (warrior, hunter, ...), then social roles develop, complexity of the society grows, roles become institutionalized, in the end, they are "jobs".
That's a way to briefly explain the development of the (self-)protection instinct to institutionalized forms of risk taking, happening in connection with the development and greater complexity of society.

2. Fun:
I'm not sure whether this has been mentioned before ... somewhere ...
It is kinda obvious, but behavior in animals is sometimes just about having fun.
Esp. some mammals use some of their energy & time for activities that are not connected to feeding, mating, seeking shelter. Cats, dogs, horses, otters, killer whales, dolphins ...
So some of the human behavior is certainly just about fun too.

In humans, could it be that in some cases of risk taking, having fun and the urge to present oneself as a fit mating partner are connected/intertwined?
Is the (natural) need to have fun carried further (sometimes too far) by the (presumed) abilities of reason (thinking that we can make a dangerous activity safe)? That would in a way explain adrenalin sports.

3. Romantic/idealistic understanding of a situation // wrong assessment of the situation
We do get fed all sorts of romantic ideals about knights, chivalry and all sorts of heroes -- some of this must be somewhere in us, and sometimes propells us to do dangerous things.
Both the successful and the failed presentations of this ought to be kept in mind.

4. There has to be more to risk taking ...

 

[water]

RosaMagika: What are your immunity genes like?

My immunity genes tell me to be immune to stupid remarks.