How we behave

I am afraid I do not believe that emotions of any kind are by-products of anything. Homo Sapiens as a species have had emotions all the time and their predecessors may even have had them to some extent. All types of emotion were already developed in them I believe. What has changed is the environment we now find ourselves in and how we deal with what evolution has now given us. To do this, some people realised they could exploit our euphoric feelings (from secretion of endorphins etc.) by taking stimulant drugs. Other people have found that their depression triggers have been overburdened perhaps due to not only more stress than normal people encounter every day, but also because they have been endowed with disadvantageous genes ('mutant) which make these triggers more sensitive than other people. Either way, if our environment stays the same then these people (or this trait) will be weaned out of the population as it is not advantageous for survival.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What about hospitals? Did you build your house? Dentist? Did you make your clothes? What about when the canadians invaded (obviously a ridiculous example to make a point)? Did you have to defend yourself or was there an army to stop them.

Society is key to the survival of humans in large numbers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What about masturbation?

What about people who live their whole lives and don't reproduce?

I believe that the "less conscious" a being is, the more they are controlled by their instinct to mate, but even then in most beings I'm almost sure that gene propagation is only a part of the function of a being.

For instance, me, typing to you right now... what does that have to do with the passing on of my genes?

I'm gonna go watch kill bill. What does that have to do with passing on my genes?

I believe I could continue to make up a whole bunch of examples that don't have anything to do with passing my genes anywhere.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes, wes, that is an excellent strawman, but you miss my point entirely. this "key society" of yours has gone a long way toward degenerating a once self-sufficient animal into a mindless, helpless, worthless example of humanity such as myself.

sure it is. it is arguing evolution with christian fundies that drives so many of us to suicide annually.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Perhaps you failed to make it. I build no "strawmen" (at least not on purpose). You said:

And then you whined about how you can't get laid. Hehe. Speak for yourself.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yet you continue to exist. "midless, helpless, worthless, etc." is your problem ya know? As such, society is key to survival. I suppose you might debate what constitutes the "evolutionary advantage", but I'd say increasing life spans and numbers are pretty important indicators of evolutionary success. Man has never been self sufficient in the evolutionary sense. Humans are tribal, social creatures. In essence, they are as such due to the big brain and speech thing, which allows them to work in concert, which is obviously a very successful recipe for the success of a species.

 

Relieving the physical desire to have children

I bet they masturbated

Survival and breeding, I'd like to know of a being that does something that isn't under one of these "files" in their instinctual computer.

Sharing information, communicating, our ancestors heavily relied on it for survival, you can't pass on your genes if you don't survive.

You enjoy watching things, because your ancestors benefitted from learning with their eyes.
Nature made it instinctually "fun", to make us do it, and thus make us more successful. Our ancestors would have enjoyed watching a cheetah chase down a gazzelle, but they also would have learnt a little about the gazelle each time and it would have improved their success rate in catching them themselves.

I sincerely doubt it.

 

Ejeculation obviously does not mean I desire to have children. I see your point but I don't buy it.

Per the above, irrelevant.

That would be fine if you "survived" to "breed", but you don't. What about someone who is 90 and doesn't want to die or reproduce?

Who gives a fuck what they did. This is a question about psychology. Not every action is geared for the passing of my genes. The act of typing this for instance, has zilch to do with me passing me genes. My genes have been passed. I may choose to pass them again at some point. I'll let you know.

See what I mean?

LOL. Yeah okay Lou.

That still doesn't explain shit about kill bill allowing me to pass my genes.

 

It does, you just don't realise it because you're a living organism, not a conductor of life.
Do you think mating elephants are thinking about children? they're thinking about getting off, like you and me. Organisms are tricked into having children. The desire to ejaculate is the desire to have children. Even if you're happy to drop it in a sock.
YOU don't actually have to consciously desire to have children, your conscious desires are what is irrelevent.

What about them? Their struggle to continue existing is an ironic joke. They can keep living if they want, it won't affect what they have already done so they are allowed to keep thinking they have a reason to live, they're not interfering with whats important so they keep their desire to survive untill the end. The purpose though, for that desire to survive, is to reach a sexually mature age and reproduce. That is why me and you don't want to get hit by a bus, because we want to pass on our genes.
We probably think we don't want to get hit by a bus because we'll miss average joe tomorrow or something like that(I know thats my reasoning), but we are inherently ignorant to the truth, such is the nature of lving things.
I'm not saying you and me and mr 90 year old think our only purpose is to breed, we probably think alot of things, thats beside the point. The only reason we think anything is to ensure the survival of our species. Even if its kind of overkill, that doesn't matter, as long as its enough it can be as excessive as it wants.

Psychology is nothing without understanding where that behaviour/mindset came from and why, thats the only way you can fully understand anything, you start with its history and origins. Starting psychology from psychology 101 is retarded, start with attenborough's "life on earth".

You are looking at this from a very simplistic view point, indicating to me you aren't that interested in this subject.
The only reason you have the mindset that inspires you to type now is because that mindset was supposed to assist you in surviving into adulthood. Its not going to go away once you've passed on your genes, just like the 90 year old mans urge to survive, it can remain so it will. It would require much more drastic action on the bodies behalf to have it removed.
Also keep in mind, with humans and other parenting mammals it does go a little beyond simply passing on your seed, you are urged to raise your children successfully as well, people have a desire to teach, this is still a part of the desire to pass on your genes. Its the desire to ensure your offspring also pass on their genes.
Still the same basic thing.
And you'll note this desire spreads to other people, and so I can predict by your reasoning you'd say this is no longer a desire to teach my offspring but a desire to teach everyone.
No, thats just how it works, everything about nature infact is passive like that. You instinctually have a desire to teach, you can throw it all around if you want as long as some of it lands on your children.

I see that you think I'm saying "you wes only want to survive to pass on your genes" and you're saying "no I also want to watch kill bill".
I'm not interested in what you the person wes wants to do(well not right now, in a more casual setting I'm sure I would be

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

), obviously you know what you enjoy doing better than I do. Its irrelevent though.
All the things you do are byproducts of urges that were encoded into you by the natural selection pressures placed on your ancestors.
It can be very abstract, and hard to trace. You seem to be demanding it be direct, like your desire to breed can only be seen when you are consciously impregnating a female and anticipating children.
This is a problematic way of looking at things because the natural world simply doesn't operate like that.

I find it bizarre how you can assume otherwise.
Do you think a species from another planet who evolved under different conditions, perhaps relying on its sense of smell more than its sight, would be interested in watching kill bill? Movies aren't just a universally fantastic concept anything with a brain would enjoy.
We enjoy it because our species has benefitted from observing things and learning from them. Whenever you are "enjoying" yourself, chances are you are engaging in an activity similar in its essence to one that used to assist in your ancestors survival. Like I pointed out children climbing trees. They think do it because its fun. But its fun because it kept their ancestors youngsters safe from carnivores. When their ancestors children were doing it they were doing it for fun also, finding that activity fun would have saved their lives many times though. And that is why that activity is fun. Put a dog in a tree and it gets pissed off, its not a universally "fun" activity. The young of our species deem it as such because it is a behaviour that traditionally assists in their survival.

Kill bill doesn't allow you to pass on your genes, enjoying observing things and taking them in would assist in your survival if you lived in the wild because you would be urged to do it by the reward of enjoyment you would recieve.
Watching kill bill now is a byproduct of that instinctive urge. That instinctive urge is meant to assist in survival. The urge to survive is meant to assist in passing on your genes.
That is what kill bill has to do with your urge to pass on your genes.

 

I think it's semantics Lou.

 

Its understanding human beings.
I consider it to be quite significant. Far more significant than the reasons people think they do/think things.

 

as evidenced by the above quote, this argument is pointless, it seeming we won't agree. as for mr. lou;

what about the folks who want to get hit by a bus?

how about downing a liter of scotch, or smoking a pack a day? or better yet, what about taking PCP? [some of the after effects can be seen here http://internetdump.com/users/elmstreet/2.jpg, it's pretty graphic]

kill bill is hardly representative of the external environment. what does watching this film have to do with survival? and you argue the byproduct route instead of admitting that [unless you happen to hunt cheetahs] watching kill bill simply does not help a man reproduce, unless of course he can find a woman who also enjoys watching kill bill. :m: i like this smilie

 

"Movies aren't just a universally fantastic concept anything with a brain would enjoy.
We enjoy it because our species has benefitted from observing things and learning from them"

are you insane? please ask your university to revoke your degree. A) we benefit only from things we express as experience to our genetic predecessors not from things we experience visually. B) we have experienced things (such as a tiger eating a human) that have not prevented us from excluding this activity (killing tigers).

Many of you seem to try to make the point that having sex without the desire to reproduce is proof of our freedom from the evolutionary demand to pass our genes to the succeeding generation of humans. You forget that contraception is the only way to achieve, and that is was developed (in an evolutionary sense) approximately ten minutes ago. THERE

 

(sorry) THERE IS NO EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGE TO CONTRACEPTION!!!! UNLESS IT IS SUPPORTED BY AT MINIMUN TEN MILLION YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT, EVOLUTION HAS NOT HAPPENED AT ALL (!!!!!) TO GIVE THIS A SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE.

 

Anti-freeze I answered all your questions in my last post, read more thoroughly.

Duum, you're a simpleton.

 

Maybe it is more than semantics. I'll try to dissect it.

Me too for what it's worth.

But uhm.. Lou? Wouldn't 'understanding the reasons people think they do/think things' part of understanding human beings... more specifically, psychology? Isn't that basically the definition of pyschology? I think pyschology is not only an important part of understanding humans, but imperative to comprehending the big evolutionary picture.

Oh? But I have the power to choose to create life or not. I have the power to take life if I were to need to. It's a choice, not an imperative. Since I choose, do I not [/i]conduct[/i]?

Byproduct or not, it's an imperative consideration when the topic at hand is "how we behave".

I don't think mating elephants "think" in any semblance of the way humans do. They have some simlar sensory inputs, but their ability to conceptualize is stunted by lack of language and blah blah, basically lack of equipment. So I don't think your question is really valid, as elephants do not as far as I know, "choose" anything, at least in the way I understand the notion of choice. I believe elephants in general are creatures of pure instinct.

Yeah but baby, I'll pull out I promise.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Follow? Hey that's not incorrect every time it's claimed.

Organisms that are stupid or lack the ability to conceptualize, yes. Otherwise it's no trick. If you don't understand that pregnancy can result from fucking...

Why? You make it more than it is. It is a remnant of that urge, but it is no longer that. Ejaculation feels good. I can forcast the results of my quest for pleasure and take mesures to determine the outcome and hence prove my desire to ejaculate is for pleasure, not to have children.

Your conscious desires are irrelevant to your behavior? I can hardly believe you're serious. My conscious desires shape my actions, along with my instincts.

Not to them, jackass (speaking on their behalf, pardon).

Okay. They're still living and behaving. Have you lost focus of the topic?

While I agree that is a valid perspective, it is not the only valid perspecitive. You have touched on part of the recipe and ignore the whole. That is fine if you want, but you'll never really understand the full scope of humanity while refusing to consider more. Of course who knows if one can really understand the full scope of humanity. I suppose I indulge in the folly of thinking I do from time to time, just to end of thinking later that I was dumb for having thought that.

LOL. That allows us to do it sure, but it's not the only reason. The mind complicates it to the point that significant aspects of the reasons to survive are rooted in pure abstracts. I mean, what do you do once you're already surviving and have passed on your genes? You still do stuff. You still behave. A myriad of abstracts affect your behavior. As such, I think there is much more than "passing on your genes" to the reasons we behave as we do.

.... and I'm spent.

 

I think your position basically amounts to psychology from Freud's perspective (at least what I think I know of it). While I do think that is an important aspect of it, I believe that there is more to it than that, mostly because it seems to me that these biological basis spawn abstracts that, while still integrated into the same conceptual schema, are birthed in pure abstract. With that, I think behavior is more complicated that the sole function of gene propagation. Well now that I think about it, its not really two different things as I spelled out before regarding purpose, but rather, both purposes (the percieved and the intinctual) are integrated into the perception and thus the perceived purpose of the individual. The instinctual however, is generally not recognized as such (or it wouldn't be instinctual eh?). Actually it is this integration of both that effect behavior. At least that's the way I think it is.

 

Why discuss it though? We know why we do things, it is incredibly apparent, you can just ask the person. Dissecting why people do things only to come to a conclusion that mirrors why they decided to do it in the first place is a waste of time.
Like people have sex because they enjoy it, duh, I like to try and figure out why they enjoy it and talk about that.

Well here's a problem.
I don't believe in free will.

Oh dear

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Wes, mate, such a simplistic view of elephants is really sad.
Especially considering how you talk about humans. Like if i said elephants ran on instinct it would be ok because i think all animals including humans do.
The thing is I don't seperate instincts and consciousness, consciousness is the translation of the instincts.
You better believe elephants are taking their choices at least AS seriously you are. And fully feel as though they have a free will.
Elephants? Geeze, couldn't have chosen a less apt animal to put on the level of bacteria ... do you have animal planet?
I don't want to go into well documented elephant intelligence and diversity in behaviour and culture with examples as anything I could say would trivialise it. All I can suggest is that you catch some elephant documentaries and see it for yourself.
Humans and elephants are fundamentally on the same level.

