The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

Holistic view of human behavior

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#81  Postby Thommo » Jun 12, 2014 2:59 pm

Evolution does not explain (to pick one of those examples) stealing at all. It doesn't determine who steals, when they steal, how frequently they steal, how they rationalise stealing, how we reduce stealing in our societies or almost any other conceivable question we might want to address regarding theft. That's pure over reach, a complete misapplication of the theory.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#82  Postby scott1328 » Jun 12, 2014 7:39 pm

The universal explanation of human behaviour: All humans act to increase their own pleasure and comfort, and reduce pain and discomfort. except when they don't.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8703
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#83  Postby kennyc » Jun 12, 2014 8:44 pm

TMB wrote:
kennyc wrote:And certainly no attempt to address my question.

TMB please definitively state the difference in your claim and plain ol' everyday evolution.


I am suggesting that the tendency to try and control things to produce favorable outcomes sits at the level below EBNS. I understand EBNS operates on the principle that the fittest survive, and survival defines fitness. The traits that are effective at surviving will tend to dominate and through a process of natural selection will eliminate traits that are not useful for survival. These traits need to be heritable and passed down to descendants and once this is done, the traits in the parents can become redundant. This pretty much affects and explains much of our lives, love and hate, conflict and cooperation, giving and stealing, selfishness and altruism, however I do not see that it directly specifies and describes the act of suicide in positive terms. While it is possible to argue that the act of suicide can be seen as a non adaptive behavior if it happens before the organism has had a chance to procreate, however tying the behavaior back to DNA is problematic. It means that EBNS does not offer much in terms of defining the behavior of suicide, while the idea that a suiciding person is still trying to retain control over outcomes does describe it and is still compatible with EBNS. It also gives a better description of our tendency to remain alive and in control after we have passed reproductive age. Both these examples seem superfluous in EBNS, but aside from that I consider EBNS to be the underlying force that living things can be reduced to. The ability to control outcomes can also be applied to non living entities and while they are not doing this as a result of the volition of something living, but as a result of their material properties, things that are capable of progressing through existence without being made non-existing, have the same outcomes as something that has the volition of control.


I almost don't know where to start with this load of shit.

Power/Control sits "below" evolution? You mean it is more fundamental? That 'power' 'drives' evolution?

Suicide in most cases has nothing to do with control. It has to do with escape, giving up, going away just the opposite of power or control. What idiotic shit you are spouting.

and as far as non-living things wanting to control shit? WTF? :roll: Sure there are laws of physics, but it has nothing to do with power or desire to control anything, it just simply a law of nature.

:doh: :doh: :doh:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#84  Postby TMB » Jun 13, 2014 4:51 am

Thommo wrote:I wholly disagree, it is myopic to believe that evolution explaining the diversity of extant life is the same as evolution explaining all behaviour. Evolution inherently involves random variables (and a lot of them) and those random variables denote things for which there is not a full explanation. Misunderstanding the scope of what is explained by TOE is quite obviously going to lead to a lot of very silly conclusions. In short my preference for The Offspring to Nirvana is predicated upon evolution, it is not explained by it.

If I understand you correctly, you are drawing the distinction between adaptive behaviour, where a specific behaviour confers a utility and spandrels where the behaviour is an incidental byproduct of the process? Despite the fact that an effect might be created by a preceding cause through TOE if it confers no adaptive advantage, as you say it can be predicated by the process but not explained in any meaningful way.

If you do agree with the spandrel/adaptive split, the challenge is trying to tell these apart. The same should apply to my suggestion that a need to control sits as a cause preceding evolution by natural selection. I would need to define what makes something ‘adaptive’ and a ‘spandrel in the same sense as they work in TOE. It also looks like the ability to predict behaviour using TOE and my proposal is far harder and more limited than I initially suggested, however the ability to explain as long as there is sufficient rigour done, I still believe will work. Also note that regardless of the prediction or explanatory power of something like TOE, it is still possible that it provides the focal reduction of how life has evolved (in the case of TOE) and as a single cause for entities try and control outcomes in their favour.

