| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Immortalist" |
| Date: |
01 Jun 2004 10:23:15 PM |
| Object: |
Social Science Fears Evolutionary Psychology |
Why are empirical questions about how the mind works so weighted down with
political and moral and emotional baggage? Why do people believe that there are
dangerous implications to the idea that the mind is a product of the brain, that
the brain is organised in part by the genome, and that the genome was shaped by
natural selection?
This idea has been met with demonstrations, denunciations, picketings and
comparisons to Nazism, from the right and the left. And most intellectuals today
have a phobia of any explanation of the mind that invokes genetics. They're
afraid of four things.
1. First there is a fear of inequality.
2. The second fear is the fear of imperfectability.
3. The third fear is a fear of determinism.
4. The fourth fear is the fear of nihilism.
-------------------------------------
1. First there is a fear of inequality.
The great appeal of the doctrine that the mind is a blank slate is the simple
mathematical fact that zero equals zero. If we all start out blank, no one can
have more stuff written on his slate than anyone else. Whereas if we come into
the world endowed with a rich set of mental faculties, they could work
differently, or better or worse, in some people. The fear is that this would open
the door to discrimination, oppression or eugenics, or even slavery and genocide.
Of course, this is all a non sequitur. As many political writers have pointed
out, commitment to political equality is not an empirical claim that people are
clones. It's a moral claim that in certain spheres we judge people as
individuals, and don't take into account the statistical average of the groups
they belong to. It's a recognition that however much people might vary, they have
certain things in common by virtue of their common human nature. No one likes to
be humiliated or oppressed or enslaved or deprived. Political equality consists
of recognising that people have certain inalienable rights, namely life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. Recognising those rights is not the same thing as
believing that people are indistinguishable in every respect.
------------------------------
2. The second fear is the fear of imperfectability.
If people are innately saddled with certain sins and flaws, like selfishness,
prejudice, short-sightedness and self-deception, then political reform would seem
to be a waste of time. Why try to make the world a better place if people are
rotten to the core and will just screw it up no matter what you do?
Again, this is a faulty argument. We know that there can be social improvement
because we know that there has been social improvement, such as the end of
slavery, torture, blood feuds, despotism and the ownership of women in Western
democracies. Social change can take place even with a fixed human nature because
the mind is a complex system of many parts.
Even if we do have some motives that tempt us to do awful things, we have other
motives that can counteract them. We can figure out ways to pit one human desire
against another, and thereby improve our condition, in the same way we manipulate
physical and biological laws - rather than denying they exist - to improve our
physical condition. We combat disease, we keep out the weather, we grow more
crops, and we can jigger with our social arrangements as well.
A good example is the invention of democratic government. By instituting checks
and balances in a political system, one person's ambition counteracts another's.
It's not that we have bred or socialised a human who's free of ambition. We've
just developed a system in which these ambitions are kept under control.
Another reason that human nature doesn't rule out social progress is that many
features of human nature have free parameters. People in all cultures have an
ability to respect and sympathise with other people. The question is, with which
other people?
The default setting of our moral sense may be to sympathise only with members of
our clan or village. Over the course of history, a knob or a slider has been
adjusted so that a larger portion of humanity is admitted into the circle of
people whose interests we consider comparable with our own. From the village or
clan the moral circle has been expanded to the tribe, the nation, and, most
recently, to all of humanity, as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
--------------------------------
3. The third fear is a fear of determinism.
The fear that we will no longer be able to hold people responsible for their
behaviour because they can always blame it on their brain or their genes or their
evolutionary history - the evolutionary-urge or killer-gene defence. The fear is
misplaced for two reasons. One is that the silliest excuses for bad behaviour
have, in fact, invoked the environment, rather than biology, anyway - such as the
abuse excuse that got the Menendez brothers off the hook in their first trial, or
the "pornography made me do it" defence some rapists have tried. If there's a
threat to responsibility it doesn't come from biological determinism but from any
determinism, including childhood upbringing, mass media, social conditioning, and
so on.
But none of these should be taken seriously. Even if there are parts of the brain
that compel people to do things for various reasons, there are other parts that
respond to the legal and social contingencies that we call "holding someone
responsible for their behaviour".
For example, if I rob a liquor store, I'll get thrown in jail, or if I cheat on
my spouse my friends and relatives and neighbours will think that I'm a boorish
cad and will refuse to have anything to do with me. By holding people responsible
for their actions we are implementing contingencies that can affect parts of the
brain and can lead people to inhibit what they would otherwise do. There's no
reason that we should give up that lever on people's behaviour - namely, the
inhibition systems of the brain - just because we're coming to understand more
about the temptation systems.
-----------------------------------
4. The fourth fear is the fear of nihilism.
If it can be shown that all our motives and values are products of the physiology
of the brain, which in turn was shaped by the forces of evolution, then they
would in some sense be shams, without objective reality. I wouldn't really be
loving my child; all I would be doing is selfishly propagating my genes. Flowers
and butterflies and works of art are not truly beautiful; my brain just evolved
to give me a pleasant sensation when a certain pattern of light hits my retina.
The fear is that biology will debunk all that we hold sacred.
This fear is based on a confusion between two very different ways to explain
behaviour. Evolution (the ultimate explanation for our minds) is a short-sighted
selfish process in which genes are selected for their ability to maximise the
number of copies of themselves. But that doesn't mean that we are selfish and
short-sighted, at least not all the time. There's nothing that prevents the
selfish, amoral process of natural selection evolution from evolving a
big-brained social organism with a complex moral sense.
There's an old saying that people who appreciate legislation and sausages should
not see them being made. That's a bit like human values - knowing how they were
made can be misleading if you don't think carefully about the process. Selfish
genes don't necessarily build a selfish organisation.
.
|
|
| User: "Tron Furu" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Science Fears Evolutionary Psychology |
02 Jun 2004 08:21:13 AM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:cbadndL3n_Oz1CDdRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
Why are empirical questions about how the mind works so weighted down with
political and moral and emotional baggage?
Well, most of this political and moral and emotional baggage is painted on
by the protagonists onto the antagonists in an effort to portray hesitation
to jump to conclusions as the result of political and moral and emotional
baggage.
Basically, people seem to identify the essence of humanity in some (or
other) concept of "freedom", and anything that seems to negate, restrict or
only limit that freedom is seen as "refuting" this "essence of humanity".
Resistance to this may of course be cognito-economical, either in an
uinteresting, primitive way ("... can't be bothered to change my mind...")
or in a mor far-reaching way, as it is unclear what the implications are.
And since this is so unclear, most people want triple proof /sqared) that it
is so before going there.
The divide, as I see it, is between the negating and the restricting human
freedom. Everybody, know it or not, is of course restricted (from natural
flying, breathing under water .... Marvel Comics pars pro toto), but some
people may think that a sufficient number of restrictions might add up to
negation.
Why do people believe that there are
dangerous implications to the idea that the mind is a product of the
brain, that
the brain is organised in part by the genome, and that the genome was
shaped by
natural selection?
There are dangerous implications to the idea that the mind is a product of
the brain to the degree that this is not a true explanation (in the sense
that the theoretical underpinning is as yet too imprecise to give us
anything but crude belief structures (like radical eliminativism), not good
science).
This idea has been met with demonstrations, denunciations, picketings and
comparisons to Nazism, from the right and the left.
Any choice of opponent speaks of the one who chooses ...
And most intellectuals today have a phobia ...
Name calling ....?
of any explanation of the mind that invokes genetics.
They're afraid of ...
... giving in to the considerable pressure from both left and right to
_needlessly_ limit our concept of human freedom in favour of the ideology du
jour's marginalization strategy for People We'd Like to Repress. Note how
everyone who wants to elbow for ideological power strives to attribute to
their opponents either ill will or lack of faculty, which is invariably
based in something they cannot rise above (i.e. they are incurably bad), be
it economy or biology (or under its present guise, "ethnicity"). Now,
shouldn't somebody give these people a fair hearing? Resist the pressure?
Is biology Already True, or is it exactly this which is under debate? Do
Data translate to Policy without Interpretation? I think not.
four things.
1. First there is a fear of inequality.
You quote political writers. Political reality is different. You're right
that it wont matter to theory, it might, however, influence praxis in a
vulgarist utilitarian way. See "legislative assembly" and "election".
2. The second fear is the fear of imperfectability.
Good one. Never a truer word. Should be applied to the economic sector, too,
of course (Thurow).
If true, it proves, however, that biology is not destiny.
3. The third fear is a fear of determinism.
Yes, see above.
4. The fourth fear is the fear of nihilism.
Yes, well, there is the fear of the Masses, being held in check by
Superstition, released ...
Harldy that likely, mass insanity involves mass organization. Yet,
psychologically, some "truths" only work if you don't "know" that they are
self-suggestive, like ... well, self.suggestion, a sort of metaphysical
advice of "Don't look down, then you wont feel the height".
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Science Fears Evolutionary Psychology |
02 Jun 2004 10:08:14 AM |
|
|
"Tron Furu" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:cvkvc.5224$eH3.91732@news4.e.nsc.no...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:cbadndL3n_Oz1CDdRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
Why are empirical questions about how the mind works so weighted down with
political and moral and emotional baggage?
Well, most of this political and moral and emotional baggage is painted on
by the protagonists onto the antagonists in an effort to portray hesitation
to jump to conclusions as the result of political and moral and emotional
baggage.
The author claims that this dogma is the fallacy of "claiming centrist moral
ground" or the mistake of claiming that the blank slate/no instinct position is
the middle ground position when it is really the polarized and one sided
position. A moderate position is some mixture of blank and written upon slate or
nature and nurture.
Basically, people seem to identify the essence of humanity in some (or
other) concept of "freedom", and anything that seems to negate, restrict or
only limit that freedom is seen as "refuting" this "essence of humanity".
Resistance to this may of course be cognito-economical, either in an
uinteresting, primitive way ("... can't be bothered to change my mind...")
or in a mor far-reaching way, as it is unclear what the implications are.
And since this is so unclear, most people want triple proof /sqared) that it
is so before going there.
The divide, as I see it, is between the negating and the restricting human
freedom. Everybody, know it or not, is of course restricted (from natural
flying, breathing under water .... Marvel Comics pars pro toto), but some
people may think that a sufficient number of restrictions might add up to
negation.
Again trying to argue that the center between nature and nurture is the center of
nurture.
Why do people believe that there are
dangerous implications to the idea that the mind is a product of the
brain, that
the brain is organised in part by the genome, and that the genome was
shaped by
natural selection?
There are dangerous implications to the idea that the mind is a product of
the brain to the degree that this is not a true explanation (in the sense
that the theoretical underpinning is as yet too imprecise to give us
anything but crude belief structures (like radical eliminativism), not good
science).
This idea has been met with demonstrations, denunciations, picketings and
comparisons to Nazism, from the right and the left.
Any choice of opponent speaks of the one who chooses ...
And most intellectuals today have a phobia ...
Name calling ....?
of any explanation of the mind that invokes genetics.
They're afraid of ...
.. giving in to the considerable pressure from both left and right to
_needlessly_ limit our concept of human freedom in favour of the ideology du
jour's marginalization strategy for People We'd Like to Repress. Note how
everyone who wants to elbow for ideological power strives to attribute to
their opponents either ill will or lack of faculty, which is invariably
based in something they cannot rise above (i.e. they are incurably bad), be
it economy or biology (or under its present guise, "ethnicity"). Now,
shouldn't somebody give these people a fair hearing? Resist the pressure?
Is biology Already True, or is it exactly this which is under debate? Do
Data translate to Policy without Interpretation? I think not.
four things.
1. First there is a fear of inequality.
You quote political writers. Political reality is different. You're right
that it wont matter to theory, it might, however, influence praxis in a
vulgarist utilitarian way. See "legislative assembly" and "election".
2. The second fear is the fear of imperfectability.
Good one. Never a truer word. Should be applied to the economic sector, too,
of course (Thurow).
If true, it proves, however, that biology is not destiny.
3. The third fear is a fear of determinism.
Yes, see above.
4. The fourth fear is the fear of nihilism.
Yes, well, there is the fear of the Masses, being held in check by
Superstition, released ...
Harldy that likely, mass insanity involves mass organization. Yet,
psychologically, some "truths" only work if you don't "know" that they are
self-suggestive, like ... well, self.suggestion, a sort of metaphysical
advice of "Don't look down, then you wont feel the height".
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tron Furu" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Science Fears Evolutionary Psychology |
02 Jun 2004 10:36:46 AM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:_sGdnQkHX930cyDdRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
"Tron Furu" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:cvkvc.5224$eH3.91732@news4.e.nsc.no...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:cbadndL3n_Oz1CDdRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
Why are empirical questions about how the mind works so weighted down
with
political and moral and emotional baggage?
Well, most of this political and moral and emotional baggage is painted
on
by the protagonists onto the antagonists in an effort to portray
hesitation
to jump to conclusions as the result of political and moral and
emotional
baggage.
The author claims that this dogma is the fallacy of "claiming centrist
moral
ground" or the mistake of claiming that the blank slate/no instinct
position is
the middle ground position when it is really the polarized and one sided
position. A moderate position is some mixture of blank and written upon
slate or
nature and nurture.
No, I claim that not changing is the zero option, whatever position you
hold. One can jump to conclusions, or not, from any point of the spectrum.
Conservatism in acting is based on one's own relationship to one's own
opinions, and the cost of changing them.
To confuse my position with claiming of centrist moral ground is to confuse
subjective and objective reasons for choosing, or relative and absolute
standards.
To claim that the blank slate position is theoretically neutral is of course
a fallacy. However, a phrase like "political and moral and emotional
baggage" invokes connotations that are not value-free. Just bringing out
whose values.
Basically, people seem to identify the essence of humanity in some (or
other) concept of "freedom", and anything that seems to negate, restrict
or
only limit that freedom is seen as "refuting" this "essence of
humanity".
Resistance to this may of course be cognito-economical, either in an
uinteresting, primitive way ("... can't be bothered to change my
mind...")
or in a mor far-reaching way, as it is unclear what the implications
are.
And since this is so unclear, most people want triple proof /sqared)
that it
is so before going there.
The divide, as I see it, is between the negating and the restricting
human
freedom. Everybody, know it or not, is of course restricted (from
natural
flying, breathing under water .... Marvel Comics pars pro toto), but
some
people may think that a sufficient number of restrictions might add up
to
negation.
Again trying to argue that the center between nature and nurture is the
center of
nurture.
"They" might be, yes. My comment is strictly descriptive, and does not
present any arguement for any position on nature vs. nurture, only on the
people who hold such positions.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Science Fears Evolutionary Psychology |
02 Jun 2004 10:47:27 AM |
|
|
"Tron Furu" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:gumvc.5618$RL3.101717@news2.e.nsc.no...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:_sGdnQkHX930cyDdRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
"Tron Furu" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:cvkvc.5224$eH3.91732@news4.e.nsc.no...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:cbadndL3n_Oz1CDdRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
Why are empirical questions about how the mind works so weighted down
with
political and moral and emotional baggage?
Well, most of this political and moral and emotional baggage is painted
on
by the protagonists onto the antagonists in an effort to portray
hesitation
to jump to conclusions as the result of political and moral and
emotional
baggage.
