Heredity Versus Environment

[Kether]

One of the biggest points of contention among psychologists, sociologists and other students of human behaviour is the question of whether our personalities are determined by genetic characteristics or by socialisation. Their various answers have determined a great deal of political and moral theory, with cultural factors generally being favoured by those with left-wing sentiments, and heredity by the political right.
Personally, I feel that the case for environmental conditioning is by far the strongest, but I am interested to hear the opinions of other Big View members.

[scameter]

Well, to me, the opinions of Carl Sagan in his wonderful book "Dragons of Eden", regarding human intelligence and it's evolution, and Bruce H. Lipton's paper on this website, entitled "TheHuman Genome". Both have influenced my dicision on this: that intelligence is both genetic and extragenetic, and varies with individual species; for instance, lizards are primarily genetically ruled, but humans are only slightly genetically ruled, with most of their behavior sprouting from extragenetic learning. And, Mr.Lipton's point in his paper that cells adapt to their environment and form beliefs and perceptions about it seems very coherent to scientific evidence, especially when applied to humans. Interesting topic Kether. :)

[Kether]

Our personalities are mainly determined by socialisation, but the roots of society and culture themselves are psychological, and therefore biological and genetic. So in a sense behaviour may ultimately be reducible to biological factors, though these do not govern the differences between human beings and the more complex elements of psychical personality.

[scameter]

Yes they may be, but actually, only how we perform behavior physically is determined by genetics and biological facets; our consciousness is determined by what is learned, which is the main source for individual differentiation. Yes, we are all different physically too, but the actual person is created from what is learned and adopted as the individual's activity resource; for instance, someone who is born of English biology into a Chinese-speaking family would speak Chinese if indeed that is what he/she was taught; the actual English language wouldn't be their natural language, Chinese would be. And however so that their mouths and tongues are structured genetically to speak a certain language, if they are taught Chinese, it will be their natural language, even if there exists an English accent to it due to natural physical differentiation from those of English and Chinese ancestry. Psychology is what truly determines a human; our knowledge, wisdom, thought process, will, and other factors, very much unlike other animals, which is even scientifically true in the fact of our preference to extragenetic learning over genetic programming.

[Kether]

I agree with you entirely. I believe very strongly that personality is a cultural and social construct. I was merely suggesting that the basic drives that make any culture exist at all are biological.

[scameter]

Hmm..I think the physical, mechanical catalyst for the growth of cultural aspects are genetic and biological, but that actual products themselves are conceptual, and are not dependant on biological factors.

[Kether]

Yes, that's exactly what I think.

[Kether]

Do you think that such great gifts are genetic, though? Intelligence may be, but I would have said that 'genius' requires a certain development of natural intelligence.

[Kether]

Maybe average genetic qualities can be moulded into many characteristics, but very strong biological characteristics can only evolve in a few directions.

[scameter]

Intelligence is determined by what is learned; your capacity for a certain amount may be higher or lower than someone else, but unless you possess a mental disorder, your intelligence capacity will be extremely similar to that of anyone else, it is merely your task to fulfill such potential. Beauty or talent are subjective descriptives; however, acuteness at a skill, usually refered to as talent, can be something more generally accepted, but that does not negate it's subjectivity. For instance, to a human a chimp may seem more capable of manipulating tools than an arangootan (possible mispell there), but both have the capacity for tool creation and operation, both merely perform those capacities differently. It is very subjective, just like the majority of things in this existence.

[locomotive]

I think environment AND heridity, hehe. You see if you tend to move with more trouble you will either get tougher or become a dorc. There are so much examples I could give making one more important than the other. heridity is environment? personality means how you act, right? and what was character, ow jeah, personality over a longer period.
I think that if people ...wait I found this:
http://multiples.about.com/od/funfacts/a/d...ferenttwins.htm (http://multiples.about.com/od/funfacts/a/differenttwins.htm)

[Thomas Knierim]

In the nature versus nurture debate there are three types of characteristics: predominantly hereditary characteristics, predominantly environmental characteristics, and interactional characteristics. Most psychologists today agree that personality belongs to the first category, i.e. it is predominantly determined by nature. At least this is what the study of twins suggests. Intelligence -as measured by g- is also predominantly hereditary. There is still an interactional component, which allows for either support or repression of certain traits. At any rate, most of the cards are dealt at birth. But since life is a strategy game, much depends on how you play your hand. ;)

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

How is intelligence hereditary?

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: How is intelligence hereditary?

Intelligence is to a large degree (approx. 80% at adult life) innate. All mainstream psychologist associations agree in that point. I am talking about general intelligene -as measured by the g factor- not about IQ measurements, which are susceptible to manipulation and cultural bias. The g factor is much more difficult to measure than IQ, but IQ often gives an indication where the g factor is going. It has also been suggested that neural plasticity in the brain correlates to the g factor and that neural plasticity is heritable.

Cheers, Thomas

[joye_r2]

I disagree that intelligence is mostly hereditory. I agree that the brain has difference across individuals and it has some influence on intelligence, but it is very little. I think the difference in brain across individuals is smiliar to the difference in strength of the hands across individuals due to hereditory. The difference does not make effective difference in intelligence.

I define intelligence as processing information stored in brain and providing output(similar to a computer processing data stored in it). The input information makes a lot of difference in the way the output comes. The speed of processing is affected by hereditory reasons but the effect is little. Most of the information is gathered from environment and hence environment plays large role in exhibiting intelligence. One who does not have much information can not show intelligence. One who does not have right information, he can not show intelligence, irrespective of the brain capability due to hereditory reason.

[Kether]

There may be some innate processing abilities, but I think that most characteristics are either environmentally determined or the product of interaction between the environmental and the innate. But in many of the most important characteristics of human beings, such as emotional intelligence, are culturally and environmentally imposed.
One of the characteristics in question is of course sexuality.

[Thomas Knierim]

It's common, really.

People think that they have a free will. They think that they make choices. Acquire intelligence. Acquire personality. Most of this is illusion. The human body/mind is a phantastic machine, and most of the time this machine runs on autopilot. There is no conscious doing whatsoever.

We are not only born into a certain family, a certain culture, a certain economic and political situation, but our bodies are also genetically preprogrammed. What we call our life is then the unfolding of actions and reactions according to the plans of multiple programs. There is the genetic program. The instinct program. The emotional program. The mental program. The cultural program. What we call our experience is largely the result of the interactions of these programs.

Try to see it this way. Most of the time you are acting like a machine. Granted, you are a very sophisticated and miraculous machine, but principally most of your actions are completely mechanic. There is one difference, though. You have the possibility of consciousness. A machine does not have that.

As a machine we are to a great extent "preconfigured" which means that cognitive capacities are largely innate. It's a fact. Read the research papers and get used to it. One might call it "hereditary", "karma", "personality", or whatever. We are born with it. Of course, there is a great deal that can be done by the environment. The environment can either stunt these capacities or bring them to their full bloom. But it can neither create them out of thin air nor destroy them.

What concerns emotional intelligence, or EI, this is not more than a fad based on very poor theory. Unfortunately it's popular. Intellect and emotion are of course different functions, each fulfilling its specific role. The degree to which emotional responses are developed could indeed be called 'emotional intelligence'. But that's not what current EI theory does. Current EI theory muddles it all up. I could refute most of Goleman's and Mayer's so-called "emotional competencies" at once, but unfortunately this would lead us astray.

Note that the g factor, or general cognitive capacity is predominantly innate. This means there is a certain possibility for environmental influences to develop things either to the better or the worse. But this margin isn't as great as many people would like to believe. As little as you can turn iron into gold, you can turn a low g factor person into an Einstein. Likewise a smart person will not turn stupid because of the lack of a proper education.

This is a fact, albeit an unpopular fact, because our society values equal opportunities. The truth is people are not equal and they will never be equal. Equal opportunities do not exist. Furthermore, intelligence is hopelessly overrated. People take pride in their intelligence not realising this is just as silly and vain as taking pride in the way their bodies look. Intelligence and beauty are both abundant. However, humility is rare. <_<

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

And emotion and emotional architecture of the individual? Is ir hereditary? Is everything hereditary? Are we nothing more than what a few chemical bons in DNA and their corresponding genes and RNA products determine? Just chemical compounds? Do consciousness, conscienceness, and emotion mean nothing except both how they benefit the whole and that they are derived from mere chemicals?

[locomotive]

damn that sucks. Still your whole destiny will rely on environment and personalities do change?

[Kether]

Thomas,
I consider personality and identity to be products of interaction between different factors, but that those factors are not just hereditary ones. Yes, we do have certain innate genetic qualities, but most of personality is the result of how environmental factors interact with them.
What concerns emotional intelligence, or EI, this is not more than a fad based on very poor theory. Unfortunately it's popular. Intellect and emotion are of course different functions, each fulfilling its specific role. The degree to which emotional responses are developed could indeed be called 'emotional intelligence'. But that's not what current EI theory does.
What does current IE theory do? I thought that studying 'the degree to which emotional responses are developed' was precisely what it did.
I must admit that Emotional Intelligence did not feel scientifically rigorous enough for my liking, but I agree with the broad scope of its argument - that success is not entirely based on processing abilities.
I agree that 'intelligence' is not merely success, but nor do I consider it to simply mean IQ. Aptitude in purely intellectual activities depends on factors other than IQ.
I could refute most of Goleman's and Mayer's so-called "emotional competencies" at once.
Please do so.

[Thomas Knierim]

Kether: What does current EI theory do?

The popular "emotional intelligence" theory is a prime example for a pseudo science. It lacks falsifiability and there are no universally agreed metrics to define EI. Certainly a quick Google search will bring up enough EI tests to give you the impression that psychologists actually knew how to measure EI, but this is definitely not so. Emotional intelligence is chiefly a management fad.

The concept of emotional intelligence certainly "feels" right, but in my view Western psychology has approached this topic in a hopelessly muddled and confused way. In order to explain this, I need to go somewhat into detail. If we look at cognitive capacities, we can identify four distinct functions of mind. These four functions are the motive, the instinctive, the emotional, and the thinking function. They are primarily control functions that exist in addition to and apart from sensation and perception. Each of these four functions processes sense data in a different way. The motive functions deals with body motion and energy, the instinctive function translates sense data into automatic responses, the emotion function controls behaviour at an elementary level, and finally the thinking function takes care of conscious symbol and image processing.

Much of our behaviour is controlled subconsciously by the first three functions. Most of the time we are indeed on "autopilot", while the thinking function is idle. While the thinking function is idle, it engages in daydreams and random chains of thought. The four functions can be associated with specific brain areas: the thinking function belongs to specific areas of the cortex, the emotional function to the limbic system, the motive function to the brain stem and the sensomotor cortex, and the instinctive function to the cerbellum and other brain areas.

Now, the job of the emotion function is to generate certain responses to certain inputs which are beneficial to the organism. Fear is generated to protect the organism from danger, anger/agression causes energisation (for example for defence or attack), hunger/greed for foraging, feeding, and so on. The more complex emotions that can be experienced by mammals require a developed cortex. They are actually combinations of emotions and a gestalt. The primary advantage of emotional decisions over thought decisions is speed.

