Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Newbie Questions
by fairtrader. 12/05/23 14:22
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 12/04/23 11:34
Square root rule
by Smallz. 12/02/23 09:15
RTest not found error
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 21:43
neural function for Python to [Train]
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 14:47
Xor Memory Problem.
by TipmyPip. 11/28/23 14:23
Training with command line parameters
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:42
Combine USD & BTC Pairs In Asset Loop
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:30
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Tactics of World War I
Who's Online Now
3 registered members (TedMar, AndrewAMD, fairtrader), 578 guests, and 0 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
fairtrader, hus, Vurtis, Harry5, KelvinC
19019 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: Darwin->Rassenhygiene [Re: Doug] #125870
04/26/07 09:26
04/26/07 09:26
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
LarryLaffer Offline
Serious User
LarryLaffer  Offline
Serious User

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,205
Greece
Quote:


I'm not convinced that living a "lies-free" life improves the odds of you (or your clan) passing your genes or beliefs on to another generation. In fact, history shows otherwise.

Again, I'd love to see evidence that proves otherwise.





mmmmm... ugghhhh..

(a few minutes later)

Ok, here's one... civilizations believing in modern medicine, versus tribes believing in random Gods..

The former get a larger life-span, plus a chance to reproduce more. Not saying they're actually lies-free, but it's a good example on how 'looking-for-truth' can help in evolution.


I see what you're saying though. In many cases, especially in groups, having a large population comfused and lied to, can help the group more than harm it.. But i like to think this will change somehow. Common sense dictates that someone that know all the facts, has an advantage over someone who knows partial truth.


Einstein had a really cool saying about this:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"


INTENSE AI: Use the Best AI around for your games!
Join our Forums now! | Get Intense Pathfinding 3 Free!
Re: Darwin->Rassenhygiene [Re: jcl] #125871
04/26/07 12:33
04/26/07 12:33
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer Offline
Senior Expert
Pappenheimer  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
@ Phemox:
The example of Bush's behaviour meant that he acted in the cases of Iran war and Guantanamo correctly from the clan's morality view, when you take the USA as his clan, while he failed concerning the modern morality which includes the human rights. (Hope, it is clear this way!?)

On bioligy as the science to investigate society: you can use biology as help and can use terms of it, but as your example 'democracy' shows what I mean: society is too complex in its own relations which are beyond any of a biologist's terms.

The reduction of the gods to one single power/principle was not a bad thing, it was indeed a progress! - which finally led to a philosophical approach and with that to atheism. Look at the developing in the ancient greek philosophy, for instance Aristotle who reduced the one god to one single principle.

@ Jcl:

Quote:


Genes are not only responsible for our look, but also for our behavior - and several 100,000 years of development of mankind is enough time for evolution to produce the optimal "cave clan behavior genes", including morality, but also superstition.




I don't think that morality is in our genes.
There are parts of our behaviour in our genes, but there are huge parts that are not pre-determined, although they are common to nearly every human being.

One should hesitate to suggest that behaviours are caused by genes as long as one can explain them as reflections from the living conditions of the individuels.
Genes can cause hormonal and other biological imprinting, means the bodily conditions of feelings and thinking, but they don't decide about the contents of the thinking.

Let's take the goose example of Konrad Lorenz where the little goose adapts the first moving being regardless wether it is an adult goose or a man.
In the goose's genes is a need to follow an object, but they don't determine the object.

The genetical condition of a human being is its intentionality, but not the objects of their intentions.
Nevertheless, the condition to grow up from a helpless baby is a common situation of all human individuels, and this causes similar solutions of their minds to handle this situation.

In a certain period of their mind's reflection of their living conditions they realize that they are dependend from adults, then they realize that they got ways to bind this adults to them, finally they realize that they might get them to keep on supporting them, if they give the adults reason to believe that they will get help from them, too.

It is this desire to be desired which explains such moral similarities of all the individuels without needing a genetical reason.

Re: Darwin->Rassenhygiene [Re: Pappenheimer] #125872
04/26/07 13:58
04/26/07 13:58
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Quote:

I don't think that morality is in our genes.
There are parts of our behaviour in our genes, but there are huge parts that are not pre-determined, although they are common to nearly every human being.




It's common because it's part of a learning process everybody goes through and it's basis does obviously lie in our genes. You don't need a bible to understand or 'get' your own morality.

I agree there's a slight difference between gene defined behavior and learned behavior, but I think most of morality is already there before we even start to learn, only when we start thinking about it (unconscious or conscious) we decide what morality really is going to mean for us in practice.

Quote:

One should hesitate to suggest that behaviours are caused by genes as long as one can explain them as reflections from the living conditions of the individuels.
Genes can cause hormonal and other biological imprinting, means the bodily conditions of feelings and thinking, but they don't decide about the contents of the thinking.




Thoughts are reactions on other thoughts or any other kind of 'input'. It's probably quite complex what exactly decides what you think (emotion, knowledge, intelligence, character and and and) , but the basic 'frame of morality' you will always project onto your thoughts most certainly is there already.

Don't forget there's a great difference between actual behavior and "knowing that what you do is right or wrong".

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: Darwin->Rassenhygiene [Re: PHeMoX] #125873
04/26/07 20:03
04/26/07 20:03
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer Offline
Senior Expert
Pappenheimer  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Quote:

I agree there's a slight difference between gene defined behavior and learned behavior




IMO there's a big difference between gene defined behavior and learned behavior, although I don't know much about that. Observe a newborn, what is it doing from the beginning, what seems it to learn. Observe two newborn, compare their behaviour, what is the same, what is similar, what is different.

I watched some babies in the last decade, and be assured, you get a clear impression of how few things are 'hardcoded', even things, where I learnt in school that they are 'hardcoded' like the sucking reflex, aren't that reliable then I expected.
I fairly doubt that there is much already in the genes.
IMO, as already said, there are the bodily conditions which influences the mind via its connections like nerves and hormons - not more.

Re: Darwin->Rassenhygiene [Re: Pappenheimer] #125874
04/26/07 20:50
04/26/07 20:50
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Quote:

IMO there's a big difference between gene defined behavior and learned behavior, although I don't know much about that.




Even learned behavior isn't entirely independent of genes actually.

Cheers


PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: Darwin->Rassenhygiene [Re: PHeMoX] #125875
04/27/07 06:33
04/27/07 06:33
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer Offline
Senior Expert
Pappenheimer  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Quote:

Even learned behavior isn't entirely independent of genes actually.




How? Give a detail! Give an example!

I studied Freud's investigations and a bunch french philosophers that analysed his books.

He describes the connection this way:
For instance the sucking reflex is a genetically given behaviour, to feel hungry, to feel thirsty, to feel pain in the stomack, crying when feeling pain, to grip with the fingers when they feel a touch at their insides - these things are given without learning.
Now: the child is thirsty, it cries, the mother takes it and hold it's mouth against her breast, it sucks
- it feels the milk, it swallows the milk, it feels the stomack filling, it gets rid of the feeling of the thirst, feels the warm body of the mother, smells her, hears her, sees her - at least her shadow or whatever, because from the child's eye moving you can't expect that it recognizes any shapes in the beginning...
This process happens again and again, means it is getting established in its mind, means it connects this details to a complex, means it gets expectations, for instance, the mother holds it in her arms and it expects to drink although it feels no thirst, means it enjoys sucking although it is already bodily satisfied.

Freud's conclusion: the child's mind develops while leaning on the given reflexes!

Starting with the reflexes and the bodily sensations the child builds a set of connections and expectations, which get through repetition and variation in these repetitions more and more independent of the initial reflexes.
And this independency is huge, the mind is still dependent from the sensations it gets back from its close environement, the body, but it establishs its own ways how to manage these sensations, and how to act to achieve desired sensations etc.

Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1