The author claims that this dogma is the fallacy of "claiming centrist
moral
ground" or the mistake of claiming that the blank slate/no instinct
position is
the middle ground position when it is really the polarized and one sided
position. A moderate position is some mixture of blank and written upon
slate or
nature and nurture.
No, I claim that not changing is the zero option, whatever position you
hold. One can jump to conclusions, or not, from any point of the spectrum.
Conservatism in acting is based on one's own relationship to one's own
opinions, and the cost of changing them.
So in spite of abuses that have been shown to come from the notions that "humans
can be taught anything" and that "there are no instincts" this appraoch is still
the best way to legislate government and society? You mean like since America has
been a Christian nation we should remain so and non religious stuff should
continue to be censored? Or do you mean that you have picked a point in cultural
history, a point or degree of loss of religious control and then said lets stick
with this degree?
To confuse my position with claiming of centrist moral ground is to confuse
subjective and objective reasons for choosing, or relative and absolute
standards.
To claim that the blank slate position is theoretically neutral is of course
a fallacy. However, a phrase like "political and moral and emotional
baggage" invokes connotations that are not value-free. Just bringing out
whose values.
Basically, people seem to identify the essence of humanity in some (or
other) concept of "freedom", and anything that seems to negate, restrict
or
only limit that freedom is seen as "refuting" this "essence of
humanity".
Resistance to this may of course be cognito-economical, either in an
uinteresting, primitive way ("... can't be bothered to change my
mind...")
or in a mor far-reaching way, as it is unclear what the implications
are.
And since this is so unclear, most people want triple proof /sqared)
that it
is so before going there.
The divide, as I see it, is between the negating and the restricting
human
freedom. Everybody, know it or not, is of course restricted (from
natural
flying, breathing under water .... Marvel Comics pars pro toto), but
some
people may think that a sufficient number of restrictions might add up
to
negation.
Again trying to argue that the center between nature and nurture is the
center of
nurture.
"They" might be, yes. My comment is strictly descriptive, and does not
present any arguement for any position on nature vs. nurture, only on the
people who hold such positions.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tron Furu" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Science Fears Evolutionary Psychology |
02 Jun 2004 04:34:03 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:_rWdnY9o3_YHaiDdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
.....
No, I claim that not changing is the zero option, whatever position you
hold. One can jump to conclusions, or not, from any point of the
spectrum.
Conservatism in acting is based on one's own relationship to one's own
opinions, and the cost of changing them.
So in spite of abuses that have been shown to come from the notions that
"humans
can be taught anything" and that "there are no instincts" this appraoch is
still
the best way to legislate government and society?
Advancing from name calling to straw men, how does this relate to what I
said? I said that not changing is the zero option, whatever position you
hold, not that it was right.
You mean like since America has
been a Christian nation we should remain so and non religious stuff should
continue to be censored?
I'm not an American, and leave American politics to whoever does politics in
America (all 27 percent of you who decide the vote).
Or do you mean that you have picked a point in cultural
history, a point or degree of loss of religious control and then said lets
stick
with this degree?
Do I? Read again.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Science Fears Evolutionary Psychology |
02 Jun 2004 08:31:15 PM |
|
|
"Tron Furu" <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:dJrvc.5384$eH3.93710@news4.e.nsc.no...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:_rWdnY9o3_YHaiDdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
....
No, I claim that not changing is the zero option, whatever position you
hold. One can jump to conclusions, or not, from any point of the
spectrum.
Conservatism in acting is based on one's own relationship to one's own
opinions, and the cost of changing them.
So in spite of abuses that have been shown to come from the notions that
"humans
can be taught anything" and that "there are no instincts" this appraoch is
still
the best way to legislate government and society?
Advancing from name calling to straw men, how does this relate to what I
said? I said that not changing is the zero option, whatever position you
hold, not that it was right.
Then do you think not changing is the best course for us to take?
You mean like since America has
been a Christian nation we should remain so and non religious stuff should
continue to be censored?
I'm not an American, and leave American politics to whoever does politics in
America (all 27 percent of you who decide the vote).
OK, then in your country whatever it is, would you say it is better to not change
a tradition that was only recently proven to be harmful but wasn't known to be
harmful before then?
Or do you mean that you have picked a point in cultural
history, a point or degree of loss of religious control and then said lets
stick
with this degree?
Do I? Read again.
Seems that this is the problem, your words are vague enough to have to read to
much into them to make them say anything in this case.
T
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Nazi in the apple orchard |
03 Jun 2004 02:04:01 PM |
|
|
There are dangerous implications to the idea that the mind is a product of
the brain to the degree that this is not a true explanation (in the sense
that the theoretical underpinning is as yet too imprecise to give us
anything but crude belief structures (like radical eliminativism), not
good
science).
Are you are saying that it is simply a matter of degree that brain science
hasn't caught up with behaviour? Don't be a bloody idiot.
Tell me, how does brain chemistry tell us, just by looking at the brain
chemistry, what we want or need?
JJ
Tron Furu <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:cvkvc.5224$eH3.91732@news4.e.nsc.no...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:cbadndL3n_Oz1CDdRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
Why are empirical questions about how the mind works so weighted down
with
political and moral and emotional baggage?
Well, most of this political and moral and emotional baggage is painted on
by the protagonists onto the antagonists in an effort to portray
hesitation
to jump to conclusions as the result of political and moral and emotional
baggage.
Basically, people seem to identify the essence of humanity in some (or
other) concept of "freedom", and anything that seems to negate, restrict
or
only limit that freedom is seen as "refuting" this "essence of humanity".
Resistance to this may of course be cognito-economical, either in an
uinteresting, primitive way ("... can't be bothered to change my mind...")
or in a mor far-reaching way, as it is unclear what the implications are.
And since this is so unclear, most people want triple proof /sqared) that
it
is so before going there.
The divide, as I see it, is between the negating and the restricting human
freedom. Everybody, know it or not, is of course restricted (from natural
flying, breathing under water .... Marvel Comics pars pro toto), but some
people may think that a sufficient number of restrictions might add up to
negation.
Why do people believe that there are
dangerous implications to the idea that the mind is a product of the
brain, that
the brain is organised in part by the genome, and that the genome was
shaped by
natural selection?
There are dangerous implications to the idea that the mind is a product of
the brain to the degree that this is not a true explanation (in the sense
that the theoretical underpinning is as yet too imprecise to give us
anything but crude belief structures (like radical eliminativism), not
good
science).
This idea has been met with demonstrations, denunciations, picketings
and
comparisons to Nazism, from the right and the left.
Any choice of opponent speaks of the one who chooses ...
And most intellectuals today have a phobia ...
Name calling ....?
of any explanation of the mind that invokes genetics.
They're afraid of ...
.. giving in to the considerable pressure from both left and right to
_needlessly_ limit our concept of human freedom in favour of the ideology
du
jour's marginalization strategy for People We'd Like to Repress. Note how
everyone who wants to elbow for ideological power strives to attribute to
their opponents either ill will or lack of faculty, which is invariably
based in something they cannot rise above (i.e. they are incurably bad),
be
it economy or biology (or under its present guise, "ethnicity"). Now,
shouldn't somebody give these people a fair hearing? Resist the pressure?
Is biology Already True, or is it exactly this which is under debate? Do
Data translate to Policy without Interpretation? I think not.
four things.
1. First there is a fear of inequality.
You quote political writers. Political reality is different. You're right
that it wont matter to theory, it might, however, influence praxis in a
vulgarist utilitarian way. See "legislative assembly" and "election".
2. The second fear is the fear of imperfectability.
Good one. Never a truer word. Should be applied to the economic sector,
too,
of course (Thurow).
If true, it proves, however, that biology is not destiny.
3. The third fear is a fear of determinism.
Yes, see above.
4. The fourth fear is the fear of nihilism.
Yes, well, there is the fear of the Masses, being held in check by
Superstition, released ...
