Posted: Sep 27, 2010 6:32 am
If I am being unclear I offer my apologies.
I used the fish analogy to note an example of basic behavior from a general perspective, though perhaps I should be more specific. Using fish or any lower life form to analyze human behaviour is a gross injustice to man kind as human behavioral genetics are exponentially more complex. My analogy of the fish was to show how behavioral change is the initiator of physiological change from a basal perspective. It was foolish of me to use a lower life form as an analogous example of human behavior.
Most life forms behavioral functions are based in genetic programs with adaptive measures to increase the chances of survival. While humans share those genetic programs with other members of the animal kingdom, it is often stated that what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability to reason. I do agree with that statement, but only in the obvious example that humans have greater reasoning ability because of greater cognitive processes, though from my perspective a bigger, and higher functioning brain is not the determining factor. A larger brain is the direct result of a greater consciousness on the brain.
I do realize that by presenting the concept of consciousness into this topic is like opening up the proverbial can of worms, and as is seen in many of these forums the discussions, unfortunately, end in a stalemate. Though while consciousness is not at this moment a measurable thing, (And don't we know, if it can't be measured, it scientifically does not exist.
) there is certainly enough research being done in the fields of consciousness studies to warrant consideration.
Our ability to be consciously aware of our actions and to use this awareness to change our behavior is what truly sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Often we get caught in the Darwinist belief that human behaviors are only reactionary based upon environmental impacts just like every other member of the animal kingdom, but what we aren’t considering is that we are not like other members of the animal kingdom. Do we know of any other member of the animal kingdom that could possibly form a question of such complexity such as inkaStepa did in her initial post? Our conscious awareness causes us to reflect upon not only our own actions, but also upon the actions of others in our environment, and in doing so we have the ability to choose how to act and behave, rather than to react from a genetically programmed set of responses. This conscious ability is what truly sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, therefore if a behavioral change is the initiator of physiological change than certainly humans have the ability to impact a determination evolutionarily.
Earlier you mentioned that I was being unfair to fish, respectfully I say we are being unfair to ourselves. There is far more potential to mankind than what we are given credit
I used the fish analogy to note an example of basic behavior from a general perspective, though perhaps I should be more specific. Using fish or any lower life form to analyze human behaviour is a gross injustice to man kind as human behavioral genetics are exponentially more complex. My analogy of the fish was to show how behavioral change is the initiator of physiological change from a basal perspective. It was foolish of me to use a lower life form as an analogous example of human behavior.
Most life forms behavioral functions are based in genetic programs with adaptive measures to increase the chances of survival. While humans share those genetic programs with other members of the animal kingdom, it is often stated that what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability to reason. I do agree with that statement, but only in the obvious example that humans have greater reasoning ability because of greater cognitive processes, though from my perspective a bigger, and higher functioning brain is not the determining factor. A larger brain is the direct result of a greater consciousness on the brain.
I do realize that by presenting the concept of consciousness into this topic is like opening up the proverbial can of worms, and as is seen in many of these forums the discussions, unfortunately, end in a stalemate. Though while consciousness is not at this moment a measurable thing, (And don't we know, if it can't be measured, it scientifically does not exist.
) there is certainly enough research being done in the fields of consciousness studies to warrant consideration. Our ability to be consciously aware of our actions and to use this awareness to change our behavior is what truly sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Often we get caught in the Darwinist belief that human behaviors are only reactionary based upon environmental impacts just like every other member of the animal kingdom, but what we aren’t considering is that we are not like other members of the animal kingdom. Do we know of any other member of the animal kingdom that could possibly form a question of such complexity such as inkaStepa did in her initial post? Our conscious awareness causes us to reflect upon not only our own actions, but also upon the actions of others in our environment, and in doing so we have the ability to choose how to act and behave, rather than to react from a genetically programmed set of responses. This conscious ability is what truly sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, therefore if a behavioral change is the initiator of physiological change than certainly humans have the ability to impact a determination evolutionarily.
Earlier you mentioned that I was being unfair to fish, respectfully I say we are being unfair to ourselves. There is far more potential to mankind than what we are given credit