You seem to think humans by nature understand that sex= pregnancy.
It was a discovery. 40 000 years ago humans were humans, but they were having sex because it felt good and then being shocked when a baby fell out of them.
And even now humans have learned how it works they are still being tricked. You know, there is nothing logically rational about wanting a baby. The good feelings that come with that are a trick as well.
Also there is nothing to say other animals don't know sex=babies.
One animal that might is elephants... can't believe your understanding of elephants.

Its obvious your reasoning for spanking it is to obtain pleasure(I'm picturing you jerking off right now... and I'm oddly aroused :bugeye: ), but the point is ejaculating is pleasurable to make you have children. The reason you are put together in such a way is to encourage you to reproduce. Who cares how you exploit your vehicle? you dirty DIRTY man

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I disagree, your instincts shape your conscious desires.
I see conscious desires as irrelevent because as i mentioned they are not hiding anywhere. They are the end product every man woman and child is fully aware of and fully versed on.
Lets find out about those conscious desires. Going there puts us into the realms of instinct.

Oh of course not.
And a penguin that just had its baby killed by a skua wouldn't see the humour in the way it compensates by incubating and caring for a stone. Living organisms in general don't know the real reasoning behind their urges. They can come up with reasons all they like.
The penguins reasons for keeping a rock warm are probably as real to it as the 90 year old mans reasons to continue living are to him.
In the eyes of nature they are both obeying an urge that has passed its use by date.

I feel I have a pretty good grip on humanity right now. Better than I do any other species thats for sure.

Obviously all behaviour isn't directly focussed on the passing on of genes, but they can all be linked to it in some way or another. You can try me if you like.
You'll end up agreeing or thinking I'm an incredibly talented web weaver.

If you are trying to tell me behaviour is complicated you are preaching to the choire.
From what I can tell, revolving around gene propogation doesn't seem to limit how complicated it can be.

As I said, I think instinct makes its owner act by manifesting itself in thought.
Sex is the simplest behaviour to use as an example, like all the thoughts of how fine some girl is, how much it would rock to impale her like a pig on a spit etc etc, are not some seperate entity to instinct, they are your translation of instinctual impulses.
All animals would to some extent operate in this fashion. "Running on pure instinct" seems like laziness to me from you wes. "I don't know what they're thinking so whatever, they're machines". Perhaps an in depth explanation of how 'pure instincts' in animals work would shut me up?
I personally think all animals, even insects, probably have a sense that they are choosing to do things. With insects though there is only a few basic decisions they will ever make.
With elephants and humans, they aren't so hardwired, their instincts don't tell them exactly what to do but rather urge them in general directions, and they can address the instinct in many different ways. This allows them to be more flexible and confront different problems they face in their complex lifestyles.
It can also result in pointless behaviour that makes sense to them. They might play out an instinct in a situation that doesn't call for it, or after the reason for that instincts existence has passed, or whatever. They're just not as concrete as the primitive instincts of a simpler organism.
But I would still say everything runs on instinct.
Instinct isn't one thing. Its the programming of an organism and every organism has different programming.
To each one of those organisms it doesn't feel like programming, and that in itself is part of the design.
Complicated indeed.

 

my apologies, i forgot about the initial post on the first page.

you ask for statistics on tribal suicide rates in comparison with the rates of "civilized" countries, yet rates among tribes which have come into contact with society are all that is available. and indeed there is a high rate of suicide, but it is the cause that intrigues me most:

sounds like the problems of society rather than anything genetic.

and suicide is genetic? like PCP use? i assume you know something of which you speak, and as i am curious i would like to know where you find your information.

well, at the very least, i'm impressed with that last statement, a tribute to non-falsifiability. bravo.

 

My God how long have I been gone?!!! I'm glad Im back though.

Antifreeze: Try reading some of my posts again about possible causes of suicide. I really don't want to have to go over it again. If u have a problem with some of my newer posts then say so but don't bring up arguments that are pretty much over as far as Im concerned. I don't want to start from scratch again.

Wesmorris: there has been way too much conversation between u and Lou since your r4eply to my post and I don't want to go through everything again but after all that convo with Lou, is there anything in that post u still want to ask me or has it all been explained to u already (coz I can expain each q u have asked if u want me to).

Just want to comment on one particular comment by Wesmorris:

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.

 

And as I've noted, I think you're wrong. It is NOT the ONLY thing that determines behavior. If there is no free will, then you are probably right, it's not worth arguing about in that case anyway. I think there is free will, so I think you're wrong. I do think it a fundamental motivator, but not the only motivator.