Thomas: I could refute most of Goleman's and Mayer's so-called "emotional competencies" at once.

Kether: Please do so.

Alright, let's look at Goleman's five competencies (quoted from Wikipedia):

1. The ability to identify and name one's emotional states and to understand the link between emotions, thought and action.

The ability to identify and name emotions in oneself or another person is an instinctive function. Hence, instinctive intelligence would be more accurate.

2. The capacity to manage one's emotional states — to control emotions or to shift undesirable emotional states to more adequate ones.

This capacity requires introspection and thought. The emotional centre is only involved as an object.

3. The ability to enter into emotional states (at will) associated with a drive to achieve and be successful.

In order to move into a certain state at will, the motive centre (volition) is required. Hence, motive intelligence would be more accurate. But there is also an emotional component.

4. The capacity to read, be sensitive to, and influence other people's emotions.

The ability to read emotions requires instinct, while the ability to influence other people's emotions requires both instinct and communication skills. The latter are largely due to the thinking function (such as verbal skills), not the emotional function.

5. The ability to enter and sustain satisfactory interpersonal relationships.

A more opaque phrasing can hardly be imagined. What the deuce are satisfactory relationships? True intelligence goes way beyond establishing and maintaining "satisfactory" relationships. True intelligence uses relationships as a tool for spiritual growth.

In summary, popular EI theory muddles up very different cognitive capacities without even recognising them. It presents a hodgepodge of interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, calling them emotional intelligence in apparent ignorance of the true function and scope of emotions.

Cheers, Thomas

[Kether]

Thank you for taking the time to discuss the theory in depth, Thomas.
Please understand that when I use the term 'emotional intelligence', I do not mean the specific theory but a more general meaning of the term -both essentially social skills. I believe that introspection - knowing oneself - involves more than control of the emotions.

[Thomas Knierim]

psyche: i think what they mean by emotional intelligence is a talent for rapport.

Yes, that seems to be the colloquial meaning. Of course, nobody would doubt that talent for rapport is important for certain types of work, especially work that involves a lot of social contact, such as management, sales, public offices, etc. However, calling it EI and measuring EQ -in emulation of IQ- is just quack science and should be discouraged IMV.

It seems that HR management is eternally in search of the silver bullet. First it was the Big-Five theory, then the Myers-Briggs Typology (where ExFx types would probably score higer on EQ), then the Four Personalities Quadrants, and then in the 90s it was Emotional Intelligence. One wonders what might be next... The Enneagram typology?

Kether: Please understand that when I use the term 'emotional intelligence', I do not mean the specific theory but a more general meaning of the term -both essentially social skills.

Okay, but then why not use the term social skills, or -if you want- interpersonal skills and intrapersonal skills. These terms are much more accurate and uncontroversial.

Alright, now we that we got off on a tangent, we might be able to return to the original topic by asking the question: are these types of skills environmentally determined or innate?

What do you think?

Cheers, Thomas

[Kether]

I think that social skills are almost certainly environmental - although it is possible that some neural problems may adversely affect them, such problems are not the norm (if they exist at all -I am merely speculating).

[scameter]

I am curious: I know that our capacity for learning and intellectual growth and social emotional development is hereditary, but how can our actual intelligence and our knowledge base be hereditary? In all mammals, especially in humans, we evolve extragenetically, the mechanism for our capacity to evolve being the only thing truly genetic in our advancement; thus, how can intelligence be hereditary?

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter,

You are confusing these two things. Knowledge, education, culture, language, etc. are all acquired, whereas intelligence is largely innate.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Then maybe I misunderstand the definion of intelligence; I thought intelligence meant the mental capacity to store and amount of information and it's capacity for thought processing.

[Kether]

Yes, the capacity. But the actual knowledge that is stored and processed is not hereditary.

[scameter]

Exactly.

[Thomas Knierim]

Kether: I consider personality and identity to be products of interaction between different factors, but that those factors are not just hereditary ones. Yes, we do have certain innate genetic qualities, but most of personality is the result of how environmental factors interact with them.

Yes, I generally agree with that. Unfortunately, the term personality isn't very well defined. Perhaps we can agree that there is essence and personality and that the former is innate, whereas the latter is acquired. Essence and personality relate to each other as bricks and stucco, except that in some cases the "thickness" of personality exceeds that of the essence, which does rarely happen with brick and stucco. The personality is everything socially acquired through culture and education, whereas essence is outlined by some fundamental traits. Preferences, tastes, and habits belong to the personality, wheras basic traits, such as the Myers-Briggs types (introvert-extrovert, sensing-intuiting, thinking-feeling, judging-perceiving ), belong to the essence of a person. The only problem I see is that people commonly use the term personality to refer to both, fundamental and acquired traits.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

I agree; personality can oftentimes be a hypocritical replication of true personality and essence, something Eastern philosophy seems fit on abolishing.

[Kether]

I agree, Thomas.

[scameter]

"What is life but the angle of vision? A man is measured by the angle at which he looks at objects. What is life but what a man is thinking of all day? This is his fate and his employer. Knowing is the measure of the man. By how much we know, so we are."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

:)

[scameter]

I do believe he wasn't speaking mathematically, but rather metaphorically, in that life is individually relative. :D As well as that a man is an essential culmination of his daily thoughts and knowledge. :)

[scameter]

Allegorically or metaphorically?

[TruthSeeker]

I talked about this in the old sciforums....
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53568

"I've been watching tv shows like City Cofidential and Cold Case Files and have noticed that most serial killers have screwed up childhoods, just as I expected. However, once in a while, there's a serial killer that seems juts like everyone else and without a screwed up childhood. Today I watched one called "the happy face killer". The guy had a normal life and everything. But what puzzles me is that apparently he didn't have a screwed up childhood.

I'm just puzzled by it. Altough most killers have psychological environmental reasons to be killers, there's sometimes the odd one. Has anyone heard of any experiement that tries to find out why?

Has anyone ever did a CATscan on some of them to try to find out any differences in their brains?"

This "heredity versus environment" is a very very old debate in psychology...
IMHO, about 99% aspects of one's personality is determined by a combination of choices and circumstances. The other 1% might have some genetic influence that cannot be overwritten.

[TruthSeeker]

This is an intersting quote that came from the thread...

"Some people fear that biological causes must be treated with radical medical interventions such as heavy psychopharmacological agents or even psycho-surgery. But research shows that measures as simple as better prenatal care, better nutrition, reduced exposure to environmental toxins, or remediation of neurochemical imbalances can be highly effective in correcting problems in behavior.

Unless the physiological functioning of the brain is included in the quest to alleviate crime and violence, we suggest that any effort will be a failure."
http://www.crime-times.org

[scameter]

I think that that is very true. But, do you think that influence essentially produces the conclusion that environment is the prime factor, not heredity?

[Smurf]

yes, I don't think that they are acknowledging the fact that their neurological makeup can be attributed to their parents?

But then Scam, wasn't their parent's genes influenced by environment before, and theirs before them and so on?

[scameter]

yes, I don't think that they are acknowledging the fact that their neurological makeup can be attributed to their parents?

It can? Is it not formed through what they gain from their environment, learning?

But then Scam, wasn't their parent's genes influenced by environment before, and theirs before them and so on?

I suppose their DNA came from the very first organism, then evolved.

[TruthSeeker]

Yes, ultimately, it is the environment that influence us, even our genetic composition. But my question is "what influences you?" You cannot change your genetics yourself and you are still influenced by it. That's the problem. The question now is to what extent does genetic influences us. How does it overwrite our will. Well, I should say how does it define our will.

Anyways...
If you ever visit sciforums, please, PLEASE never EVER give them a link to this site. This is heaven. If those guys come here, heaven is gone! :lol: :rofl:

[scameter]

I don't think it influences our will. I think it creates the house for our will, our biological body, but that our will is individual and is unique, and that it is not up to the will of genetics except insofar as the body acts of it's own accord. The environment, what we learn, and indeed, our individual choices characterize us.

[TruthSeeker]

Do we even make choices? :think:

Well, that's a whole other thread, isn't it? :lol: :D

[scameter]

Well, that's a whole other thread, isn't it? :lol: :D

:D Indeed. I think we do, though, most definitely; I believe that we are individuals with individual wills and distinct uniqueness; thus, we are capable of making conscious choices, however much they are defined by our environment or genetics, that is irrelevant.

[TruthSeeker]

Well, I think it is important to notice that spiritual people have a very similar notion regarding astrology. In astrology, all our personality and possibly our future is defined by the stars in our birth. It is very similar to the genetics perspective in that later respect. But we also believe that we control our destiny. Just because the stars makes us more intelligent, for example, it doesn't mean that we will build on our intelligence. Just like having a talent is not enough to be good at something. Having a talent give you an edge, but does not do the work for you. Me, for example, my map makes me a very versatile person that always looks at the bigger picture. Interestingly enough, that translates into a talent for photography, because I can see things in very different perspectives. It also translates into piano, though I lack the physical part, which I need to develop.

The whole question between the nature and nurture debate has to do with destiny. Is the future already set in stone or we can control our future? The issue is that nobody likes to have no control over their future. This is why we are discussing this.

[scameter]

I agree. Oddly, most fields of study and speculation pertain either to the past or the present, but indeed, astrology pertains to the future, but not necessarily from a set-in-stone perspective, but almost moreso from a predictionary perspective, learning from how things are now to predict and calculate the future, or perhaps vise versa...It is incredibly interesting to me. :)

[Kether]

I started a 'free will' topic in the philosophy forum a while ago, if you're interested, Truth Seeker.

We could be said to control our destinies, but is our will really free? There are reasons why we make the choices we do, and these reasons are predominantly environmental. I recently started to think about how an act of will actually works; it is best described by the word reasoning, rather than by the rather ambiguous 'choice'.
Decisions are made between various options, but there are reasons behind them, and these are generally beyond our control. We could be said to be 'choosing' between options and reasons, but the way in which we reason depends on certain assumptions, and other factors beyond our control. I might choose to do something for any number of reasons, but I am not controlling the reasons themselves, or the assumptions that led me to 'choose' between them.

[scameter]

It really depends on how we view things. For instance, if we view life through science, we have entire free will. But, from a Christian point of view or a Taoist one, we essentially do have free wills, but we cannot escape the will and plan of God.

[TruthSeeker]

how can it translate to piano without the physical part...what do you mean...please explain...
I have a musical nature, but not a physical one, which is why I don't do much sports, for example.... And which is why I'm good at interpreting pieces in the piano (for example, playing pianissiom or forte), but not as good as actually playing (like speed and accuracy, for example)...

[TruthSeeker]

Well, to begin with, I've been playing piano for 10 years...
I can also compose concerts, symphonies, etc. I just can't write them.

[scameter]

:wallbash:

[TruthSeeker]

ok how do you compose without writing them down...i don't get it...

a concert is a performance...usually a solo vocalist or instrumentalist backed by an orchestra...

symphonies can be composed,..so can fugues quartets rhapsodies fantasies nocturnes concertos operas oratorios and more but you cannot compose a concert... a concert is where such compositions are performed and they cannot be performed with out a written score and the outakes for each instrument...

symphonies are orchestral works for 50 or more musicians...how can you compose a symphony without writing it down...

in ten years you could have mastered theory...then you could write compositions...something is missing here...
I'm capable of composing music in my head. I know how it sounds and I can hear all the notes and all the dynamic. But when I try to write it down, it's just a disaster. The disaster begins when I try to find the tempo. A lot of my music is quite complex, so I have a hard time dividing the timing. Then comes the key. I often take a while to figure out which key I'm thinking about. By the time I'm trying my third key, chances are I've already forgotten the whole piece. Sometimes I manage to put the melody down. But it rarely is like I imagined it.