Thommo wrote:
The same error could be observed if one were to ask "Why is Clifton Suspension Bridge structurally sound?" and receive the answer "physics".

This analogy looks flawed, however I cannot clearly articulate my criticism at this point, so I will get back on this when I can.
TMB
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#85  Postby TMB » Jun 13, 2014 7:30 am

Thommo wrote:Evolution does not explain (to pick one of those examples) stealing at all.

I am not sure what you mean by ‘explain’ in this context because I can imagine that stealing can be adaptive and if so then explicable by evolution. From ants depriving aphids of their liberty in a farming relationship, to frigate birds stealing food from boobies, to humans stealing from each other in endless scenarios, all in competition in an effort to survive and you cannot understand how evolution explains stealing. You are saying that stealing is not explained in any way at all by evolution? Does this mean that stealing cannot be an adaptive behaviour?
Thommo wrote: It doesn't determine who steals, when they steal, how frequently they steal, how they rationalise stealing, how we reduce stealing in our societies or almost any other conceivable question we might want to address regarding theft. That's pure over reach, a complete misapplication of the theory.

Now you have shifted from explanation to determination, are you conflating the terms or do you mean both? I do not want to get stuck in semantics, but in a competitive environment, everything is prepared to steal resources from anywhere else, so evolution determines that every living thing will steal in an attempt to survive. Moving from the basic principle of stealing, and looking at a limited definition of stealing in law, it also appears that people steal in order to improve their chances of survival.

You have also shifted to the moral aspects of stealing, and here I agree the TOE does not suggest remedies on how to address this but as I believe it does explain it, its up to us to agree on a moral basis on which to apply what TOE explains about the behaviour. I have never suggested that my suggestion or TOE provides a ‘fixes’ for stealing or other moral constructs.
TMB
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#86  Postby Thommo » Jun 13, 2014 8:36 am

TMB wrote:
Thommo wrote:I wholly disagree, it is myopic to believe that evolution explaining the diversity of extant life is the same as evolution explaining all behaviour. Evolution inherently involves random variables (and a lot of them) and those random variables denote things for which there is not a full explanation. Misunderstanding the scope of what is explained by TOE is quite obviously going to lead to a lot of very silly conclusions. In short my preference for The Offspring to Nirvana is predicated upon evolution, it is not explained by it.

If I understand you correctly, you are drawing the distinction between adaptive behaviour, where a specific behaviour confers a utility and spandrels where the behaviour is an incidental byproduct of the process?


No, I'm talking about the vast majority of human behaviour which is learned, not evolved.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#87  Postby Thommo » Jun 13, 2014 8:40 am

TMB wrote:
Thommo wrote:Evolution does not explain (to pick one of those examples) stealing at all.

I am not sure what you mean by ‘explain’ in this context because I can imagine that stealing can be adaptive and if so then explicable by evolution. From ants depriving aphids of their liberty in a farming relationship, to frigate birds stealing food from boobies, to humans stealing from each other in endless scenarios, all in competition in an effort to survive and you cannot understand how evolution explains stealing. You are saying that stealing is not explained in any way at all by evolution? Does this mean that stealing cannot be an adaptive behaviour?
Thommo wrote: It doesn't determine who steals, when they steal, how frequently they steal, how they rationalise stealing, how we reduce stealing in our societies or almost any other conceivable question we might want to address regarding theft. That's pure over reach, a complete misapplication of the theory.

Now you have shifted from explanation to determination, are you conflating the terms or do you mean both? I do not want to get stuck in semantics, but in a competitive environment, everything is prepared to steal resources from anywhere else, so evolution determines that every living thing will steal in an attempt to survive. Moving from the basic principle of stealing, and looking at a limited definition of stealing in law, it also appears that people steal in order to improve their chances of survival.

