How we behave

[P. M. Thorne]

RosaMagika: 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 ...

Yet, the difference in Americans and most of the rest of humanity cannot be attributed specifically to evolution, nor can the fact that I have always felt more akin--other than my family--in general, to folks from outside the US.
I have been co-authoring a book with a friend from Finland, which has led me to study that wonderful country and its people.

There is much more to us than cerbral cogitations and deductions. Until we full realize this, we will not truly understand the part evolution plays with the human being. I cannot convince anyone with any real proof that I have a good feeling, or that I have pain, or that I am dizzy. I could be pretending. I cannot prove that I am depressed or tired. We make presumptions about each other evey day of our lives. "Oh, he is just worried about...." Yet, some find it so strange that one actually feels the presense of God.

ROSA M: 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.

This is true. I had noticed something, and someone mentioned that it was probably a guardian angel. I am still not sure what I think about that, nor does it matter. A more important point to me is whether evolution is taking us away from believing in a Creator, or is it our disrespect for nature and one another that make our Creator seem silent to so many. How one can relate to God without relating to nature is beyond me. Of course, I am from a huggy bear, kissy face kind of family. Last winter I never turned on the bathroom heater, because I had forgotten to put a spider outside before the temp dropped, and I was afraid it might have made a nest in the heater. (My friends just shake their heads.) Nature, as we think of it, has served me so well, and I love every little bit of it.


ROSA: 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.
Cool. Nature is part of God's creation, as are we, and we cannot be separated.

ROSA: 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.

My friend, I do not wish to offend, but I cannot see that it is reasonable to not believe in a Creator. In the days of Spinoza and on through the century that gave us Schopenhauer, Lord Byron, and all the others who suffered through the sad state of Europe, with many concluding that God had died, anyone who did not believe in the Judaen or Christian God were considered athiests. See, this is not my believe. My God is the Creator of us all, and to believe that, and then to try to limit God to some small-minded concept is asinine. So, I ask you, is there no room in your evoluntionary theories for God? Who is this God that you do not believe in. Is it what you perceive to be the Christian or Judaen God. Good grief, I sound like I am preaching. Sorry. You are a smart girl, and do not need my help in that area. No hard feelings, I hope, but I am going to leave this in, because I think you can handle it.

ABOUT WESMORRIS,

ROSA: 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 can agree with much of what you say; notwithstanding, you are painting with a wide brush, methinks. Let us not be so quick to toss idealism out the window, and let us not forget that we can all be cold and calculating, and this can be good. Believe it or not, I too can be just that, but I have found, that for me, it is better that I be warm and calculation, lest I give the impression that I am perceiving myself to be more than I am. Not that this applies to Wes. We are also emotion and spirit and feelings. These are just as real, and just as precious as our gray matter. You hint at this as well, below.

ROSA: 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.

Do you not think that we have emotions and feelings in common, fears in common, and even that disrespected thing called "hope" in common. Maybe not the same hope, but the emotion of hope, just the same.

Cheers to you, Rosa. pmt

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Do I owe someone an apology? I thought this was about behavior rather than risk taking specifically. However, risk is not purely physical. I believe our society in America is at risk in many way, even though the world seems to think we are high on a hill somewhere. They do not see the sorrow, despair and lonliness, of which I am aware, or the fear behind the suits and cell phones; the do's and high heels; the overt sexuality and self concerns. It is not truly a matter of being too busy, as is propogated. No, I do not think so. I think it is fear. If we carry a clip board and walk fast enough, we may convince ourselves that our lives have meaning.

Now, time for some music, so let's sing! pmt

 

[wesmorris]

This thread seems to be getting out of hand again.

All of them do. It's easier to ride it like a surf board rather than attempt to control where the wave is heading. Seems like the more you try to push it around, the harder it pushes back.

Nobody said that mating is the ultimate goal for life.

Hrmph. Then perhaps we have a communcation problem. To me "the urge to pass on your genes entirely controls your behavior" is pretty much the same as saying "mating is the ultimate goal for life". Perhaps you can backpedal some more.

What good would mating alone be for genes?

That's how you pass them on.

The goal is to pass on genes and as much of them as possible.

Okay. That's what your genes compell you to do.. sure. But what if your dad, the preacher, beats you every day for jesus, telling you that your pee-pee is bad and that if he catches you thinking about it he'll cut it off? I'd guess that to be at least as compelling as your urge to "get busy".

To pass on genes there are various other things for the carriers (organisms) to consider.

Okay.

An easy one is that u have to at least survive.

Well, only long enough to pass on your genes if passing on your genes controls your behavior.

What u have to remember is that genes don't have a mind of their own (even though they are sometimes described as selfish!).

Oh? I was really really confused about that.

Hehe. DUDE!

This mean that genes cannot directly affect our behaviour at any time because they don't even know what we are doing.

But you said that:

"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."

Our mind does that.

Yeah okay.

But what do genes do?

Govern the formation of the physical aspect of a living being (including the brain, which forms instinctual behaviors)? Spurious would likely have a much better answer. Spurious?

They shape our mind so that generally everything we do will tend to ensure the passing on of genes in some way.

And that is where I think you're wrong because of your use of the word "everything". I would agree with "much" or "a significant portion" or anything but an assertion of totality, because that's silly. Certainly you can twist anything you'd like into thinking that you fully understand the motivations behind it, but it's ridiculous to me... someone with a reasonable insight into the workings of mind. The mind is tied to instinct... but not necessarily consumed by it.. and more interesting to me... you can basically create your own instincts based on the behavior you choose to undertake, which doesn't necessarily have shit to do with improving your odds to pass on your genes.

To me, you have simply paved over a whole lotta good points (a number of people have validly contradicted you, and you have simply twisted each case to fit the needs of your argument, at least that's how it seems to me) as to why you're wrong.

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

I could probably traced everything back to kevin bacon too... but do you think that means that kevin bacon rules? It is quite possible that I could trace everything back to taco bell too. Maybe I could trace everything back to the color blue, or coal.

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 ).

Hehe.. that's how I came to be and the reason I have kids.

What isn't true is that we like to have sex because it doesn't pass our genes on.

Okay, but who said it was? We like to have sex because it feels good, because our hormones propel us to do it. We aren't wholly controlled by our propensity for this behavior - as is evidenced by those who abstain or take measures to ensure that procreation doesn't occur as a result of the action.

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!).

Yes, I agree that our genes are powerful influences as to our behavior.. but development and circumstance can overcome that power as is evidenced by suicide, mental problems, exertion of will and contraceptives.

 

[John Connellan]

Hrmph. Then perhaps we have a communcation problem. To me "the urge to pass on your genes entirely controls your behavior" is pretty much the same as saying "mating is the ultimate goal for life". Perhaps you can backpedal some more.

No need to. Mating is not the same as ensuring that your genes are passed on. Have u ever even considered ensuring that your genes are passed on without having to mate???

That's how you pass them on.