I tend to compose in a style that is a mixture between Ravel and Debussy, with a touch of Mozart. There's often also Liszt and Rachmaninoff influences. They are usually fairly complex pieces, just like Ravel's. They usually remind me of Salvador Dali's surrealist work.

Sometimes I can also make myself compose something in the same style Mozart and Bach composed. Specially in days I listen to them a lot...

It's kinda sad. I always thought that God is kinda mean to give me the gift of composition without the skill to write it down... :(

[scameter]

:wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash:

[TruthSeeker]

:wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash:
Whassup scam?

[scameter]

:D

[Kether]

...If we view life through science, we have entire free will.
Conventional determinism stems from the concepts of materialism and linear causality, concepts traditionally wedded to science. Many scientists and pro-science philosophers were and are determinists. Your statement therefore surprises me.

[scameter]

I said this because from the view of science, there are no spiritual influences on us determining, influencing, or otherwise affecting our will; we make choices based on our mind and our conditioning and our body, something given to us by nature, and thus our choices are entirely free.

[Kether]

I don't follow. The fact that physiological and environmental influences determine our choices is precisely the thing that makes them not free. Yes, these things are given to us by nature - we do not choose them freely, they are given to us by outside forces. We have no say in this.

[TruthSeeker]

We are influenced by outside forces, but we also have forces inside us...

[Kether]

It's certainly a very complex question, and I think that the best way is to think about the details of cognition. Yes, we have forces inside our minds, even if there are reasons for our choices - which I think stops them being free per se.

[scameter]

So, you think we have absolutely no free choice because of our environmental influences? We cannot reason past our environmental influences, even if we are using mechanisms taught to us? Then how is it possible for us to even think of something described as being free will and beyond what has influenced us in our environment?

[Kether]

We cannot reason past our environmental influences, even if we are using mechanisms taught to us?
No, I do believe that we can reason using mechanisms taught to us, but, since these mechanisms are taught to us, they are not free will, since they are not a priori. They are the result of environmental influence.
Then how is it possible for us to even think of something described as being free will and beyond what has influenced us in our environment?
It isn't. Bear in mind that 'environment' includes everything we experience, ever; 'environmental influence' is an even more complex process, involving very elaborate unconscious cognitive processes. All of our thoughts are determined by such 'environmental influences'; the thing that makes this not 'free will' is that we do not choose the way in which we make decisions. We simply make them, following a set of rules that are a part of our psychical makeup; we take these rules for granted.

[TruthSeeker]

It's certainly a very complex question, and I think that the best way is to think about the details of cognition. Yes, we have forces inside our minds, even if there are reasons for our choices - which I think stops them being free per se.
Well, here's an example that can disprove the lack of freedom.
If you are abused in your childhood, are you definetely going to be abusive? Not necessarily. Yes, it can influence you, but you still have the choice. And I'm sure there is evidence of that out there....

[scameter]

They are the result of environmental influence.

So our environment generated in our minds the ability to choose?

It isn't.

The very fact of you saying that, and realizing that our choices are influenced by the environment, means that the environment isn't the only, or even the preceeding, factor in will.

We simply make them, following a set of rules that are a part of our psychical makeup; we take these rules for granted.

Do those "rules" include the ability to take them for granted, to realize we are doing so, to realize we are realizing we are doing so, to realize we are realizing that we are realizing we are doing so, and that others can/are too?

[Kether]

If you are abused in your childhood, are you definitely going to be abusive? Not necessarily.
Your example doesn't solve the problem. It is true that childhood abuse does not always lead to the victim being abusive themself, but I would argue that this was the result of environmental influences other than abuse affecting their decisions.
For example, they may feel a desire to prove themselves to be better than their abusers, because of authority figures, whom they trust, setting the good example of not being abusive. Indeed, this is probably what does happen in cases like the ones you describe: society persuades them not to abuse, and - for whatever reason - the abuse victim obeys it.
Yes, it can influence you, but you still have the choice.
This seems to me to be a contradiction. If it influences you, then surely it stops your decision from being completely free and unpressurised?And I'm sure there is evidence of that out there....
No doubt there's evidence of abuse victims not being abusive, but - as I tried to point out above - this does not prove the existence of free will.

The very fact of you saying that, and realizing that our choices are influenced by the environment, means that the environment isn't the only, or even the preceding, factor in will.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Do you mean that my realisation that my thoughts are determined by my environment cannot be due to environment? I can't see the logic in that. I could rattle off a long list of things that have influenced my a posteriori views on free will : books I have read, sights and sounds that have stimulated my cognitive processes, this discussion.
So our environment generated in our minds the ability to choose?
We are born with the ability to 'choose'. The way in which we do this is partly determined by this innate ability, and partly determined by environment - the point that I am making is that we make choices according to a given set of rules and drives that exist in our minds. Information is inputted into our internal decision-matrix from our environment, and we effectively calculate what to do. An obvious analogy would be a mathematical calculation: there are certain rules and constants that govern the way we calculate, and variables are inputted (=environmental influence), we perform the calculation and get some kind of result (=a decision).

[TruthSeeker]

Your example doesn't solve the problem. It is true that childhood abuse does not always lead to the victim being abusive themself, but I would argue that this was the result of environmental influences other than abuse affecting their decisions.
For example, they may feel a desire to prove themselves to be better than their abusers, because of authority figures, whom they trust, setting the good example of not being abusive. Indeed, this is probably what does happen in cases like the ones you describe: society persuades them not to abuse, and - for whatever reason - the abuse victim obeys it.
Well, I say they can make that choice for themselves. I know this for a fact because I'm married with one of those children... :o

This seems to me to be a contradiction. If it influences you, then surely it stops your decision from being completely free and unpressurised?
No, think about it. It influences you. It doesn't enforec it. It only gives you a direction. It turns you towards something, but it doesn't push you. You can still go wherever you would like to go.

I can influence you by telling you those things but it is you that ultimately will make a decision.

No doubt there's evidence of abuse victims not being abusive, but - as I tried to point out above - this does not prove the existence of free will.
And how's that so?

We are born with the ability to 'choose'. The way in which we do this is partly determined by this innate ability, and partly determined by environment - the point that I am making is that we make choices according to a given set of rules and drives that exist in our minds. Information is inputted into our internal decision-matrix from our environment, and we effectively calculate what to do. An obvious analogy would be a mathematical calculation: there are certain rules and constants that govern the way we calculate, and variables are inputted (=environmental influence), we perform the calculation and get some kind of result (=a decision).
I agree. But I also add internal influence....

[Kether]

Well, I say they can make that choice for themselves. I know this for a fact because I'm married with one of those children...
How can you say for sure that it wasn't other, later environmental influences that made her into the pleasant, non-abusive person she is?
No, think about it. It influences you. It doesn't enforec it. It only gives you a direction. It turns you towards something, but it doesn't push you. You can still go wherever you would like to go.
It is placing weight on how you decide, affecting the outcome of your decision. The outcome of the decision is different from what it would be were that influence not present, and so your decision is not free.
Me: No doubt there's evidence of abuse victims not being abusive, but - as I tried to point out above - this does not prove the existence of free will.
TruthSeeker: And how's that so?
Because their not reacting to the stimulus of abuse by turning into abusers may be due to other stimuli, not to free will.

[TruthSeeker]

How can you say for sure that it wasn't other, later environmental influences that made her into the pleasant, non-abusive person she is?
Because she didn't have that, and I know that for a fact. I'm married to her. I obviously know her pretty well...

Plus she was being fairly abused in relationships by the time I came around. But she was still sweet...

It is placing weight on how you decide, affecting the outcome of your decision.
Well, it does put weight on how you decide, but it doesn't define it. As I said, it gives you a direction. It doesn't force you to make a decision.

The outcome of the decision is different from what it would be were that influence not present, and so your decision is not free.
Not necessarily. The outcome is not set on stone. What happens is your decision. Many people have succeeded in life despite many hardships. That's impossible without free will. If the outcome would be defined only by external influences, then the world would never change!

Because their not reacting to the stimulus of abuse by turning into abusers may be due to other stimuli, not to free will.
Yes, there are other stimuli, but ultimately, the balance of power is in your hands. If I hadn't free will, chances are I would be agreeing with you, because it's way easier to just agree anyways. :D

[Kether]

Yes, there are other stimuli, but ultimately, the balance of power is in your hands. If I hadn't free will, chances are I would be agreeing with you, because it's way easier to just agree anyways.
No, you wouldn't - other things have happened to you, at different times, that have made you believe in free will and thus disagree with me. You had formed an opinion on the subject of free will before we had this discussion: you have no doubt heard countless other viewpoints other than mine.
Because she didn't have that, and I know that for a fact. I'm married to her. I obviously know her pretty well...
Plus she was being fairly abused in relationships by the time I came around. But she was still sweet...
So, every one of her experiences has consisted of psychological manipulation designed to make her abusive? We do not understand what stimuli make a person abusive; psychology is too young - so you can't say that her experiences have been ones that would have made her abusive, had she not chosen to react against them in another way.
Not necessarily. The outcome is not set on stone. What happens is your decision. Many people have succeeded in life despite many hardships. That's impossible without free will. If the outcome would be defined only by external influences, then the world would never change!
I really can't see why not.
People may have succeeded despite hardship, but that doesn't mean that they have succeeded despite the conditions that would stop them succeeding. We don't know exactly what those conditions are.
Well, it does put weight on how you decide, but it doesn't define it. As I said, it gives you a direction. It doesn't force you to make a decision.
Exactly: it puts weight on how you decide! And you do not choose to have that weight on how you decide, do you?

Remember my analogy. There are certain constants and rules that determine how you solve an equation, and there are variables that you input into the equation to determine the outcome.
It's the same with a decision. There are 'rules' that exist in your mind: desires and drives towards pleasure, for example. That's a very simple one, but some of them are very complicated, and differ between individuals. Some of them can be explained by biology; with others, you can follow the chain of antecedent causality back to various complex influences. But the point is that we take these rules about what would be the 'best' decision for granted: they define our minds, and we don't want to change them.
So, when we come to make a decision, we have these drives, analogous to rules, ingrained in our minds already. They determine our predictions of what would be the best outcome, and the criteria by which to judge a 'good' decision. The specifics of the situation, the 'variables', are submitted to these 'constants', and a decision is reached.

[scameter]

I could rattle off a long list of things that have influenced my a posteriori views on free will : books I have read, sights and sounds that have stimulated my cognitive processes, this discussion.

And where would those have come from? Other people realizing, and ultimately from the very first person that ever realized.

Information is inputted into our internal decision-matrix from our environment, and we effectively calculate what to do. An obvious analogy would be a mathematical calculation: there are certain rules and constants that govern the way we calculate, and variables are inputted (=environmental influence), we perform the calculation and get some kind of result (=a decision).