You have also shifted to the moral aspects of stealing, and here I agree the TOE does not suggest remedies on how to address this but as I believe it does explain it, its up to us to agree on a moral basis on which to apply what TOE explains about the behaviour. I have never suggested that my suggestion or TOE provides a ‘fixes’ for stealing or other moral constructs.


But this is clearly just nonsense. Almost no human steals to survive, rather than "all" of them. Almost all human stealing is not for survival. Many humans do not steal. This explanation literally explains nothing and the ad hoc prediction aspect is incorrect anyway. And no, nothing in my post referred to morality.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#88  Postby TMB » Jun 13, 2014 9:26 am

kennyc wrote:I almost don't know where to start with this load of shit.

I would have started by breaking my post into bite sized chunks and answering each in turn. By not telling me what you see as flaws in my post, instead cherry picking pieces makes structured process harder.
kennyc wrote:Power/Control sits "below" evolution? You mean it is more fundamental? That 'power' 'drives' evolution?

I would say that it defines and underlies evolution. A fundamental requirement for evolution is enough control to survive and procreate. Any organism that has no control over outcomes that favour it will not survive to procreate.
kennyc wrote:and as far as non-living things wanting to control shit? WTF? :roll: Sure there are laws of physics, but it has nothing to do with power or desire to control anything, it just simply a law of nature.

I am anthropomorphising here and using these terms to describe the behaviour and am not suggesting that inanimates have volition. If we accept that life sustains because of its ability to achieve those things that keep it alive and able to procreate, and we accept the premise that life evolved from a specific combination of non living elements, and possibly through some process that we don’t have a clear idea of – then those elements were also able to remain in existence, probably at the expense of others, through simple chemical and physical laws. Chemistry shows us that molecules form bonds through specific affinities and chemical processes, and despite the levels that we have risen to as humans, essentially the same chemical processes operate in us and keep us alive. Since I am being reductive here, its logical to assume that a tendency to survive or sustain would have been heritable through the entire existence of life and also through the stage inanimate elements to early life.
TMB
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#89  Postby TMB » Jun 13, 2014 9:41 am

Thommo wrote:
TMB wrote:
Thommo wrote:I wholly disagree, it is myopic to believe that evolution explaining the diversity of extant life is the same as evolution explaining all behaviour. Evolution inherently involves random variables (and a lot of them) and those random variables denote things for which there is not a full explanation. Misunderstanding the scope of what is explained by TOE is quite obviously going to lead to a lot of very silly conclusions. In short my preference for The Offspring to Nirvana is predicated upon evolution, it is not explained by it.

If I understand you correctly, you are drawing the distinction between adaptive behaviour, where a specific behaviour confers a utility and spandrels where the behaviour is an incidental byproduct of the process?


No, I'm talking about the vast majority of human behaviour which is learned, not evolved.


OK then you are going to have to be more specific about this, your current statement is useless as basis for trying to debate this. You will also need to define at what level you think it becomes learned and not evolved and how the learning unhooks itself from evolved. If we use sexual behaviour as an example, perhaps you want to argue that the very existence of any sexual behaviour is learned in humans although it exists in other species - if this is the case we are so far apart that further discussion is futile. If however you agree that sexual behaviour is evolved and adaptive at least fundamentally, then you need to point to where and how learning evolved behaviour operate in tandem before handing over to learning. I get that someone can take a baboon out of the wild and bring it up eating and behaving unlike other wild baboons. On exposing the baboon to traditional foods, the baboon was unable to operate like a wild baboon because they needed to learn foraging behaviour. The same process applied to an otter discovered that when returned to the wild, the otter dived into the river, caught a fish and ate it. So I have no issue with learned behaviour, however what does not need to be learned is a striving to stay alive, when a baby is deprived of oxygen through an asthma attack, their bodies reflexively try to breathe due to a simple chemical process in the brain that recognises a too high concentration of CO2. However free divers can 'learn' to suppress the reflex to breather and fool the brain, however they generally are unable to suppress the desire to live, and even less so the need to try and control outcomes.
TMB
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#90  Postby Thommo » Jun 13, 2014 10:02 am

TMB wrote:
Thommo wrote:
TMB wrote:
Thommo wrote:I wholly disagree, it is myopic to believe that evolution explaining the diversity of extant life is the same as evolution explaining all behaviour. Evolution inherently involves random variables (and a lot of them) and those random variables denote things for which there is not a full explanation. Misunderstanding the scope of what is explained by TOE is quite obviously going to lead to a lot of very silly conclusions. In short my preference for The Offspring to Nirvana is predicated upon evolution, it is not explained by it.

