Does natural selection explain human behavior?

[Cypress]

No, you aren't drawn into a debate with anyone who so much as causes you to question your ex cathedra assumptions.



You are a bully and I won't sit around being bullied by weak-minded fake intellectuals who can't defend their own positions.

No, Perry PhD, I just have no desire to engage with someone who entertains the idea that orangutans possibly might know calculus.

All you practically do is visit my threads and read my posts. Surely you don't have to rely on me to think up topics that fascinate and titillate you. This board allows you to start your own threads.

 

[Commander Dutch]

No, Perry PhD, I just have no desire to engage with someone who entertains the idea that orangutans possibly might know calculus.

All you practically do is visit my threads and read my posts. Surely you don't have to rely on me to think up topics that fascinate and titillate you. This board allows you to start your own threads.

Perry is another person who reacts emotionally, even to the point of self-harm, and, often, irrationally.

I was raised in the military, went to college then had a career in the military followed by the airlines. I've lived a sheltered life surrounded by quality people. It wasn't until the internet that I began to interact with the intellectually disabled, the mentally ill and people who are either very poorly educated or just plain stupid.

In Perry's case, I suspect one of the first two or a combination of the first two which is why I'm curious about him.

As mentioned before, I've been ridiculed for psychoanalyzing people over the Internet. Yes, there are problems, but, IMO, despite the limitations, it's relatively easy to separate those who are rational and with an average or better education from those who are not. Breaking down whether a person is irrational or just stupid is a little more problematic, but after a few dozen interactions over time, can easily be done also.

While an intelligent, educated person can play a stupid person, it's impossible for a stupid or mentally ill person to maintain a persona which is intelligent and educated. This, in short, is exactly what Perry attempted to do.

IMO, Perry would be better off coming clean and being honest. While he may fear being ridiculed like in school, he should know that people like you and me wouldn't do that.

 

[Commander Dutch]

Good points and nice summary.
Ants don't have human ethics, and bees don't get geochem PhDs.

Agreed, we are animals ourselves with instincts that can directly be traced to Darwininan principles. A lot of humans, and certainly most MAGAs, don't have much beyond the primitive instincts for food, shelter, self preservation, and sex.

But ants and Aardvarks don't have the ability to transcend their basic natures, like the Dali Llama or Saint Francis of Assisi can. That can't just be a Darwinian instinct, because it takes effort to transcend our base nature.


Why do humans have this ability for transcendence and abstract contemplation? It's an open question, and while I think it's possible the explanation is going to ultimately be either scientific or metaphysical, I don't think the explanation lies in pointing to natural selection or brain size.

Thanks. Agreed, LOL

Agreed on our animal roots to the basics of both individual and species survival.

Excellent point about transcending above our animal natures. Not a scholar, but like Perry, I know how to use the Internet. This seems to be what Aristotle was writing about in Metaphysics:

“In the case of all things which have several parts and in which the totality is not, as it were, a mere heap, but the whole is something besides the parts, there is a cause; for even in bodies contact is the cause of unity in some cases, and in others viscosity or some other such quality.”​

As for why only humans are capable of this, IDK. I think part of the answer is found in humanity's habit of eliminating the competition to the point of extinction.

 

[Cypress]

Perry is another person who reacts emotionally, even to the point of self-harm, and, often, irrationally.

I was raised in the military, went to college then had a career in the military followed by the airlines. I've lived a sheltered life surrounded by quality people. It wasn't until the internet that I began to interact with the intellectually disabled, the mentally ill and people who are either very poorly educated or just plain stupid.

In Perry's case, I suspect one of the first two or a combination of the first two which is why I'm curious about him.

As mentioned before, I've been ridiculed for psychoanalyzing people over the Internet. Yes, there are problems, but, IMO, despite the limitations, it's relatively easy to separate those who are rational and with an average or better education from those who are not. Breaking down whether a person is irrational or just stupid is a little more problematic, but after a few dozen interactions over time, can easily be done also.

While an intelligent, educated person can play a stupid person, it's impossible for a stupid or mentally ill person to maintain a persona which is intelligent and educated. This, in short, is exactly what Perry attempted to do.

IMO, Perry would be better off coming clean and being honest. While he may fear being ridiculed like in school, he should know that people like you and me wouldn't do that.

There's no shame or dishonor in taking a few geology or chemistry classes, or being an amateur gemstone and mineral collector, and then just leaving it at that.

But when you claim the mantle of PhD in the physical sciences, you open yourself up to being shot down in flames and having your credibility shredded.

I was also sheltered in the sense that my childhood and teenage years were spent in the company of high quality people. Everyone in my immediate family was college educated, and expected good manners and a minimum level of cultivation to thrive. I was never around drunks, white trash, drug addicts, sociopaths. I think I learned to be a decent judge of character, and purposefully kept alcoholics, hillbillies, and narcissists out of my life. It was also eye opening to me how internet forums seem to attract the mentally disturbed and substance abusers in the way this pig shit attracts flies.

 

[Cypress]

Thanks. Agreed, LOL

Agreed on our animal roots to the basics of both individual and species survival.

Excellent point about transcending above our animal natures. Not a scholar, but like Perry, I know how to use the Internet. This seems to be what Aristotle was writing about in Metaphysics:

“In the case of all things which have several parts and in which the totality is not, as it were, a mere heap, but the whole is something besides the parts, there is a cause; for even in bodies contact is the cause of unity in some cases, and in others viscosity or some other such quality.”​

As for why only humans are capable of this, IDK. I think part of the answer is found in humanity's habit of eliminating the competition to the point of extinction.

But you at least cite your internet sources, rather than passing it off as your own, without citation!

There is a grey line between where science ends and metaphysics begins.

Science can explains things in terms of properties and correlations. But it sometimes fails at fundamental underlying reasons

But knowing everything about the physics of light, the chemistry of out eye's photoelectric cells, and how electrical impulses travel between neurons doesn't explain exactly why that would result in a rich subjective mental experience of art, aesthetics, or abstract contemplation.

It's similar to the open metaphysical question about gravity. We know that mass deforms spacetime, causing changes in acceleration a particle experiences. But we have no idea why mass would deform spacetime. It just does, and we don't know why.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, Perry PhD, I just have no desire to engage with someone who entertains the idea that orangutans possibly might know calculus.

Calculus is a set of human concepts. We'll put you down as not accepting that orangutans might have a superior spatial intelligence than do humans that is far more accurate at gauging distance and recognizing different plants from much greater distances.

All you practically do is visit my threads and read my posts.

That's quite the brilliant statement you just made there. What one "practices" is what one does. You just stated that all he does is what he does, which is all he can do with regard to your posts on an internet forum, i.e. visit your threads and read your posts.

Brilliant. Did you realize this on your own or did you copy-paste it from the internet?

Have you discovered the "why" to any random events yet?

 

[IBDaMann]

There is a grey line between where science ends and metaphysics begins.

Nope. The line between science and metaphysics is the hard line between nature and the supernatural. If you weren't so scientifically illiterate, you'd know this.

Science can explains things in terms of properties and correlations.

Science doesn't "explain" so much as it predicts nature. There is no "why" so there isn't really any explanation. Also, science doesn't guess; it predicts. Correlations pertain to statistics (math), not science. If you weren't so mathematically incompetent, you'd understand this.

But it sometimes fails at fundamental underlying reasons

If a science model fails to correctly predict nature then it is discarded and is no longer science. No science ever fails but still sticks around.

But knowing everything about the physics of light, the chemistry of out eye's photoelectric cells, and how electrical impulses travel between neurons doesn't explain exactly why that would result in a rich subjective mental experience of art, aesthetics, or abstract contemplation.

... because science doesn't explain; it predicts.

It's similar to the open metaphysical question about gravity.

When do you imagine that gravity somehow moved from physics to metaphysics?

We know that mass deforms spacetime, causing changes in acceleration a particle experiences.

Now look who's insisting that non-sentient, inanimate objects have "experiences."

I see that you're still stuck insisting that models actually are the systems they represent. There's no helping you; you double down on stupid at every opportunity.

But we have no idea why mass would deform spacetime.

Are you now recognizing that science addresses the "what" and not the "why"?

 

[Cypress]

I am a troll, a plagiarizer, a bad-faith poster, a scientific illiterate.

Yes, you are, as the posts below prove.

CLICK HERE to see how IBDumbass fantasizes that he has deeply original, profound insights about science and religion, but he is actually just plagiarizing and paraphrasing insights that other posters have already had for many years

CLICK HERE To See Why IBDumbass Doesn't Post in Good Faith - He hounds me with what he imagines is a 'gotcha!' question, but when it blows up in his face he runs away from the thread like a little girl

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

​

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

​

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

​

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

​

 

[Cypress]

Yep , I am a troll , a plagiarizer, a bad-faith poster, a scientific illiterate.

Yes you are, as the posts below prove.

CLICK HERE to see how IBDumbass fantasizes that he has deeply original, profound insights about science and religion, but he is actually just plagiarizing and paraphrasing insights that other posters have already had for many years

CLICK HERE To See Why IBDumbass Doesn't Post in Good Faith - He hounds me with what he imagines is a 'gotcha!' question, but when it blows up in his face he runs away from the thread like a little girl

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

​

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

​

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

​

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

​

 

[Into the Night]

If they have an evolutionary benefit, I would expect to see them in other sentient species. As far as I know, chimpanzees don't paint, and dogs don't seem to respond to Mozart.

Alfred Wallace himself, the co-founder of the theory of evolution by natural selection along with Darwin, didn't think natural selection explained the abstract intellectual, aesthetic, and moral dimensions of human life.

It might be genetics, but Darwin didn't know anything about genes and it was not part of the theory of natural selection.

I think most likely we just do not yet have a science of mind that can explain these human behaviors, and there's no reason to think 170 years ago Darwin and Wallace came up with a theory that explained everything about human evolution and human psychology.

Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution (a nonscientific theory). The Greeks did. Darwin created the Theory of Natural Selection, a nonscientific theory. Science is not a mind.

 

[Into the Night]

To me, science has to come to terms with human mental experience on it's own terms. I don't think we can try to shoehorn abstract rationality and affinity for the aesthetic into a 170 year old theory of natural selection, or even Mendelian genetics.

Human mental experience and rationality is so unique in the history of life, I don't think we can sweep it under the rug by now invoking random genetic mutation that just came along for the ride. Squandering enormous resources to build gothic cathedrals or to bankroll Italian Renassaince artists cannot be shoehorned into any Darwinian scheme of evolutionary biology I can think of.

I just think rather than shoehorning into traditional modes of scientific thinking, we have to meet human mental experience on it's on terms, and that might ultimately require a science or philosophy that hasn't even been invented yet.

Science does not have to come to terms with anything.
Science is not philosophy.
Science is not religion.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, it's important to acknowledge what we don't know.

300 years ago we didn't know there was a science of chemistry.
200 years ago, we didn't know there was a science of genetics.
100 years ago, we didn't know there was a science of chaos.

I haven't seen anything in physics or evolutionary biology that had explanatory power for these manifestations of the human mind.

Maybe someday there is going to be a new type of science of mind we don't even concieve of yet that will provide some insights.

There is no branch or theory of science called 'chaos'.
Science is not 'types'.

 

[Into the Night]

Hence the problems we are facing in America today. We have more and more people now benefitting from a peace they did nothing to achieve or maintain. Now they "fight" demons of their own creation. We're so "intellectual" now we don't even know what the fuck a man or a woman is.

You cannot project the problems of Democrats on everyone.

 

[Into the Night]

Not for normal people. For you, I can see why you fear death among all other fears, Sybil.

Agreed, but that's not what the phrase means.

Normal people recognize that death is part of the life cycle, Sybil. Death comes for us all. Only a nutjob thinks they'll live forever.

He is not you, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

There's no shame or dishonor in taking a few geology or chemistry classes, or being an amateur gemstone and mineral collector, and then just leaving it at that.

But when you claim the mantle of PhD in the physical sciences, you open yourself up to being shot down in flames and having your credibility shredded.

I was also sheltered in the sense that my childhood and teenage years were spent in the company of high quality people. Everyone in my immediate family was college educated, and expected good manners and a minimum level of cultivation to thrive. I was never around drunks, white trash, drug addicts, sociopaths. I think I learned to be a decent judge of character, and purposefully kept alcoholics, hillbillies, and narcissists out of my life. It was also eye opening to me how internet forums seem to attract the mentally disturbed and substance abusers in the way this pig shit attracts flies.

Science is not a degree, title, certification, license, or any other government sanctification.

 

[Into the Night]

Self preservation is an instinct, but I bet the people who literally "fear" death are the ones who look back retrospectively and realize their life didn't mean anything and they completely wasted the gift of life they were provided. In other words, the losers, the Incels, the morally corrupt, the socially offensive and the social outcasts

So you fear death.

 

[Into the Night]

An excellent observation, Cypress, and agreed. I can see why that same retrospective look and recognition that they wasted their lives would cause some to become very angry, very defensive and seek to blame others for their failures.

...in short; Trumpers. The MAGAts. They all seem to have this in common.

What they all also seem to have in common is failing to see that today is new day. They can change if they wish. They can't change the past, but they can change the present actions and behaviors if they so choose.

MAGA isn't a person, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

But you at least cite your internet sources, rather than passing it off as your own, without citation!

There is a grey line between where science ends and metaphysics begins.

Science can explains things in terms of properties and correlations. But it sometimes fails at fundamental underlying reasons

But knowing everything about the physics of light, the chemistry of out eye's photoelectric cells, and how electrical impulses travel between neurons doesn't explain exactly why that would result in a rich subjective mental experience of art, aesthetics, or abstract contemplation.

It's similar to the open metaphysical question about gravity. We know that mass deforms spacetime, causing changes in acceleration a particle experiences. But we have no idea why mass would deform spacetime. It just does, and we don't know why.

Science has no 'gray lines'. Science is not religion or philosophy.

 

[Commander Dutch]

He is not you, Sock.

No shit, Sybil. It's funny how you're so certain about that.

 

[Commander Dutch]

MAGA isn't a person, Sock.

MAGA is a cult. MAGAts are cult members, Sybil. Stop playing with yourself long enough to read what was written, son.