It is instinctive to hoard resources. Sharing (other than feeding offspring) generally has to be learned. If you don't believe that, spend time with young children. Or watch birds at a feeder or predators with their kill. Even when they have far more than they could possibly eat themselves, they do not willingly share.
Quote:
The Bonobos share their food with all members of the group (generally) so that shoudl address your first point. As for your 'proof', I have worked with a lot of young children and have found that they are very good natured and tend to share rather than be selfish. The problem occurs when children who have not been shown enough nurturing interact with others, this is when the fights emerge. As for your other examples, they are irrelevant. The bahaviour of birds and predators, like lions, has little to no bearing on a discussion of human development.
p.s.
I think this guy, Griffin's, theory is great example of 'the Fall'.
People thinking they can rule like gods, and have the wisdom of gods.
Yeah I was wondering that too, wasn't the second law suppose to mean that thing tend to go in the direction of maximum entropy?
The total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease.
Since its discovery, the idea that disorder tends to increase has been the focus of a great deal of thought, some of it confused. A chief point of confusion is the fact that the Second Law applies only to isolated systems. For example, the Earth is not an isolated system because it is constantly receiving energy in the form of sunlight. Nevertheless, it has been pointed out that the universe may be considered an isolated system, so that its total disorder should be constantly increasing. We will discuss the implications of this idea in the section on Entropy and cosmology.
I agree with you that if a child is not nurtured or socialized enough they can be' 'brutalized' into killers, selfish people etc. but this begs the question, if these people were brutalized into this condition, the parents who did this to them must also have been 'brutalized, and their parents and theirs etc. etc. and it had to begin somewhere, this theory offers the only explanation I can find for this conundrum of human nature.
Just in case anyone is not sure what I mean by the human condition I will give a brief explanation. All humanity feels that the right way to act is co-operatively, lovingly and integratively (if anyone would like to scoff at this punch yourself in the nose and then do so) however looking around us we see a world of war, destruction, hatred, depression, drug abuse, rape, destruction of the environment etc. etc. This is the fundamental problem of the human condition. All the great philosophies, religions and a few of the more thoughtful scientists have dealt with this problem directly. It has led to all manner of concepts, including God (or Allah or Brahma etc.) the soul, the ultimate form of the good, and (dare I say it?) the Ubermensch, but is there a scientific explanation for this hellish state of affairs?
His solution to this age old question of The Fall is deceptively simple and rather profound. Basically when the nerve-networks in the brain become complex enough they can associate past and present events and begin to 'understand' the world in a way that most animals do not (to the same extent). Griffith says that this ability developed fully in our species about 2 million years ago and that when this happened, the human condition emerged. The problem was that, unlike the genetic learning system, the nerve-based learning system in a fully conscious animal does not have an established way of behaving, it needs to learn for itself. Ineveitably, this led to humans, far back in our remote past, experimenting in self management. This seems innocent enough but the problem was that our instincts, not being insighful, could not possibly understand that the conscious mind or intellect had to search for knowledge. This meant that whenever our ancient ancestors would attempt to self manage, and inadvertantly go against their instincts (even something as simple as leaving their home to explore or hording fruit for themselves instead of sharing) they would face opposition from their instinctive self or 'conscience'. This conscience would have felt like a parent saying 'You're bad' and, having no way to explain what he was doing, our ancestor would have had to prove his worth by experimenting further and lashing out against those who were not yet 'sinning' or going against their instincts. This situation led to a rejection and eventual hatred of the instinctive or 'innocent' self and attacks on everything that represented it - nature, women, children and, ultimately, their 'true' instinctive selves.
AngeliqueEast wrote:BM
pardon?
This meant that whenever our ancient ancestors would attempt to self manage, and inadvertantly go against their instincts (even something as simple as leaving their home to explore or hording fruit for themselves instead of sharing) they would face opposition from their instinctive self or 'conscience'. This conscience would have felt like a parent saying 'You're bad' and, having no way to explain what he was doing, our ancestor would have had to prove his worth by experimenting further and lashing out against those who were not yet 'sinning' or going against their instincts.
He also claims that humanity (apart from a few) is living in an almost total denial of their instinctive self or 'soul' because the instinctive memory of their integrated, loving past is too depressing in light of their divisive, hateful present.
JJ-
How did we humans learn to place lines like that on a thread and keep them under wraps in a pub close to the last bell.