If I understand you correctly, you are drawing the distinction between adaptive behaviour, where a specific behaviour confers a utility and spandrels where the behaviour is an incidental byproduct of the process?


No, I'm talking about the vast majority of human behaviour which is learned, not evolved.


OK then you are going to have to be more specific about this, your current statement is useless as basis for trying to debate this.


I already gave you definite examples. Here is another - typing in English on internet fora to discuss philosophical or other issues of no direct practical application. This is literally explained in no way by evolution, it is a learned behaviour that some humans indulge in. Also - driving a car, putting on makeup, lacing a shoe, entering a door code to get into the office, making a cup of coffee, logging in to the computer, poring over accounts, writing an agenda for a meeting...

TOE is highly successful as a theory. However the explanens is not "all human behaviour" or anything remotely resembling it.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#91  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 13, 2014 10:30 am

TMB wrote:A fundamental requirement for evolution is enough control to survive and procreate.


Control of what?

:rofl: :clap: :dance: :rofl: :clap: :dance: :rofl: :clap: :dance: :rofl: :clap: :dance:

You use the word 'control' as if it had some absolute, Humpty-Dumpty significance in your cosmology. Your woo is showing.

Normally, when scientists talk about control, they talk about control in terms of predictable outcomes. For organisms, nothing is guaranteed, except maybe shitting and dying. Your idiotic 'theory' seems to be asserting that if something works, then it exerts control, but that's a dimwitted tautology. It tells us nothing about what either 'success' or 'control' signify.

So you imply by 'control' that the process is being guided. What kind of chickenshit teleology are you trying to sell, here?
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Jun 13, 2014 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#92  Postby TMB » Jun 13, 2014 10:30 am

Thommo wrote:But this is clearly just nonsense.

Then respond with something more substantial and not just an appeal to personal incredulity.
Thommo wrote: Almost no human steals to survive, rather than "all" of them. Almost all human stealing is not for survival. Many humans do not steal. This explanation literally explains nothing and the ad hoc prediction aspect is incorrect anyway.

I am not sure exactly what you are proposing, that stealing does not happen in order to survive? So does this mean that people do not steal? Does this mean that all people can acquire the resources they need to survive by honest means? Does it mean that those who would die unless they stole simply choose to die rather than steal?

The world food program suggest that around 800 million people are unable to get enough to eat and lack of food causes nearly half of deaths of children under 5. There are plenty of references in Google that provide similar stats. The most basic of human needs means if someone has an option to steal rather than die, they will steal.

People strive for control because with greater control survival is more assured, and since control is a relative resource in a competitive environment, it explains why people compete in every environment and I would say that stealing along with a range of dishonesties happens at every level as people look for gain of every kind. Politicians give us a transparent example of how people will be dishonest in order to stay in ‘power’, and they appear mostly to have enough to eat.

If you imagine that most people do not steal then I am not sure what parallel universe you live in. Human history is full of humans competing for control of land and other possessions. We might consider that there is an amnesty in modern times, but the colonisation of land is technically stealing, and while our modern morals are different to those over the last few hundred years, most people are descended from ill gotten appropriation of land. Every continent has a history of land appropriation by the powerful over the weak.

To return to modern times, perhaps you have never lived in a country with extreme poverty, if not, let me assure you that stealing is ubiquitous at every level, from the corrupt politicians all the way down to the very poorest.