Of course math could do it. Math is a wonderful way to take actual things, lessen them, categorize them, then set them with rules and bounds that are unbreakable. If we begin with the ability to choose, then what we choose isn't entirely from our environment. Even if our environment influences it, it is the ability to realize that makes us able to choose; not calculation, not logic, not our environment.

It is placing weight on how you decide, affecting the outcome of your decision. The outcome of the decision is different from what it would be were that influence not present, and so your decision is not free.

No, our decisions aren't entirely up to us, they are influenced; but they are free. Because of what I said above.

Well, it does put weight on how you decide, but it doesn't define it. As I said, it gives you a direction. It doesn't force you to make a decision.

I agree.

Many people have succeeded in life despite many hardships. That's impossible without free will. If the outcome would be defined only by external influences, then the world would never change!

Indeed; and, as you said, people who are influenced in a particular way as children could never be anything else but what their influences determined, which is entirely against things that happen in life.

You had formed an opinion on the subject of free will before we had this discussion: you have no doubt heard countless other viewpoints other than mine.

Then free will exists, even if we are influenced by the environment? Does this not go against all you've said?

[Kether]

Then free will exists, even if we are influenced by the environment? Does this not go against all you've said?
What? I said "you had formed an opinion on the subject of free will before we had this discussion: you have no doubt heard countless other viewpoints other than mine." I was refuting TruthSeeker's statement that without free will, he would be agreeing with what I said - I pointed out that environmental influences other than my views have given him his opinion on the question. Where in that statement do I say that free will exists despite environmental influence?
Of course math could do it. Math is a wonderful way to take actual things, lessen them, categorize them, then set them with rules and bounds that are unbreakable. If we begin with the ability to choose, then what we choose isn't entirely from our environment. Even if our environment influences it, it is the ability to realize that makes us able to choose; not calculation, not logic, not our environment.
I was using Maths as an analogy. I said that the mind does something analogous to a Mathematical calculation. What I meant by 'born with the ability to choose' was really 'born with the ability to decide'; this decision-making is done according to certain internal rules, for example 'happiness is good'; 'food satisfies hunger'; 'run away from danger'. Some of these rules may be biologically innate; others may come from antecedent environmental factors; the point is that they are the things that really 'choose', and the Ego just goes along with what they say.
We evaluate, largely subconsciously, the specifics of the situation according to these rules, and then make a decision. I think that if 'choice' exists, then this is how choice works. Whether or not it can be called 'free' is yet to be decided, though my personal opinion is that the idea of 'free will' is not helpful here.

[scameter]

Where in that statement do I say that free will exists despite environmental influence?

The fact that he formed an opinion on it. From what you've said, he couldn't have "formed" anything mentally, because that would take free will, he would simply have been taught every opinion he had, which even that is impossible, because it takes free will to teach and free will to want to learn. Hey, I got a book today you may would like. It's a discussion (I haven't read it yet so I'm not entirely certain) between Erasmus and Martin Luther on free will. :)

What I meant by 'born with the ability to choose' was really 'born with the ability to decide'; this decision-making is done according to certain internal rules, for example 'happiness is good'; 'food satisfies hunger'; 'run away from danger'.

And where did those come from, and why do some people choose to avoid them, such as fasting and suicide?

the point is that they are the things that really 'choose', and the Ego just goes along with what they say.

Always? Then suicide and famine don't exist?

We evaluate, largely subconsciously, the specifics of the situation according to these rules, and then make a decision.

Yet you are capable of realizing this. I think that we learn things, experience things, and have innate genetic instincts, but I also think that we have free will, mostly because of realizational consciousness/sentience.

Whether or not it can be called 'free' is yet to be decided, though my personal opinion is that the idea of 'free will' is not helpful here.

Helpful towards what? And, one possible method of progressing in this topic about free will is to define exactly what you/I/we mean by "free". To you, "free" could mean free from influence, whereas to me, "free" means the ability to realize things and then to willfully think and take action, essentially, even if we are influenced those influence don't determine who we are, or definitely what we choose.

[locomotive]

the environment influences us but by some sort of faculty we make choices whitch makes our descision free..
a ball gets kicked and it covers some distance- it has no free will
but what if the ball feels the kick and decides to cover distance? there you have it.

[TruthSeeker]

No, you wouldn't - other things have happened to you, at different times, that have made you believe in free will and thus disagree with me. You had formed an opinion on the subject of free will before we had this discussion: you have no doubt heard countless other viewpoints other than mine.
Yes. And free will allow me not to change my opinion when I want, and change it when I want.

So, every one of her experiences has consisted of psychological manipulation designed to make her abusive?
Well, no! But obviously that abuse gave her a direction, which she didn't take!

We do not understand what stimuli make a person abusive; psychology is too young - so you can't say that her experiences have been ones that would have made her abusive, had she not chosen to react against them in another way.
Why not? Do you think she was always perfect. Of course it had influenced her, and still does in some level. And if she didn't have free will, she would just have succumbed to it...

If you want, you can go a look at data from psychotic people who have killed. Look at their infancy... Ever watched "The Silence of the Lambs"? If you watch the DVD one, it comes with interviews with many different psychopaths- and what they all say in common? Problems in their childhood. That's the one thing Freud got right...

I really can't see why not.
People may have succeeded despite hardship, but that doesn't mean that they have succeeded despite the conditions that would stop them succeeding. We don't know exactly what those conditions are.
That wasn't my point. My point is that without free will, people would mimic the past every time and we would still be stagnated in a lightless world. Imagine Thomas Edhison without free will. Would he have invented the lightbulb? :o

Exactly: it puts weight on how you decide! And you do not choose to have that weight on how you decide, do you?
And how does that completely overrides free will!?!?!? :o
You still have free will. As I said, it points towards somewhere. But the choice is still yours. Yes, you don't decide the circumstances around you. Yes, you have a limited pool of choices. However, you still can make the choices and influence your life. You can go from very poor to rich, but that's a combination between avaiable choices, your skills and a whole bunch of factors which influence your destiny.

Remember my analogy. There are certain constants and rules that determine how you solve an equation, and there are variables that you input into the equation to determine the outcome.
It's the same with a decision. There are 'rules' that exist in your mind: desires and drives towards pleasure, for example. That's a very simple one, but some of them are very complicated, and differ between individuals. Some of them can be explained by biology; with others, you can follow the chain of antecedent causality back to various complex influences. But the point is that we take these rules about what would be the 'best' decision for granted: they define our minds, and we don't want to change them.
So, when we come to make a decision, we have these drives, analogous to rules, ingrained in our minds already. They determine our predictions of what would be the best outcome, and the criteria by which to judge a 'good' decision. The specifics of the situation, the 'variables', are submitted to these 'constants', and a decision is reached.
Great people break the rules. Thomas Edison is an example of that. Abraham Lincoln is another, in a different level...

Read this. It's basically evidence of free will...
Psychology Today: The Winning Edge (http://www.psychologytoday.com/rss/pto-20051017-000003.html)

[Kether]

Well, I read the article, and - while I have some doubts about its scientific rigour - it seems to affirm a belief that I have held for most of my life. But in what way are these findings evidence for free will? On the contrary: they point out, for example, a positive correlation between children being praised for effort and their subsequent success: in other words, this so-called 'grit' is caused by environment. This doesn't prove anything where free will is concerned.
Yes. And free will allows me not to change my opinion when I want, and change it when I want.
Is free will what causes you to change your opinion, or might it be - for example - how convincingly put the opinions you have heard were?
If you want, you can go a look at data from psychotic people who have killed. Look at their infancy... Ever watched "The Silence of the Lambs"? If you watch the DVD one, it comes with interviews with many different psychopaths- and what they all say in common? Problems in their childhood.
I agree. In other words, they don't choose to kill. They don't exercise free will in killing; they kill because of environmental influence.
Great people break the rules. Thomas Edison is an example of that. Abraham Lincoln is another, in a different level...
I think you need to read my post a bit more carefully.
That wasn't my point. My point is that without free will, people would mimic the past every time and we would still be stagnated in a lightless world. Imagine Thomas Edison without free will. Would he have invented the light-bulb?
But would they mimic the past every time? Like I said, psychology is too young to understand how environment influences people. By no means is it certain - or even probable - that environmental influence consists of simple mimicry.
Thus I think that the best course of action is to try to work out how 'choices' work - trying to break free of 'little black box' syndrome, so that we could state an opinion on free will with a justified degree of confidence. Hence my analogy.
Great people break the rules. Thomas Edison is an example of that. Abraham Lincoln is another, in a different level...
You need to read my post more carefully. What I meant by 'rules' was "desires and drives towards pleasure, for example." In other words, they are the already-existing criteria by which we judge whether a course of action would be a good one. You cannot possibly think that Edison or Lincoln broke these 'rules'.
The fact that he formed an opinion on it. From what you've said, he couldn't have "formed" anything mentally, because that would take free will, he would simply have been taught every opinion he had, which even that is impossible, because it takes free will to teach and free will to want to learn.
I am not contending that no process of 'forming' goes on inside the mind. What I am saying is that this process is caused, and that the form it takes is greatly influenced, by environment.
And where did those come from, and why do some people choose to avoid them, such as fasting and suicide?
Their internal 'rules' are obviously different to those of other people, or they are interacting differently with each other and situationally specific information. Yes, certain 'rules' have been overridden, but they have been overridden not by free will but by other rules and internal complexes, which have interacted with newer environmental input. Take the example of a person fasting: yes, they are going against the 'food is good' rule, but this is because they are obeying other rules: perhaps an obsession with image, perhaps a feeling that God doesn't want them to eat.
Yet you are capable of realizing this. I think that we learn things, experience things, and have innate genetic instincts, but I also think that we have free will, mostly because of realizational consciousness/sentience.
There is no reason why consciousness cannot be the product of deterministic influence.
Helpful towards what? And, one possible method of progressing in this topic about free will is to define exactly what you/I/we mean by "free". To you, "free" could mean free from influence, whereas to me, "free" means the ability to realize things and then to willfully think and take action, essentially, even if we are influenced those influence don't determine who we are, or definitely what we choose.
Helpful towards further study of human behaviour and motivation; helpful towards ethical philosophy; helpful to social policy-makers.
I do, like any sensible person, believe that we "have the ability to realise things and to willfully think and take action." But I also think that there are reasons behind all of our choices, and that - since those reasons are not 'chosen' by the ego - our choices are therefore not 'free', or that it is not helpful to think of them as 'free'. In a sense, we are choosing in the same way every time; it is not the choosing that is at fault when we make bad decisions, but the environmental input into that 'choice'-matrix.

[TruthSeeker]

Well, I read the article, and - while I have some doubts about its scientific rigour - it seems to affirm a belief that I have held for most of my life. But in what way are these findings evidence for free will? On the contrary: they point out, for example, a positive correlation between children being praised for effort and their subsequent success: in other words, this so-called 'grit' is caused by environment. This doesn't prove anything where free will is concerned.
No, that's exactly the opposite of what the article said. There's a negative correlation between children being praised and their success. The article clearly shows that without an internal decision to keep trying, it would be impossible. For example, the mathematician in the beginning had to keep trying for years. He succeeded despite all kinds of negative circumstances. If he was influenced by his environment, he would definetely have given up!

[Kether]

The article said that there was a negative correlation between children being praised for intelligence and their subsequent success, but that there was a positive correlation between success and their being praised for effort. In other words, the drive to 'keep trying' that you describe is instilled by environment.
You also seem to have a very narrow definition of 'environment'. The mathematician's environment at the time of his great work was evidently hard, but this does not mean that his desire to keep on trying was an exercising of his 'free will', for two reasons.
Firstly, we do not know what form 'environmental influence' takes in cases like this. The mathematician's circumstances at the time of his solving the problem were hard, but perhaps such hard circumstances were precisely what motivated him to keep on trying.
Secondly, the mathematician's desire to keep trying could probably be attributed to events earlier in his life. His love of mathematics, and his fanatical work ethic itself, could easily have stemmed from early conditioning, and remained with him ever since, regardless of whether the circumstances were difficult.

It is not an easy question to answer. And I think the best way, by far, is to try to think about how choices work. Then we will be able to decide whether or not they are 'free' in any meaningful sense. I will sketch my hypothesis out again:
Decision-making is done according to certain internal rules, for example 'happiness is good'; 'food satisfies hunger'; 'run away from danger'. Some of these rules may be biologically innate; others may come from antecedent environmental factors; the point is that they are the things that really 'choose', and the Ego just goes along with what they say.
We evaluate, largely subconsciously, the specifics of the situation according to these rules, and then make a decision. I think that how 'choice' works. Whether or not it can be called 'free' is yet to be decided, though my personal opinion is that the idea of 'free will' is not helpful here.

[scameter]

I am not contending that no process of 'forming' goes on inside the mind. What I am saying is that this process is caused, and that the form it takes is greatly influenced, by environment.

Of course, but that doesn't deny free will at all. You could paint a car, but that doesn't change the car, or how it runs.

Yes, certain 'rules' have been overridden, but they have been overridden not by free will but by other rules and internal complexes, which have interacted with newer environmental input.

And where did those rules, complexes, and influences originally derive?

yes, they are going against the 'food is good' rule, but this is because they are obeying other rules: perhaps an obsession with image, perhaps a feeling that God doesn't want them to eat.

Then that simply shows the power of both thought and free will. Those people choose to follow God and to have an obsession with image, even if they are influenced, thus free will and thought exist, and can cause people to do quite unnatural things, such as fasting, suicide, and masturbation, particularly with fantasies.

There is no reason why consciousness cannot be the product of deterministic influence.

And there is no reason that it can be.

Helpful towards further study of human behaviour and motivation; helpful towards ethical philosophy; helpful to social policy-makers.

Without free will, you wouldn't want that, couldn't make that, and couldn't help to make that.

In a sense, we are choosing in the same way every time; it is not the choosing that is at fault when we make bad decisions, but the environmental input into that 'choice'-matrix.

Which exists for some reason, even though it isn't free... So, from your viewpoint, culture doesn't exist, nor does invention, music, science, technology, literature, philosophy, or anything else that is a product of the human mind, because we would have simply chosen to do just enough, instinctually, to survive as best we can during our cave men days, and would have only chosen the progressive forms of that, with no emotion, passion, invention, music, art, science, philosophy, or anything else unnecessary to pure survival. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is there because we enjoy it, not because it is always beneficial.

[Kether]

Of course, but that doesn't deny free will at all. You could paint a car, but that doesn't change the car, or how it runs.
The creation and direction of choice by the environment is not analogous to painting a car. A better analogy would be changing the components of the car, manufacturing an engine, etc.
And where did those rules, complexes, and influences originally derive?
Some of them from biological nature, others from environment.
Then that simply shows the power of both thought and free will. Those people choose to follow God and to have an obsession with image, even if they are influenced, thus free will and thought exist, and can cause people to do quite unnatural things, such as fasting, suicide, and masturbation, particularly with fantasies.
They don't choose to follow God/obsess about their image; their cultural environment causes them to do so. Or rather, they make choices, but these choices are not 'free'.
And there is no reason that it can be.
So, we are not born conscious, but choose it? That's very unlikely, whether or not one believes in free will; for us to be able to 'choose' to be conscious, we must already be conscious.
Besides, all the evidence seems to suggest that sentience develops naturally in us, and that this process is not within our control.
Which exists for some reason, even though it isn't free... So, from your viewpoint, culture doesn't exist, nor does invention, music, science, technology, literature, philosophy, or anything else that is a product of the human mind, because we would have simply chosen to do just enough, instinctually, to survive as best we can during our cave men days, and would have only chosen the progressive forms of that, with no emotion, passion, invention, music, art, science, philosophy, or anything else unnecessary to pure survival. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is there because we enjoy it, not because it is always beneficial.*
There is no reason why decision-making has to be free. You can't deny that it exists in animals; yet you think that no animals but us are sentient or have free will.
Beneficial to what? If we enjoy it, then it is beneficial to us. Survival is important to us because we enjoy it. This human desire for pleasure is a part of nature, but it doesn't necessarily serve an evolutionary purpose. I have dealt, and am dealing, with this whole theme elsewhere, so I'll leave it at that.

[yourworstnightmare]

Well, I think that environmental factors play a leading role in personality. Generally bitter and rude people have had problems or relationship issues in the past. They tend to also get this from their parents because they have been growing up mainly believing that what their parents said or did was right.

There could be relations to hereditary personality variation <--- (ohh check me out, technical phrases!) Because of significant differences in the shape or form of the brain but I won't believe this unless it is proven.

[TruthSeeker]

The article said that there was a negative correlation between children being praised for intelligence and their subsequent success, but that there was a positive correlation between success and their being praised for effort. In other words, the drive to 'keep trying' that you describe is instilled by environment.
No, because effort requires going against the flow, against the environment. Successful people are successful regardless of whether they had been beaten up when they were children, or lost a leg when they were adults. Their environement is almost irrelevant. Of course, the environment give us limits, and gives us directions, but it is up to us to accept it or challenge it.

I lived 17 years in Brasil. Suddenly, I decided to move to Canada- a country that I had never seen before- and contrary to my parents. So that wasn't my decision?

Firstly, we do not know what form 'environmental influence' takes in cases like this. The mathematician's circumstances at the time of his solving the problem were hard, but perhaps such hard circumstances were precisely what motivated him to keep on trying.
Hard circumstances usually unmotivate people (if there is such a word... :lol: ). So why suddenly with him it doesn't?

Secondly, the mathematician's desire to keep trying could probably be attributed to events earlier in his life.
Well, that's not only pure speculation, but also how likely would those events suddenly fit in the picture?

Once again, using me as an example, I have been very persistent throughout my life, eventough my parents or anyone that I knew didn't have persistance as a great visible quality. I never thought about persistence until I started trying to have girlfriends and, lately, trying for school politics many times and fight in the immigration process. My continuous persistence is simply part of my own personality. Yes, my parents had a huge impact in who I am. But they mostly reinforced my personality. And many parts of my personality simply does not fit in the picture at all, if it would solely depend on environment.

His love of mathematics, and his fanatical work ethic itself, could easily have stemmed from early conditioning, and remained with him ever since, regardless of whether the circumstances were difficult.
Well, that's pure speculation.

It is not an easy question to answer.
I agree

Decision-making is done according to certain internal rules, for example 'happiness is good'; 'food satisfies hunger'; 'run away from danger'. Some of these rules may be biologically innate; others may come from antecedent environmental factors; the point is that they are the things that really 'choose', and the Ego just goes along with what they say.
We evaluate, largely subconsciously, the specifics of the situation according to these rules, and then make a decision. I think that how 'choice' works. Whether or not it can be called 'free' is yet to be decided, though my personal opinion is that the idea of 'free will' is not helpful here.
Yes, I recognize those, and that's part of my idea of enviroment. But I just have a broader idea of choice which includes personality amongst other important elements.

A good example is my own child! When he was born he already had a personality of his own. How would you explain that with environment?

[scameter]

The creation and direction of choice by the environment, is not analogous to painting a car. A better analogy would be changing the components of the car, manufacturing an engine, etc.

That's because I never said nature creates and directs choice, and I wouldn't have. My analogy was that we have choice and thought and consciousness and individuality (the car it's self), and even though nature influences us (the paint), that doesn't change how the car works. The car isn't conscious of course, but this was just a simple analogy.

Some of them from biological nature, others from environment.

Then where and why did those come from/about?

They don't choose to follow God/obsess about their image; their cultural environment causes them to do so. Or rather, they make choices, but these choices are not 'free'.

They're not forced into anything. If they were forced into it with no free will, there would never be anyone turning away from their old ways or that would stop fasting, which goes against history entirely. And their conversion wasn't always because of others influencing them; many simply saw how their religion was doing, and saw it as wrong and decided freely to change, many of them being intellectuals. And those who stop fasting either regect their reasons for doing so in the first place, or see it as unnecessary, and quit. Both have happened in the past.

So, we are not born conscious, but choose it?

I never said that, nor do I believe it to be true.

There is no reason why decision-making has to be free. You can't deny that it exists in animals; yet you think that no animals but us are sentient or have free will.

I believe that free will comes with sentiency, as well as realizational consciousness. This isn't so in animals, from my observations and readings; they act based on instinctual logic, genetics, and partially on influence (example, parrots), and unlike people have no ability to choose to do something beyond their genetics and influence, cannot imagine, speculate, create unnecessarily, and aren't sentient.

Beneficial to what? If we enjoy it, then it is beneficial to us. Survival is important to us because we enjoy it. This human desire for pleasure is a part of nature, but it doesn't necessarily serve an evolutionary purpose. I have dealt, and am dealing, with this whole theme elsewhere, so I'll leave it at that.

Beneficial to our survival. Nature's goal (not to imply consciousness) is survival, and it doesn't waste, thus logically it wouldn't create things unnecessary, and not all human desires are beneficial to our survival, such as eating unhealthy foods, not exercising, and going to war. But, I see, I'll follow you elsewhere then. :)

[Kether]

Beneficial to our survival. Nature's goal (not to imply consciousness) is survival, and it doesn't waste, thus logically it wouldn't create things unnecessary, and not all human desires are beneficial to our survival, such as eating unhealthy foods, not exercising, and going to war. But, I see, I'll follow you elsewhere then.*
This is what we've been discussing in "The Art of War", but I don't mind debating about it here too. Either way, it's off-topic. :lol:

I would rather think of it as being genes' goal to survive, rather than nature's goal to make organisms survive. It is not our survival that genes are 'interested' in, but their own. We are vehicles for that survival, since we can reproduce, and it is fruitful for us to live long enough to propagate the genes - but crucially, survival of the organism is subordinate to survival of the gene.

That quibble aside, I can understand what you mean by certain things being 'unnatural' if they do not assist our own survival. But you are still arguing from the point of view of survival being what nature 'wants'- but it is really what the genes 'want'. Yes, this is part of nature, but so are the 'intentions' of culture and the human mind. These can conflict with gene survival: they include the examples you give - eating unhealthy foods, not exercising, and going to war - and also things that inhibit reproduction, the ultimate goal of organisms from the genes' point of view - as in the case of celibacy and contraception, where the human mind desires its own well-being over the genes' 'desire' for it to have children.

No doubt you would object at this point that if the genes desire their own survival, and if this is inhibited by culture and consciousness, then why do they create the brain that leads to culture and consciousness? To understand the answer, one needs to overcome certain assumptions about nature and evolution.
The idea of genes 'wanting' to create organisms that will help them survive is convenient, but essentially anthropomorphic. What happens is that genes that don't lead to efficient organisms die, since the organisms themselves do before they can reproduce. 'Nature', then, has no foresight; there is no entity that reasons about whether an adaptation will be 'efficient'. Gene survival can lead into evolutionary arms-races between predators and prey, for example, that lead to size of teeth and thickness of hides that actually inhibit the organism's survival and reproduction, and thus cause the genes to die out. Evolution is not a deliberate process, with a rational agent called 'nature' running the show.
Therefore, the evolution of neural systems that made culture and consciousness possible can seem perfectly logical from an evolutionary point of view, provided that one is willing to dispense with the concept of nature deliberately striving for 'efficiency'. Primates (including humans) have evolved down the path of the interpretation and manipulation of the environment, through large and complex neural systems and great manual dexterity. Nowhere is this seen in greater measure than in humans. Culture, symbolism, language: our brains are hard-wired to create all of these. This must have come from evolution, and indeed we can see that other primates are halfway there, but still have a long way to go.
I never said that, nor do I believe it to be true.
You said that there is no reason why consciousness can be the product of deterministic influence. What do you mean exactly?
No, because effort requires going against the flow, against the environment. Successful people are successful regardless of whether they had been beaten up when they were children, or lost a leg when they were adults. Their environment is almost irrelevant. Of course, the environment give us limits, and gives us directions, but it is up to us to accept it or challenge it. I lived 17 years in Brazil. Suddenly, I decided to move to Canada- a country that I had never seen before- and contrary to my parents. So that wasn't my decision?
Your definition of environment is rather narrow; you are taking it to mean the general trends in the individual's environment, without considering the specifics of their situation. Moreover, as I said before, we cannot profess to understand the way in which the learning process works: our knowledge of its innate structure is too limited.
You cannot say that behaviour can't be determined by the learning process if you don't actually know what that process is, or how it works. It is improbable that people simply mimic their environments, and your idea of what their 'environment' is seems to be a small section of their experience.
A good example is my own child! When he was born he already had a personality of his own. How would you explain that with environment?
How would you explain that with 'choice'? If your baby has a 'personality', whatever that is, it is most probably innate.
Well, that's pure speculation.
If it's pure speculation, then everything you or I have said in the course of this discussion is also pure speculation. It is speculation informed by more solid knowledge and guided by analytical reason, and I hope to some day formulate my speculations into a clear, detailed and testable hypothesis. So may I be permitted to speculate?
What I am trying to do is to demonstrate that 'environmental influence' is something extremely complex. Your argument seems to be that, since certain behaviours cannot be caused by deterministic factors, then they must be caused by choice. I believe your premise to be false: determination in the face of hardship, the example you give, could easily be attributed to factors affecting the individual at other times in their life. They may be brought up to value determination; they could have been praised for their effort, and encouraged to continue employing it. They may have been taught to focus on long-term rather than short-term benefits. Additionally, we cannot rule out physiological effects from the environment, or innate characteristics, at the initial stage of investigation.

[scameter]

I would rather think of it as being genes' goal to survive, rather than nature's goal to make organisms survive.

Genes have a goal?

But you are still arguing from the point of view of survival being what nature 'wants'- but it is really what the genes 'want'.

Either way, it is what nature wants. Essentially, from your expressed viewpoint, would genes not be nature it's self, or at least the biological section? By survival, I don't mean only in the biological; I mean the survival of every individual aspect of nature, from a rock, to a tree, to a sun.

These can conflict with gene survival: they include the examples you give - eating unhealthy foods, not exercising, and going to war - and also things that inhibit reproduction, the ultimate goal of organisms from the genes' point of view - as in the case of celibacy and contraception, where the human mind desires its own well-being over the genes' 'desire' for it to have children.

Indeed, this being from whence my sight of our unnaturality derives.

What happens is that genes that don't lead to efficient organisms die, since the organisms themselves do before they can reproduce.

And, this is where my idea of efficiency in nature derives.

Therefore, the evolution of neural systems that made culture and consciousness possible can seem perfectly logical from an evolutionary point of view, provided that one is willing to dispense with the concept of nature deliberately striving for 'efficiency'.

Yet genes, even if not deliberately or thoughtfully, strive for efficiency. Why, then, would they allow the creation (and by allow I don't mean thoughtfully, I mean in that, the genes for consciousness did not die off, when it became harmful and inefficient) of consciousness, when it often causes weakness and the potential for inefficiency and death, such as in war and eating unhealthy foods, neither of which do other animals do unless provoked by us?

Primates (including humans) have evolved down the path of the interpretation and manipulation of the environment, through large and complex neural systems and great manual dexterity.

Then why is it that the genes for such large forms as that found in apes cannot be found, or at least aren't expressed, in humans? Why aren't we conscious, and yet as large and strong as an ape? And why primates? Why not something else? Bears are capable of fine manipulation. I have seen them on TV, using two claws to open an oyster, not to step on it and crush it. Why didn't they evolve to have more ability of manipulation of the environment, or did primates get it precisely because we weren't physically as good as other things, and thus needed control over the environment, especially humans, having one of the least potent physical bodies in nature?

You said that there is no reason why consciousness can be the product of deterministic influence.

Because, how and why could we of all species gained realization beyond thought into the realm of abstract thought and realizational consciousness, when no other animal did? Although, I think I see how it could: because people are so physically unpotent, we requied the ability to mainpulate our environment with much ability and precision, and through this, we gained realization of it. But, even then, why would realization come, and not simply more advaned abilities of alteration of the environment?

[scameter]

Something I have been recently considering, is that, why could we, including our abilities cognitively and physically, have been determined by natural sequences such as genes and evolution and environment, and for nature to still not have a spiritual aspect, and for our minds to not simply be beyond the view of science to a degree? For anyone to exclaim the perfection of science is simply arbitrary, and somewhat arrogant; science is limited, even scientists admit this. But, by this, I am not being derogative; I am saying that science simply gives us the ability to understand and take a logical interest in the functions of nature and indeed of ourselves. This doesn't mean that a state of awe could not persist and be illogical, that our minds could not simply be more than what science and evidence are capable of explaining, and that existence wasn't made divinely. And of course I will doubt myself, thinking that we are simply physical and describable; but, I know this to be logically impossible. I'm sure others would disagree, particularly followers of determinism and scientific reductionism, but those are just as speculative as any other philosophy. Truly, we know absolutely nothing for certain; thus, anything could be real and true, from scientific discoveries to physic phenomenon, and why should either be judged impossible? I think anything is possible, and the fact that we aren't sure entirely of anything simply leaves available the existence of huacca, and the mysteriousness of life, our minds, and existence. :)

[locomotive]

scameter wrote:
I believe that free will comes with sentiency, as well as realizational consciousness. This isn't so in animals, from my observations and readings; they act based on instinctual logic, genetics, and partially on influence (example, parrots), and unlike people have no ability to choose to do something beyond their genetics and influence, cannot imagine, speculate, create unnecessarily, and aren't sentient.

I think you are coming from the point of view that because we humans have more intelligence or even rely on intelligence(aquiring knowledge, comparing, memorizing) that we are above animals that follow instincts in the sense that it means we have free will. But this intelligence is just a higher form of moving about in the world. It still depends on the world and the fact that we automatically ingage in this behaviour shows that it is just another "instinct". We are still beeing influenced in all kinds of ways.

There is a discovery that there is a direct relation between environment and genetics that carries itself throughout generations. People that have experienced shortage of food for some time had undergone change in their DNA! and the result was diabetes in the next generation. Not only that, people that experience anxiety pass it on to their child. This change happens because of a recent discovered ability of the DNA whitch is that it can turn genetic traits on and of depending on environment during it's livetime presumable during puberty and before sperm and egg cells become preduced.

This means that we have a direct impact on our children. Also you might have heard that changes in thought and attitude etc produce changes in the brain and your very cells that develope different receptors for substances.
“And I found that this was really true; that in people who had received a substantial amount of deeksha (transmitting enlightenment energy), the parietal lobes were so much more quiet than the frontal lobes, which were so much more activated - and always with a slight dominance of the left frontal lobe. Which is exactly what you want to see, because happiness and integrated spiritual experience go hand-in-hand with a slight dominance of the left frontal lobe. Whereas when people have spiritual experiences that may actually make them more pathological, or people are even hallucinating, then the right frontal lobe dominates. This is just frontal lobes, not whole brain hemispheres.”
As Opitz determined a consistent pattern, he expanded his investigations to include studying the wave forms that followers’ DNA emanated. Apparently, the wave forms increase in strength as a person continues to receive the enlightened transmissions, which are described as a golden ball of energy descending into the head. He found that the reptilian brain, or brain stem, which holds much of our primitive fight or flight responses, was quieted through deeksha. He also measured growth in certain brain centers.
/\ environment?
Yet genes, even if not deliberately or thoughtfully, strive for efficiency. Why, then, would they allow the creation (and by allow I don't mean thoughtfully, I mean in that, the genes for consciousness did not die off, when it became harmful and inefficient) of consciousness, when it often causes weakness and the potential for inefficiency and death, such as in war and eating unhealthy foods, neither of which do other animals do unless provoked by us?
If you had to run and do excercizes you would eat healthy, trust me.
animals do have war, often about the same "silly" things like "this is my tree". People did cooperate with other people but only when they started to trust eachother and didn't have different customs that had to stay under any circumstance.
Anyway, you cannot say that animals are smart as in they don't make mistakes or better yet nature didn't make a mistake. Why do cows in africa cross a river where there are crocidiles at the same time causing a traffic jam that results in the death of half the group? Why not be patient :lol: . Likewise all of the flaws of humans are going to be corrected over time. Some enlightend people say it is in 2012 when 36000 people become enlightend and cause human consciousness to go to the next level. Would this not be convienient in a time where the general public becomes more and more aware and concerned about the world, themself and others?
I would compare it with a zebra that strands on a new island. He is to big to fit between the trees. Too small to get those rare baries that give him extra strenght. So his body adapts. He becomes a lean giraffe. Likewise the humans have prospered in the world with their ways but not anymore. They need to transcend.

[TruthSeeker]

Well, I will say it again... I think both heredity and environment influence us.

A good example of that... I was born with a very extrover personality and was changed into an introvert by my environment. <_<

[scameter]

I think you are coming from the point of view that because we humans have more intelligence or even rely on intelligence(aquiring knowledge, comparing, memorizing) that we are above animals that follow instincts in the sense that it means we have free will.

I'm sorry you view it that way. Animals are above us, because they are not dualed; they simply do what they so, and are "good" in that respect, with no ability to be evil because of the lack of free will. Humans, on the other hand, are quite dualed, because of our free will.

It still depends on the world and the fact that we automatically ingage in this behaviour shows that it is just another "instinct". We are still beeing influenced in all kinds of ways.

