|
On January 31 2008 08:55 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2008 07:47 FieryBalrog wrote:
Similar things have been tried in the 20th century. Much of the greatest tragedy was trying to bend human nature and external nature to cultural whims. The Great Revolution, the Year Zero of Cambodia, etc.
What the fuck seriously ? what totalitarisms have to do with culture / genes ? If totalitarisms didnt worked it was because people enjoy freedom ( oh for sure it is because of DNA -.-). You are also describing a kind of totalitarism with your DNA / genes stuff, you deny ppl free will: - you love your family because of your genes. If you dont like your family it is because of your gene too ( obviously ). - you are ( not ) good at school because of your genes - you are posting on tl because of your genes - bablbalbblalbalblalbla because of your genes What a wonderful ideology. Heil DNA ! Sry if i'm Bm/stupid/whatever you want it is because of my genes  edit: after reflexion i understand your idea. And as a nice guy ( because of my genes ) i will tell an ever better idea. Your social behaviour isnt related to your genes but to atoms because we are all made of atoms and even genes are made of atoms ! I deserve a Nobel prize.
I'm not sure if its the language barrier or what, but I get the feeling that I'm just talking past you.
|
On January 31 2008 08:55 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2008 07:47 FieryBalrog wrote:
Similar things have been tried in the 20th century. Much of the greatest tragedy was trying to bend human nature and external nature to cultural whims. The Great Revolution, the Year Zero of Cambodia, etc.
What the fuck seriously ? what totalitarisms have to do with culture / genes ? If totalitarisms didnt worked it was because people enjoy freedom ( oh for sure it is because of DNA -.-). You are also describing a kind of totalitarism with your DNA / genes stuff, you deny ppl free will: - you love your family because of your genes. If you dont like your family it is because of your gene too ( obviously ). - you are ( not ) good at school because of your genes - you are posting on tl because of your genes - bablbalbblalbalblalbla because of your genes What a wonderful ideology. Heil DNA ! Sry if i'm Bm/stupid/whatever you want it is because of my genes edit: after reflexion i understand your idea. And as a nice guy ( because of my genes ) i will tell an ever better idea. Your social behaviour isnt related to your genes but to atoms because we are all made of atoms and even genes are made of atoms ! I deserve a Nobel prize.
Dude... seriously. Nobody is saying that genes are directly responsible to our behavior, but they undeniably influence it.
Stop being willfully ignorant of other people's arguments simply so you can continue to argue you own.
|
On January 31 2008 09:24 Alethios wrote:
Dude... seriously. Nobody is saying that genes are directly responsible to our behavior.
I think that's what Fiercy is saying:
On January 31 2008 07:47 FieryBalrog wrote:
Why DO you love your family? Whatever the reason its, it wasn't your decision, so I don't even see why you would get upset if it was deeply rooted in genetics (which it obviously is).
On January 31 2008 09:24 Alethios wrote:
Stop being willfully ignorant of other people's arguments simply so you can continue to argue you own.
Hey everyone started to flame me because i said that imo culture and education >>> genes regarding behaviour.
I m not convinced by fiercy's arguments because there are so much weird things about human behaviour that genes alone cant explain ( suicide, sadomasochism, friendship and so on ).
Fiercy ignores free will so much that it makes me mad.
his argument is:
"we are made of DNA so your behaviour is related to genes". Big News !
He ignores human culture which is a product of your mind, and takes a way more important part in our behaviour than you think.
Why ppl tastes change so much between different societies and eras ?
example:
Definition of beauty nowadays in western society:
Definition of beauty in western society during the 18 century:
How can genes explain it ? :D
|
Boblion, I think that yes, people are flaming you because it appears that you're saying:
"The effects of other factors are much much greater than the effects of genes on human behavior."
Because they're bringing up examples in which the effects of genes on behavior are shown to be comparable, if not greater than the effects of other factors. And you're ignoring them.
Pointing out the exception will not prove your point. Certain specific behaviors have been conclusively shown to be hard-coded by genes. Anyone here know which study it was that showed that genes hard-code for certain behaviors in bees? (or was it ants? wasps?)
"Abnormal" behaviors such as those that you pointed out can possibly be attributed to genetic mutations, which may or may not prove to be advantageous. If it is advantageous enough to make such behavior mainstream sometime down the line, I'll betcha that the behavior will no longer be seen as amoral or even strange. (Suicide, I think, will never reach that status, due to the effects of the behavior.)
|
Sorry bottleAbuser but i cant agree with it. How can human behavior hard-coded by genes ...