As it is widely acknowledge that our instincts are co-operatively orientated it is fair to say tha this behaviour must have escalated as the human world today is a highly divisive, violent and alienated one.
I hope I have addressed your questions adequately, but feel free to point out if I have not. Thanks for the criricism, keeps me thinking.
Kinch
quote]
..humans have an instinctive orientation to co-operation and selfless behaviour, [...] If you are hungry and have the desire to eat that is instinctive,
As it is widely acknowledge that our instincts are co-operatively orientated it is fair to say tha this behaviour must have escalated as the human world today is a highly divisive, violent and alienated one.
Kinch wrote:As it is widely acknowledge that our instincts are co-operatively orientated it is fair to say tha this behaviour must have escalated as the human world today is a highly divisive, violent and alienated one.
I hope I have addressed your questions adequately, but feel free to point out if I have not. Thanks for the criricism, keeps me thinking.
Kinch
you're welcome, and i thank you for considering my remarks seriously, despite the non-standard capitalization. in your reply to Terry you made the same claim that the instinctive basis of cooperative behavior in our species is widely acknowledged. i don't think you would suggest that this belief is universal; observations such as "the world is governed by self-interest" indicate some dissension. moreover, prevalence of a belief is no guarantee of its correctness. so, what evidence is there that cooperation is instinctual in humans? your remarks suggest to me that the main evidence is analogy with Bonobos. i don't find that convincing, especially since you proposed that upright posture was a key factor in the development of this instinct in humans, whereas Bonobos lack upright posture.
yitwail wrote:Kinch wrote:As it is widely acknowledge that our instincts are co-operatively orientated it is fair to say tha this behaviour must have escalated as the human world today is a highly divisive, violent and alienated one.
I hope I have addressed your questions adequately, but feel free to point out if I have not. Thanks for the criricism, keeps me thinking.
Kinch
you're welcome, and i thank you for considering my remarks seriously, despite the non-standard capitalization. in your reply to Terry you made the same claim that the instinctive basis of cooperative behavior in our species is widely acknowledged. i don't think you would suggest that this belief is universal; observations such as "the world is governed by self-interest" indicate some dissension. moreover, prevalence of a belief is no guarantee of its correctness. so, what evidence is there that cooperation is instinctual in humans? your remarks suggest to me that the main evidence is analogy with Bonobos. i don't find that convincing, especially since you proposed that upright posture was a key factor in the development of this instinct in humans, whereas Bonobos lack upright posture.
Most of your arguments hinge on a word that has no explanatory value - 'instinct'.
John Jones wrote:
Most of your arguments hinge on a word that has no explanatory value - 'instinct'.
This keeps coming up. I'll try to clarify:
"At a public lecture I listened to Arthur Koestler airing his opinion that the human species was mad...as a result of an inadequate co-ordination between two areas of the brain - the 'rational' neocortex and the 'instinctual hypothalamus..."
(Bruce Chatwin, The Songlines, 1987)
"Jung Regards the unconscious mind as not only the repository of forgotten or repressed memories, but also of racial memories. This is reasonable enough when we remember the definition of instinct as racial memory"
(International University Society's Reading Course and Biographical Studies, Volume 6, c 1940.)
'The Tao acts through Natural Law
From ancient times to the present,
Its name ever remains,
Through the experience of the Collective Origin.'
(From the 21st passage of Tao Te Ching, attributed to Lao Tzu [604-531 BC], as translated by R.L. Wing.)
'The great frontier between the two types of mentality is the line which separates non-primate mammals from apes and monkeys. On one side of that line behaviour is dominated by hereditary memory, and on the other by individual causal memory The phyletic history of the primate soul can clearly be traced in the mental evolution of the human child. The highest primate, man, is born an instinctive animal. All its behaviour for a long period after birth is dominated by the instinctive mentality ' (Eugène Marais, The Soul of the Ape, written in the 1930s, published in 1969.)
'Oh wearisome Condition of Humanity!
Borne under one Law, to another bound:
Vainely begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sicke, commanded to be sound:
What meaneth Nature by these diverse Lawes?
Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause:'
(Fulke Greville, from his play Mustapha, c 1594-96.)
These quotes (I'd give you more but they're all I have at hand) demonstrate what I mean by instinctive, it is the hereditary memory of the behaviours developed by the genetic learning system over time.
Hereditary memory as opposed to individual causal understanding.
Hope that's helped,
Kinch