Not quite

Okay. That's what your genes compell you to do.. sure. But what if your dad, the preacher, beats you every day for jesus, telling you that your pee-pee is bad and that if he catches you thinking about it he'll cut it off? I'd guess that to be at least as compelling as your urge to "get busy".

Thats still following your urge to pass on genes. By reacting to the immediate threat at the moment of having your pee-pee cut off, u buy yourself time to reproduce later in life. This is similar to the survival instinct we have.

Well, only long enough to pass on your genes if passing on your genes controls your behavior.

When I meant 'pass on your genes', I obviously didn't just mean getting sperm into the vagina. theres a lot more involved in ensuring that they are passed on correctly.

But you said that:
"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."

Yes, gene propagation ultimately controls all our behaviour but as I said, nature can play its little tricks on us so most of the time it never seems like a direct affect on our behaviour. Whats wrong with that?

Govern the formation of the physical aspect of a living being (including the brain, which forms instinctual behaviors)? Spurious would likely have a much better answer. Spurious?

So ur saying the physical aspect of a living being includes his mind and behaviour (I hope?)

And that is where I think you're wrong because of your use of the word "everything". I would agree with "much" or "a significant portion" or anything but an assertion of totality, because that's silly.

I used to think it was silly but not anymore.

Certainly you can twist anything you'd like into thinking that you fully understand the motivations behind it, but it's ridiculous to me... someone with a reasonable insight into the workings of mind. The mind is tied to instinct... but not necessarily consumed by it.. and more interesting to me... you can basically create your own instincts based on the behavior you choose to undertake, which doesn't necessarily have shit to do with improving your odds to pass on your genes.

Put it this way. If there were two identical species only one had behaviour completely conducive to the gene survival strategy (GSS) and the other had this too but also an ability to create its own instincts, I would feel that the latter species would be wiped out due to an unessecary 'extra' cost in its living.

To me, you have simply paved over a whole lotta good points (a number of people have validly contradicted you, and you have simply twisted each case to fit the needs of your argument, at least that's how it seems to me) as to why you're wrong.

I don't think I have twisted anything because I didn't need to. To me, they were not even very good arguments!

I could probably traced everything back to kevin bacon too... but do you think that means that kevin bacon rules? It is quite possible that I could trace everything back to taco bell too. Maybe I could trace everything back to the color blue, or coal.

U could not trace our behaviour back to the above. no.

Okay, but who said it was? We like to have sex because it feels good, because our hormones propel us to do it. We aren't wholly controlled by our propensity for this behavior - as is evidenced by those who abstain or take measures to ensure that procreation doesn't occur as a result of the action.

But the argument is that all behaviour is (at least indirectly) controlled by the GSS so u have to look at why somebody would turn down sex. This in itself is a behaviour and which I feel can be given an explanation within the GSS theory. Remember there is more to life than just sex. Otherwise we would just have evolved into massive penises walking down the street

Yes, I agree that our genes are powerful influences as to our behavior.. but development and circumstance can overcome that power as is evidenced by suicide, mental problems, exertion of will and contraceptives.

I have explained these behaviours within the GSS context already.

 

[antifreeze]

When I meant 'pass on your genes', I obviously didn't just mean getting sperm into the vagina. theres a lot more involved in ensuring that they are passed on correctly.

really. you have to wait for the pregnancy test results.

I don't think I have twisted anything because I didn't need to. To me, they were not even very good arguments!

exactly. unable or unwilling to see the other side, or, said another way; lost in ideology. this argument is pointless as neither side will reach an agreement.

 

[water]

P. M. T.,

There is much more to us than cerbral cogitations and deductions. Until we full realize this, we will not truly understand the part evolution plays with the human being.

Certainly, there probably is much more to us than "cerbral cogitations and deductions". What I am addressing is how these processes in the brain can be shaped by different influences.
As for the American short-term perspective, I think that it is a matter of the specific evolution (or better: development; after all, evolution is not exactly a matter of a few centuries) that the settlers have made in the New World. The short-term perspective "cerebral cogitations and deductions"are connected to the specific history that happened there. I am not saying that Americans have the short-term perspective "in their genes", I'm saying that settlers have made a specific environment, in which new generations have had it in, if they wanted to survive, which then in one way or another propelled the original pattern.

Namely, settlers came into an untouched nature, carrying certain knowledge and technology with them, that did not evolve on that ground. Imagine you go backpacking on a trip into the woods: Don't you feel just cool and powerful with the tools and knowledge of handling nature that you brought with you? I'm guessing this also created a feeling of having to depend fully on oneself, without the opportunity to go for help (in Europe, you walked several miles, and there was a village, not so in the first New World). In such conditions, only short-term, practical thinking will help you to survive. Little or no time for things that don't directly pertain to bare survival. You need to be utterly practical. You cannot go to a pub to unwind, because there's none or the nearest one is many many miles away. You need to make sure that you get through the day, and that surely must have kept the first settlers busy. I mean, in the Old World in the 16th and 17th century, even though there was the everyday strife for life and the hardships, people must have felt at home somehow, there were people all around, they had a certain feeling of safety, towns, villages, it was the known world. In America, there were little groups of settlers, sorrounded by wilderness and some Indians. No towns, only little settlements. And mind you, the first settlers were mostly "simple" people, who came to the New World in despair and poverty, seeking new chances. They started a world after their own limited abilities and wishes.

Do I owe someone an apology? I thought this was about behavior rather than risk taking specifically. However, risk is not purely physical.

No, you don't owe any apologies. In the space of behaviour, the debate somehow came to the behaviour of risk taking. You pointed at non-physical risks that weren't exactly discussed yet, thank you for that. It puts another spin on the whole thing.

I believe our society in America is at risk in many way, even though the world seems to think we are high on a hill somewhere. They do not see the sorrow, despair and lonliness, of which I am aware, or the fear behind the suits and cell phones; the do's and high heels; the overt sexuality and self concerns.

I grew up with the notion that the US is a spooky country, where it is normal to lose your job over night, get evicted from your house just like that and such. Social security in Europe used to be much better than in the US (it is getting bad here too though). Europe seemed like a fairly-tale, while America was "the real life".

It is not truly a matter of being too busy, as is propogated. No, I do not think so. I think it is fear. If we carry a clip board and walk fast enough, we may convince ourselves that our lives have meaning.

I think that Americans are trying to "go home", but in the course of the centuries, they forgot where that is ... That's a gross generalization, I know -- but look at how many times Americans move during a lifetime, change jobs, partners ... This is not typical for Europe, or at least it wasn't.

We make presumptions about each other evey day of our lives.

How come? Projections? The sense for being members of the same species? Basically, it's about language -- verbal and non-verbal. And once more we land at the origin of thought ...

A more important point to me is whether evolution is taking us away from believing in a Creator, or is it our disrespect for nature and one another that make our Creator seem silent to so many.