Software piracy is theft of intellectual property rights and some figures on the internet suggest that many if not most people are guilty of doing this around the world. They estimate that cheating the tax system, costs the US around $500 billion every year and the black market in the US is over $1 trillion each year (ie, this means more stealing). Thanks goodness you assure me that many humans do NOT steal, just imagine what these figures would be if they did!!!!

Thommo wrote:And no, nothing in my post referred to morality.

This is what you said
how we reduce stealing in our societies
Why would you suggest we reduce stealing if you have not made a moral assumption that stealing is bad?
TMB
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#93  Postby kennyc » Jun 13, 2014 10:31 am

TMB wrote:
kennyc wrote:I almost don't know where to start with this load of shit.

I would have started by breaking my post into bite sized chunks and answering each in turn. By not telling me what you see as flaws in my post, instead cherry picking pieces makes structured process harder.
kennyc wrote:Power/Control sits "below" evolution? You mean it is more fundamental? That 'power' 'drives' evolution?

I would say that it defines and underlies evolution. A fundamental requirement for evolution is enough control to survive and procreate. Any organism that has no control over outcomes that favour it will not survive to procreate.

kennyc wrote:Suicide in most cases has nothing to do with control. It has to do with escape, giving up, going away just the opposite of power or control. What idiotic shit you are spouting.


Suicide is a process whereby someone chooses a path that leads to their death in preference to staying alive and in this way they make a decision (regardless of theiur state of mind it is still perceived as a way to choose a better scenario for themselves)
Escape describes it quite well, and by taking initiative to choose that escape instead of life might seem radical and unnecessary
A couple of examples that come to mind. In my local neighbourhood a young guy hung himself rather than face the bikie gang that was after him for money owed. Yes it has to with escape from life and in doing so selecting suicide in preference with whatever they face in life. The very ability and process of making a decision to escape life is a degree of control. The same is seen with people who cut themselves or with eating disorders.

kennyc wrote:and as far as non-living things wanting to control shit? WTF? :roll: Sure there are laws of physics, but it has nothing to do with power or desire to control anything, it just simply a law of nature.


I am anthropomorphising here and using these terms to describe the behaviour and am not suggesting that inanimates have volition. If we accept that life sustains because of its ability to achieve those things that keep it alive and able to procreate, and we accept the premise that life evolved from a specific combination of non living elements, and possibly through some process that we don’t have a clear idea of – then those elements were also able to remain in existence, probably at the expense of others, through simple chemical and physical laws. Chemistry shows us that molecules form bonds through specific affinities and chemical processes, and despite the levels that we have risen to as humans, essentially the same chemical processes operate in us and keep us alive. Since I am being reductive here, its logical to assume that a tendency to survive or sustain would have been heritable through the entire existence of life and also through the stage inanimate elements to early life.


So you admit your entire premise is null and void, we're simply talking about natural physics laws and evolution. :roll:

P.S. I had to fix your fucked up quote attributions!
Last edited by kennyc on Jun 13, 2014 10:44 am, edited 5 times in total.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#94  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 13, 2014 10:32 am

TMB wrote:Why would you suggest we reduce stealing if you have not made a moral assumption that stealing is bad?


Discouraging theft is a labour-saving device. Think about energy-minimization principles. Yeah, you can do it.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#95  Postby Thommo » Jun 13, 2014 10:41 am

TMB wrote:
Thommo wrote:But this is clearly just nonsense.

Then respond with something more substantial and not just an appeal to personal incredulity.


I did. And in fact I did not appeal to incredulity. Further given that you're the one making a claim and an incredibly ambitious and lofty claim at that I don't even need incredulity to dismiss what you say, since you're the one with burden of proof. I was willing to enter a bit of give and take, but this kind of banal rules lawyering and shifting of that burden of proof is rapidly eroding any charity I was willing to grant.

TMB wrote:
Thommo wrote: Almost no human steals to survive, rather than "all" of them. Almost all human stealing is not for survival. Many humans do not steal. This explanation literally explains nothing and the ad hoc prediction aspect is incorrect anyway.