And are capable of realizing that, as well as things that we have never truly experienced, such as God.

This means that we have a direct impact on our children.

Yet there are some things that are not influenced by parents on their children, such as personality and knowledge.

If you had to run and do excercizes you would eat healthy, trust me.

That doesn't make any sense. In school, during Physical Education, I had to run and exercise, yet I didn't eat healthy, much less for that.

animals do have war, often about the same "silly" things like "this is my tree".

lol You consider an animal fighting to survive silly? No, I consider fighting for money or power or fame or the "possession" of land beyond what they need as silly.

People did cooperate with other people but only when they started to trust eachother and didn't have different customs that had to stay under any circumstance.

The only time people cooperate is if both are gaining something from the situation, or when it is absolutely necessary for survival, and even then it is possible for a lack of cooperation because of social or emotional strife.

Anyway, you cannot say that animals are smart as in they don't make mistakes or better yet nature didn't make a mistake.

Why would I say that? Intelligence doesn't certify perfection, especially.

Why do cows in africa cross a river where there are crocidiles at the same time causing a traffic jam that results in the death of half the group?

The same reason a particular kind of duck that lives high near the tops of mountains (I forgot where exactly) babies are forced to jump off the mountains to reach their solitary food source at the bottom: survival. And, the cows probably weren't aware of the crocodiles; they were more worried about the food on the other side, and trusted the group to lead efficiently. Nature isn't perfect.

Likewise all of the flaws of humans are going to be corrected over time.

We'll be able to stop being human? :D

Some enlightend people say it is in 2012 when 36000 people become enlightend and cause human consciousness to go to the next level.

Many people also prophesized the end of the world in the year 2000.

Would this not be convienient in a time where the general public becomes more and more aware and concerned about the world, themself and others?

If such a time was possible, definitely.

I would compare it with a zebra that strands on a new island. He is to big to fit between the trees. Too small to get those rare baries that give him extra strenght. So his body adapts. He becomes a lean giraffe.

<_<

[Kether]

What do you mean by 'dualed'?
Genes have a goal?
In a strictly metaphorical, anthropomorphic sense, yes. Of course we must be willing and ready to see past our convenient metaphors when necessary.
Indeed, this being from whence my sight of our unnaturality derives.
I don't believe that it is helpful to think of things that are a part of nature, and caused by nature, to be unnatural. The human mind's desire to do things that conflict with the survival of the genes is just as 'natural' as evolution. Crucially, nature does not desire anything or have a goal, even in a metaphorical sense: there are conflicts of 'interest' within it.
Yet genes, even if not deliberately or thoughtfully, strive for efficiency. Why, then, would they allow the creation (and by allow I don't mean thoughtfully, I mean in that, the genes for consciousness did not die off, when it became harmful and inefficient) of consciousness, when it often causes weakness and the potential for inefficiency and death, such as in war and eating unhealthy foods, neither of which do other animals do unless provoked by us?
But genes do not strive for efficiency: they either die or survive. There is no 'striving' involved.

Conscious animals evidently can survive, otherwise you or I wouldn't be here; my argument is that it doesn't make us 'best' in any absolute sense - organisms can and do survive perfectly well in their own niches. For example, photosynthesis is very successful, but not all organisms have evolved in that direction because of the erratic nature of the environment and the complexity of the specifics of the situation.
Then why is it that the genes for such large forms as that found in apes cannot be found, or at least aren't expressed, in humans? Why aren't we conscious, and yet as large and strong as an ape? And why primates? Why not something else? Bears are capable of fine manipulation. I have seen them on TV, using two claws to open an oyster, not to step on it and crush it. Why didn't they evolve to have more ability of manipulation of the environment, or did primates get it precisely because we weren't physically as good as other things, and thus needed control over the environment, especially humans, having one of the least potent physical bodies in nature?
Bears manipulate their environments far less than primates. Primates have a versatile ingenuity, that allows them to develop tools in a variety of different situations.
The effective honing of primates’ ability to understand and manipulate the environment, which has resulted in humans’ capacity for imagination, invention and speculation, makes large forms and physical strength less necessary. Besides, are humans really so weak? A !Kung man can run almost non-stop in the baking heat for hours on end in pursuit of an animal – though he probably couldn’t kill it without a spear, which is where the power of the human mind comes into its own.
Because, how and why could we of all species gained realization beyond thought into the realm of abstract thought and realizational consciousness, when no other animal did? Although, I think I see how it could: because people are so physically impotent, we required the ability to manipulate our environment with much ability and precision, and through this, we gained realization of it. But, even then, why would realization come, and not simply more advanced abilities of alteration of the environment?
I think that it was consciousness and the desire to manipulate the environment that came first, not the loss of some of our physical strength; consciousness began to gain the evolutionary upper hand.
For anyone to exclaim the perfection of science is simply arbitrary, and somewhat arrogant; science is limited, even scientists admit this. But, by this, I am not being derogative; I am saying that science simply gives us the ability to understand and take a logical interest in the functions of nature and indeed of ourselves.
This is what science does, and what science is for, and it doesn't pretend to do anything else; it is an outlet for humanity's curiosity. And as an outlet for humanity's curiosity - in other words, a means of acquiring knowledge - it is excellent.
I agree with science for two reasons:
1. Its efforts towards improving the human condition are potentially huge. "The good life is inspired by love and guided by knowledge" - and as a source of that knowledge, science is a potential instrument to improve human happiness enormously.
2. As a method of finding knowledge for the sake of knowledge, science is good chiefly because it questions, and because it (theoretically) believes in theories only to the extent that the evidence that supports them is seen to be valid. Science is not a belief system - it is a methodology.
The same reason a particular kind of duck that lives high near the tops of mountains (I forgot where exactly) babies are forced to jump off the mountains to reach their solitary food source at the bottom: survival. And, the cows probably weren't aware of the crocodiles; they were more worried about the food on the other side, and trusted the group to lead efficiently. Nature isn't perfect.
They most certainly are aware of the crocodiles; while they are crossing, scores of other wildebeest are being torn to pieces. But I agree that they are doing it to survive, single-mindedly. The benefits they will receive from crossing the river outweigh the potential dangers; there are so many of them that the chances of an individual animal being killed are relatively small.

[locomotive]

I'm sorry you view it that way. Animals are above us, because they are not dualed; they simply do what they so, and are "good" in that respect, with no ability to be evil because of the lack of free will. Humans, on the other hand, are quite dualed, because of our free will.

Ow I thought beeing beyond genetics would be a good thing. Yet we do not have free will. Where did you get this idea from anyway? By dualed you mean contradicting? This dualing happens because of the often nonanalytical minds of people. They get thoughts and have excelent memory which arises every day wether it's a stupid thought or a smart one. Ofcourse you need to see the relevence of the thoughts otherwise one might form "self" where you become sort of like an animal and act on your own feelings wether it is practical or not. That is what it is all about. If Humans were more concerned with practicality there would be no Dualing.Because, how and why could we of all species gained realization beyond thought into the realm of abstract thought and realizational consciousness, when no other animal did? Although, I think I see how it could: because people are so physically unpotent, we requied the ability to mainpulate our environment with much ability and precision, and through this, we gained realization of it. But, even then, why would realization come, and not simply more advaned abilities of alteration of the environment?


Because what we have is a good ability only it is not developed enough in that if it was developed or the parents were more developed les misfortunes would happen. In the same abstract way the cows are stupid and lame obviously because what the show actually showed was that the cows could cross fast and there were only 5 crocodiles but because of their panic 40 cows died. You seperate the humans and the animals in that animals just eat, piss, shit and bone and that humans thinks "I won't piss because it is efficient" at the same time his bladder gets damaged. So what? shaolin monks have a technique called poison hand where there fingernails turn purple black because of permenant damage. At least they had the oppertunity to kill people. I hope you see the general point I am trying to make.
Actually animals and humans are the same in that they both belong in the world.

It still depends on the world and the fact that we automatically ingage in this behaviour shows that it is just another "instinct". We are still beeing influenced in all kinds of ways.

And are capable of realizing that, as well as things that we have never truly experienced, such as God.
So? A duck realized that someone is tossing bread in another city.

This means that we have a direct impact on our children.

Yet there are some things that are not influenced by parents on their children, such as personality and knowledge.
One of the things the scientists said about these developements is that it directly effects someones personality. Knowledge is also based on your environment. You can't find knowledge that to you (senses- environment) is invisible.

If you had to run and do excercizes you would eat healthy, trust me.

That doesn't make any sense. In school, during Physical Education, I had to run and exercise, yet I didn't eat healthy, much less for that.
You didn't have to obviously. How can you excersize if you can't excersize?

animals do have war, often about the same "silly" things like "this is my tree".

lol You consider an animal fighting to survive silly? No, I consider fighting for money or power or fame or the "possession" of land beyond what they need as silly.
Why can't they share a tree so both can survive? All mammals will use the resources of their local environment to the point of exhaustion if limited to a given area. Deer multiply and eat everything in the area until they have massive die-offs. Rabbits, rats, mice... all will do the same. Predators will multiply and eat as much as the environment will support, and any more will die off. Humans without modern technology will follow the same pattern. Modern humans try to at least make an attempt to regulate the use of resources to create a sustainable society. Some animals collect food put it in holes and then forget some or have to much food which rots away. Why couldn't they share it with the birds or something? actually nothing is silly only when you know of a better way do you call something silly therefore "silly".

People did cooperate with other people but only when they started to trust eachother and didn't have different customs that had to stay under any circumstance.

The only time people cooperate is if both are gaining something from the situation, or when it is absolutely necessary for survival, and even then it is possible for a lack of cooperation because of social or emotional strife.
yes it is. why would you do anything if it wasn't for some use?

Anyway, you cannot say that animals are smart as in they don't make mistakes or better yet nature didn't make a mistake.

Why would I say that? Intelligence doesn't certify perfection, especially.
yes. Thus the conclusion is that there is right or wrong in nature of whitch humans are a part of. Further more I would like to add, pertaining to this topic, that there is no heridity V.S enovironment. This body is because of heridity but it is formed the way it is also because of environment. DNA is heridity but wether it can express itself is dependant on environment. Our functions/goals are based on heridity but in what degree they are used is dependant on environment. One might think that because humans can eventually make their own gene people we become the environment. However the made people will still have the same heredity/environment balance. This is because the value of heridity is dependant on environment and vica versa. :P

Why do cows in africa cross a river where there are crocidiles at the same time causing a traffic jam that results in the death of half the group?

The same reason a particular kind of duck that lives high near the tops of mountains (I forgot where exactly) babies are forced to jump off the mountains to reach their solitary food source at the bottom: survival. And, the cows probably weren't aware of the crocodiles; they were more worried about the food on the other side, and trusted the group to lead efficiently. Nature isn't perfect. But the point was that nature is not perfect and that everything in nature is equal because of mutual dependance.

Likewise all of the flaws of humans are going to be corrected over time.

We'll be able to stop being human?
whatever you mean by this there is the possibility of it.

Some enlightend people say it is in 2012 when 36000 people become enlightend and cause human consciousness to go to the next level.

Many people also prophesized the end of the world in the year 2000.
Yeah but this would be much more awsome.

Would this not be convienient in a time where the general public becomes more and more aware and concerned about the world, themself and others?

If such a time was possible, definitely.
you don't believe in a better people?

I would compare it with a zebra that strands on a new island. He is to big to fit between the trees. Too small to get those rare baries that give him extra strenght. So his body adapts. He becomes a lean giraffe.
:dunno:

[scameter]

What do you mean by 'dualed'?

Hmm..perhaps I spelled it wrong. I mean, such as the duality of the Tao, to use as an example. Well, the Tao isn't dualed, but I mean duality.

In a strictly metaphorical, anthropomorphic sense, yes. Of course we must be willing and ready to see past our convenient metaphors when necessary.

Not always, except in interpretation of the metaphors. To simply dismiss all metaphors would be to dismiss much truth.

The human mind's desire to do things that conflict with the survival of the genes is just as 'natural' as evolution.

I know that it is naturally occuring; by natural, I meant seemingly in tune with the rest of nature, such as their innature and continous, solitary desire for nothing more than survival.

The effective honing of primates’ ability to understand and manipulate the environment, which has resulted in humans’ capacity for imagination, invention and speculation, makes large forms and physical strength less necessary. Besides, are humans really so weak? A !Kung man can run almost non-stop in the baking heat for hours on end in pursuit of an animal – though he probably couldn’t kill it without a spear, which is where the power of the human mind comes into its own.

An animal could run for alonger time, in hotter temperature, with greater speed, and greater strength. But indeed, it is our mental abilites that help us to survive. I disagree, however, that our ability to speculate, invent and imagine came from other primates' ability to manipulate the environment. Their manipulation of the environment is only done for survival, unlike our own; and we are capable of imagining abstractly, to create things such as fantasy.

I think that it was consciousness and the desire to manipulate the environment that came first, not the loss of some of our physical strength; consciousness began to gain the evolutionary upper hand.

But why in us, and only in us?

This is what science does, and what science is for, and it doesn't pretend to do anything else; it is an outlet for humanity's curiosity. And as an outlet for humanity's curiosity - in other words, a means of acquiring knowledge - it is excellent.

I agree, and as I have said before, I love science. It is when scientists attempt to wrongfully force it to disprove spirituality, something it is incapable of, that it becomes annoying to me.

and as a source of that knowledge, science is a potential instrument to improve human happiness enormously.

Indeed, but it doesn't have to be the only one, nor should it be.

Ow I thought beeing beyond genetics would be a good thing. Yet we do not have free will. Where did you get this idea from anyway? By dualed you mean contradicting?

No, I mean two-sided. And, we do have free will. And, why would being beyond genetics be a good thing? It simply gives us the capacity to do much good, and even more evil. And I didn't get it from anywhere; I have studied many things, and developed it through my own speculation.

They get thoughts and have excelent memory which arises every day wether it's a stupid thought or a smart one. Ofcourse you need to see the relevence of the thoughts otherwise one might form "self" where you become sort of like an animal and act on your own feelings wether it is practical or not.

Even though very much of what we do, even what is considered "logical", has no real benefit towards survival, thus isn't practical?

I hope you see the general point I am trying to make.

I don't, at all.

So? A duck realized that someone is tossing bread in another city.

:think: What?

You didn't have to obviously. How can you excersize if you can't excersize?

I didn't have to? Is that why I was forced to? I had to exercise every day for nine weeks.

Why can't they share a tree so both can survive? All mammals will use the resources of their local environment to the point of exhaustion if limited to a given area.

Yet that never happens. Why? Because animals remain where they are best qualified, and use only what is necessary for survival.

Modern humans try to at least make an attempt to regulate the use of resources to create a sustainable society.

Unless money dictates otherwise, such as when every year, America thorws away tons of grain that was extra.

Why couldn't they share it with the birds or something?

They were concerned with their own survival, and the birds survive just fine without the bird's use of the animal's forgotten food, unless people influence the situation.

yes it is. why would you do anything if it wasn't for some use?

For enjoyment, mostly. That is the main reason people do the unnecessary things they do, such as chat on a chat forum, eat unhealthy foods, desire knowledge, and go to and play games.

But the point was that nature is not perfect and that everything in nature is equal because of mutual dependance.

I agree, except humanity.

whatever you mean by this there is the possibility of it.

<_< Androids! :D

you don't believe in a better people?

Not at all.

[locomotive]

Even though very much of what we do, even what is considered "logical", has no real benefit towards survival, thus isn't practical?

I have no idea why you say "even though" but yes something that is not practical is not practical.

I didn't have to? Is that why I was forced to? I had to exercise every day for nine weeks.

I mean you weren't willing.
Yet that never happens. Why? Because animals remain where they are best qualified, and use only what is necessary for survival.
they don't remain, they are forced just like humans are forced. Like the animals go into a desire frenzy to survive so do humans. When life becomes more easy the animals make the environment worse just like humans. a herd is like a society with economical system. They tay together but some amongst them are bulls that punch others down to get more space.
Unless money dictates otherwise, such as when every year, America thorws away tons of grain that was extra.
animals waste too.

No, I mean two-sided
what is bad about beeing two sided?

They were concerned with their own survival, and the birds survive just fine without the bird's use of the animal's forgotten food, unless people influence the situation.
they will decrease in population.

For enjoyment, mostly. That is the main reason people do the unnecessary things they do, such as chat on a chat forum, eat unhealthy foods, desire knowledge, and go to and play games.

that still means they do it for some purpose. practicality depends on a purpose. Also animals do things for enjoyment and at a time of crises they do not think practically when it comes to survival.

[scameter]

I mean you weren't willing.

I still had to, and did.

they don't remain, they are forced just like humans are forced. Like the animals go into a desire frenzy to survive so do humans. When life becomes more easy the animals make the environment worse just like humans. a herd is like a society with economical system. They tay together but some amongst them are bulls that punch others down to get more space.

That's not true at all. They remain where they are best suited, take only what is necessary, they only go into a "desire frenzy" when they're about to die, when life becomes more easy for animals, which it really only would if we interfered, they still only take what is necessary, because their primary thought is survival, without them the ecosystem would be much less than it would be without them, especially forests; they stay together because it is the best for them, and they have a bull to both effect reproduction and to lead them.

animals waste too.

An example please?

what is bad about beeing two sided?

Because you have equal potential to do good or bad, whereas animals only try to survive.

they will decrease in population.

Then they will increase.

that still means they do it for some purpose. practicality depends on a purpose. Also animals do things for enjoyment and at a time of crises they do not think practically when it comes to survival.

lol Animals can't not think practically; practicality is their entire mode of thought. Of course they can enjoy things, but they do things to survive. Not everything people do is for survival.

[locomotive]

Because you have equal potential to do good or bad, whereas animals only try to survive.
but animals also do good and bad. how would you justify that?

That's not true at all. They remain where they are best suited, take only what is necessary, they only go into a "desire frenzy" when they're about to die, when life becomes more easy for animals, which it really only would if we interfered, they still only take what is necessary, because their primary thought is survival, without them the ecosystem would be much less than it would be without them, especially forests; they stay together because it is the best for them, and they have a bull to both effect reproduction and to lead them.

natural catastrophies can cause situations where the desires of an animal lead to their own doom whitch means that it wasn't practical.

they stay together because it is the best for them, and they have a bull to both effect reproduction and to lead them.
and how does this relate to humans?

I still had to, and did.
yes you mentioned that already.

An example please?
Some animals collect food put it in holes and then forget some or have to much food which rots away

Then they will increase.
and your point is?

Of course they can enjoy things, but they do things to survive. Not everything people do is for survival.
then what would you say is the difference between doing something for survival or doing something because you have a certain desire?

[scameter]

but animals also do good and bad. how would you justify that?

Doing good and bad requires realization and choice, things they do not have. They simply try to survive, and do not have realization.

natural catastrophies can cause situations where the desires of an animal lead to their own doom whitch means that it wasn't practical.

I have never heard of that. I suppose a hurricane or something, or a flood, could cause the death of an animal, but that isn't the animal's fault, thus they're not being impractical.

and how does this relate to humans?

I never said it did.

Some animals collect food put it in holes and then forget some or have to much food which rots away

That isn't waste. That is forgetting. Waste requires choice, such as a human getting a piece of pizza and eating only a couple bites, then throwing it away.

and your point is?

That they do sometimes decrease, sometimes, but they then increase in population into normality.

then what would you say is the difference between doing something for survival or doing something because you have a certain desire?

If the desire doesn't relate to survival.

[the_aphid]

After contemplating the notion of emotionless intelligence recently, and following this TED talk (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/200) by Daniel Goleman, I was eventually redirected to this seemingly expired thread. Since this thread hasn't had a reply in nearly 2 years, I'm going to attempt to breathe some new life into it.People think that they have a free will. They think that they make choices. Acquire intelligence. Acquire personality. Most of this is illusion. The human body/mind is a phantastic machine, and most of the time this machine runs on autopilot. There is no conscious doing whatsoever.

We are not only born into a certain family, a certain culture, a certain economic and political situation, but our bodies are also genetically preprogrammed. What we call our life is then the unfolding of actions and reactions according to the plans of multiple programs. There is the genetic program. The instinct program. The emotional program. The mental program. The cultural program. What we call our experience is largely the result of the interactions of these programs.

Try to see it this way. Most of the time you are acting like a machine. Granted, you are a very sophisticated and miraculous machine, but principally most of your actions are completely mechanic. There is one difference, though. You have the possibility of consciousness. A machine does not have that.

As a machine we are to a great extent "preconfigured" which means that cognitive capacities are largely innate. It's a fact. Read the research papers and get used to it. One might call it "hereditary", "karma", "personality", or whatever. We are born with it. Of course, there is a great deal that can be done by the environment. The environment can either stunt these capacities or bring them to their full bloom. But it can neither create them out of thin air nor destroy them.

What concerns emotional intelligence, or EI, this is not more than a fad based on very poor theory. Unfortunately it's popular. Intellect and emotion are of course different functions, each fulfilling its specific role. The degree to which emotional responses are developed could indeed be called 'emotional intelligence'. But that's not what current EI theory does. Current EI theory muddles it all up. I could refute most of Goleman's and Mayer's so-called "emotional competencies" at once, but unfortunately this would lead us astray.

Note that the g factor, or general cognitive capacity is predominantly innate. This means there is a certain possibility for environmental influences to develop things either to the better or the worse. But this margin isn't as great as many people would like to believe. As little as you can turn iron into gold, you can turn a low g factor person into an Einstein. Likewise a smart person will not turn stupid because of the lack of a proper education.

This is a fact, albeit an unpopular fact, because our society values equal opportunities. The truth is people are not equal and they will never be equal. Equal opportunities do not exist. Furthermore, intelligence is hopelessly overrated. People take pride in their intelligence not realising this is just as silly and vain as taking pride in the way their bodies look. Intelligence and beauty are both abundant. However, humility is rare. <_<

Cheers, ThomasI am torn. Because you make a very compelling case Thomas. In fact, I am going to have to apologize...I need to collect the thoughts. However, I also want people feel free to 'turn to the same page' so I will submit this post and return at a later time. :P