Humans are playing god, quite preposterously, for the last few millenia. Human reason seems to be the thing that takes us away from everything else. No, correct is: the human reason that *went wild* takes us away from everything else.
Evolution of reason and disrespect for nature and one another are one and the same thing, dont' you think?

How one can relate to God without relating to nature is beyond me.

Relating to God without relating to nature is not that hard to understand after all: it suffices to say that "all there is is made by Him" and to give things names and say those names come from Him. Thus, things, whatever they are, can become secondary and unimportant. It's the Christian disapproval of this world.

My friend, I do not wish to offend, but I cannot see that it is reasonable to not believe in a Creator.

I did not say that I think it was reasonable to not believe in a "Creator". I only said that faith in a "Creator", based on reasonable reasons (those that derive from keeping the argument complete) is *not strong*. Also, I think that true faith cannot be based on a decision. Decisions are always to achieve some benefits, avoid harm, escape fear etc. So such a faith is no different than a calculated business matter.
I know for myself that I would have to decide if I would want to believe in a god or not; and I can identify several reasons for such a decision. But that's the thing: Faith cannot have a reason. It either is or it isn't. If you say "I believe in God because [name any reason]" then that's cheating yourself, and at least god too, if there is one. The only true statement, IMO, is "I believe in God because I believe in God." It's circular, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a (the only true?) statement.

In the days of Spinoza and on through the century that gave us Schopenhauer, Lord Byron, and all the others who suffered through the sad state of Europe, with many concluding that God had died

Looking at the big picture, it is understandable why they thought so: the achievements of human reason have shown their ugly side with an intensity never seen before: Pollution of environment through technology, poverty, vanity of rulers etc. There simply was too much reason (that went wild) all around, and no place for a kind and good Christian (!!) god. No wonder they thought that he must have died, or that human reason killed him.
You go to a sloughterhouse, watch how they kill a cow, and speak of a kind Christian God if you can.
The only way to preserve faith in (a Christian) god in such conditions is to become blind to the things of this world, or pity them. A philosopher cannot allow himself or herself to be willingly blind or to exercise pity. That would be preposterous.

So, I ask you, is there no room in your evoluntionary theories for God?

That's the thing: Personally, I don't believe in a "God" or a "Creator". If he is, then he must be beyond reason -- for if he is the "creator", then he also "created" reason. And therefore to name him would be an act of reason. To name is to define, to define is to limit. All this are terms of reason, but we said that reason must have been made by something other than reason, therefore reason can only give assertions of reason about this entity that "created" reason -- and thus we are still in the realm of reason, and haven't come any closer to [ ].
((Whispering: I am aware that there is something, yet I cannot say anything about it, that's why I'm whispering. Seriously, I think I would betray that by merely trying to name it or ascribe any characteristics to it. It IS, and that's perfectly enough for me. I can sense it, but if I would try to figure out what it is, I think I would betray it.)))
That's probably why I cannot relate to any explicitly religious people.

ABOUT WESMORRIS,

Yes, I know I am biased, and that many others have some same qualities as he does. But I cannot know everyone, and his posts are the most obvious I came across here for now.
It is his kind of practicality and brevity that I need right now. My mind renders me a great many offices, but also plays me huge lot of tricks, so I have to dig myself out of it somehow.
If you're reading this, Wes, then I apologize if I came across as drooling or something like that. It's nothing personal. Give me the address of your fan-club and I'll write there.

We are also emotion and spirit and feelings. These are just as real, and just as precious as our gray matter.

That's the thing. I think that reason can easily grow wild and cover up a warm heart. That's why it is so important for me to educate and know my reason, so that my reason won't meddle into things that are none of its concern.

Do you not think that we have emotions and feelings in common, fears in common, and even that disrespected thing called "hope" in common. Maybe not the same hope, but the emotion of hope, just the same.

I think we do, of course; when referring to "reason" I meant that this is the proper TOOL for discussions here. SF isn't exactly a place to exchange "Oh, you're so wonderful"-s. I mean, it is designed for people to come here to discuss certain matters, and reason is the only objective tool to do that.
It is a matter of *heartiness* though, how you put that reason to work. It can make sound and supported arguments, or spawn ad hominems, slippery slopes, hasty generalizations and all the other fallacies.

 

[water]

John Connellan,

Yes, gene propagation ultimately controls all our behaviour but as I said, nature can play its little tricks on us so most of the time it never seems like a direct affect on our behaviour. Whats wrong with that?

Tricks?! Explaining something as "playing little tricks" on us is not scientific.
Something can certainly seem like a trick to us, yet that does by no means mean that a scientist or a philosopher can simply accept it and justify it as a trick.

“ Okay. That's what your genes compell you to do.. sure. But what if your dad, the preacher, beats you every day for jesus, telling you that your pee-pee is bad and that if he catches you thinking about it he'll cut it off? I'd guess that to be at least as compelling as your urge to "get busy". ”

Thats still following your urge to pass on genes. By reacting to the immediate threat at the moment of having your pee-pee cut off, u buy yourself time to reproduce later in life. This is similar to the survival instinct we have.

Hm?! Do you really think that people who have experienced such an upbringing (and there aren't that few of them) have their instincs and the ways to exercise them intact?! Do you think that such a child has "an unhealthy surface", but "underneath he is perfectly ok" and is merely buying "himself time"?
I think I can understand the connection between avoiding to think of sex (because of the threat) and the survival instinct. Yet that doesn't mean that that child's sexual instincts are intact.
I think you need to understand that if someone had a bad childhood, that doesn't mean that he will be perfectly ok as soon as he leaves his parents' house. Genes propel us to do things, yes, but those things can be done ONLY if certain other needs are met and a certain individual environment is established.

If you are hungry and thirsty, you will not think of sex, you will first think of food and water. Only after these needs are met, it is possible that you will think of sex. You can say that your genes are propelling you to satisfy the hunger and the thirst, so that you can become fit for sex again. OK, so you can say that your genes are once more governing "all" your behavior.

Thirst and hunger are not so hard to satisfy -- but think of how hard it is to satisfy the child's needs for love, safety, respect and such. If a child grows up without that, his instincts and the power to exercise them will be damaged to some degree or other. Those people will first think of how to compensate the losses of childhood, so sex is likely not to be their priority. OK, so you can once more say that your genes are once more governing "all" your behavior. But you do have to see the complexity of this behavior.

“ And that is where I think you're wrong because of your use of the word "everything". I would agree with "much" or "a significant portion" or anything but an assertion of totality, because that's silly. ”

I used to think it was silly but not anymore.

Any assertion of totality describing a phenomenon of the real world, is simply not in place. You cannot even say that "all humans have a head", as there are human Siamese twins with two heads ... We cannot know *all* the representatives of a certain group of real world phenomena, that's why we speak about "much", "many", "a great deal of".

Remember there is more to life than just sex. Otherwise we would just have evolved into massive penises walking down the street

So why haven't you "evolved into massive penises walking down the street"?
This thread is about behavior in general and about human behavior. What some of us are trying to figure out here is what those other "Remember there is more to life than just sex."-things are and how to explain them, if possible.
*****

Is anyone still into the theories of risk taking?
If so, do respond, I think we may be on to something here. So far these forms of risk taking have been identified and partially explained:
1. Institutionalized risk taking
2. Fun - with the possibility of 1. boosting mating probabilites, 2. inadequate assessment of the situation
3. Idealistic/romantic understanding of the situation (/ possible inadequate assessment of the situation)
4. Risk taking as a means to compensate fear, and risk taking as an action of fear
It remains open why we jump and save someone from drowning, even though we are not a professional rescuer neither is the person drowning our relative our friend, and other forms of risking one's life for somebody else.

Pros and cons, thoughts, suggestions, ...?

 

[John Connellan]

John Connellan,
Tricks?! Explaining something as "playing little tricks" on us is not scientific.

I didn't want that to be necessarily scientific. I was explaining something simply.

Something can certainly seem like a trick to us, yet that does by no means mean that a scientist or a philosopher can simply accept it and justify it as a trick.

The definition of trick I was using is not the one used in magic circles!!! A trick is when someone is being deceived for a purpose. Most scientists accept that tricks of nature happen.

Hm?! Do you really think that people who have experienced such an upbringing (and there aren't that few of them) have their instincs and the ways to exercise them intact?! Do you think that such a child has "an unhealthy surface", but "underneath he is perfectly ok" and is merely buying "himself time"?

I don't really know what ur saying here or what u mean by 'unhealthy surface' and 'underneath'.

I think I can understand the connection between avoiding to think of sex (because of the threat) and the survival instinct. Yet that doesn't mean that that child's sexual instincts are intact.

Again i don't understand this but I will tell u that the child DOES have sexual instincts (as long as he is of a certain age).

I think you need to understand that if someone had a bad childhood, that doesn't mean that he will be perfectly ok as soon as he leaves his parents' house. Genes propel us to do things, yes, but those things can be done ONLY if certain other needs are met and a certain individual environment is established.

Genes are the means by which it is decided WHAT other needs are to be met. This is what I've been saying all along. This is how they control our behaviour.

If you are hungry and thirsty, you will not think of sex, you will first think of food and water. Only after these needs are met, it is possible that you will think of sex. You can say that your genes are propelling you to satisfy the hunger and the thirst, so that you can become fit for sex again. OK, so you can say that your genes are once more governing "all" your behavior.

Exactly

Thirst and hunger are not so hard to satisfy -- but think of how hard it is to satisfy the child's needs for love, safety, respect and such. If a child grows up without that, his instincts and the power to exercise them will be damaged to some degree or other. Those people will first think of how to compensate the losses of childhood, so sex is likely not to be their priority. OK, so you can once more say that your genes are once more governing "all" your behavior. But you do have to see the complexity of this behavior.

Oh I do see the complexity and that is why I am quite patient in telling everyone here my beliefs. I understand that the controlling nature of our genes is so extensive yet so well hidden by complexity, that many people will probably never believe what i think.

Any assertion of totality describing a phenomenon of the real world, is simply not in place. You cannot even say that "all humans have a head", as there are human Siamese twins with two heads ... We cannot know *all* the representatives of a certain group of real world phenomena, that's why we speak about "much", "many", "a great deal of".

Oh u can. U can say all light is made of photons or that blood is pumped through all mammals by means of a heart.

So why haven't you "evolved into massive penises walking down the street"?

Well i answered that already. Becasause there is more to life than just sex!

What some of us are trying to figure out here is what those other "Remember there is more to life than just sex."-things are and how to explain them, if possible.

No problem. If life was just about reproducing then all we would need would be a large penis and a large vagina. Other things we must do to pass on our genes however is to stay alive long enough to maximise this. Hence we need to eat (hunt) so we have developed a digestive system and limbs for locomotion. Humans in particular need to be able to think so we have developed a nervous system etc etc... A more detailed example is the need to protect offspring while they are vulnerable. This introduces the behaviour of looking after our kids for a while after they are born and we are equipped to do so.

See our goals in life are a lot more than just plain old fucking

 

[water]

John Connellan,

You are either
a) very young and have little experience with life,
b) grew up in a good family and don't have a clue about what some other people have to go through,
c) extremely short-sighted and dumb, and prone to fall for ideologies,
d) you're trying to convince people how awfully smart you are, thereby forgetting that THE DANGER OF A HIGH SPIRIT IS THE DANGER OF INCONSISTENCY,
e) you are trying to figure out a theory that absolves you from taking personal responsibilty for your actions,
f) any combination of the above.

 

[John Connellan]

I understand that this is a philosophy forum and like I stated on the first page, maybe it should have been moved long ago to biology, but can we keep this thread a little more scientific? I just hate when people cannot accept my answers and so have to start blaming me by calling me stupid and short sighted. Now I really don't want to have to get angry again so..........

 

[P. M. Thorne]

ROSA: Certainly, there probably is much more to us than "cerbral cogitations and deductions". What I am addressing is how these processes in the brain can be shaped by different influences.

.........Do you differentiate between mind and brain? Our brain is pretty much what it is, with our inherited tendencies and our general biological qualities to do with evolution, if you prefer. I see the tendencies for much of our behavior coming with birth, with the environment re-enforcing, or discouraging them.

ROSA: As for the American short-term perspective, I think that it is a matter of the specific evolution (or better: development; after all, evolution is not exactly a matter of a few centuries) that the settlers have made in the New World. The short-term perspective "cerebral cogitations and deductions"are connected to the specific history that happened there. I am not saying that Americans have the short-term perspective "in their genes", I'm saying that settlers have made a specific environment, in which new generations have had it in, if they wanted to survive, which then in one way or another propelled the original pattern.

.........I get what you mean. Moreover, the transient, poor, proud, loyal, dependable, people, as many of them were, were mostly without envy, because they accepted their lot, so to speak, and were thankful for whatever they had. Home was wherever they were. So, do you suppose that rather than Americans looking for their home, they do not feel as much of a need for permanence? Just a thought.

ROSA: Namely, settlers came into an untouched nature, carrying certain knowledge and technology with them, that did not evolve on that ground. Imagine you go backpacking on a trip into the woods: Don't you feel just cool and powerful with the tools and knowledge of handling nature that you brought with you?

...........I have never gone backpacking in my life, but I have slept in the woods, have helped make cedar posts, and have chopped stove wood with a single and double-bit axe. When I was twelve I left the house in the morning oftentimes to come back only in time for dinner. This was in the country; no stores and no visiting other than with the fish and fowls and other bitty creatures of nature, (and our dog went with me most of the time).

ROSA: I'm guessing this also created a feeling of having to depend fully on oneself, without the opportunity to go for help (in Europe, you walked several miles, and there was a village, not so in the first New World).

.........Yeah, but I doubt that they thought much about it. I remember no conversations about where to go for help. Now, that attitude certainly enhanced my conviction that all was well. I have taken off in the woods at night, when it was necessary, when I was six, and younger, without awakening anyone. Then a terrible experience took away my peace, but I know what it is like to have no fear.

ROSA: You cannot go to a pub to unwind, because there's none or the nearest one is many many miles away. ………they had a certain feeling of safety, towns, villages, it was the known world. In America, there were little groups of settlers, sorrounded by wilderness and some Indians. No towns, only little settlements. And mind you, the first settlers were mostly "simple" people, who came to the New World in despair and poverty, seeking new chances. They started a world after their own limited abilities and wishes.

..........I do not know that it was so safe in towns and villages at the time those people came to America …to build a new nation and so forth. Further, I doubt that anyone thought about unwinding at a pub. My uncles used to work 16 hours a day, sometimes 7 days a week, not for a new couch, or anything like that, but for food to go on the table. They did their own repairs, with the wives making most of the clothes, canning food, and so forth. Unwinding was done under a shade tree with some iced tea, so I am assuming that might be somewhat similar to earlier Americans. My folks got stuck somewhere in that little picturesque scenario, methinks.
ROSA: You pointed at non-physical risks that weren't exactly discussed yet, thank you for that. It puts another spin on the whole thing.

........Thank you, Rosa. That is nice to hear.

ROSA: I grew up with the notion that the US is a spooky country, where it is normal to lose your job over night, get evicted from your house just like that and such. Social security in Europe used to be much better than in the US (it is getting bad here too though). Europe seemed like a fairly-tale, while America was "the real life".

.........That is scary. Was, and is!

ROSA: I think that Americans are trying to "go home", but in the course of the centuries, they forgot where that is ...

.........I already responded to this, but I do want you to know how much I enjoyed that little concept. It expresses a lot of feeling.

ROSA: That's a gross generalization, I know -- but look at how many times Americans move during a lifetime, change jobs, partners ... This is not typical for Europe, or at least it wasn't.

……..Discontentment plays a big role. I think we, for the most part, are overly stimulated much of the time, and this makes for more movement, less contentment and so forth. I have to have my time alone. It is a must for me. I can get a general feeling of uneasiness, or maybe feeling a bit lonesome, and then I think what is going on with me, then I realize…I need time out!

ROSA: Humans are playing god, quite preposterously, for the last few millenia. Human reason seems to be the thing that takes us away from everything else. No, correct is: the human reason that *went wild* takes us away from everything else. Evolution of reason and disrespect for nature and one another are one and the same thing, dont' you think?

…….I cannot equate reason with going wild, to me that means reason has taken its leave. What has happened is an absence of reason. Passion is too often a guide for some. It is a terrible guide. The passion of power is at work in the corporations, in politics, in the media, and in education. They get their motors started and then forget to steer, perhaps they do not believe they need anything more. It feels so good climbing that ladder, baying to that crowd, sitting in front of a camera with a new story to tell. Not that I envy them, because they have to pretend so much. Another really big factor, in the America that I call my homeland, is the effect of Hollywood, models and other celebs., on our youth, together with the still-wagging tails/tales of feminists groups. (That should get a rise out of someone.)

ROSA: Relating to God without relating to nature is not that hard to understand after all: it suffices to say that "all there is made by Him" and to give things names and say those names come from Him. Thus, things, whatever they are, can become secondary and unimportant. It's the Christian disapproval of this world.

You hit the nail on the head with that one. There is more to it, many feel that it is up to them to reconstruct nature, and all of these presumptuous hunks of protoplasm are not Christians. There is too much to be said about that for me to get started, however. Shame on us.

Ah! Who are we, to have wasted?
Who are we, to have spoiled and plundered?
. . . .and God, please help me to understand.
What was the sense of, and what were your reasons
for such an honor to be -in the hands of man?​

ROSA: I did not say that I think it was reasonable to not believe in a "Creator". I only said that faith in a "Creator", based on reasonable reasons (those that derive from keeping the argument complete) is *not strong*.

……..But, I think it is. Yes, I surely do believe that it is most reasonable to believe that God is the first cause.

ROSA: Also, I think that true faith cannot be based on a decision. Decisions are always to achieve some benefits, avoid harm, escape fear etc. So such a faith is no different than a calculated business matter.

………..Uh. let me think about that. Well, there are benefits in faith, and much harm can be avoided with active faith, and perfect love casts out fear, and who would love mankind with all its weaknesses and spots, without some faith in something. However, if you were speaking specifically of faith in God, I would have to think about it more than I have.

ROSA: I know for myself that I would have to decide if I would want to believe in a god or not; and I can identify several reasons for such a decision. Faith cannot have a reason. It either is or it isn't. If you say "I believe in God because [name any reason]" then that's cheating yourself, and at least god too, if there is one. The only true statement, IMO, is "I believe in God because I believe in God." It's circular, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a (the only true?) statement.

.......A preacher once said: “The scissors of reason have clipped the wings of faith.” I hated to disagree, even in thought. It sounded so pretty, but it is not pretty! It is, FOR SURE, reasonable to have faith in THE ONE that created you! (Keep in mind that the preacjer was a believer, so why would he say that?) We believe in nothing without a reason. It may be silly, but to us it is a reason; otherwise, we would not think to believe in it. I do not trust the fear theory, either. A temporary fear of hell may prevail long enough to get someone to the altar to fill out a card, but that kind of stuff does not last.

ROSA: Looking at the big picture, it is understandable why they thought so: the achievements of human reason have shown their ugly side with an intensity never seen before: Pollution of environment through technology, poverty, vanity of rulers etc. There simply was too much reason (that went wild) all around, and no place for a kind and good Christian (!!) god. No wonder they thought that he must have died, or that human reason killed him.
……….”They sought to tempt the leaders of their day, believing that states and nations could benefit from their works. Though often ill received—in those days of so much intolerance and danger—they remained undaunted in their quests. It would seem that the pain they suffered and observed contributed to their need to hypothesize a more practical way to live.”

ROSA: You go to a sloughterhouse, watch how they kill a cow, and speak of a kind Christian God if you can. The only way to preserve faith in (a Christian) god in such conditions is to become blind to the things of this world, or pity them.

…………Slaughterhouses have nothing to do with my faith in God, no more than poverty, rape, murder and so forth. Cruelty such as there is in those slaughterhouses would not be if those men/women were truly in touch with nature. If they understood that God and nature are in some ways, at least, the same and believed that they too were a part of nature, ....wow. Jesus said, "As you do this to the least of these, you do it unto me." (paraphrased) Nature is this world, and when we destroy and neglect and hurt and think it is okay, because we are “man.” Oh boy, I would not want to face my maker after mistreating His creatures. But, is it a fear of the Almighty God that keeps me from doing it? No way! There are unseen laws, and these must be written on our hearts, or they serve us not, no matter where they are carved and posted. They are unseen; that is to say, one cannot get rid of them by destroying some man-made replicas. Nor can they be successfully promoted by forcing someone to look at them, though it could help, I suppose…beside the point.

ROSA: I think we do, of course; when referring to "reason" I meant that this is the proper TOOL for discussions here. SF isn't exactly a place to exchange "Oh, you're so wonderful"-s. I mean, it is designed for people to come here to discuss certain matters, and reason is the only objective tool to do that.

……..Not sure that I can concur, because I have not seen altogether reasonable arguments, have you? If you agree, then who is to say that speaking our hearts is not more reasonable. It is hard to turn your back, whether you agree or not, when someone is sincere and speaks from his heart.

ROSA: It is a matter of *heartiness* though, how you put that reason to work. It can make sound and supported arguments, or spawn ad hominems, slippery slopes, hasty generalizations and all the other fallacies.

.....Well, I will give you credit for seeing the fallacy on both sides.

ROSA: A philosopher cannot allow himself or herself to be willingly blind or to exercise pity. That would be preposterous.

………..You believe, do you not, that the highest form of intellect is intuition? What is more dependable than intuition? Nothing. Our intellect can fool us. Even our instincts can react unnecessarily, our beliefs can crumble, but that higher knowledge that we have worked with until it has become a part of us, that protects us without thinking, that holds us without binding, that we call intuition is the best that we have, and is definitely including in the world of philosophy. As you mentioned before, and I am afraid I tried to take away from it, but that I think about it, one can have false reason, or have a reason without being reasonable. I concede on that one.

........I probably shot myself in the foot, but it was worth it. Ow, ow, ow!

Best wishes, pmt.

 

[water]

John Connellan,

I understand that this is a philosophy forum and like I stated on the first
page, maybe it should have been moved long ago to biology, but can we keep
this thread a little more scientific? I just hate when people cannot accept
my answers and so have to start blaming me by calling me stupid and short
sighted. Now I really don't want to have to get angry again so..........

Who did ever call you stupid and short-sighted?!
Quite literally, you CHOSE to find yourself described by option c, where I listed 5+1; a and b being very reasonable. Why did you go for the bad one?!

Look, I didn't mean to offend you in any way. But in your previous post I
was just stunned by some things that you didn't seem to understand, and I
thought that must be due to your good youth and inexperience -- and I seriously thought "well, lucky John if he doesn't know such bad things". The rest of the options were there to to see what you'll do with them ... and you didn't interpret them into your favor ...
***

I'll get back to your previous post:

Yes, it has been established in this thread about a dozen times that many things we do is connected to the passing on of genes.

Most scientists accept that tricks of nature happen.

Can be. And then they explain what that "trick" is.


I said:
Hm?! Do you really think that people who have experienced such an
upbringing (and there aren't that few of them) have their instincs and the
ways to exercise them intact?! Do you think that such a child has "an
unhealthy surface", but "underneath he is perfectly ok" and is merely buying
"himself time"?

You said: I don't really know what ur saying here or what u mean by
'unhealthy surface' and 'underneath'.

The origin of this is:
Wes Morris said:
Okay. That's what your genes compell you to do.. sure. But what if your
dad, the preacher, beats you every day for jesus, telling you that your
pee-pee is bad and that if he catches you thinking about it he'll cut it
off? I'd guess that to be at least as compelling as your urge to "get
busy".

And you said:
Thats still following your urge to pass on genes. By reacting to the
immediate threat at the moment of having your pee-pee cut off, u buy
yourself time to reproduce later in life. This is similar to the survival
instinct we have.


What is that about "buying oneself time to reproduce later in life"?

Now imagine a boy being abused by his father as described above. What
attitude will he have towards sex? How will he perceive his own body? Do you really think that such a man will have his sexual instincts developed in a normal and healthy way? It is
likely that he will reject his sexual instincts, because that "lesson" that
his preacher father taught him is firmly implanted in his mind and
subconsciousness. It was exactly this what we tried to explore: why people DON'T live out their sexual instincts -- even though they are governed by their genes.


Me:
I think I can understand the connection between avoiding to think of
sex (because of the threat) and the survival instinct. Yet that doesn't mean
that that child's sexual instincts are intact.

You:
Again i don't understand this but I will tell u that the child DOES
have sexual instincts (as long as he is of a certain age).

Of course such a child has sexual instincts; I was saying that he is not
likely to exercise them (in a healthy manner) when he grows up if he had an upbringing where sex was presented as something bad.


Yes, it is ultimately the genes that make us do whatever we do in the end.
OK, but that is the same as saying that life itself propels us to be alive
and live on. So nothing new has been said really.

Oh I do see the complexity and that is why I am quite patient in telling
everyone here my beliefs. I understand that the controlling nature of our
genes is so extensive yet so well hidden by complexity, that many people
will probably never believe what i think.

Gosh, we DO BELIEVE you that genes ultimately govern our behavior! Nobody said that this is "hidden by complexity". It is just that sometimes some behaviors (suicidal, risk taking and such) don't seem to have anything to do with the propagation of genes, and such behavior we were trying to explore.

U can say all light is made of photons or that blood is pumped through all
mammals by means of a heart.

Do you know ALL kinds of light? Or are you only talking about "all kinds of light known to you"?
Some people are in hospitals, and machines are pumping their blood through
their veins, because their heart failed ...
If you want to be so exact, then you have to say things like "Blood is pumped through all *living healthy* mammals by means of a *natural* heart." A dead mammal is still a mammal, but no blood is being pumped there ...


So why haven't you "evolved into massive penises walking down the
street"?

Well i answered that already. Becasause there is more to life than just sex!

Well WHAT is that "more to life than just sex"??!!

No problem. If life was just about reproducing then all we would need would
be a large penis and a large vagina. Other things we must do to pass on our
genes however is to stay alive long enough to maximise this. Hence we need
to eat (hunt) so we have developed a digestive system and limbs for
locomotion. Humans in particular need to be able to think so we have
developed a nervous system etc etc... A more detailed example is the need to protect offspring while they are vulnerable. This introduces the behaviour
of looking after our kids for a while after they are born and we are
equipped to do so.

Yes, that has been established before already.
But it has also been established that there are behaviors that don't seem to
have anything to do with procreation, care for offspring and such.
There is suicidal behavior, risk taking, and more. And we tried to
find out whether these kinds of behavior are governed by the genes too, or
not.

See our goals in life are a lot more than just plain old fucking

Who did ever say that life was *just* about "plain old fucking"?

 

[John Connellan]

John Connellan,

Who did ever call you stupid and short-sighted?!
Quite literally, you CHOSE to find yourself described by option c, where I listed 5+1; a and b being very reasonable. Why did you go for the bad one?!

I didn't really like any of the other ones either u know!

Can be. And then they explain what that "trick" is.

And they have. And I am telling u.

What is that about "buying oneself time to reproduce later in life"?

I am explaining the reason why u would have chosen that behaviour. U do it to survive. Its another instinct. Otherwise your father will give u a mighty beating. At the moment not playing with pp might seem like the best option. Our genes cannot predict the future unfortunately.

Now imagine a boy being abused by his father as described above. What
attitude will he have towards sex? How will he perceive his own body? Do you really think that such a man will have his sexual instincts developed in a normal and healthy way? It is
likely that he will reject his sexual instincts, because that "lesson" that
his preacher father taught him is firmly implanted in his mind and
subconsciousness. It was exactly this what we tried to explore: why people DON'T live out their sexual instincts -- even though they are governed by their genes.

True, I believe the boy might be emotionally scarred for life. Why is he emotionally scarred? Because he has over-reacted to one of his instincts given to him by his genes. Another example of a flaw in our genetics. Put it this way: if every father alive were to beat his boy in the same way, only the ones who were hard-headed and went on to reproduce later in life would spread their genes and thus EVOLUTION would take place. U have to remember, I am not saying that we are evolutionarily stable as a species at the moment.

Of course such a child has sexual instincts; I was saying that he is not likely to exercise them (in a healthy manner) when he grows up if he had an upbringing where sex was presented as something bad.

He may not. Most people do not even care for passing on their genes when they're having sex. U could say that we are above that but remember: why are we having sex in the first place? Because our genes are tricking us into feeling good.

Yes, it is ultimately the genes that make us do whatever we do in the end.
OK, but that is the same as saying that life itself propels us to be alive
and live on. So nothing new has been said really.

I believe there has been something new said (to all of u anyway). That is that because genes ultimately govern behaviour (as u say - thank you ), this means that behaviour should be related directly, or indirectly, to gene propogation. This, I believe, is all genes care about.

Gosh, we DO BELIEVE you that genes ultimately govern our behavior! Nobody said that this is "hidden by complexity". It is just that sometimes some behaviors (suicidal, risk taking and such) don't seem to have anything to do with the propagation of genes, and such behavior we were trying to explore.

I have explained these behaviours before. U should really do a bit of back reading. Most of them are on the first page of this thread.

Do you know ALL kinds of light? Or are you only talking about "all kinds of light known to you"?

There is only one kind of light as far as Im concerned. That light is composed of photons.

Some people are in hospitals, and machines are pumping their blood through
their veins, because their heart failed ...

My saying is still right so don't try to correct me. P.S. Im usually very careful and rarely lose at these games Now back to the topic...........

And we tried to
find out whether these kinds of behavior are governed by the genes too, or
not.

We didn't TRY!!! I already just told this thread before about how these can fit inside my theory quite well.

Who did ever say that life was *just* about "plain old fucking"?

I think a lot of people on this thread have somehow twisted my opinions into that.

 

[wesmorris]

What is that about "buying oneself time to reproduce later in life"?

I believe it's a crock of shit, that's what about it. The boy behaves to protect his pee pee, that being his sole motivation - avoidance of pain. That is what becomes the motivation for his behavior.

Okay wait let me try something else:

He's "trying to get into Kevin Bacon's pants", der. Obviously he's just going to do whatever he can so that he's got a shot of Kevin Bacon, and we all know that Kevin Bacon doesn't like whiny "daddy's gonna cut my pee-pee off" kind of boys, so obviously so he's got to learn to adjust to it you know.

Yeah I think I can swing that. Yeah okay so let's take our counter-examples and put them in terms of some sexual fantasy, or admiration of acting skills for Kevin Bacon.

LOL. Yeah okay well we don't have to, it just sounded fun for a minute. I think it will get old fast.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/bookauth/eow1.htm

 

[wesmorris]

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/bookauth/eow1.htm

That dude is amazing, but I don't think he really understands mind and that free will is in the moment. That or I don't understand it.

Regardless I like Edward O. Wilson, so thanks for the link.

 

[water]

PMT,

Do you differentiate between mind and brain?

Let's say that brain is the "machine", and "mind" is when this machine is running.

Moreover, the transient, poor, proud, loyal, dependable, people, as many of them were, were mostly without envy, because they accepted their lot, so to speak, and were thankful for whatever they had. Home was wherever they were.

That's discussable. And a bit romantic. We cannot know what they were like, whether they were "transient, poor, proud, loyal, dependable, people, as many of them were, were mostly without envy, because they accepted their lot, so to speak, and were thankful for whatever they had."

So, do you suppose that rather than Americans looking for their home, they do not feel as much of a need for permanence?

Why wouldn't they feel a need for permanence? This is what I was trying to find out. After all, home is one kind of permanence.

"Namely, settlers came into an untouched nature, carrying certain knowledge and technology with them, that did not evolve on that ground. Imagine you go backpacking on a trip into the woods: Don't you feel just cool and powerful with the tools and knowledge of handling nature that you brought with you?"
OK, what I was trying to say is that the New World must had been as strange to them as coming to the Moon would be for us.

Then a terrible experience took away my peace, but I know what it is like to have no fear.

That must be dreadful to have *no* fear! Do you know the film Fearless with Jeff Bridgess? I don't think there is such a state of no fear; but I do know, from my personal experience, that one can feel as if one had no fear -- because one is so full of fear, that that fear consumed the ability to feel fear, and as a result, one feels fearless. Bold, yet strangely uptight all the time ... If you don't know that film -- it's really worth seeing.

ROSA: You cannot go to a pub to unwind, because there's none or the nearest one is many many miles away. ... they had a certain feeling of safety, towns, villages, it was the known world. In America, there were little groups of settlers, sorrounded by wilderness and some Indians. No towns, only little settlements. And mind you, the first settlers were mostly "simple" people, who came to the New World in despair and poverty, seeking new chances. They started a world after their own limited abilities and wishes.

I think there was a misunderstanding: I said that they *couldn't* feel safe, because there were no towns and villages in the New World. It was nothing like what they were used to in the Old World. Who wouldn't feel at least a bit unsafe?

What do you think this work, work, work did to those people who first came to America?

All work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy ... No pun intended, but it's true.

Discontentment plays a big role. I think we, for the most part, are overly stimulated much of the time, and this makes for more movement, less contentment and so forth.

Where does this discontentment come from? Whence the too much stimulation?

"Too much watchin' television got me chasin' dreams ..."??
>>"It is a terrible guide. The passion of power is at work in the corporations, in politics, in the media, and in education. They get their motors started and then forget to steer, perhaps they do not believe they need anything more. It feels so good climbing that ladder, baying to that crowd, sitting in front of a camera with a new story to tell. Not that I envy them, because they have to pretend so much. Another really big factor, in the America that I call my homeland, is the effect of Hollywood, models and other celebs., on our youth, together with the still-wagging tails/tales of feminists groups."


As for reason, I already explained my point on this in thread about meaning of life.

"Passion is too often a guide for some." What passion? Maybe the passion to explain everything with logics? I call that reason gone wild, the passion of reason.
Only if you stick to logics, only then it feels ok to merge companies and lose thousands of jobs, for example. Only if you stick to formal logics can it feel ok to say that abortion is perfectly ok. Formal logics doesn't say anything about any values, it cannot.
For example, this was in the state of Washington, in the 70ies, I think (I can look up that National Geographic if you want detailed info), there was a site where they produced uranium for nukes. There were leaks in the walls of those factories, and employed scientists there have detected that radioactive matter reached the river water. They wrote that into their reports. Yet they did not inform any authorities about that, because the rules and regulations they sticked to said nothing about informing anyone. They just had to make a report. This is where their *ethics* should have jumped in -- but ethics is not scientific, so they ignored it. The case was quite loud, when it all came out some years back.

Yes, I surely do believe that it is most reasonable to believe that God is the first cause.

It's still a misunderstanding. I am saying that I believe in a Creator only inasmuch as I can neither prove that he is, nor prove that he isn't.

It's like this: Do you believe in pink elephants? You have never seen them. You know that your knowledge and experience are limited, so it may just very well be that somewhere there are pretty pink elephants, without you knowing about them. And because you know that your knowledge and experience are limited, you accept that *it is possible* that there are pink elephants. So you believe that they *can* be somewhere. But that belief of yours simply isn't very strong. It is there, but it's not strong, it's abstract somehow. Same goes for me and a Creator.

Well, there are benefits in faith, and much harm can be avoided with active faith, and perfect love casts out fear, and who would love mankind with all its weaknesses and spots, without some faith in something.

Why wouldn't you love them just as they are? There's no need to have faith in something in order to be able to love mankind. And why call that "weaknesses and spots" -- are they supposed to live up to some ideals??!
Would they first have to prove to be worthy of your love?
And if they cannot prove it, if they are "weak" and bespotted, will you pity them for that?!
We are the way we are, and saying that you love someone "inspite of his weaknesses and spots" is a lot of Christian crap. It's saying that you really wish this person to be someone else!
You either love someone or you don't. There's no "inspite's" and "but's" in love.

Faith ... that's just one big noble cop-out. Why not be humble and modest, at the risk of being politically incorrect though, and instead of "faith" say something like "the success of that thing depends on my work and some factors I cannot influence" ?

What "scissors of reason"?! Reason per se, the principles of argumentation and syllogisms, is neither good nor bad; it's a tool. It all depends on how you use it. With a needle, I can sow a nice dress, or I can poke someone in the eye.
When I was talking about "reason gone wild" I was refering mostly to the fact that human reason is a mighty tool, it can do a lot of things. And humans fell for that admiration of their own reason and the things it can do.
But just because you can do something with a certain tool, that doesn't mean that you should or must do it too.

"They sought to tempt the leaders of their day, believing that states and nations could benefit from their works. ..." Who is this from?

Cruelty such as there is in those slaughterhouses would not be if those men/women were truly in touch with nature.

Do you really think that there is a "humane" way to kill a creature??

Nature is this world, and when we destroy and neglect and hurt and think it is okay, because we are 'man.'

It would be suicidal nowadays to not act as 'man'. If nowadays you don't live in a warm house, drive a car, wash yourself with shampoo, eat, get vaccinated, use computers and soooo on, you are seriously reducing your chances of survival in this world.

All I wish is that people would see that and stop moaning, and for crying out loud, stop saying that "they want to be in touch with nature". It's a lot of neo-bourgeoisie BS. Yeah right, they want to be in touch with nature, but *on their terms.* We'll go camping, take all supplies with us, a portable bathroom, mosquito nets, warm blankets, a TV, some other stuff so that we won't get bored, and be in touch with nature. BS.

Not sure that I can concur, because I have not seen altogether reasonable arguments, have you?

Just because there aren't that many "reasonable arguments" (as far as syllogisms go, "reason" has been discussed above), that doesn't mean that they cannot be found here.

Reason, if working properly, does not spawn fallacies. Fallacies (of reason)come when someone is trying to prove something that is *not* a matter of formal logics and syllogism by means of formal logics and syllogism.

Like when Bush said "He that is not against us, is with us." and suddenly had 130 allied countries or so.
Matthew 12:30 states "He that is not with me is against me."
Bush took *for granted* that everyone believed in Matthew 12:30, then used some logics to turn that statement into the other form. Technically, there's nothing wrong with that -- except that *not everyone believes in Matthew 12:30.* First he committed an argumentum ad populum, and then made a false dichotomy due to it.

If you agree, then who is to say that speaking our hearts is not more reasonable. It is hard to turn your back, whether you agree or not, when someone is sincere and speaks from his heart.

What is speaking "our hearts"?! When Bush said what he said, he definitely was sincere, he meant every word he said. But does that mean that he made a good argument?!
If I tell you that I love flowers and stuff (to make this shorter), yes, you may easily think that it comes from the heart, and I mean it from the bottom of my heart. But what can we do then with that info on me liking flowers? Not much ...

You believe, do you not, that the highest form of intellect is intuition? What is more dependable than intuition? Nothing. Our intellect can fool us. Even our instincts can react unnecessarily, our beliefs can crumble, but that higher knowledge that we have worked with ...

Why so complicated? Take reason as the tool for syllogisms. What the content of these syllogisms is, that is another issue.
That content depends on experience, knowledge, luck, who knows what else. That's something that can be interpersonally verified, or not.
If there are contents we didn't know, and have made former premisses without them -- well, then we'll update our thoughts and our arguments after we learn those new contents. Yes, that is what my intuition tells me: when new knowledge comes, you should update.

 

[water]

He's "trying to get into Kevin Bacon's pants", ...

What the hell is all that about Kevin Bacon? Am I missing something?!
In the film Sleepers, Kevin Bacon played a guard at a youth correctional home, where he and some of his companions were raping boys. It was not a nice sight, to put it mildly, even though the film itself was still a bit romantic.

Your joke is a heartbreaker.

 

[wesmorris]

What the hell is all that about Kevin Bacon? Am I missing something?!
In the film Sleepers, Kevin Bacon played a guard at a youth correctional home, where he and some of his companions were raping boys. It was not a nice sight, to put it mildly, even though the film itself was still a bit romantic.

Your joke is a heartbreaker.

"I could probably traced everything back to kevin bacon too... but do you think that means that kevin bacon rules? It is quite possible that I could trace everything back to taco bell too. Maybe I could trace everything back to the color blue, or coal."

We could try coal instead if you'd prefer.

The bit about Bacon is a lil jokish play on "the six degrees of kevin bacon". Maybe that annoying craze never took on in Europe. Here, about 6 years ago, it was sick.

 

[water]

Wes,

I noticed when you first said that you could probably trace everything back to KB, but shoot, I didn't know that about the KB play ... (American stuff is kinda dilluted here, plus I wouldn't know much about it, I ate only one cheesburger in my life and some sort of pie, and that's my knowledge of American specific things.) That film I mentioned was on tv a short while ago, so I was still under the impression of it.

Yeah, let's trace everything back to coal, or no, what's that word ... goal, geel, geels, ... geens ... genes, yes! Duh.