Human behavior is the product of the interaction of your neurons and synapses. DNA and Genes take a less important part ( ok there are DNA in each of your neurons but still, it isnt the DNA which thinks but your brain ).
Moreover you are saying that sadomasochists ( they have abnormal behavior ) are mutants ? Seriously LOL
|
United States22883 Posts
What is "behavior" to you? Emotions? Desires? Actions?
|
Well i guess that behavior is both Feelings / Actions.
|
On January 31 2008 09:46 Boblion wrote:example: Definition of beauty nowadays in western society: Definition of beauty in western society during the 18 century: How can genes explain it ? :D
And yet is there any society in which a fat woman with bad skin would be considered sexually attractive by most men? HMMMMMMMmm why not, what is this mysterious constraint upon cultural modification of human behavior and standards?
Why do human males find symmetrical features, clear skin, youth, and a wide hips to waist ratio attractive in women around the world across all these different cultures? The answer lies in sexual selective pressures exerted upon humans during our evolutionary history...
On January 31 2008 10:24 Boblion wrote:
Sorry bottleAbuser but i cant agree with it. How can human behavior hard-coded by genes ...
Human behavior is the product of the interaction of your neurons and synapses. DNA and Genes take a less important part ( ok there are DNA in each of your neurons but still, it isnt the DNA which thinks but your brain ).
Moreover you are saying that sadomasochists ( they have abnormal behavior ) are mutants ? Seriously LOL
Dear me, how do you think the neurons and synapses are formed and organized? Why are human brains mostly similar in organization? This is basic stuff here...
|
Okay, let's stop laughing here long enough to pretend that some arguments won't go away because you're laughing at them.
It's been shown that certain behaviors in bees disappear when corresponding genes are not there, and reappear when the genes are re-introduced. I'm sorry that I don't have the citation here, but if I remember correctly the study was mentioned in The Blind Watchmaker (book).
Now, we can accept that it's possible for a gene to code for a behavior, right? It would be overly simplistic to say that all behaviors are coded for by genes, but it's possible that at least some are.
Then, it's possible that sadomasochism is coded for by genes. I offered it as a possibility, I'm not asserting it as fact. I actually think it's more complicated than just genes, or a combination of genes. However, they could be a very important factor.
Let's make a computer analogy, because I like computers. We'll pretend genes decide the hardware, and the environment decides the software. Simplistic, but it'll stand for our purposes. So, the genes decide how fast we are, how much memory we have, maybe how "smart" we are, how fat we are, whatever.
The environment decides how we treat different inputs and respond to them. OK so far?
Now, let's say two computers of the same model have different web browsers. This would be analogous to identical twins raised in different environments. Both of them go to the same website, the acid test, and.... they display different looking websites. Different behavior, even though they have identical hardware! I guess you're right that the environment matters much more!
No, wait. Let's hook up two primitive PDAs with ported versions of the web browsers we just used. Oops! How come it doesn't show anything? I guess the PDA hardware isn't capable of dealing with the pictures in the website. Does this mean that hardware, after all, does play a big role?
/end computer analogy
In the end, unless you subscribe to some form of creationism, we are all mutants. We usually describe organisms with NEWLY (with respect to the majority of whatever population we're talking about) mutated genes as mutants, though.
|
I find it hard to accept a definition of "behavior" that is subjective. Feelings are subjective. You can't measure them. Actions, like standing up, crying, smiling, lifting a hand, attacking someone (without implying anything about the intent), falling down, closing one's eyes... that is behavior. That can be observed, measured.
I guess you could argue that with sophisticated enough technology, we could measure feelings and thoughts, because they are just different labels for different forms of brain activity. However, it would be erroneous to say that we are observing behavior by gathering a person's reports on his thoughts or feelings, unless we are talking about the person's act of reporting.
|
On January 31 2008 13:12 BottleAbuser wrote:Okay, let's stop laughing here long enough to pretend that some arguments won't go away because you're laughing at them. It's been shown that certain behaviors in bees disappear when corresponding genes are not there, and reappear when the genes are re-introduced. I'm sorry that I don't have the citation here, but if I remember correctly the study was mentioned in The Blind Watchmaker (book). Now, we can accept that it's possible for a gene to code for a behavior, right? It would be overly simplistic to say that all behaviors are coded for by genes, but it's possible that at least some are. Then, it's possible that sadomasochism is coded for by genes. I offered it as a possibility, I'm not asserting it as fact. I actually think it's more complicated than just genes, or a combination of genes. However, they could be a very important factor. Let's make a computer analogy, because I like computers. We'll pretend genes decide the hardware, and the environment decides the software. Simplistic, but it'll stand for our purposes. So, the genes decide how fast we are, how much memory we have, maybe how "smart" we are, how fat we are, whatever. The environment decides how we treat different inputs and respond to them. OK so far? Now, let's say two computers of the same model have different web browsers. This would be analogous to identical twins raised in different environments. Both of them go to the same website, the acid test, and.... they display different looking websites. Different behavior, even though they have identical hardware! I guess you're right that the environment matters much more! No, wait. Let's hook up two primitive PDAs with ported versions of the web browsers we just used. Oops! How come it doesn't show anything? I guess the PDA hardware isn't capable of dealing with the pictures in the website. Does this mean that hardware, after all, does play a big role? /end computer analogy In the end, unless you subscribe to some form of creationism, we are all mutants. We usually describe organisms with NEWLY (with respect to the majority of whatever population we're talking about) mutated genes as mutants, though.
Genes provide both hardware and a basic software in your analogy. We come in built with the ability to process visuals, speak and process language, fear of heights, fear or loud noises, suckling, these are all behaviors, that will arise automatically in any normal development. Environment is more like input that modifies which behaviors actually manifest, and is a little more complicated in that in the early years especially environmental and social inputs may modify the software itself.
However, observational evidence from cultures all over the world alone is enough for it to be clear that genes constrain and direct behavior in certain ways, because cultural ideas that run too far contrary to what humans will biologically accept do not catch on (or, sometimes if they do catch on, lead to societal failure) and also environments (including social environment) that are too far contrary to our biology lead to stress and poor health.
|
Eh, it's irritating for me to see people quote long posts on the same page, but I guess it's part of TL culture (I'm seeing it everywhere).
I guess you could say that hardware does have built-in stuff to do very very basic stuff by itself, like the control logic of a CPU. But I won't try too hard to defend a throwaway analogy.
My point is that the statement "environment >> genes" is false, not that "genes >> environment" is true.
|
On January 31 2008 11:44 FieryBalrog wrote:
And yet is there any society in which a fat woman with bad skin would be considered sexually attractive by most men? HMMMMMMMmm why not, what is this mysterious constraint upon cultural modification of human behavior and standards?
Why do human males find symmetrical features, clear skin, youth, and a wide hips to waist ratio attractive in women around the world across all these different cultures? The answer lies in sexual selective pressures exerted upon humans during our evolutionary history...
I guess that you dont know that "beautiful" women of the 18 centrury were quite fat, too bad.
Btw you should real this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty
Yea there is a correlation hips/waist and ratio and sexual attractivity. But it isnt HARD FACTS it is a correlation. Some people like small women whereas some dont.
You seem to totally ignore the subjectivity of tastes.
On January 31 2008 11:44 FieryBalrog wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 31 2008 10:24 Boblion wrote:
Sorry bottleAbuser but i cant agree with it. How can human behavior hard-coded by genes ...
Human behavior is the product of the interaction of your neurons and synapses. DNA and Genes take a less important part ( ok there are DNA in each of your neurons but still, it isnt the DNA which thinks but your brain ).
Moreover you are saying that sadomasochists ( they have abnormal behavior ) are mutants ? Seriously LOL Dear me, how do you think the neurons and synapses are formed and organized? Why are human brains mostly similar in organization? This is basic stuff here...
Yea DNA and genes make us human beings. Yea this is why we have all a brain with a parietal, frontal lobes and so on.
But you totally ignore that the interactions with your environnement mould your brain and the organization of your neurons.
For example: http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2005/01/blind_people_can_use.html
On January 31 2008 13:12 BottleAbuser wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Okay, let's stop laughing here long enough to pretend that some arguments won't go away because you're laughing at them. It's been shown that certain behaviors in bees disappear when corresponding genes are not there, and reappear when the genes are re-introduced. I'm sorry that I don't have the citation here, but if I remember correctly the study was mentioned in The Blind Watchmaker (book). Now, we can accept that it's possible for a gene to code for a behavior, right? It would be overly simplistic to say that all behaviors are coded for by genes, but it's possible that at least some are. Then, it's possible that sadomasochism is coded for by genes. I offered it as a possibility, I'm not asserting it as fact. I actually think it's more complicated than just genes, or a combination of genes. However, they could be a very important factor. Let's make a computer analogy, because I like computers. We'll pretend genes decide the hardware, and the environment decides the software. Simplistic, but it'll stand for our purposes. So, the genes decide how fast we are, how much memory we have, maybe how "smart" we are, how fat we are, whatever. The environment decides how we treat different inputs and respond to them. OK so far? Now, let's say two computers of the same model have different web browsers. This would be analogous to identical twins raised in different environments. Both of them go to the same website, the acid test, and.... they display different looking websites. Different behavior, even though they have identical hardware! I guess you're right that the environment matters much more! No, wait. Let's hook up two primitive PDAs with ported versions of the web browsers we just used. Oops! How come it doesn't show anything? I guess the PDA hardware isn't capable of dealing with the pictures in the website. Does this mean that hardware, after all, does play a big role? /end computer analogy In the end, unless you subscribe to some form of creationism, we are all mutants. We usually describe organisms with NEWLY (with respect to the majority of whatever population we're talking about) mutated genes as mutants, though.
Once again it is a reducing analogy. You compare human beings to computers and bees... Nevertheless i agree with you, some genes might be factors. But i still think that culture and education are usually more important because we are way more complex than a comptuter, we can create concepts and those concepts can have an influence on us ( ethics for example ). Computer and animals havent religions or feelings.
Btw your last statement is somewhat frightening. I mean, gays are mutants ? Seriously i know that evolution is related to mutations but you overestimate genes part in a phenomenom ( human behaviour ) which is the most complex thing on earth.
How can you explain friendship ? SUicide ? Homosexuality ? A "wild" human with his bare genes cant undertand those behaviours, because they are cultural/free will constructions.
On January 31 2008 13:17 BottleAbuser wrote:
I find it hard to accept a definition of "behavior" that is subjective. Feelings are subjective. You can't measure them. Actions, like standing up, crying, smiling, lifting a hand, attacking someone (without implying anything about the intent), falling down, closing one's eyes... that is behavior. That can be observed, measured.
I guess you could argue that with sophisticated enough technology, we could measure feelings and thoughts, because they are just different labels for different forms of brain activity. However, it would be erroneous to say that we are observing behavior by gathering a person's reports on his thoughts or feelings, unless we are talking about the person's act of reporting.
What i want to say is that human are so versatile/impredictable that you cant say human behavior = genes.
I agree with your second statement 
On January 31 2008 14:17 FieryBalrog wrote:
Genes provide both hardware and a basic software in your analogy. We come in built with the ability to process visuals, speak and process language, fear of heights, fear or loud noises, suckling, these are all behaviors, that will arise automatically in any normal development. Environment is more like input that modifies which behaviors actually manifest, and is a little more complicated in that in the early years especially environmental and social inputs may modify the software itself.
However, observational evidence from cultures all over the world alone is enough for it to be clear that genes constrain and direct behavior in certain ways, because cultural ideas that run too far contrary to what humans will biologically accept do not catch on (or, sometimes if they do catch on, lead to societal failure) and also environments (including social environment) that are too far contrary to our biology lead to stress and poor health.
1- This is only an analogy  Because there will always be "abnormal" people.
2- Nevertheless i agree with you when we have an genetic instinct of self-preservation. But contrarily to animals and computer human have free will. So they can suicide and free will can prevail over genes ( sry )
- Cultures can fail not because of people genes but because of their ideas ... I mean why some people are able to live in a monastery or a couvent ? Is it because of genes ?
Totalitarisms failed because they deprived people of their free-will and usually human beings cant stand it.
|
Boblion, you have selective reading comprehension, or you're just skimming my posts maybe?
Everyone's a mutant. Unless, as I said, you believe in some sort of intelligent design theory. Do you? The rest of this argument is pointless if we can't agree on the mechanism for the process by which life was created.
And yes, that makes gays mutants. Homosexuals fall inside the group of "everyone."
Animals don't have feelings? Never mind that humans are also animals, I'll assume you're talking about "animals other than humans." I have feelings; I know that, because I feel them. Do you have feelings? I don't know for certain; there's no way for you to prove it to me. However, you appear to have feelings, so I'll assume you do have them. Do animals have feelings? They certainly seem to have feelings to me. They cry when they hurt, they smile and play when they're happy. From my perspective, other animals have feelings just as much as you do.
Oh yeah, nonhuman animals have been observed to commit suicide (with probable intent to suicide, not accidental).
These "abnormal" people you speak of. Is this "abnormal" tag more politically correct than "mutant"? At least "mutant" has an objective definition, "abnormal" you can place on anyone you don't like and it will fit the definition.
And "friendship" has been shown to be advantageous for individuals who choose to display that particular behavior. You don't need anything special or even intelligent to choose cooperation, just enough diversity in (perhaps randomly determined) behavior for the advantages to show themselves in terms of reproductive success.
Totalitarianisms have failed because the people couldn't stand it? Source, please. Every non-contemporary government has failed (by definition). These include democracies and republics. Why have those failed? Because people couldn't stand being part of their own government?
And yes, there are behaviors that can't be explained by genes alone. As I said in my previous post, I'm not trying to assert "genes >> environment," (or genes = behavior, dunno where you got that idea) I'm disputing the statement that "environment >> genes." Have I done so effectively?
|
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote:
Boblion, you have selective reading comprehension, or you're just skimming my posts maybe?
???? I quoted you several times. I made answers.
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote:
Everyone's a mutant. Unless, as I said, you believe in some sort of intelligent design theory. Do you?
Everyone has a different DNA because of evolution ( darwinism selection ) + random mutations.
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote:
The rest of this argument is pointless if we can't agree on the mechanism for the process by which life was created.
I agree.
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote:
And yes, that makes gays mutants. Homosexuals fall inside the group of "everyone."
People havent the same DNA. Big News. I think that environment / education/ culture take a part atleast as important than DNA in this kind of behaviour. There are only correlations between some genes and homosexuality, period. There are people who have the same genes but who arent gays. When you talk to a gay you say " sry i cant understand your feelings/sexual tastes because you havent the same genes than me " ?
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote:
Animals don't have feelings? Never mind that humans are also animals, I'll assume you're talking about "animals other than humans."
My statement was that both you and fiercybalrog neglige the fact that human beings arent like others animals. They are way more complex, and they are able to " think", to create concepts, to have culture and to INTERACT with it.
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote:
I have feelings; I know that, because I feel them. Do you have feelings? I don't know for certain; there's no way for you to prove it to me.
WOW you use of "methodological skepticism". But it doesnt surprise me. You are such a reductive adept of mechanism that Descartes would be proud of you.
This guy tried to make a robot duck 
( i give a lot of credit to Descartes, but he is a man of the 17 century ).
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote:
However, you appear to have feelings, so I'll assume you do have them. Do animals have feelings? They certainly seem to have feelings to me. They cry when they hurt, they smile and play when they're happy. From my perspective, other animals have feelings just as much as you do.
SRY i dont care of your perspective, maybe animals have feelings ( i dont know ) but Animals have religions ? Animals have schools ??? Animals make art ? ????
OPEN YOUR EYES !!! Humans WONT EVER BE LIKE OTHER ANIMALS ! We are on another level.
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote:
Oh yeah, nonhuman animals have been observed to commit suicide (with probable intent to suicide, not accidental).
Facts please.
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote:
These "abnormal" people you speak of. Is this "abnormal" tag more politically correct than "mutant"? At least "mutant" has an objective definition, "abnormal" you can place on anyone you don't like and it will fit the definition.
Pure ideology ... Explaining differences of behaviour solely because of genetics is reductive/disgusting.
I have a different idea than you so it is because of my genes too, because i'm a "mutant" ?
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote:
And "friendship" has been shown to be advantageous for individuals who choose to display that particular behavior. You don't need anything special or even intelligent to choose cooperation, just enough diversity in (perhaps randomly determined) behavior for the advantages to show themselves in terms of reproductive success.
So reductive again ... You "choose" your friends randomly ? You dont choose them because they have the same ideas/tastes ( culture concepts ) than you ? Because they are interesting /cool people ?
Btw, I dont choose my friends because they can be "advantageous" but because i like them.
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote:
Totalitarianisms have failed because the people couldn't stand it? Source, please.
Open your eyes: URSS, Romania,...
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote:
Every non-contemporary government has failed (by definition). Because people couldn't stand being part of their own government?
I guess that your definition of "failed" isnt the same than mine.
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote:
These include democracies and republics. Why have those failed?
-.-
Because of wars, or coup d'état/putsch.
On February 01 2008 10:39 BottleAbuser wrote:
And yes, there are behaviors that can't be explained by genes alone. As I said in my previous post, I'm not trying to assert "genes >> environment," (or genes = behavior, dunno where you got that idea) I'm disputing the statement that "environment >> genes." Have I done so effectively?
I think that Culture/education/free will >>>> genes. You dont think so. I'm not convinced by your statements and I wont change my opinion, sry.
|
I read this thread somewhat quickly, mainly because it seems to have gone way off-topic.
I just want to thank the guy for this blog and its mission, to help clear up some common misconceptions about atheism and evolution, so that theists and the like can at least have a more informed faith, one that has gone through a trial by fire. And if they change their faith in the process, it must be for the good, unless we want to admit that dishonest, willful ignorance is the way to go.
I don't think where this thread/blog has gone is productive in regards to the stated goals here. Maybe it will make future installments less vulnerable to these tangents and inform the whole process in the long run. But because of all these tangents, this project is changed and basically a "fail" because none of the people with "common misconceptions" are going to read 10% of what has been posted in this thread.
That being said, the level of discussion here is decent for TL because we have several educated, clashing, know-it-all-never-wrongs. Whoever has anything to learn from this clashing, they must be lurking, because I don't see anyone else ready to give an inch and learn something, except maybe the original post's author.
IMO Boblion has something to learn from those he is trying to dismiss, defeat, and ridicule. His earlier posts show the problem especially. This has just become another internet argument instead of people trying to see what they can learn from eachother and teach eachother, and I think his approach to this thread is the major part of this problem.
|
On February 02 2008 00:14 lugggy wrote:
IMO Boblion has something to learn from those he is trying to dismiss, defeat, and ridicule. His earlier posts show the problem especially. This has just become another internet argument instead of people trying to see what they can learn from eachother and teach eachother, and I think his approach to this thread is the major part of this problem.
Yea, i know that my English prose isnt really good, and i'm really sry if i look agressive or stupid.
Nevertheless i made a post on this blog because Alethios statement was:
On January 30 2008 15:00 Alethios wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
From an evolutionary standpoint, if we practice behaviors that benefit ourselves, genes that underpin those tendencies are more likely to be passed on, thus increasing the prevalence of that behavior type. For humans, we are undoubtedly social creatures with the ability to communicate and work together. When we work together, our abilities transcend those of us working alone. We assign roles, we carry them out and suddenly we have an aqueduct or a system where each member of a group is forfiling a different vital role. The benefit for everybody is clear. Whats more, it is a rational response on reflection of the achievements to continue the behavior that has led you to them. Behaviors that are conducive to such endeavours are favoured and passed on.
What behaviors are beneficial then? Clearly working together for a common goal. Looking after ones family is a fairly clear candidate. What is far less clear however are the benefits of treating others as you yourself would like to be treated. Love thy neighbour. Lets use the example of killing another person, for it is the easiest to see the consequences of, as they occur immediately and drastically. Imagine yourself in a tribal village, each member of the village has her or her role within the village. By killing a member of your village, you remove the person forfiling that role. It is likely that the person was highly skilled at that role, and by killing him, you have put a strain on the entire village by forcing others to take his place, as well as theirs. You kill a hunter, you may starve for instance. This can be applied to other acts, by merely injuring or disabling that person, you still stop or hinder them from forfiling their role within the community.
While a lot has changed since those earlier times, our genes remain largely unchanged. When we help somebody in need, our body releases endorphins into our bloodstream which make ourselves feel good.
I disagreed with him because i think that the relation between behaviour and genes is more complex. It is not because a behaviour is successful that he is written in your genes and can be "passed on". I mean for example that a twin can be nice with others people whereas his brother can be a muderer.
My idea is that people can make choices and understand that some behaviours arent "beneficial" because of their free will and their ability to think whereas Alethios said that it is something related to genes and darwinism selection.
So i said that i couldnt agree with it and a huge off-topic started. I'm sorry . We should end this argument.
Edit: after re-reading my first posts i think that i were caricatural ( ok genes take a part in human behaviour, but i still think it is less important than culture stuff ).
|
On February 02 2008 02:34 Boblion wrote:
Edit: after re-reading my first posts i think that i were caricatural ( ok genes take a part in human behaviour, but i still think it is less important than culture stuff ).
I'm glad we've reached this point. I never meant to suggest that our behavior is exclusively caused by our genes, clearly the environment plays a large role also.
On February 02 2008 00:14 lugggy wrote:
I just want to thank the guy for this blog and its mission, to help clear up some common misconceptions about atheism and evolution, so that theists and the like can at least have a more informed faith, one that has gone through a trial by fire. And if they change their faith in the process, it must be for the good, unless we want to admit that dishonest, willful ignorance is the way to go.
I don't think where this thread/blog has gone is productive in regards to the stated goals here. Maybe it will make future installments less vulnerable to these tangents and inform the whole process in the long run. But because of all these tangents, this project is changed and basically a "fail" because none of the people with "common misconceptions" are going to read 10% of what has been posted in this thread.
That being said, the level of discussion here is decent for TL because we have several educated, clashing, know-it-all-never-wrongs. Whoever has anything to learn from this clashing, they must be lurking, because I don't see anyone else ready to give an inch and learn something, except maybe the original post's author.
Thanks for the feedback.
I'm weary of curbing or limiting the discussion in future installments. I suppose we'll see what happens in future threads and hope that the discussion remains reasonably on topic.
If anybody would like to PM me with more feedback, or suggest the next topic to tackle, you are most welcome to do so.
|
On February 02 2008 02:34 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2008 00:14 lugggy wrote:
IMO Boblion has something to learn from those he is trying to dismiss, defeat, and ridicule. His earlier posts show the problem especially. This has just become another internet argument instead of people trying to see what they can learn from eachother and teach eachother, and I think his approach to this thread is the major part of this problem. Yea, i know that my English prose isnt really good, and i'm really sry if i look agressive or stupid. Nevertheless i made a post on this blog because Alethios statement was: On January 30 2008 15:00 Alethios wrote:From an evolutionary standpoint, if we practice behaviors that benefit ourselves, genes that underpin those tendencies are more likely to be passed on, thus increasing the prevalence of that behavior type. For humans, we are undoubtedly social creatures with the ability to communicate and work together. When we work together, our abilities transcend those of us working alone. We assign roles, we carry them out and suddenly we have an aqueduct or a system where each member of a group is forfiling a different vital role. The benefit for everybody is clear. Whats more, it is a rational response on reflection of the achievements to continue the behavior that has led you to them. Behaviors that are conducive to such endeavours are favoured and passed on. What behaviors are beneficial then? Clearly working together for a common goal. Looking after ones family is a fairly clear candidate. What is far less clear however are the benefits of treating others as you yourself would like to be treated. Love thy neighbour. Lets use the example of killing another person, for it is the easiest to see the consequences of, as they occur immediately and drastically. Imagine yourself in a tribal village, each member of the village has her or her role within the village. By killing a member of your village, you remove the person forfiling that role. It is likely that the person was highly skilled at that role, and by killing him, you have put a strain on the entire village by forcing others to take his place, as well as theirs. You kill a hunter, you may starve for instance. This can be applied to other acts, by merely injuring or disabling that person, you still stop or hinder them from forfiling their role within the community. While a lot has changed since those earlier times, our genes remain largely unchanged. When we help somebody in need, our body releases endorphins into our bloodstream which make ourselves feel good.
I disagreed with him because i think that the relation between behaviour and genes is more complex. It is not because a behaviour is successful that he is written in your genes and can be "passed on". I mean for example that a twin can be nice with others people whereas his brother can be a muderer.
My idea is that people can make choices and understand that some behaviours arent "beneficial" because of their free will and their ability to think whereas Alethios said that it is something related to genes and darwinism selection.
So i said that i couldnt agree with it and a huge off-topic started. I'm sorry . We should end this argument.
Edit: after re-reading my first posts i think that i were caricatural ( ok genes take a part in human behaviour, but i still think it is less important than culture stuff ).
[/QUOTE]
You are right that there are some problems with what he said exactly, and I tend to trust you without getting too into the details myself. Maybe it is a good thing that you contributed as you did, so next time he doesnt make an inaccurate representation of evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img249.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jessicaalbain5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img254.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pompadourra8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img352.imageshack.us/my.php?image=betemachinedescartesax6.jpg)