Harldy that likely, mass insanity involves mass organization. Yet,
psychologically, some "truths" only work if you don't "know" that they are
self-suggestive, like ... well, self.suggestion, a sort of metaphysical
advice of "Don't look down, then you wont feel the height".
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tron Furu" |
|
| Title: Re: Nazi in the apple orchard |
05 Jun 2004 05:08:14 PM |
|
|
"John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> skrev i melding
news:c9nsn0$i50$1@titan.btinternet.com...
There are dangerous implications to the idea that the mind is a product
of
the brain to the degree that this is not a true explanation (in the
sense
that the theoretical underpinning is as yet too imprecise to give us
anything but crude belief structures (like radical eliminativism), not
good
science).
Are you are saying that it is simply a matter of degree that brain science
hasn't caught up with behaviour?
I hope so.
Don't be a bloody idiot.
Sounds like good advice. Thanks.
Tell me, how does brain chemistry tell us, just by looking at the brain
chemistry, what we want or need?
You need to ask a brain chemist. Although, if you are asking about my
opinion, brain chemistry is not ready to give that answer yet.
It is also possible that reducing experiences like wants or need to becomes
possible in general, without brain chemistry having the power to explain
specific wants or needs, since maybe the bridging laws will not be chemical
laws.
FWIW I would think that the full range of brain sciences will extend beyond
natural philosophies like physics, chemistry and biology.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Nazi in the apple orchard 2 |
06 Jun 2004 09:28:45 PM |
|
|
You need to ask a brain chemist.
No- please - brain chemistry does not tell you what you want or need. You
have to inform the chemist of what effect you expect to be represented by an
arbitrary chemistry.
JJ
Tron Furu <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:kvrwc.6521$RL3.111331@news2.e.nsc.no...
"John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> skrev i melding
news:c9nsn0$i50$1@titan.btinternet.com...
There are dangerous implications to the idea that the mind is a
product
of
the brain to the degree that this is not a true explanation (in the
sense
that the theoretical underpinning is as yet too imprecise to give us
anything but crude belief structures (like radical eliminativism), not
good
science).
Are you are saying that it is simply a matter of degree that brain
science
hasn't caught up with behaviour?
I hope so.
Don't be a bloody idiot.
Sounds like good advice. Thanks.
Tell me, how does brain chemistry tell us, just by looking at the brain
chemistry, what we want or need?
You need to ask a brain chemist. Although, if you are asking about my
opinion, brain chemistry is not ready to give that answer yet.
It is also possible that reducing experiences like wants or need to
becomes
possible in general, without brain chemistry having the power to explain
specific wants or needs, since maybe the bridging laws will not be
chemical
laws.
FWIW I would think that the full range of brain sciences will extend
beyond
natural philosophies like physics, chemistry and biology.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tron Furu" |
|
| Title: Re: Nazi in the apple orchard 2 |
07 Jun 2004 07:04:16 AM |
|
|
"John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> skrev i melding
news:ca0jss$13l$1@titan.btinternet.com...
You need to ask a brain chemist.
No- please - brain chemistry does not tell you what you want or need. You
have to inform the chemist of what effect you expect to be represented by
an
arbitrary chemistry.
Careful, you are discussing brain chemistry with a nazi - preparing the soil
for a new Mengele.
Truly,
T
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Abakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Nazi in the apple orchard 2 |
09 Jun 2004 07:31:25 PM |
|
|
"John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ca0jss$13l$1@titan.btinternet.com...
You need to ask a brain chemist.
No- please - brain chemistry does not tell you what you want or need. You
have to inform the chemist of what effect you expect to be represented by
an
arbitrary chemistry.
JJ
Science works with correlations. But chemistry is not arbitrary. A certain
neurochemical process will be followed by a certain behavioural effect. You
need to inform the chemist your behavioural effect so the chemist will be
able correlate it with the neurochemical changes. The same when you go to
the optician; if you dont tell the guy when you see blurred, he wont
prescribe the right glasses.
regards
Abakus
Tron Furu <tronfuru@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:kvrwc.6521$RL3.111331@news2.e.nsc.no...
"John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> skrev i melding
news:c9nsn0$i50$1@titan.btinternet.com...
There are dangerous implications to the idea that the mind is a
product
of
the brain to the degree that this is not a true explanation (in the
sense
that the theoretical underpinning is as yet too imprecise to give us
anything but crude belief structures (like radical eliminativism),
not
good
science).
Are you are saying that it is simply a matter of degree that brain
science
hasn't caught up with behaviour?
I hope so.
Don't be a bloody idiot.
Sounds like good advice. Thanks.
Tell me, how does brain chemistry tell us, just by looking at the
brain
chemistry, what we want or need?
You need to ask a brain chemist. Although, if you are asking about my
opinion, brain chemistry is not ready to give that answer yet.
It is also possible that reducing experiences like wants or need to
becomes
possible in general, without brain chemistry having the power to explain
specific wants or needs, since maybe the bridging laws will not be
chemical
laws.
FWIW I would think that the full range of brain sciences will extend
beyond
natural philosophies like physics, chemistry and biology.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Nazi in the apple orchard 2 |
09 Jun 2004 08:14:07 PM |
|
|
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:1UNxc.1165$nI.644@newsfe6-win:
"John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ca0jss$13l$1@titan.btinternet.com...
You need to ask a brain chemist.
No- please - brain chemistry does not tell you what you want or need.
You have to inform the chemist of what effect you expect to be
represented by an arbitrary chemistry.
JJ
Science works with correlations. But chemistry is not arbitrary. A
certain neurochemical process will be followed by a certain
behavioural effect. You need to inform the chemist your behavioural
effect so the chemist will be able correlate it with the neurochemical
changes.
Yes, and this is far from an exact science at present. There's a fair
bit of trial-and-error before they can pin down the chemistry that will
balance out the effects.
The same when you go to the optician; if you dont tell the
guy when you see blurred, he wont prescribe the right glasses.
They use a laser gadget now to prescribe glasses. You just look into the
eyepieces and it does the rest. Then the nice technician/doctor double-
checks the precription with the old-fashioned lens-and-eyechart routine
just to reassure the patient. :-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raan" |
|
| Title: Re: Nazi in the apple orchard 2 |
10 Jun 2004 01:09:07 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9503D80829736fstone69@207.69.154.205...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:1UNxc.1165$nI.644@newsfe6-win:
"John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ca0jss$13l$1@titan.btinternet.com...
You need to ask a brain chemist.
No- please - brain chemistry does not tell you what you want or need.
You have to inform the chemist of what effect you expect to be
represented by an arbitrary chemistry.
JJ
Science works with correlations. But chemistry is not arbitrary. A
certain neurochemical process will be followed by a certain
behavioural effect. You need to inform the chemist your behavioural
effect so the chemist will be able correlate it with the neurochemical
changes.
Yes, and this is far from an exact science at present. There's a fair
bit of trial-and-error before they can pin down the chemistry that will
balance out the effects.
The same when you go to the optician; if you dont tell the
guy when you see blurred, he wont prescribe the right glasses.
They use a laser gadget now to prescribe glasses. You just look into the
eyepieces and it does the rest. Then the nice technician/doctor double-
checks the precription with the old-fashioned lens-and-eyechart routine
just to reassure the patient. :-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
Can you verify that is true. I have never seen or heard of it.
My doc uses the whole lens after lens blurry not blurry technique.
--
</>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Nazi in the apple orchard 2 |
10 Jun 2004 07:05:05 AM |
|
|
"Raan" <RaanOne@One.org> wrote in
news:35Uxc.41058$sS2.1446302@news20.bellglobal.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9503D80829736fstone69@207.69.154.205...
"Abakus" <abakus@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:1UNxc.1165$nI.644@newsfe6-win:
"John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ca0jss$13l$1@titan.btinternet.com...
You need to ask a brain chemist.
No- please - brain chemistry does not tell you what you want or
need. You have to inform the chemist of what effect you expect to
be represented by an arbitrary chemistry.
JJ
Science works with correlations. But chemistry is not arbitrary. A
certain neurochemical process will be followed by a certain
behavioural effect. You need to inform the chemist your behavioural
effect so the chemist will be able correlate it with the
neurochemical changes.
Yes, and this is far from an exact science at present. There's a fair
bit of trial-and-error before they can pin down the chemistry that
will balance out the effects.
The same when you go to the optician; if you dont tell the
guy when you see blurred, he wont prescribe the right glasses.
They use a laser gadget now to prescribe glasses. You just look into
the eyepieces and it does the rest. Then the nice technician/doctor
double- checks the precription with the old-fashioned
lens-and-eyechart routine just to reassure the patient. :-)
Can you verify that is true. I have never seen or heard of it.
My doc uses the whole lens after lens blurry not blurry technique.
At least when I went to VisionWorks for my last pair. Look in the box,
focus-focus click-click for each eye and then it prints out the
prescription. The doc checked only two lens combos, IIRC.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spooked " |
|
| Title: Re: Nazi in the apple orchard |
03 Jun 2004 04:27:51 PM |
|
|
"John Jones" <jiversjivers@btopenworld.com> wrote:
<snip>
Would the word "Nazi" be one of your favorites?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uthur" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Science Fears Evolutionary Psychology |
02 Jun 2004 05:22:23 AM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cbadndL3n_Oz1CDdRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
Why are empirical questions about how the mind works so weighted down with
political and moral and emotional baggage? Why do people believe that
there are
dangerous implications to the idea that the mind is a product of the
brain, that
the brain is organised in part by the genome, and that the genome was
shaped by
natural selection?
This idea has been met with demonstrations, denunciations, picketings and
comparisons to Nazism, from the right and the left. And most intellectuals
today
have a phobia of any explanation of the mind that invokes genetics.
They're
afraid of four things.
1. First there is a fear of inequality.
2. The second fear is the fear of imperfectability.
3. The third fear is a fear of determinism.
4. The fourth fear is the fear of nihilism.
-------------------------------------
Lol Stephen Pinker's gotten to this guy. Quick, call the moral-outrage
squad!
Uthur,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Science Fears Evolutionary Psychology |
02 Jun 2004 10:13:47 AM |
|
|
"Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:c9kaa8$971$1@kermit.esat.net...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cbadndL3n_Oz1CDdRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
Why are empirical questions about how the mind works so weighted down with
political and moral and emotional baggage? Why do people believe that
there are
dangerous implications to the idea that the mind is a product of the
brain, that
the brain is organised in part by the genome, and that the genome was
shaped by
natural selection?
This idea has been met with demonstrations, denunciations, picketings and
comparisons to Nazism, from the right and the left. And most intellectuals
today
have a phobia of any explanation of the mind that invokes genetics.
They're
afraid of four things.
1. First there is a fear of inequality.
2. The second fear is the fear of imperfectability.
3. The third fear is a fear of determinism.
4. The fourth fear is the fear of nihilism.
-------------------------------------
Lol Stephen Pinker's gotten to this guy. Quick, call the moral-outrage
squad!
BUSTED! Pinker is GOD
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/pinker.html
http://www.meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=pinker&topic=hair
Uthur,
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rent@mob" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Science Fears Evolutionary Psychology |
02 Jun 2004 12:48:23 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<cbadndL3n_Oz1CDdRVn-iQ@comcast.com>...
Why are empirical questions about how the mind works so weighted down with
political and moral and emotional baggage?
Hmmm. Let me see. If I remember correctly, the first thing Immortalist
ever said to me on the topic of Evolutionary Psychology included the
memorable phrase:
"You cherised liberal view of tabula rasa social engineering is over
and done, smoked baby, we take sociology from you, we steal it right
out of your hands, poof."
Which is a colourful way to say, he believes that 'empirical
questions' have settled the matter of liberalism's validity - that
science has proven liberal political values to be wrong, through the
discoveries of Evolutionary Psychology. Coming over all innocent now
about the political goals he is pursuing under the cloak of science
looks cheeky, at best.
I took some pains to explain to him why science cannot inform politics
in this way, over in alt.philosophy, to no avail. Like most EvPsych
evangelists, he appears to think EvPsych claims entitle him to dismiss
all scholarship outside his reductionist paradigm.
The 'explanations' he offers for his opponents' imputed irrationalism
are, naturally, specious. People reject Evolutionary Psychology in as
much as it is bad science: ie, in as much as it is characterised by
unfalsifiable speculations, poorly-designed experiments, and simple
blind ignorance of the complexity of the semantic systems it clumsily
attempts to reduce to syntax. If Immortalist wants to use cod science
as a foundation for his political beliefs, he's welcome.
This libertarian prefers fact over fancy.
rent@mob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Science Fears Evolutionary Psychology |
02 Jun 2004 08:23:23 PM |
|
|
"rent@mob" <rent@mob.co.uk> wrote in message
news:46d54aa3.0406020948.6d786d0c@posting.google.com...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<cbadndL3n_Oz1CDdRVn-iQ@comcast.com>...
Why are empirical questions about how the mind works so weighted down with
political and moral and emotional baggage?
Hmmm. Let me see. If I remember correctly, the first thing Immortalist
ever said to me on the topic of Evolutionary Psychology included the
memorable phrase:
I forgot what the first thing you ever said to me was about evolutionary
psychology. I only had one conversation with you about as far as I can remember,
can you refresh my memory as to what you said that would draw such a narly and
cool sounding response from me.
I notice you don't defend nor state you positions very clearly but just make
general accusations about evidence or something.
"You cherised liberal view of tabula rasa social engineering is over
and done, smoked baby, we take sociology from you, we steal it right
out of your hands, poof."
Sad but true considering the direction of science at this time.
Which is a colourful way to say, he believes that 'empirical
questions' have settled the matter of liberalism's validity - that
science has proven liberal political values to be wrong, through the
discoveries of Evolutionary Psychology. Coming over all innocent now
about the political goals he is pursuing under the cloak of science
looks cheeky, at best.
This is definately a stretch since when I imagined myself meaning that is didn't
work.
I took some pains to explain to him why science cannot inform politics
in this way, over in alt.philosophy, to no avail. Like most EvPsych
evangelists, he appears to think EvPsych claims entitle him to dismiss
all scholarship outside his reductionist paradigm.
You put a little list of half sentences with no explaination of some jargon, lets
be honest.
The 'explanations' he offers for his opponents' imputed irrationalism
are, naturally, specious. People reject Evolutionary Psychology in as
much as it is bad science: ie, in as much as it is characterised by
unfalsifiable speculations, poorly-designed experiments, and simple
blind ignorance of the complexity of the semantic systems it clumsily
attempts to reduce to syntax. If Immortalist wants to use cod science
as a foundation for his political beliefs, he's welcome.
What is this "third person" little offended boy talk. Are you talking to me or
some audiance. Perhaps you are whinning that you need some help here because your
argument is weak and diluted.
This libertarian prefers fact over fancy.
Oh I see, you want a libertarian to help defend you. Please give a few examples
of these facts, seems you always end up making such bold claims with no back up
then wait for someone else to assert something so you can pick a part to attack.
rent@mob
.
|
|
|
| User: "rent@mob" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Science Fears Evolutionary Psychology |
03 Jun 2004 05:08:26 AM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<jaKdnfvHorIF4yPdRVn-sA@comcast.com>...
"You cherised liberal view of tabula rasa social engineering is over
and done, smoked baby, we take sociology from you, we steal it right
out of your hands, poof."
Sad but true considering the direction of science at this time.
So: science takes sociology from liberals, yes or no?
Which is a colourful way to say, he believes that 'empirical
questions' have settled the matter of liberalism's validity - that
science has proven liberal political values to be wrong, through the
discoveries of Evolutionary Psychology. Coming over all innocent now
about the political goals he is pursuing under the cloak of science
looks cheeky, at best.
This is definately a stretch since when I imagined myself meaning that is didn't
work.
I appreciate how limited you sometimes allow your imagination to be -
perhaps the yes or no above makes it easier for you to comprehend.
You put a little list of half sentences with no explaination of some jargon, lets
be honest.
If you refuse to engage with the 'jargon', your grasp of these issues
will always be constrained within your pre-existing categories. I can
lead a philistine to science but I can't make him drink.
The 'explanations' he offers for his opponents' imputed irrationalism
are, naturally, specious. People reject Evolutionary Psychology in as
much as it is bad science: ie, in as much as it is characterised by
unfalsifiable speculations, poorly-designed experiments, and simple
blind ignorance of the complexity of the semantic systems it clumsily
attempts to reduce to syntax. If Immortalist wants to use cod science
as a foundation for his political beliefs, he's welcome.
[SNIP playground backchat]
The point is that I reject EvPsych as bad science, I don't reject good
science due to being cowardly. Your list of 'fears' works from the
assumption that the science is good, and EvPsych proponents bravely
shrug off the cowardly fears afflicting their critics. Yet, in five
cases to date on other threads, you have consistently ducked-out of
opportunities to demonstrate that the science is good. I therefore
find your take on bravery and cowardice puzzling.
rent@mob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Science Fears Evolutionary Psychology |
03 Jun 2004 10:05:39 AM |
|
|
Top-post of 21 pretty verifiable human instincts just for mr. rentMob
Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/
....Still we were able to locate published studies of twelve categories of
behavior that contain sufficiently precise measurements of the mode of
transmission. [a solid theory of human evolution that gives importance
to the degree of biological influence on mental development]
From this sample a remarkable result emerged: in every case
the behavior is learned through gene-culture transmission; mental
development appears to be genetically constrained. This result could not
have been the result of observational bias. The psychologists who conducted
the experiments were generally unaware of most of the other work being
conducted of similar nature. They had no visible preconceptions about the
mode of transmission; if anything, the Zeitgeist of contemporary psychology
for the most part favors a belief in blank-slate minds. Yet the data from
all the research programs revealed gene-culture transmission, a partial
automatic preference on the part of the developing human mind for certain
cultural choices over others. Some of the more striking examples produced by
these pioneering studies entail the following familiar forms of thought and
behavior.
.. Only a very small percentage of individuals prefer to have sexual
relations with brothers or sisters. They may harbor moments of inward desire
toward siblings. But the vast majority choose to mate with persons raised
outside their immediate family circle. Studies of the origin of sexual
preference in Israeli kibbutzim and Taiwanese villages indicate that, even
if other members of the society could somehow be neutral or favorable toward
sibling incest, young people would still automatically avoid it in an
overwhelming majority. The aversion is based on an unconscious process in
mental development. Children raised closely together during the first six
years of life feel little or no sexual attraction toward each other when
they reach maturity, whether they are close relatives or not. As one
anthropologist put it, people who use the same potty when very young do not
marry when they grow up. The feeling has little to do with culture or the
classification of kin. Even if a society could somehow begin anew with
brother-sister incest as the norm, it would probably develop a cultural
antagonism toward the practice in a generation or two. Eventually, the
society would incorporate taboos in the form of rituals and mythic stories
to justify and reinforce the aversion. In a phrase, the genetic leash pulls
culture back into line.
.. The learning of color vocabularies is also strongly biased and hence falls
in the category of gene-culture transmission. From infancy onward, normally
sighted individuals see variation in wavelength not as a continuously
varying property of light (which it is) but as the four basic colors of
blue, green, yellow, and red, along with various blends in the intermediate
zones. This beautiful illusion is genetically programed into the visual
apparatus and brain. Marc Bornstein at Princeton University used special
techniques that measure attention span to show that four-month-old infants
respond to variation in wavelength as if they were discriminating the four
adult categories.
The same pattern occurs worldwide. At the University of California,
Berkeley, Brent Berlin and Paul Kay worked with the native speakers of
twenty languages, including Arabic, Bulgarian, Cantonese, Catalan, Hebrew,
Ibibio, Thai, Tzeltal, and Urdu. The volunteers were asked to describe their
color vocabulary in an unusually precise way: they were shown a large array
of chips varying in color and brightness, and directed to place each of the
principal color terms of their language on the chips that came closest to
their conception of what the words mean. Even though the words differed
strikingly from one language to the next in origin and sound, they fell into
clusters on the array that correspond, at least approximately, to the
principal colors distinguished by Born-stein's infants.
The physiological basis of the partitioning in vision is partially known.
The color cones of the retina, which are the cells that distinguish
wavelength, are differentiated into three types that approach but do not
correspond exactly to the basic colors. These cells are maximally sensitive
to blue (440 nanometers), green (535 nanometers), and yellow-green (565
nanometers) respectively. In the lateral geniculate body of the thalamus,
one of the key relay stations between the eye and the visual cortex of the
brain, the visually active nerve cells are divided into four types that
appear to encode the principal hues. The deeper mechanisms that translate
these diverse sensitivities into the conscious perception of color are under
active investigation. Few brain scientists doubt that a full explanation of
color vision at the levels of the cell and molecule will eventually become
possible. Furthermore, simple genetic changes in color vision, creating the
various forms of color blindness, occur widely through human populations.
They have been associated tentatively with the malfunction of particular
genes located on the X-chromosome.
The intensity of the learning bias was strikingly revealed by an experiment
conducted on color perception during the late 1960s by Eleanor Rosch of the
University of California at Berkeley. In looking for "natural categories" of
cognition, Rosch exploited the fact that the Dani people of New Guinea have
no words to denote color; they speak only of "mili" (roughly, dark) and
"mola" (light). Rosch considered the following question: if Dani adults set
out to learn a color vocabulary, would they do so more readily if the color
terms correspond to the principal innate hues? In other words, would
cultural innovation be channeled to some extent by the innate genetic
constraints? Rosch divided 68 volunteer Dani men into two groups. She taught
one a series of newly invented color terms placed on the principal hue
categories of the array (blue, green, yellow, red), where most of the
natural vocabularies of other cultures are located. She taught a second
group of Dani men a series of new terms placed off center, away from the
main clusters formed by other languages. The first group of volunteers,
following the "natural" propensities of color perception, learned about
twice as quickly as those given the competing, less natural color terms.
They also selected these terms more readily when allowed a choice.
.. Infants prefer to look at objects that have particular shapes and
arrangements, and as time passes their choices change in a predictable
manner. From birth they gaze longest at pictures that are large, contain
numerous elements, and consist of curbed lines. Most of all they favor
figures whose outlines contain approximately ten independent turns. By the
age of eight weeks they also prefer bull's-eye designs over parallel
stripes, touching elements over those that are separated, and irregular
arrays of elements over those that are perfectly aligned. These apparently
innate biases parallel an early preference for the abstract design of a
normally composed human face over various humanlike but scrambled designs.
By twenty weeks the infant shifts its attention increasingly to new designs
and faces in preference to those it has already learned, and as a result its
visual experience expands rapidly.
.. Although facial expressions vary from one culture to the next, strong
tendencies exist that must be classified as gene-culture transmission as
opposed to a purely cultural form of transmission. People around the world
use a common set of expressions to register fear, loathing, anger, surprise,
and happiness. Paul Ekman of the University of California at San Francisco
tested the strength of this predisposition in an elegant manner. He
photographed Americans acting out these emotions and New Guinea highland
tribesmen as they told stories in which similar feelings were emphasized.
When individuals from each culture (New Guinea or American) were then shown
portraits from the other culture, they interpreted the meanings of the
facial expressions with more than 80 percent accuracy. This was the case
even though the New Guinea tribesmen had been previously exposed very little
to the outside world, while the Americans who looked at the pictures knew
nothing of the Papuan culture.
The distinctive nature of the brain's program in facial recognition is
further illustrated by the rare medical condition called prosopagnosia. When
lesions occur on particular regions of the undersurface of the temporal and
occipital lobes of the brain, the patient cannot identify other persons by
their faces. In extreme cases he is unable to recognize the features of even
his closest relatives. The disability is not due to a general loss of visual
memory; the patient can still identify objects other than faces by sight
alone. Nor is it due to an inability to remember different people; the
patient can distinguish them by their voices. The bizarre properties of
prosopagnosia demonstrate how the brain can be biologically programed to
follow specific sensory cues, especally when the category of learning is
concerned with the most pressing needs of social life.
.. Newborn infants choose most kinds of sugars over plain water and in this
descending order of preference: sucrose, fructose, lactose, and glucose.
They also discriminate among substances that are acid, salty, and bitter,
reacting by twisting their faces into the characteristic adult expressions
of distaste for each substance. This selectivity continues into childhood
and has important effects in the evolution of adult cuisines.
.. Anxiety in the presence of strangers occurs in very young children in all
the many cultures around the world studied by the German ethologist Irenaus
Eibl-Eibesfeldt. The baby turns away, buries its face in its mother's
shoulder, and often begins to cry. This relatively complicated response
first appears at six to eight months of age and peaks sometime during the
subsequent year. It does not depend on previous unpleasant experience with
strangers; nor does it appear to be linked to crying and other signs of
discomfort caused by separation from the mother. The latter development is
distinct in appearance and first emerges when the infant is about fifteen
weeks old. Anxiety in the presence of strangers continues at a lower,
controlled level into childhood and even maturity. It slides easily into
fear and hostility, contributing to the tendency of people to live in small
groups of intimates. These responses are intensified when strangers stare.
Eyes and eye-like patterns have been found to have a generally higher
arousal effect on people of all ages than do other facial features. They are
also key elements in the attraction of newborn infants to the face as
opposed to other parts of the body, and they play a central role in
communication afterwards.
.. The innate tendency for human beings to learn one thing as opposed to
another, in other words gene-culture transmission, is perhaps most
dramatically illustrated by the phobias. These are the extreme fears into
which people are plunged- stricken by nausea, cold sweat, and other
reactions of the au-tonomic nervous system. Phobias typically emerge
fullblown after only a single unpleasant experience, and they are
exceptionally difficult to eradicate, even when the victim is carefully
reassured and coached by a psychiatrist. It is remarkable that the phobias
are most easily evoked by many of the greatest dangers of mankind's ancient
environment, including closed spaces, heights, thunderstorms, rurming water,
snakes, and spiders. Of equal significance, phobias are rarely evoked by the
greatest dangers of modern technological society, including guns, knives,
automobiles, explosives, and electric sockets. Nothing could better
illustrate the peculiar and occasionally obsolete rules by which the human
mind is assembled, or the slowness of man to adapt to the dangers created by
his own technological triumphs.
For convenience we decided to label the various regularities of development
as epigenetic rules. Epigenesis is a biological term that means the sum of
all the interactions between the genes and the environment that create the
distinctive traits of an organism. Thus the color vocabulary used by a
person is based on the interaction of genes prescribing color perception in
his eyes and brain with the environment in which he developed. This
environment ranges from the fetal conditions that produced his eyes and
brain to his subsequent enculturation. The epigenetic rules of color vision
and classification are stringent enough to direct cultures around the world
toward the central clusters of color classification as revealed by the
Berlin-Kay experiments. But they are not strong enough to impose completely
identical classifications on every culture and every person.
The epigenetic rules of mental development are a menagerie of diverse but
still largely unstudied phenomena. During the past twenty years,
psychologists and brain scientists have uncovered evidence of developmental
regularities in even the most subtle and complex forms of mental activity.
People follow unexpected and sometimes remarkably inefficient procedures in
the way they recall information, judge the merits of other people, estimate
risk, and plan strategy. Among the peculiarities of decision making is the
excessive use of stereotypes. When observers are asked to guess the
occupation of another person who is shy, helpful, and obsessed with detail,
they are more likely to choose librarian over other occupations, even when
their personal experience runs counter to this conclusion. Most people,
including some trained statisticians, intuitively expect small random
samples to reflect faithfully the large population from which they are
drawn, although this is demonstrably untrue in a large percentage of the
cases. Other studies have revealed that human beings are also poor intuitive
statisticians when dealing with the major events of life and death. They
tend to equate events that have a low probability and low consequence with
events that have a low probability but important consequence. As a result
they underestimate the effects of catastrophes. In particular, they
consistently misjudge the future effects of warfare, as well as floods,
windstorms, droughts, and volcanic eruptions, even when such events are
repeatedly experienced and remembered over many generations. Other examples
of developmental bias in language formation, logic, and basic arithmetic
will be described in the next chapter, when the evolutionary origin of the
modern mind is more fully examined.
Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/
"rent@mob" <rent@mob.co.uk> wrote in message
news:46d54aa3.0406030208.29d1867@posting.google.com...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<jaKdnfvHorIF4yPdRVn-sA@comcast.com>...
"You cherised liberal view of tabula rasa social engineering is over
and done, smoked baby, we take sociology from you, we steal it right
out of your hands, poof."
Sad but true considering the direction of science at this time.
So: science takes sociology from liberals, yes or no?
False dilemma fallacy, you expect me to answer a question that sounds like "have
you stopped beating your wife lately?" If I say yes that means I agree that I
used to beat my wife, and if I say no that mean not only did I used to beat my
wife but that I still do.
As you might know there is a history of what happens during "paradigm shifts"
http://www.taketheleap.com/define.html
When one conceptual world-view is replaced by another, or, a change of patterns
on a massive scale. When Copernicus showed how the Earth rotates around the Sun,
and not vice versa, that created a paradigm shift [it forced a new way of
thinking about our place in the Universe]. And when quantum physics and general
relativity displaced Newtonian mechanics, that created another shift. Applied to
an enabling technology such as molecular manufacturing, it suggests that there
will be many shifts occurring, soon, and with wide-ranging and often disruptive
consequences. For more detail, see Accelerating Intelligence: Where Will
Technology Lead Us? [by Ray Kurzweil].
nanotech-now.com/nanotechnology-glossary-P-R.htm
1 A change in the well known typical example 2 Any major change in the generally
accepted point of view
www.geocities.com/Athens/Styx/8877/mj/mj.html
A complete change in thinking or belief systems that allows the creation of a new
condition previously thought impossible or unacceptable. (ex.- the change in
thinking created by Just-in-Time that views inventory as a liability, not an
asset).
www.bridgefieldgroup.com/glos7.htm
A change from the accepted point of view to a new belief.
www.effectivemeetings.com/diversions/dictionary/index.asp
Phrase coined by Thomas Kuhn in his famous book The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions (1962). Kuhn's idea is that scientific progress occurs, not by slow
incremental accumulation alone, but also by occasional "revolutions," in which
"an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one"
(Kuhn, p. 92) - a paradigm shift. It refers to a group of people, or even a whole
society, undergoing a change of world view, as for example from believing the
earth was flat to believing the earth is round, or believing the sun and stars
revolve around earth vs. the earth revolving around the sun. Biblical scholarship
is often assumed to have undergone a paradigm shift from a diachronic to a
synchronic worldview.
www.read-the-bible.org/glossary.html
Refers to a shift in world views. The so-called "new paradigm" (new model orform)
is pantheistic (all is God) and monastic (all is one).
logosresourcepages.org/na-dict.html
elements of, emerging paradigms, alternative visions: Mondragon's Society of
Cooperatives, Korten's People-Centered Economy, Daly and Cobb's Wholistic
Community of Communities, Theobald's Economic Security Plan. See also values.
www.jaysquare.com/resources/glossary.htm
The creation of a new model for any business process. Breakthrough thinking.
www.logisticsfocus.com/Glossary/glossary-p.asp
fundamental, even radical rethinking of what people believe to be true for a
given body of knowledge
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0767421906/student_view0/chapter12/glossary.html
A change in thinking that results in a new way of seeing the world.
cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/beekman2/chapter14/custom5/deluxe-content.html
A change in thinking that results in a new way of seeing and interpreting the
world.
home.earthlink.net/~stanofms/glossary.htm
A quantum change in the development of something which can not be accounted for
by simple evolutionary extensions but rather by a fundamental change in
principles.
www.octivity.com/api/process4/templates/glossary_of_terms.htm
Yes the new paradigm with be like the Vandals and Barbarians during the fall of
the Roman Empire, might even take your like loc, but I doubt if it will be as
radical as the middle ages shifts. But man, lay off all the portrayal of
extremist ***** please give me a break.
Which is a colourful way to say, he believes that 'empirical
questions' have settled the matter of liberalism's validity - that
science has proven liberal political values to be wrong, through the
discoveries of Evolutionary Psychology. Coming over all innocent now
about the political goals he is pursuing under the cloak of science
looks cheeky, at best.
This is definately a stretch since when I imagined myself meaning that is
didn't
work.
I appreciate how limited you sometimes allow your imagination to be -
perhaps the yes or no above makes it easier for you to comprehend.
Have you stopped being an ***** lately? yes or no! I don't think your an
assholio but don't you see how you are framing the question? Is this how all
libertarians operate?
You put a little list of half sentences with no explaination of some jargon,
lets
be honest.
If you refuse to engage with the 'jargon', your grasp of these issues
will always be constrained within your pre-existing categories. I can
lead a philistine to science but I can't make him drink.
You were speaking in the third person in another post as if to an audiance. I
often think of the audiance when posting as concerns how much we explain what we
are saying. If you want to go off into detailed jargon most people don't know
without providing an explaination please communicate by personal e-mail.
Otherwise I prefer at least a link to expain what you are saying even if I do
understand the jargon, you know for the third person?
The 'explanations' he offers for his opponents' imputed irrationalism
are, naturally, specious. People reject Evolutionary Psychology in as
much as it is bad science: ie, in as much as it is characterised by
unfalsifiable speculations, poorly-designed experiments, and simple
blind ignorance of the complexity of the semantic systems it clumsily
attempts to reduce to syntax. If Immortalist wants to use cod science
as a foundation for his political beliefs, he's welcome.
[SNIP playground backchat]
The point is that I reject EvPsych as bad science, I don't reject good
science due to being cowardly. Your list of 'fears' works from the
assumption that the science is good, and EvPsych proponents bravely
shrug off the cowardly fears afflicting their critics. Yet, in five
cases to date on other threads, you have consistently ducked-out of
opportunities to demonstrate that the science is good. I therefore
find your take on bravery and cowardice puzzling.
If the point is that you reject sociobiology, which evolutionary psychology is,
can you show "us" why?
rent@mob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Social Science Fears Evolutionary Psychology |
03 Jun 2004 10:55:07 AM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oP6dnXqu07fnoiLd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
Top-post of 21 pretty verifiable human instincts just for mr. rentMob
I meant the "12."
Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/
...Still we were able to locate published studies of twelve categories of
behavior that contain sufficiently precise measurements of the mode of
transmission. [a solid theory of human evolution that gives importance
to the degree of biological influence on mental development]
From this sample a remarkable result emerged: in every case
the behavior is learned through gene-culture transmission; mental
development appears to be genetically constrained. This result could not
have been the result of observational bias. The psychologists who conducted
the experiments were generally unaware of most of the other work being
conducted of similar nature. They had no visible preconceptions about the
mode of transmission; if anything, the Zeitgeist of contemporary psychology
for the most part favors a belief in blank-slate minds. Yet the data from
all the research programs revealed gene-culture transmission, a partial
automatic preference on the part of the developing human mind for certain
cultural choices over others. Some of the more striking examples produced by
these pioneering studies entail the following familiar forms of thought and
behavior.
. Only a very small percentage of individuals prefer to have sexual
relations with brothers or sisters. They may harbor moments of inward desire
toward siblings. But the vast majority choose to mate with persons raised
outside their immediate family circle. Studies of the origin of sexual
preference in Israeli kibbutzim and Taiwanese villages indicate that, even
if other members of the society could somehow be neutral or favorable toward
sibling incest, young people would still automatically avoid it in an
overwhelming majority. The aversion is based on an unconscious process in
mental development. Children raised closely together during the first six
years of life feel little or no sexual attraction toward each other when
they reach maturity, whether they are close relatives or not. As one
anthropologist put it, people who use the same potty when very young do not
marry when they grow up. The feeling has little to do with culture or the
classification of kin. Even if a society could somehow begin anew with
brother-sister incest as the norm, it would probably develop a cultural
antagonism toward the practice in a generation or two. Eventually, the
society would incorporate taboos in the form of rituals and mythic stories
to justify and reinforce the aversion. In a phrase, the genetic leash pulls
culture back into line.
. The learning of color vocabularies is also strongly biased and hence falls
in the category of gene-culture transmission. From infancy onward, normally
sighted individuals see variation in wavelength not as a continuously
varying property of light (which it is) but as the four basic colors of
blue, green, yellow, and red, along with various blends in the intermediate
zones. This beautiful illusion is genetically programed into the visual
apparatus and brain. Marc Bornstein at Princeton University used special
techniques that measure attention span to show that four-month-old infants
respond to variation in wavelength as if they were discriminating the four
adult categories.
The same pattern occurs worldwide. At the University of California,
Berkeley, Brent Berlin and Paul Kay worked with the native speakers of
twenty languages, including Arabic, Bulgarian, Cantonese, Catalan, Hebrew,
Ibibio, Thai, Tzeltal, and Urdu. The volunteers were asked to describe their
color vocabulary in an unusually precise way: they were shown a large array
of chips varying in color and brightness, and directed to place each of the
principal color terms of their language on the chips that came closest to
their conception of what the words mean. Even though the words differed
strikingly from one language to the next in origin and sound, they fell into
clusters on the array that correspond, at least approximately, to the
principal colors distinguished by Born-stein's infants.
The physiological basis of the partitioning in vision is partially known.
The color cones of the retina, which are the cells that distinguish
wavelength, are differentiated into three types that approach but do not
correspond exactly to the basic colors. These cells are maximally sensitive
to blue (440 nanometers), green (535 nanometers), and yellow-green (565
nanometers) respectively. In the lateral geniculate body of the thalamus,
one of the key relay stations between the eye and the visual cortex of the
brain, the visually active nerve cells are divided into four types that
appear to encode the principal hues. The deeper mechanisms that translate
these diverse sensitivities into the conscious perception of color are under
active investigation. Few brain scientists doubt that a full explanation of
color vision at the levels of the cell and molecule will eventually become
possible. Furthermore, simple genetic changes in color vision, creating the
various forms of color blindness, occur widely through human populations.
They have been associated tentatively with the malfunction of particular
genes located on the X-chromosome.
The intensity of the learning bias was strikingly revealed by an experiment
conducted on color perception during the late 1960s by Eleanor Rosch of the
University of California at Berkeley. In looking for "natural categories" of
cognition, Rosch exploited the fact that the Dani people of New Guinea have
no words to denote color; | | | | | |