I am not sure exactly what you are proposing, that stealing does not happen in order to survive? So does this mean that people do not steal? Does this mean that all people can acquire the resources they need to survive by honest means? Does it mean that those who would die unless they stole simply choose to die rather than steal?


No, it means none of those things. But again you're the one claiming to be able to explain all human behaviours, so explain away.

TMB wrote:The world food program suggest that around 800 million people are unable to get enough to eat and lack of food causes nearly half of deaths of children under 5. There are plenty of references in Google that provide similar stats. The most basic of human needs means if someone has an option to steal rather than die, they will steal.


That's your assertion, now all you need to do is show it's true in every case. So, how many people stole rather than dying last year? How many people died rather than stealing last year? How do you intend to demonstrate any of this?

TMB wrote:People strive for control because with greater control survival is more assured, and since control is a relative resource in a competitive environment, it explains why people compete in every environment and I would say that stealing along with a range of dishonesties happens at every level as people look for gain of every kind. Politicians give us a transparent example of how people will be dishonest in order to stay in ‘power’, and they appear mostly to have enough to eat.

If you imagine that most people do not steal then I am not sure what parallel universe you live in. Human history is full of humans competing for control of land and other possessions. We might consider that there is an amnesty in modern times, but the colonisation of land is technically stealing, and while our modern morals are different to those over the last few hundred years, most people are descended from ill gotten appropriation of land. Every continent has a history of land appropriation by the powerful over the weak.


If you just play humpty dumpty with the word "steal" then you aren't saying much. Certainly nothing interesting. It is readily apparent that most people alive today who owned land purchased rather than stole it, let alone that literally all of them did not. Do you own a home? If so, did you buy it, or steal it? What about your parents, brothers and sisters or other family - how many of them stole rather than purchased their homes?

TMB wrote:To return to modern times, perhaps you have never lived in a country with extreme poverty, if not, let me assure you that stealing is ubiquitous at every level, from the corrupt politicians all the way down to the very poorest.

Software piracy is theft of intellectual property rights and some figures on the internet suggest that many if not most people are guilty of doing this around the world. They estimate that cheating the tax system, costs the US around $500 billion every year and the black market in the US is over $1 trillion each year (ie, this means more stealing). Thanks goodness you assure me that many humans do NOT steal, just imagine what these figures would be if they did!!!!


Sure, just imagine that you're right, don't provide evidence. That's completely rational! :lol:

Are you aware that those same companies make more than $500 billion a year from customers who pay instead of stealing? Incredible, right?

TMB wrote:
Thommo wrote:And no, nothing in my post referred to morality.

This is what you said
how we reduce stealing in our societies
Why would you suggest we reduce stealing if you have not made a moral assumption that stealing is bad?


Ok, tell me how to increase it as well, you're the one claiming to have explained all human behaviour. You seem to have confused the fact that I do have a moral preference with what I said depending upon it, in order to avoid addressing the point.
Last edited by Thommo on Jun 13, 2014 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#96  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 13, 2014 10:45 am

TMB wrote:[Since I am being reductive here, its logical to assume that a tendency to survive or sustain would have been heritable through the entire existence of life and also through the stage inanimate elements to early life.


You're being tautological, here. That which survives, reproduces. Guess what reproduces? Right. That which survives. Heritability is just what that which reproduces passes along to the next generation. You're having us on, TMB.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#97  Postby TMB » Jun 13, 2014 11:33 am

Cito di Pense wrote:

Control of what?


Whatever is in play at that time. If a lion is trying to catch a gazelle, the lion will be trying to control the outcome so that he catches and eats the prey, the gazelle will try and control it so that he escapes the lion. You are trying to respond to y posts in amanner that keeps you in control, just as i am trying to ensure my arguments stack up better than yours do. If someone is dieting they are trying to control their weight, if they wear makeup when going out they are trying to control the way they look. A salesman is trying to control things to get a sale. This is not a hard concept to grasp that practically ever process we undertake we are seeking an outcome and we direct things to try and achieve that outcome.


Cito di Pense wrote:
Normally, when scientists talk about control, they talk about control in terms of predictable outcomes. For organisms, nothing is guaranteed, except maybe shitting and dying. Your idiotic 'theory' seems to be asserting that if something works, then it exerts control, but that's a dimwitted tautology. It tells us nothing about what either 'success' or 'control' signify.


And you are accusing me of being dimwitted? Control is about desired outcomes, trying to control them in specific ways does not mean that will be achieved. The basic premise is that if an organism manages to live and procreate before it dies, given the competition it engages in, it must have been able to control outcomes in its favor. Yes or no?

Success is not absolute, however if an organism has not survived then it's not in the game. The only organisms that we measure behavior are those tat have survived and by virtue of the fact they are descended from many generations of organisms that had enough control to achieve the same thing means that in relative terms that were beter able to control things that individuals, species and genes that died out.
Cito di Pense wrote:
So you imply by 'control' that the process is being guided. What kind of chickenshit teleology are you trying to sell, here?


I have not stated this nor implied, their is no objective as such just like there is not with evolution. Survival is a self fulfilling mechanism, and in this sense it is a tautology, however it also explains how the process works.
TMB
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#98  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 13, 2014 11:41 am

TMB wrote:The basic premise is that if an organism manages to live and procreate before it dies, given the competition it engages in, it must have been able to control outcomes in its favor. Yes or no?


Must have been?

You discount stochasticity. Maybe that organism was just lucky. It depends on how much competition you think is lurking out there, so you should probably quantify your estimation of that. The organism doesn't control whether or not it's lucky, unless you tautologically conflate luck with survival. Your theory is idiotic, in that it assumes 'survival of the fittest' (a distortion), rather than reproduction by those who reproduce. You're shilling for social darwinism, or some such crap.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#99  Postby The_Metatron » Jun 13, 2014 11:44 am

TMB wrote:I have been "challenged' by Cito de Pense to paint a picture of the human condition, this is something that arose from a discussion in a topic on men being part of a rape culture, and I criticised the author of original article and is limited vision of the topic and inability to see the bigger picture.

I will start by defining what I understand to be the objectives of what I will do, as if there is no concensus on what its about, we are unlikely to get agreement on subordinate details.

I believe that it is possible, in principle, to reduce all human behavior to a single factor, and those details are all ultimately subject to an underlying cause which can be reduced to a deeper level and ultimately to a single factor that is not dependent upon any subsequent effects. This means that I subscribe to the idea of hierarchial cause and effect stacks, and while that does not rule out cross-linking between subordinate effects, ultimately a single cause will bring into existence the entire causation stack.

A bit late coming to this, and perhaps someone has beaten me to it. But, if you can do as you say, why the fuck didn't you do it?
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 21078
Age: 58
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The human condition - is a holistic view possible?

#100  Postby TMB » Jun 13, 2014 10:45 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
TMB wrote:I have been "challenged' by Cito de Pense to paint a picture of the human condition, this is something that arose from a discussion in a topic on men being part of a rape culture, and I criticised the author of original article and is limited vision of the topic and inability to see the bigger picture.

I will start by defining what I understand to be the objectives of what I will do, as if there is no concensus on what its about, we are unlikely to get agreement on subordinate details.

I believe that it is possible, in principle, to reduce all human behavior to a single factor, and those details are all ultimately subject to an underlying cause which can be reduced to a deeper level and ultimately to a single factor that is not dependent upon any subsequent effects. This means that I subscribe to the idea of hierarchial cause and effect stacks, and while that does not rule out cross-linking between subordinate effects, ultimately a single cause will bring into existence the entire causation stack.

A bit late coming to this, and perhaps someone has beaten me to it. But, if you can do as you say, why the fuck didn't you do it?

Correct, you are too late, that ship left long ago - so why the fuck did you bother?!
TMB
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest