these processes (behaviors) are occurring. It is interesting that for
everything determinism seems to represent, that the ascension of life
is operating contrarywise, and in every case I can tell is
fundamentally opposed to deterministic reduction in the scope of it's
little environmental niche. There is an almost antithetical quality to
this that is bugging me a bit, after getting over the whole fatalism
trap that is (time+intuition, I call it vitamin TI). :)
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:59 PM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bees have recently been observed to do more than waggle-dancing in
> reaching consensus on choice of hive. They actually clash head and
> emit (to bees) loud shrieks. Many people leap in in any consideration
> of sociobiology with the haplessly obvious statement 'we are not
> animals' and labels like 'biological determinism'. My view is we need
> awareness of what we really are as animals in order to prevent
> biological determinism.
>
> Human sociobiology aims to understand the evolution of human
> sociality. Sociobiologists attempt to trace the evolutionary histories
> of particular behavioral strategies in terms of their functional roles
> in ancestral and current environments. The sociobiological research
> program faces extraordinary challenges. Chief among these is our
> ignorance of several crucial facts: the chronology of selective
> pressures in human ancestral and current environments, how particular
> strategies are activated and controlled, the possibility of radical
> transitions in human social organization, the relationship between
> biological evolution and cultural evolution, and many others. The
> result is a necessarily speculative explanatory structure.
> Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to believe that sociobiology offers
> a potentially illuminating framework for understanding human behavior,
> one that has already achieved important insights. (standard Stanford
> stuff)
>
> Most of the early questions about why a female worker bee (sterile)
> would put in work (and many more) have now been answered in terms of
> their close genetic relations to the Queen's progeny (closer than ours
> to sons and daughters). We are now known to be attracted to those
> with similar genes to our own. One can see this is statistics.
>
> I think many people may be confused into thinking they are acting in
> free will when in fact they are merely responding to gene interaction
> - though knowing this one can still choose to go with the flow.
> Xenophobia is partly genetic but one can choose to overcome it. This
> said one can (and should in my view) resist cultural dross like
> political correctness.
>
> I'm diabetic and we know this is broadly genetic - though we are
> beginning to see much is epigenetic, including factors of pollution
> and the influence of fat on sperm (Dad was fat when I was conceived,
> not when my elder brother was). One can't choose to be diabetic but
> can choose a lifestyle that limits its effects - this is complex and
> many of the drugs tend to make you fat and hence worse, if you eat
> like a normal person. I'm lucky that I don't like junk food. I got
> fat as soon as I stopped playing professional rugby after injuries in
> policing incidents. I stayed fat even though the training I did as an
> amateur back at university was pretty tough (we won the national
> championship).
>
> Clearly I wouldn't have chosen this situation in free will. How could
> I have affected what Mum and Dad did? Or increases in pollution? I
> can choose my diet (some are not so fortunate) and to get out walking
> with the dog. I've just stopped taking most of my previous medicine
> and am taking Victoza (once daily jab). With no other changes weight
> is falling off. The cost of this drug is £80 a month - which is free
> to me on the NHS.
>
> There are many questions about free will before we get to the
> spiritual, though the spiritual is already mixed up in the mess of our
> societies. Do we partake of the 'pleasures of life' in free will?
> Does "economics" even consider these issues? Molly may be right in
> that we have to step away into another "motivation".
>
> On Jan 10, 12:30 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There are many notions of free will. My start these days is in "man"
>> as a social animal and how this gives opportunity and constraint. I
>> suspect we still haven't got to grips with what the selfish gene means
>> and how much isn't being controlled by consciousness rationally
>> derived.
>>
>> On Jan 9, 11:20 pm, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Perhaps, gabby. But at this point in my life, for me, there is no
>> > other choice. So is it really a choice?
>>
>> > On Jan 9, 6:14 pm, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Oh Molly, I believe you are more than the box you come in, too! I
>> > > believe you choose to want to feel lovely at each moment, feeling
>> > > alive!
>>
>> > > On Jan 9, 11:34 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > We know by recognizing his potentiality and helping him to do the
>> > > > same. Sometimes, given the box it comes in, this takes an
>> > > > extraordinary amount of love and care. At some point, choice, like
>> > > > goals and purpose and all the rest, just fall away. And here we are.
>> > > > Relating to those we love. Feeling the life we've been given. Ten
>> > > > years ago I would not have imagined myself as I am today. I am here
>> > > > because somewhere along the line I discovered that the best I can "do"
>> > > > is express myself with love in each moment, and recognize the same in
>> > > > others, whatever the circumstance. Given that, life unfolds.
>>
>> > > > On Jan 9, 3:42 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > Some of this take on epistemology can be gleaned by observing what's
>> > > > > around us. Teenagers are a minefield of such information. My
>> > > > > grandson (14) is currently making excuses for not having enough baths
>> > > > > and showers along the lines of 'it's my body'. Empirically he stinks.
>> > > > > He's barely noticed how much work gets done around him. He can't keep
>> > > > > his PC free of viruses or use his laptop with enough care not to break
>> > > > > the charger lead (etc.). It has barely dawned on him that I was once
>> > > > > his age and that he has never been my age. He's a good enough lad and
>> > > > > this is all that really matters to me. He was like an Irishman put in
>> > > > > a barrel and told to piss in the corner the other day (add Pole,
>> > > > > Belgian etc. to xenophobic choice). I gave him a power lead straight
>> > > > > from the box and he spent the time trying to fit it to the socket with
>> > > > > the insulation packaging left on. I guess he won't next time, though
>> > > > > I proved a slower learner on some such stuff. It would be easy enough
>> > > > > to leave him alone to "develop" into a useless, smelly nitwit. The
>> > > > > idea is we don't. How do we know?
>>
>> > > > > On Jan 7, 10:34 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > I agree with RP that we are looking at complex relations. Lots has
>> > > > > > been said on Mal's thought - this is a standard\ example:
>>
>> > > > > > "The Darwinian revolution of the nineteenth century suggested an
>> > > > > > alternative approach first explored by Dewey and the pragmatists.
>> > > > > > Human beings, as the products of evolutionary development, are natural
>> > > > > > beings. Their capacities for knowledge and belief are also the
>> > > > > > products of a natural evolutionary development. As such, there is some
>> > > > > > reason to suspect that knowing, as a natural activity, could and
>> > > > > > should be treated and analyzed along lines compatible with its status,
>> > > > > > i. e., by the methods of natural science. On this view, there is no
>> > > > > > sharp division of labor between science and epistemology. In
>> > > > > > particular, the results of particular sciences such as evolutionary
>> > > > > > biology and psychology are not ruled a priori irrelevant to the
>> > > > > > solution of epistemological problems. Such approaches, in general, are
>> > > > > > called naturalistic epistemologies, whether they are directly
>> > > > > > motivated by evolutionary considerations or not. Those which are
>> > > > > > directly motivated by evolutionary considerations and which argue that
>> > > > > > the growth of knowledge follows the pattern of evolution in biology
>> > > > > > are called "evolutionary epistemologies."
>>
>> > > > > > Evolutionary epistemology is the attempt to address questions in the
>> > > > > > theory of knowledge from an evolutionary point of view. Evolutionary
>> > > > > > epistemology involves, in part, deploying models and metaphors drawn
>> > > > > > from evolutionary biology in the attempt to characterize and resolve
>> > > > > > issues arising in epistemology and conceptual change. As disciplines
>> > > > > > co-evolve, models are traded back and forth. Thus, evolutionary
>> > > > > > epistemology also involves attempts to understand how biological
>> > > > > > evolution proceeds by interpreting it through models drawn from our
>> > > > > > understanding of conceptual change and the development of theories.
>> > > > > > The term "evolutionary epistemology" was coined by Donald Campbell
>> > > > > > (1974)."
>>
>> > > > > > I don't agree, incidentally that we need to 'apply science methods' to
>> > > > > > look into this and feel this is far too restrictive.
>>
>> > > > > > On Jan 7, 8:52 pm, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > Here is a thought.
>>
>> > > > > > > If rational thinking has resulted from the sucessful evolutionary
>> > > > > > > developement of the biological brain then that is all it is. Certainly
>> > > > > > > rational thoght would not have developed in (SAY) a fungus in a cave
>> > > > > > > for it would have no survival advantage. So freewill is nothing more
>> > > > > > > than an apt evolutionary development.
>>
>> > > > > > > On Jan 7, 9:03 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > those are just excuses, yes my back ground and experiences are what I use
>> > > > > > > > for making decision --- that does not bind me, i still have the choice to
>> > > > > > > > respond as i like
>> > > > > > > > Allan
>>
>> > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:33 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > We are bound by very subtle ties and our ostensible freedom is wrapped
>> > > > > > > > > in bondage. If we lock up criminals we are bound and if we don't we
>> > > > > > > > > are still bound. Nature, within our will and that without, binds us.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 5:01 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > Secular myths abound - largely because most of us are early-tuned to
>> > > > > > > > > > religious ones. I suspect that the idea of social science is one of
>> > > > > > > > > > them. Peter Winch wrote a small book on the topic in 1960 - I'd guess
>> > > > > > > > > > he was one of Wittgenstein's students. We mythologise many secular
>> > > > > > > > > > elements of society - democracy is one, leadership another. Science
>> > > > > > > > > > becomes one in those thinking it can answer all questions or (as in
>> > > > > > > > > > Dawkins) is the only important focus. If we have no free will we
>> > > > > > > > > > should stop locking up criminals. The question on free will is what
>> > > > > > > > > > life would entail without it and consequent responsibilities denied.
>> > > > > > > > > > Even Nietzsche insisted having seen the chaos we should make oursleves
>> > > > > > > > > > works of art.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 5:17 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >> I totally agree with you Molly
>> > > > > > > > > >> On Jan 6, 2012 12:15 PM, "Molly" <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> > There is more to life than the realm of cause and effect. Many of us
>> > > > > > > > > >> > just prefer it there.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> > On Jan 5, 5:27 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > Free will is a reality.. the problem comes once you made your
>> > > > > > > > > choice and
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > the effects of the choice ,, these results appear that you have no
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > choice,, you just mad it earlier.
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > Allan
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:33 PM, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Humanity has always, for some reason, felt the need to support his
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > world view with a series of myths commonly termed beliefs in
>> > > > > > > > > order to,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > in some way, justify its behaviour. We must not, however, believe
>> > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > these myths are always spiritual or mystical in nature. Many are
>> > > > > > > > > not.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > The legitimacy of a myth depends on many features. Umberto Eco in
>> > > > > > > > > his
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > excellent tome 'Foucault's Pendulum' quietly draws our attention
>> > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > the requirements needed for the creation of a robust myth and
>> > > > > > > > > there is
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > no doubt that within most religious and philosophical beliefs the
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > required elements are found.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Secular myths, however, are somewhat harder to pin down. This may
>> > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > because they are founded little more than intuition. They are
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > therefore difficult to identify as myths in the first place. Also,
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > such myths can often serve a very useful purpose.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Let us take as an example the idea of freewill. The idea is so
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > embedded in our psych that most of us believe it to be a reality.
>> > > > > > > > > Even
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > so, an in depth study soon reveals the fragility of the idea. So
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > fragile is it that philosophers have argued over the question of
>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > determinism v free will for generations; time which could have
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário